The Death of Zarqawi

posted by David Corn on 06/08/2006 @ 12:20pm

It's good news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. Any member of the civilized world ought to cheer the demise of a terrorist who killed civilians with bombings and beheadings.

But his death--brought about by a US air strike that was apparently ordered after a captured Zarqawi lieutenant disclosed Zarqawi's favorite hiding places--may not mean much in terms of bringing peace, democracy and stability to Iraq. His al Qaeda in Iraq--which was estimated to number no more than several hundred fighters--made up the smallest slice of the insurgency. His departure will not have much impact on the forces fueling the fighting and chaos in Iraq. The Sunni-based insurgency draws on the 300,000 or so former members of the Iraq army that was disbanded in May 2003. And the Shiite militias have thousands of armed loyalists. Though Zarqawi was an evil leader responsible for the most dramatic acts of terrorism, he was something of a sideshow. Recently, an Iraqi intelligence officer told me that the most pressing problem in Iraq was not Zarqawi and his jihadists but the infiltration of the military and security forces by the various militias. These groups are responsible for the death squad-like activities (kidnappings, murders) that have terrorized Iraqis. They will not be given much pause by the successful attack on Zarqawi. (And Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Rand, notes that after George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the two people most satisfied by Zarqawi's death are Osama bin Laden and his number-two Ayman al-Zawahiri, for now they have been spared a competitor for attention and handed a martyr.)

Given that Saddam Hussein's capture did not become the turning point that some commentators claimed it would be--"the beginning of the end," former CIA director James Woolsey said at the time--the White House did not insist that Zarqawi's death would lead to progress in Iraq. Bush was reasonably realistic when he spoke about the successful strike: "Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue."

He did add, "Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda. It's a victory in the global war on terror." But Bush did not mention that it was his invasion of Iraq that fully allied Zarqawi with al Qaeda. Prior to the war, terrorism experts considered Zarqawi more of a rival than a partner. And he did not mention that four years ago--before Zarqawi had become a major terrorist figure and before he had become responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands)--the Bush White House chose not to take him out when it could.

In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government. Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." That is, the Bush White House let Zarqawi alone so it would have an easier time selling the war in Iraq.

Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article:

NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself--but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002...[t]he Pentagon...drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council....

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

"People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey....

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late--Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.

The administration put off attacking Zarqawi because it wanted to invade Iraq. That invasion made Zarqawi a more important target--and a more powerful killer. His death is welcomed--but it remains part of a larger and tragic story of miscalculation.

Comments (954)

  1. newsflash, Zarkawi dead, his several hundred followers surrender. want to help bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, they hail Bush, and then hail a cab.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 11:51am

  2. "It's good news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead."?!?!?

    Dang, Mr Corn...you're going to get the hard-core pacifist Left pretty mad at you for THAT one!

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 12:05pm

  3. I was happy all morning knowing this particular scumbag was dead. Hell yes it's good news. But reality settles in quickly. In addition to the cold shower of the article David mentions above, look at some quotes from all corners, including Nicholas Berg's father:

    Zarqawi Is Dead [cnn.com]

    The overall lack of celebration is stunning.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/08/2006 @ 12:13pm

  4. 1. Why did it take so long to get him? 2. Will Bush dress up in a flight suit and pronounce "mission accomplished" again? 3. Can our boys and girls come home now?

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/08/2006 @ 12:16pm

  5. What I read was that a recently captured associate gave up his "favorite hiding places" and we narrowed it down from there. That's not to say we wouldn't have bombed the whole neighborhood until we got him. But it nominally qualifies as the intelligence apparatus functioning correctly.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/08/2006 @ 12:32pm

  6. Kinda seeing a pattern here and on other blogs...starting a list-

    1. "What took so long?" 2. "He's a martyr now, worse than before" 3. "Is it faked?" 4. "He's not important" 5. "They should have gotten him before" 6. "'We' didn't do it, he was ratted-out by his own guys"

    I think if we got bin Laden, it's be the same, no?

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 12:32pm

  7. fine posts all, including Mask. so that's what I am, hardcore pacifist left.

    so let's go over this again: a jordanian terrorist, with a few hundred followers, who has invited himself to the free for all of killing in Iraq, and who was hyped mercilessly by Bush to distract from failure to catch Osama, is dead? Hell, fucking Sharon is dead to, practically. does anyone think the war process there is diminished in any way?

    Bush's actions created tens of thousands of muslim enemies, an endless supply of suicide bombers revving up, and one dead terrorist is an epiphany?

    of course he was sold out by somebody. Saddam was sold out by somebody.

    Islamic terrorism is a real and dangerous problem, which will take many separate solutions. we might start by giving muslims the world over a fair deal. fire the guy with the "my god is better than their god". and stop building fucking schools and hospitals only to fill them up with corpses, build a country. that is rarely accomplished by invading and occupying troops troops and unleashed civil wars The opportunity to "fix" Iraq is always there, and it is not bodycounts..

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 12:38pm

  8. we are told that a 500 pound bomb got him. and that he was in an isolated house.hmmm. thatsa very very big bomb. we drop them all the time. on not so isolated houses. we unlike the enemy do not TARGET civilians. these 500 pounders can take out an entire block. yes there may be SOME women and children and grandparents around there. but WE don't target them. they get blown up but our intentions are best, we are america, our intentions are always the best. It's the insurgents' fault, they hide among the population. some of these guys are animals, they behead people. when one of those 500 pounders goes off the victims are separated entirely, beheaded plus. This air war in Iraq will go on for a long time, like Vietnam, where it was spread by Nixon to Laos and Cambodia.we cannot stay in the status quo for long. the Bush's want to spread the war to Iran and who knows where else, they think all annoyances in the region can be quelled with troops and, yes, 500 ponders.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 12:48pm

  9. Perhaps if, as predicted, the violence simply escalates, that may serve as the motivation for the shot callers begin an orderly withdrawal. Very ironic, but if this success in Iraq - that's right, success in Iraq - turns out to yield no benefit, the "stay the course" mentality will have died with Zarqawi.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/08/2006 @ 12:48pm

  10. the escalation of violence was predicted before Zari was killed, and is being predicted now. I guess a dea terrorist leader is not much of a barometer of civil war violence in Iraq. HUGE surprise.

    it's easy to accumulate turning points when you don't know which direction you are going.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 12:53pm

  11. David,

    I never did buy the notion that Zarqawi's activities in Iraq were limited to the Kurdish north. We know that when the American military's victory over the Taliban appeared imminent, a wounded Zarqawi fled Afghantistan for Baghdad. There, in safe territory, he received medical care and met with Islamic terrorsists from other nations.

    I agree that the infiltration of militias into the Iraqi police and army forces is a massive problem. However, the elimination of this mass murderer is, as you say, most welcome.

    It's best to approach these developments independently of how they affect Bush's approval ratings. Seeing the death of Zarqawi being announced by the new democratically-elected leader of Iraq (on the same day that the new Iraq cabinet is completed) is heartening.

    I think we all know that this development won't end sectarian violence in Iraq, but there is, for the first time, a possibilty for real change in the Arab world.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 12:55pm

  12. if zarqawi didn't exist, we'd have to create him...

    indeed, there's been plenty of speculation about whether he actually did exist -- a phantom bugaboo, the personification of evil who single-handedly led the "terrorists" who thwart our lovely plans for iraq.

    is this the long-awaited turning point? is that a light at the end of the tunnel?

    reports of zarqawi's death may not be exaggerated, but his importance surely has. if we've indeed whacked off the hydra's head with a pair of 500-pound blockbusters (collateral damage, anyone), how many new zarqawis have we sown in the meantime?

    the death of zarqawi is just one more episode in the marketing of the war, and like all marketing the purpose is to sell something.

    what is this story selling, anyway?

    Posted by wpahnelas at 06/08/2006 @ 12:55pm

  13. It could be that the military intelligence apparatus simply functioned. It could also be that one of the huge number of different insurgency groups delivered information. The point being, my question is: "Was Zarquawi sold out by competition?"

    It could've been the $25 million price on his head.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/08/2006 @ 12:58pm

  14. Mask,

    You do indeed see a pattern. However, it is a pattern of relevant points.

    Posted by kfine at 06/08/2006 @ 1:03pm

  15. Nothing but negative spin from the political left. Zaraquawi bites the dust and the Hyenas come out and somehow find something negative to say. Spin, Spin, Spin.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/08/2006 @ 1:04pm

  16. Bush claims this death will turn the tide. where I live the tide turns four times a day. even if he captured Osama tomorrow, it would not erase the stain of Iraq or improve the situation there.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:07pm

  17. we are responding to irrational exuberance on your part, Lennie, for every action is a reaction. whatsa matter, are we not patriotic enough for you?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:09pm

  18. Did anybody see Michael Berg today? Even though I respect him as a person andhis right to express his opinion, I couldn't help but feel uncomfartable with what he said. I guess I just get tired of people on the left who think that the United States is the root of all evil in the world (though I do not believe that we are by any means pure or unblemished).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 1:10pm

  19. Congratulations, LVLIBERTY1, for being so predictable and so out of touch with reality.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:11pm

  20. Gertrude, that is a most simplistic post.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:12pm

  21. Posted by KFINE 06/08/2006 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person

    Contradictory "relevant points" FINE...

    If #1. "What took so long?", then #3 "Is it faked?" wouldn't make sense. Why take long to do a fake?

    If #4. "He's not important", then why #5. "They should have gotten him before"? Why go after a guy "before" who's "not important"?

    If #6. "'We' didn't do it, he was ratted-out by his own guys" guys", is it because he's "not important", or his own guys wanted to make a "martyr" of him?

    And since it's unlikely he'd allow himself to be taken alive...how do we get Zarqawi (a prime criticism of the war, as he led part of the insurgency)...and NOT "make him a martyr"?

    Actually, the REAL answer is...Bush and the GOP can use this for political purposes, which is the main reason his political opponents are playing it down. Not because they "love Al Zarqawi" and mostly (though not entirely) because they don't think terrorists should get whacked...but because it'll "help Bush" if this is portrayed as a "victory".

    So....both Bush and the GOP...and their opponents see this as politics, not anti-terrorism. Ergo, even if killing Al Zarqawi is a "good thing" (in the fight on terrorism)(which you can debate)...it's a "bad thing" if it helps Bush and the Republicans, if you're a liberal or Democrat. period.

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 1:15pm

  22. the dalai lama says:

    "if we tackle these problems the wrong way, then while today there is one bin laden, after a few years there will be 10 bin ladens. and it is possible that after a few more years, there will be 100 bin ladens."

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 1:17pm

  23. Mask---Great post---hit the nail right on head.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/08/2006 @ 1:21pm

  24. Gertrude,

    You're right on. He compares deaths under Saddam to deaths "under Bush". All of the deaths suffered since Saddam's genocidal regime was deposed were not in vain -- there is an opportunity for real, democratic change in the Arab world.

    Mr. Berg is obviously deserving of our prayers and understanding. Unforunately, he has inserted himself into the political ring with his anti-Bush tirade.

    And you're right -- Islamists, not the USA or Bush -- are the real enemy.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 1:21pm

  25. LV,

    I am as thirsty for the blood of decapatitating scum in the name of God as you are. I just wish we could kill more of them and do it more quickly.

    I also wish it meant that we could declare mission accomplished and come home.

    Blowing the scumbag to smithereens is still better late than never though!

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/08/2006 @ 1:22pm

  26. there is an opportunity for real, democratic change in the Arab world.

    but first there will be a lot more killing.you must be kidding, Beau.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:24pm

  27. "they need a complete breakdown of the existing system"

    like the rapture?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:26pm

  28. I'd like to ask JOHANNESROLF why he or she thinks my post is simplistic?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 1:27pm

  29. No sir,

    I ain't kidding. Today Iraq formed a democratic government. One of the leading opponents of democratic rule in Iraq -- a mass murderer -- was knocked out.

    Those in the Arab street cheering his death aren't kidding either.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 1:32pm

  30. "Today Iraq formed a democratic government."

    er, no. that is a puppet government propped up by 150 000 american troops and paid for with american blood. you must be proud.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:34pm

  31. "I guess I just get tired of people on the left who think that the United States is the root of all evil in the world"

    this is the simplistic part, Gertrude. reality is much more complicated.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:36pm

  32. Wow! Don't hold anything back JOHANNESROLF!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 1:37pm

  33. So, Corn is saying that Zarqawi was already in Iraq and involved in terrorist activity before the invasion. Say; this totally contradicts the tin foil hat crowd's claim that the war 'created' Zarqawi. Also, I thought that old queen Murtha was saying that the military wasn't up to the task and that it was impossible for them to take out Zarqawi and that they should just give up? Where IS Murtha today?

    Posted by woodyee at 06/08/2006 @ 1:39pm

  34. I urge you to examine the word "today" in that last post, Beau. this "forming" of the gov't has been going on for six months. today is no great breakthrough on that long road.do not overestimate the value of killing one guy, lest you fall victim to the hype.Bush has long overestimated Al Qaeda's share in the Iraq conflict.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:39pm

  35. "Wow! Don't hold anything back JOHANNESROLF!"

    I'm sorry but I don't understand this

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:41pm

  36. You stupid Anti-American Liberals are so predictable. You got your asses trounced on Tuesday, Yet its a "Moral" victory. Ann Coulter comes out and points out that Liberals uses "Human Shields" for propaganda (Jersey Girls, Michael Berg, etc) and you fucking nitwits get your panties in a twist....Now Zarqawi's crushing death is basically meaningless to you fools. Fine. The REAL American people can see you for what you really are....Anti-American out of power crybabies without a chance in hell of regaining power anytime soon(THANK GOD!) I for one am rejoicing in his death and watching the "coming out" of you shit for brains Liberal Hate American crowd.

    THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS SO BEAUTIFUL TO BEHOLD

    By the way....FUCK YOU LIBZ

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 1:43pm

  37. I just want to clarify something: I consider myself a member of the "left" (I'm sorry for using this generalization), and I did not support the Iraq War when it first began. However, it is very hard for me to accept the notion that the insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them are not just a little bit responsible for the chaos and destruction in Iraq today.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 1:44pm

  38. How is the first truly democratically-elected government in Arab history a puppet government?

    This government has not only asked the coalition forces to stay, but has shown its indepedence by demanding an inquiry into the Haditha allegations. These are not the actions of a puppet regime.

    "Paid for by American blood". Actually, it was paid for with the blood of American, Dutch, Australian, Polish, Spanish, British, Bulgarian, Thai, Ukranian, Danish, Czech, Romanian, and Iraqi troops.

    And yes, I'm proud. Are you ashamed to be an apologist Islamist terrorism?

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 1:45pm

  39. Hey FUKLIBZ: I'm a liberal and I'm happy Zarqawi is gone.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 1:46pm

  40. JOHANNESROLF: I was referring to your comment about the "puppet government" being paid for in "American blood". I'm sorry if I'm going across as pompous; I'm not trying to.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 1:48pm

  41. Mask,

    You and I both dislike contradiction. It works both ways...

    Bush is playing up the importance big time right now, so it begs the question, "If SO important, Republicans, then why didn't we get him before."

    We've "faked" a lot with this war, Mask. Everything from staged press conferences to declarations of victory to concealing information about Pat Tilman (sp.) and other facts about casualties and actions. But we're not concealing anything about this!!! This is front page all the way!

    Lots of contradictions to go around. Either way, there is enough time until the midterms to see what the "so what" is to all of this.

    Posted by kfine at 06/08/2006 @ 1:48pm

  42. Beausoil -

    You forgot the 1 Latvian casualty.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 1:50pm

  43. no I'm ashamed of being an american, Beau.

    Gertrude, you are very correct, all "players" in Iraq are responsible.

    I will however point out that before the Iraq invasion there were no car bombings, and there was no civil war to speak of. the war in Iraq, sold on the basis of lies was not inevitable and the Us as the prime mover thereof has most of the blame, it is far too soon to celebrate democracy in Iraq.

    as we are often told with respects to our civil rights, "democracy" is of dubious value for dead Iraqis.and there are a very many of those. and too many dead americans for what has been accomplished there.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:53pm

  44. you do not come across as pompous, allow me to disagree there. I was just not sure if your comment was approving or dis approving. I'm still not sure.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:55pm

  45. However, it is very hard for me to accept the notion that the insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them are not just a little bit responsible for the chaos and destruction in Iraq today.

    Gertrude -

    Excuse me, but who the hell says they are absolved from any responsibility? Quit trying to attribute positions to people that they do not take. And Berg spoke about a "cycle of violence" - not that America is the "root cause of all evil in the world." For someone who admits were are not pure or unblemished, what makes you so uncomfortable? Or was the part about Bush lying to get us into Iraq in the first place?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 1:56pm

  46. sloppy typos, sorry.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 1:57pm

  47. The above statement is a bucket of horseshit

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 1:57pm

  48. "How is the first truly democratically-elected government in Arab history a puppet government?"

    they were elected without the participation of the baathist sunnis, under the watchful eye of 150 000 troops. oh and they are afraid to leave the green zone. troops gone, first truly democratically-elected government gone.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 1:58pm

  49. Johann:

    Let me get this straight,

    You can't trade with countries ruled by men like Saddam because you will be accused of supporting them.

    You can't contain them and isolate them because sanctions don't get rid of dictators, just hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

    You can't use militaty intervention to get rid of dictators because you will be accused of stealing oil.

    And you can't ignore them because you will be accused of racism for not helping out all the non-whites citizens of their countries who are suffering (ie. Sudan).

    But no matter what happens, it's always America's fault. Am I right?

    Posted by Zeddmen at 06/08/2006 @ 1:59pm

  50. Oh yeah: Mavs vs. Heat tonight. Who ya got?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 1:59pm

  51. Johannesrolf: just wanted to let you know that your post of 12:38am was one of the soberest, wisest things I've read on the Nation blogs in a while. Keep it up.

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 2:00pm

  52. america has a long inglorious history of supporting the most unsavory dictators. Saddam was a pimple on americas ass. now Iraq is the biggest problem in the country. happy Zedd?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:01pm

  53. MASK wrote,

    And since it's unlikely he'd allow himself to be taken alive...how do we get Zarqawi (a prime criticism of the war, as he led part of the insurgency)...and NOT "make him a martyr"?

    Why do you consider this to be unlikely? Have we not made many significant captures of important people up and down the terrorist pipeline? Two simultaneous thoughts upon flipping on the tube this morning: Great! He's dead! and Shit! He's dead! All we've been doing is speculating about much of his true role in what has been occuring in Iraq. Now we get to let the speculation run wild.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/08/2006 @ 2:02pm

  54. For those of you who think there is a lack of celebration over Zarqawi, just turn to the fair and balanced network. There's a big party over there. Why hang around us dour faced liberal Nation loving folk when the Neo Con Network is the place to be?

    Posted by pcr at 06/08/2006 @ 2:06pm

  55. Rintrah, you leave me speechless, well almost, thank you so much.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:08pm

  56. Isn't it pathetic...that a victory for America and Iraq and the World for that matter would make a Anti-American LIB Dour and depressed.....Speaks volumes doesnt it!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 2:08pm

  57. LV,

    I will add that while I'm delighted that Zarqawi has been splattered across four walls of a former house I'm not at all happy in the price paid.

    I'm not a voter for another 2400 hundred US troops to die to get Zarqawi's inevitable replacement.

    BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/08/2006 @ 2:09pm

  58. Gertrude, I'm a sucker for the big Kraut, Mavs in seven. fortunately my work will get me home for the second half.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:09pm

  59. JOHANNESROLF: I somewhat agree with you when it comes to your statement about dead Iraqis not enjoying "democracy". However, couldn't you say the same thing in relation to the Allied liberation of Europe during World War 2? HMAN23: First of all, I'm not a supporter of George Bush. Second of all, Mr. Berg did say something on CNN about how Islamic terrorism was the direct result of American foreign policy (which in some degrees it is), and specifically the Gulf War. The problem with this kind of thinking is that we end up assuming that Bin Laden or al-Zarqawi are motivated solely by Western or Israeli "oppression", when in reality a lot of it is purely ideological.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:09pm

  60. I have to go with the Mavs also: they're a much younger and deeper team than the Heat are.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:10pm

  61. Your silence is quite revealing. The left will never celebrate the victories over evil. Their existence is dependent on promoting a sense of failure and ineptitude on the part of the existing authorities (especially in the US).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/08/2006 @ 1:24pm

    Hey, you. Yeah, you, the stupid one.

    I am delighted this scumbag is dead, no caveats, no qualifiers needed.

    I saw Nick Berg get his head sawn off on the internet some years ago, and I am glad that the man responsible for that is dead.

    So shut your head, Liberty. Unless maybe you want to spin how I'm not really left?

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 2:11pm

  62. Gertrude,

    Then I take back my tone; it sounds like you do share agreement (to a degree) with Berg's opinion.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 2:12pm

  63. FUKLIBZ: I'd love to see the United States win in Iraq and establish a stable democracy. I just don't think the current methods being employed by the American government are working all that well (despite the killing of Zarqawi).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:14pm

  64. "Any member of the civilized world ought to cheer the demise of a terrorist who killed civilians with bombings and beheadings." Agreed, though some of us would have preferred the capture/prosecute/imprison route. But what bothers me about Mr. Corn's statement - and headlines like CNN's "HUNTED DOWN" - is that it reflects and perpetuates militant jingoism. Would Mr. Corn or CNN use this type of language if the White House had been bombed and Bush killed? Of course not. Why? Because they would reject the notion that Bush is a "terrorist" who has "killed civilians with bombings" (OK, not beheadings - the U.S. is more concerned with leveraging its killing technology, and reducing laundry bills for removing blood stains). It's partly pure jingoism, a pandemic phenomenon, i.e., "It's only terrorism if they do it to us. When we do much worse to them, it's not terrorism." (Chomsky) But it's also partly reflective of the U.S.'s radical religionism - terms like "terrorist" and "evil-doer" are used according to what a person's intentions are, what beliefs they hold to justify their actions. The fact that Bush has killed 100,000-300,000 Iraqi civilians is therefore not so bad, since he didn't "intend" to kill them ("collateral damage"). But the fact that Zarqawi "targeted" civilians (though actually killed far fewer than Bush) makes him an "evil-doer" whose murder is to be celebrated.

    Posted by jguthartz at 06/08/2006 @ 2:15pm

  65. Yes and despite 3 elections...the capture of Saddam....the capture and destruction of over 70% of Al-quada....Thank GOD you Pacifist nitwits didnt run WW2.....Unbelievable

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 2:17pm

  66. HMAN23: No apoligies needed. Also, I wasn't trying to attack Mr.Berg's charachter: it's just that I think sometimes people get to caught up in their world view, and don't take all the facts into consideration (myself included).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:18pm

  67. " The fact that Bush has killed 100,000-300,000 Iraqi civilians"

    Liberal Lies and propaganda...That lie has been debunked so many times its laughable...Yet you detestable LIBS remain so quiet and the millions that Saddam killed...Glad to know once again where your priorities are...Sickening

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 2:19pm

  68. WW2 doesn't apply, both germany and Japan had had freedom and democracy before, we fought for the status quo ante. plus we were attacked, and fought those who attacked us, unlike Iraq. we were threatened for real, unlike Iraq.

    Bin Laden and the radical islamists have a real geo political aganda.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:19pm

  69. If you would like to see examples of political fanaticism on both the left and the right, please read JGUTHARTZ's and FUKLIBZ's posts.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:20pm

  70. the millions that Saddam killed..

    you are a joke, a stinky fart, begone with your puerile rantings.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:21pm

  71. The left will never celebrate the victories over evil. Their existence is dependent on promoting a sense of failure and ineptitude on the part of the existing authorities (especially in the US).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/08/2006 @ 1:24pm

    The ineptitude is self-promoting. E.g. - the military (in 2006!) is just finalizing a manual on counterinsurgency in Iraq.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 2:21pm

  72. Going for the Heat. If I see Josh Howard stick his foot out yet again to try to trip an opponent or injure him, I'll permanently swear off a visit to Dallas. Also, please someone straighten Terry's headband.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/08/2006 @ 2:23pm

  73. The ineptitude is self-promoting. E.g. - the military (in 2006!) is just finalizing a manual on counterinsurgency in Iraq.

    Posted by HMAN23 06/08/2006 @ 2:21pm

    It can be updated in its second printing to include, "That part about Zarqawi, well, nevermind."

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/08/2006 @ 2:26pm

  74. visiting Dallas is always scary, remember JFK. the Heat are old, with the exception of the glorious Dwayne Wade. we'll see. that's why we like sports, it's usually conclusive.world cup fever is next. brazil, now and forever.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:26pm

  75. JOHANNESROLF: I agree with you that World War 2 is different (obviously) from the Iraq War. My point was that a lot of civilians were (unfortunately) killed in the process of liberating Europe and parts of Asia from the Axis. Also, in regards to it being necessary for a country having a history of democracy in order to implement a democracy (sounds stupid, I know), wouldn't this rule eliminate a country like Spain (which had a long history of monarchism) from being a democracy (sorry for the awkward wording)?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:26pm

  76. Spain had a democracy, before Franco. what's yer point?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:29pm

  77. Even though I like Dirk Nowitzki a lot, but if anyone compares him to Larry Bird again I'm going to snap (I'm a native New Englander).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:29pm

  78. gertrude, two bits of advice:

    1. if u have a thin skin, don't stick around. many leave here for that same reason.

    2. do not try to reason with fuklibs-libzsuks-aludra-barry25-or whatever ann is going by this week. there is no reasoning with that worthless pig. the only help for her is years of intense psychotherapy to heal her from a childhood with a sexually, physically and psychologically abusive father. instead of health, she chose to imitate him. she's a lost soul. and her iq does not permit rational thought--just the grunts of the pig she is.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 2:29pm

  79. if we really wanted to spread freedom and democracy in the region, would it not have been better to start with say Egypt, whom we give huge amounts of aid, or Saudi, or even Pakistan. no the freedom and democracy is just a brand, like coca cola.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:31pm

  80. Yes, Spain had democracy briefly before the Spanish Civil War; but before that it essentially had been under monarchist rule for centuries. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think you need to have a history of democracy in order to establish a democratic system.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:31pm

  81. Gertrude,

    What is the "fanaticism" in JGUTHARTZ's most recent post?

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 2:32pm

  82. but corn IS celebrating the fact that zarqawi was killed. he's also lamenting the fact that his murder does little good overall.

    killing bin laden WOULD be a good thing, because that was the original plan, right?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/08/2006 @ 2:32pm

  83. Dirk will be better, give him time.I would compare him with Elgin Baylor.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:33pm

  84. newdawn, i've enjoyed your posts of the last couple of days. very funny as usual. thanks for the laughs.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 2:33pm

  85. Gertrude, I did not claim that. it's an interesting sidebar.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:34pm

  86. JOHANNESROLF : I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the hypocritical promoting of democracy by the American government. I think we should try to (in some manner) help transform authoritarian systems into democracies, including those who we are currently "allied" with. In fact, if it had been up to me,I would have never allowed America to support people like Mobutu Se Seko and Augusto Pinochet during the Cold War.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:35pm

  87. Yes, Spain had democracy briefly before the Spanish Civil War; but before that it essentially had been under monarchist rule for centuries.

    so had Germany, Italy and Japan. the point is they all had democracy, and it was not given to them, they had to overthrow the ancien regime.

    the history of Iraq, yes the entire region is far different.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:36pm

  88. we did not just support Pinochet, we cleared the way for him and helped assassinate his democratic predecessor.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:37pm

  89. I gotta go with the Heat. I'm in love with the elderly Alonzo Mourning(God, what a body). Anyway, I am also glad Zarkawi is dead. I just wish we would could have done this to Bin Laden since he orchestrated 9/11. That motherfucka deserves to hang. Also from what I've read, Iraqi officials agree that Zarkawi's death is a good thing but are also bracing themselves for some sort of backlash from his supporters. The coming days should prove very interesting.

    Posted by k330k at 06/08/2006 @ 2:37pm

  90. and the Shah, and.....

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:37pm

  91. JOHANNESROLF: Don't get me wrong; I think Dirk is a future Hall of Famer. Also, I wasn't trying to imply that you said that he is like Larry Bird; I was just expressing my frustration with those who have stated such an opinion.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:37pm

  92. Mask,

    Here are some more contradictions for you.

    1. If the press does anything to "inflame the Arab world" we can blame them for American deaths. Yet we will release pictures of a dead man... likely to be an engraved invitation for retaliation.

    2. If a democrat makes a statement against any aspect of this war, the administration declares that they are "politicizing" the war. We are seeing ultimate Republican politicizing with this.

    Posted by kfine at 06/08/2006 @ 2:38pm

  93. Posted by LOVELOKI 06/08/2006 @ 2:33pm

    Thank you, darlin'! Quite an interesting series of current events...

    Homophobia and bigotry and bloodlust, oh, my!

    hee hee hee

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 2:38pm

  94. rintrah, i agree. jguthartz's post was excellent. great points, jguthatrz!

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 2:38pm

  95. Dirk Nowitzki is no Larry Bird.

    Posted by k330k at 06/08/2006 @ 2:38pm

  96. he will be better, Bird was over rated because he was white. that should erase any good will I might have left.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:40pm

  97. JOHANNESROLF: I'm just saying that I think any ethnic, racial, religious, or national group is capable of adopting democracy (or, for that matter, any other political system, good or bad) as a system of governance.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:41pm

  98. Okay, Johannes, love your political posts and didn't want to get into the sports thing here (although am a sports fan, mostly baseball), but you're SOOOOO wrong about Bird (and not just cuz I'm a New Englander--in fact, as a kid, I was a huge Dr. J fan). Bird was the real deal. Watch any highlight tape.

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 2:42pm

  99. JOHANNESROLF: Did you just say Bird was "over-rated"? My God, what is the world coming to? Were Jerry West, Rick Barry, George Mikan, Bob Cousy, and Hondo over-rated because they were white? By the way, I'm not angry: just puzzled.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:43pm

  100. RINTRAH: I agree with you.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:44pm

  101. No, McHale was overrated because of his robot shoulders. Sidenote: Why are we not hearing about Bin Laden? He releases a tape and noone(media, government, right-wing pundits) says a peep. Where is Bin Laden? It seems to me that we are not doing all we can to find him. Remember, he was the one who orchestrated the worst attack on U.S. soil. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.

    Posted by k330k at 06/08/2006 @ 2:44pm

  102. RINTRAH: Wait a minute: did you say you were a New Englander and a Dr. J fan? Heresy!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:45pm

  103. K330K: McHale was so not over-rated: he was unstoppable. And one of the 50 Greatest Players of All Time, I might add. By the way, do I detect a little bit of Celtics-hatred in these posts?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:46pm

  104. Gertrude: should we add Pistol Pete to the list? And, no they were not overrated. They were just that damn good. Out of all those listed, I like Bob Cousy the best.

    Posted by k330k at 06/08/2006 @ 2:47pm

  105. RESE: "For the smug, comfortable, well-off Americans"

    Who are these "well-off Americans"? How do you know that they don't care about the Iraq War?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:48pm

  106. I must admit, I was a Laker fan back in the day, but now I truly admire those teams. No Celtic hatred here. I've let it go. I was trying to be humorous about McHale. Those shoulders always creeped me out.

    Posted by k330k at 06/08/2006 @ 2:48pm

  107. K330K: I can't believe I forgot Maravich! Yeah, Cousy was pretty cool.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:49pm

  108. K330K: Yeah, I have to admit, McHale does look a little bit like Frankenstein.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:49pm

  109. RINTRAH: Wait a minute: did you say you were a New Englander and a Dr. J fan? Heresy!

    I know, I know. I was a bit of a little contrarian. But Dr. J did things that my little-boy eyes simply couldn't believe, and he (along with Jim Rice and Yaz) turned me on to sports. I suffered abuse for years (especially during that great sixers run--83?). Once Dr. J, Mo Cheeks, A. Tony, B. Jones, Malone left, I stopped caring about the sixers.

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 2:50pm

  110. I'm being facetious.those fine players did play in a much whiter league.

    Rintrah, I knew I was spending my "political" capital. Bird was a fine player, and was the real deal, but I think Dirk has every chance to surpass him, as Bird was surpassed by Magic, in my humble opinion. Dirk is a player the likes of which we have not seen before, a seven footer with an unbelievable outside shot. did you see him in the three point contest? unbelievable. of course Bird does not have to take a back seat to anyone for other players to be as good or better.

    how did basketball avoid the steroid scandals? any opinions?

    it's a relief to sneak in a little relief from politics sometimes.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:52pm

  111. Can I call a peace conference between LVLIBERTY1 and JOHANNESROLF? Both of you sound very intelligent and thoughtful, and it is a shame that you two have to end up attacking each other personally.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:52pm

  112. sorry, he started it. hahahaha

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 2:53pm

  113. JOHANNESROLF: I think that maybe steroids aren't useful to basketball players; after all, basketball is a game of quickness. Just a thought. RINTRAH : Well, I'm glad that you've stopped caring about the Sixers. I was just jokin' around before, by the way.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 2:55pm

  114. "did you see him in the three point contest?"

    Unfortunately (or not?) I live in a country that doesn't show (or really care about) the 3-point contest (or too much about the NBA)--but bring up the world cup . . .

    . . . I have to pay a hundred bucks a summer just to be able to watch baseball games (at 1 in the morning, usually) and it's really the only sport I've stuck with. I've read a lot about the NBA, but have never seen these Mavs (or Cavs or Celts or Heat) play. Sajnos.

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 2:55pm

  115. And Chomsky says sports are just a distraction . . .

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 2:56pm

  116. Liberty -

    We are talking NBA here, please stay on point.

    Bird overrated? JR, this could be the first time I disagree with you.

    Gertrude - trust me, you do NOT want to go there.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 2:56pm

  117. Gertrude - clarification - you do not want to go there (peace process b/w Liberty and JR)

    (the posts are moving quickly).

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 2:58pm

  118. GERTRUDE, I know you were "just joking" but there was a little truth, no? I know what those sixers meant back then. When I meet New Englanders today who tell me they like the Yankees (or anyone who tells me they like the Yankees), all the rational thought and open-mindedness that I try and practice flies out the window. Damn, sports.

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 2:58pm

  119. By the way: Ann Coulter is one of the most disgraceful human beings I have ever seen or heard in my life. It's one thing to criticize someone for their political views; it's quite another to attack them personally, especially the widows of 9/11 victims. See, I think people who have been directly touched by a tragedy deserve a measure of some respect, regardless of their political views. I may not agree with Michael Berg or Cindy Sheehan or their opposites on the right, but I respect their opinions because they have felt the real pain of all these terrible events of the last 5 years.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:00pm

  120. Ok. Let's get started.

    "they were elected without the participation of the Baathist Sunnis"

    Actually this isn't true at all. Sunni participation was robust, as evidenced by the number of Sunnis elected to Parliament. So, former Baathists actually do have a voice in the new democracy.

    "under the watchful eye of 150 000 troops."

    Yes...and? Many elections throughout the world have been executed successfully under the watchful eye of troops. Remember: the coalition troops were there to help all Iraqis vote; the terrorists and Zarqawi did everything to stop the voting.

    "oh and they are afraid to leave the green zone."

    But they do -- every day -- to ensure that terrorists don't kill civilians and democratically-elected officials.

    "troops gone, first truly democratically-elected government gone."

    Exactly. Which is why we haven't brought the soldiers back home. We are, however, closer to phasing out troop levels, at least according to Iraq's leaders.

    As an apologist for Islamist terrorism, you may soon find yourself on the wrong side of history.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 3:02pm

  121. RINTAH -

    I am a huge Yankee fan living in the heart of Boston.

    ;)

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:02pm

  122. RINTRAH: I know what you mean . . .

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:02pm

  123. libert, I'll be civil, this once. pretty speeches about freedom and democracy.

    the Baathist were not very nice. Saddam suited us fine for a time. that happens also the time when that regime was most murderous. there are many murderous regimes. we did not shoot ourselves in the foot over Pol Pot, who was probably far worse. so I'm sorry if your justifications make me retch.

    the war was not sold on the basis of Saddam being a bad guy or bringing freedom to Iraq, which incidentally we have not.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:03pm

  124. HMAN23: You are the devil.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:03pm

  125. I try to take the Buddhist approach to the likes of Coulter. She's gotta be in a lot of pain and suffering to act like she does. Who needs attention that badly and what has driven her to it? It only gets worse over the years. When you think of all the potential of humanity, it's kind of heartbreaking (and no, not the most heartbreaking) to see them turn out like her. That's how she's chosen to live the one life she's got. (okay, that last part wasn't Buddhist).

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 3:04pm

  126. I am NOT an apologist for islamic terrorism, Beau. you are blinded by the gov't line, and fulla shit

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:05pm

  127. As an apologist for Islamist terrorism, you may soon find yourself on the wrong side of history.

    Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 06/08/2006 @ 3:02pm

    Oh, brother.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:05pm

  128. Please do not use "Coulter" and "human" in the same sentence. It's too jarring.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/08/2006 @ 3:05pm

  129. JOHANNESROLF: Saddam wasn't just a "bad guy"; he was one of the worst dictators in the last 50 years or so. And I know that we did not go to war to rid the world of him, but you have to admit that it is pretty awesome to see him make a fool out of himself during his trial.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:06pm

  130. HMAN, I guess I've gotta take the Buddhist approach with you, too. I hope things get better (I'm trying really hard to be light-hearted right now).

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 3:06pm

  131. I think I've realized something about Coulter. You see, I don't really think she believes in the things she says; she just says them to get people to buy her books. Simplistic, yes, but I think she just says things to get herself in the news.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:08pm

  132. ooooooo ... Beausoleil is calling someone an "apologist for Islamist terrorism."

    Got hyperbole?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:08pm

  133. Anyway, I've got to get going in a few minutes. Does anybody want to talk to me directly right now? If so, please be quick.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:09pm

  134. Anyone?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:09pm

  135. GERTRUDE, I think, to a certain extent, you're right (as in correct), she was less inflamatory ten years ago, but she knows what sells. BUT, I'm pretty sure she believes in it to a certain extent. Either way, it's depressing.

    Gotta run all, it was good to take part for the first time in a while. Will be back soon,

    peace,

    Posted by Rintrah at 06/08/2006 @ 3:10pm

  136. please take me back into the bossom of your affections, guys too, I was being facetious about Bird, honest. Cousy was brilliant, better than Jason Kidd, whom I love, and Steve Nash. I celebrate ALL great players, but some I like better than others. I liked Magic better than Bird. I had the chance to meet Magic, and see him interacting with his employees, and I was and am very impressed with him as a human being, the fact that he is HIV positive and how he handled that affliction is also impressive. sport is nicer than politics. no one dies.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:11pm

  137. he was one of the worst dictators in the last 50 years or so.

    that's some popularity contest. the point is not him, it is us and our reckless gov't.

    he didn't have the WMD, had nothing to do with 9/11, and was not a threat to us or our interests commensurate with US plunging Iraq into civil war, and having the pleasure to pay for it in blood and dollars

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:15pm

  138. By Ray Waddell Wed Jun 7, 7:07 PM ET

    NASHVILLE (Billboard) - Initial ticket sales for the Dixie Chicks' upcoming tour are far below expectations and several dates will likely be canceled or postoned. ADVERTISEMENT

    Ticket counts for the 20-plus arena shows that went on sale last weekend were averaging 5,000-6,000 per show in major markets and less in secondaries, according to sources contacted by Billboard. Venue capacities on the tour generally top 15,000.

    In contrast, the band's new album, "Taking the Long Way," sold 526,000 units in its first week, according to Nielsen Soundscan, the third-largest sales week of 2006. The album logged a second week in the period ended June 4, according to sales data issued Wednesday.

    Despite those numbers, early ticket sales are clearly not meeting projections. The plug was pulled on public on-sales for shows in Indianapolis (August 23), Oklahoma City (September 26), Memphis (September 27) and Houston (September 30) because of tepid pre-sales in a national promotion with Target stores.

    The Memphis show has been pulled off the route and the status of the shows in Indianapolis, Houston and Oklahoma City remains uncertain. Industry speculation has it that much or all of the tour may be postponed. At the very least, it is likely routing and capacity will be reconfigured.

    Early ticket sales for this tour are in marked contrast to the Chicks' last proper outing in 2003 when a national on-sale moved some 867,000 tickets the first weekend, and second shows were added in several markets. The Chicks ended up with the top-grossing country tour of 2003 at $62 million.

    But not all shows on this tour are below projections. "We're happy (with our on-sale) and comparatively seem to be ahead of most," says John Page, Global Spectrum COO/GM at Wachovia Center in Philadelphia, where the trio is booked for July 25. A second date was added for the Air Canada Center in Toronto, where the first show sold out in eight minutes. "Canada loves the Chicks," says ACC booking director Patti-Ann Tarlton.

    After two shows in London, the North American tour was set to begin July 21 in Detroit. But with ticket sales below expectations, it is possible the route and capacities may be further reconfigured. The Chicks are managed by Simon Renshaw and booked by Rob Light at Creative Artists Agency, both of whom declined to comment.

    Reuters/Billboard

    MORE LIBERAL LOSERS

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 3:16pm

  139. The long-anticipated book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" was finally released this week. If The New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

    "Godless" begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted -- with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner -- even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift -- especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

    The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

    This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

    It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

    The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

    Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

    "Godless" examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)

    The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals -- who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? -- is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with "Slander" or "Treason," and it's not going to work now.

    It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

    The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

    Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion -- otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

    Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

    Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

    How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

    In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where -- thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU -- the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

    Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

    If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

    COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 3:17pm

  140. LVLIBERTY1 and JOHANNESROLF: It was cool talking and/or listening to both of you. And yeah, I have to agree that Magic is one of three greatest players of all time, though I have to say that he was Bird's equal, not superior or inferior. JOHANNESROLF: I agree, sports is nicer than politics. LVLIBERTY1: I agree, this board is pretty fun.

    Anyway, it was fun. I hope I talk to you all soon. Now, I have to go study for my English final tomorrow. Adios!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:19pm

  141. ann, the dixie chicks thread was a few days ago. maybe it's still open for comment, u could go check. this thread is about zarqawi and basketball. maybe u could find a massive cut n paste that's relevant....that would require u to use both of your brain cells. u can do it! u go girl!

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 3:20pm

  142. P.S. FUKLIBZ: Lighten up. You're going to have a heart attack. By the way, I'm a liberal and I like gospel music as well as country music in the vein of Hank Williams and Johnny Cash. So stop generalizing and start thinking

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 3:22pm

  143. ann, your post of 3:17 didn't end with your usual, "the great ann coulter"

    whatsa matter ann? feeling depressed today? can't be your own cheerleader. perhaps someone forgot to take her meds today?

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 3:23pm

  144. "we did not shoot ourselves in the foot over Pol Pot, who was probably far worse. so I'm sorry if your justifications make me retch."

    Pol Pot didn't attempt to assassinate an American president. Nor did he give sanctuary to Abdul Yassin, one of the bombers from the first World Trade Center attack. Cambodia wasn't patrolled by U.S. forces for over a decade...the list goes on.

    No, we didn't go into Cambodia, though it's clear we could have done more. We did, however, go into Bosnia and Kosovo to stop genocide. Does that make you retch too? Or are you also an apologist for Baathist dictatorships and Milsosevic?

    One thing Pol Pot and Saddam did have in common: both were Leftists.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 3:25pm

  145. Regarding the aformentioned Zarqawi Is Dead [cnn.com] link, there's an unintentionally funny misstatement from Mr. Rumsfeld there: "[Zarqawi] was an integral part of the global war on terror."( I thought *we* were part of the war on terror, and Zarqawi was part of the war *for* terror.)

    Posted by gpicher at 06/08/2006 @ 3:26pm

  146. good luck Gertrude. Liberty, I may have lumped you in with the likes of libssuck and that ilk, my apologies. I am gratified by any compliments blown my way form either side.I think any post with "you libs.." or "you Tories"...is pretty useless, mine included.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:28pm

  147. It's a dark day for the left! Recently, a few events have set back the causes of the DNC, The Nation, Al Qaeda, and the rest of you liberal lunatics! Canada's arrest of a terror cell, San Diego's rejection of the liberal Buzzbee, and now the unfortunate death of Zarqawi are all settbacks to these causes! My sincerest apologies for these devastating blows to your "partners in crime", but hopefully, in your best interests, another great man like zarqawi will rise up again to push forward the good intentions of you all! Now wrap that lowlife piece of shit in bacon and bury his worthless ass! It's a great day for all of humanity, except the traitorous left...that is!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:31pm

  148. Posted by KFINE 06/08/2006 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person

    KFINE, I'm happy to acknowledge the contradictions on BOTH sides.

    and the use of this politically (which I think I did in my last post)....Bush and the GOP WILL use Zarqawi's death as a political tool, and his opponents (as evident here) will try to blunt it.

    Now, the non-partisan debate CAN be is taking out Zarqawi "good" or "irrelevant" to the War on Terror...but when one side (i.e. the anti-Bush side) claims that it's irrelevant to use against Bush, yet previously noted how the importance of Zarqawi (as evidence that Iraq was falling apart) to ALSO use against Bush....more than one side is being dishonest about the political use of this.

    All and all, I think POLITICALLY this has been an AWFUL week for anti-Bush/GOP forces....started off with Haditha as Top Story....then by today, we had Bilbray winning the 50th easily, Winograd falling to Jane Harman by HUGE margins, and finally the Zarqawi elimination.

    All have their political component, but denying they aren't "good news" for the GOP is strictly partisan optimism.

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 3:32pm

  149. Mask, it's not one big scoreboard.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:34pm

  150. to clarify my last post....Haditha as Top Story was a "good start" to the week for opponents of Bush and the GOP....which now has turned out "AWFUL".

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 3:34pm

  151. Islamists, not the USA or Bush -- are the real enemy.

    Gee, and here I thought it was terrorists we were fighting! Maybe it IS a religous war!

    Fuck-wad is back ... woo-hoo. I can hardly contain my joy. In the words of Ren Hoek Steempy, you're an ee-diot,

    Dude, go over to the Notion...they're talking about masturbation...something you are more qualified to comment on.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/08/2006 @ 3:34pm

  152. oh look guys! how precious! ann is slipping into and out of her different personalities for us. libzsuks must be just around the corner.....

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 3:34pm

  153. Barry, hows the approval ratings for Chimpy Mcflightsuit? still in the toilet? quelle domage

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:35pm

  154. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/08/2006 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person

    Yeah...it is, JOHANN....and the "score" is "#" of Republicans in office and "#" of Democrats in office. and anything else is just talk.

    Want to bring about your "social democratic Utopia"?...you got to "score" more than your opponents.

    Posted by Mask at 06/08/2006 @ 3:36pm

  155. And yet,

    It has been a bad week for the American people. Gas prices, once declining just a moment ago, seem to be back on the rise. Inflation is spiking and, in one of those rare instances when the investor class and working class are in alignment, the stock market has tumbled. Meanwhile the geniuses we have elected to run this flippin' country are diddling themselves over gays and how much money the richest among us are entitled to. Oh...and a wall. They want a big, tall wall.

    Good news for all.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:37pm

  156. Don't forget the organ meat, guys. You're so busy sucking the blood and the marrow and chewing on the fresh kill, you might just miss the organ meat. It makes good stock.

    Bloody jawed wolves all. Amazing how easy it is to distract some of you, really it is.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 06/08/2006 @ 3:38pm

  157. By the way, I just watched a democratic advisor defend the U.N. She went on to say that, although she admits that there has been some corruption at the UN and that there have been some horrible crimes committed by some members ( I guess she's referring to the rapes of children ), we cannot judge the UN by the INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF A FEW! I almost passed out from laughing so hard! This hypocrite, who has blasted our military and administration constantly concerning ABU Graib, Haditha etc., is now saying that you cannot judge the "whole bunch " at the UN for the actions of a few " bad apples". Ladies and gentlemen, this IS the definition of HYPOCRACY, and it lends even more credibility to the notion that " today's liberalism IS a mental disorder".

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:40pm

  158. Ladies and gentleman, this IS the spelling of HYPOCRISY.

    doofus

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:42pm

  159. sweetdaddy, please don't do that to wolves. they are really very sweet beings.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 3:45pm

  160. MASK,

    The Haditha story is awful. Are you indicating that it is no longer a political issue against the administration?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:47pm

  161. This news just in: with the death of Zarqawi, Dick Cheney has declared that the insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/08/2006 @ 3:48pm

  162. Hang tough, Johannesrolf. In less then a week, reality kicks in again, and the blood cult will have to go back into its hole.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 06/08/2006 @ 3:48pm

  163. Fuck-wad is back ... woo-hoo. I can hardly contain my joy. In the words of Ren Hoek Steempy, you're an ee-diot,

    Dude, go over to the Notion...they're talking about masturbation...something you are more qualified to comment on.

    Oh, right -- ad homonym attacks are the way to go when you're incorrect.

    And yeah, I love masturbation. It's great, but I prefer to do it rather than talk about it. Unless...you wanna give mine a tug, honey?

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 3:50pm

  164. Mask, tell it to the families of 2500 dead american GIs, and the 100 000 dead Iraqis.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:52pm

  165. Beau, a homonym is something else, you're thinking of ad hominem

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:53pm

  166. A bad week for the American people? Well, you conveniently left out that 35,000 drop in jobless claims that just came out today! Let's try to keep it real, shall we! Johannessgeek, I'm one of those 70% or more who do not approve of the way Bush is performing. He is selling this country out on ILLEGAL-immigration, and you will be happy to know that myself and many other conservatives that I know have registered independent, and we are prepared to hand power back to the lunatics on the left ( by voting independant ), as a way of punishing our own! You see, some of us actually hold our own to a higher standard than we hold others. That's why our kids usually out perform your kids. We expect and demand more! We dont' just " let anything go". I want the Republicans to suffer heavy losses in upcoming elections to show them that the American people are intolerant of their move to the left which is nothing more than pandering to a group of voters and special interests. And here I thought that method of politics was exclusive to the Dem's.

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 3:53pm

  167. thanks sweet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 3:54pm

  168. You're right. I'm doing too many things at once. Shit, it's hard to do work, post on blogs, and beat my meat all at the same time.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/08/2006 @ 3:56pm

  169. I'm sure the Iraqis are happy that Zarqawi is dead. Hopefully for them, this means less bloodshed and the ensuing "collateral" bloodshed. Now, where the hell is Bin Laden? Since we were schmoozing with Pakistan, are they going to help us get him (since military intelligence thinks he's hiding along the Afghan-Pakistan border)? GPICHER: Rumsfeld's idiocy is always humorous. Here is another wise quote from Rumsfeld. "If you don't know where he is, then you don't know where he is," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said of bin Laden during a December trip to Pakistan, whose lawless, mountainous tribal areas, experts think, may be where bin Laden is hiding.Yahoo News Man, you can't make this stuff up.

    Posted by k330k at 06/08/2006 @ 3:58pm

  170. BARRY25 WROTE: That's why our kids usually out perform your kids.

    Well my kid can kick your kid's ass.:) Anyway, shouldn't all kids be performing at high levels. Reveling in the fact that other kids aren't doing as well as your kids isn't a good thing. It's sad, actually. But hey, you're doing alright, so fuck everybody else. All that aside, I do feel good that you are trying to send a message. I hope more Americans do the same. I usually vote Democrat, but since they suck just as bad as the Republicans, I might vote independent as well. Go indies!!

    Posted by k330k at 06/08/2006 @ 4:06pm

  171. K330, Osama is too valuable to Bush and Musharraf where he is, on the loose.for Bush he serves as the boogeyman. for Musharraf a free Osama polishes his islamic radical credentials. If Musharaf turns over Osama, if he could, the next day Pakistan will explode and he's history.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:13pm

  172. "ad homonym attacks are the way to go when you're incorrect."

    I think it is more in the nature of a Freudian slip, homo, hmmmm

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:14pm

  173. and you have made SUCH a contribution, Rio. lächerlich.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:15pm

  174. I have no idea whether or not Zar was actually killed. Further, I have no idea what effect, if any, his death would have on the situation in Iraq. I do know that it will give the teleprompter readers (Mathews, et al.) something to prattle about for a couple of days or until the next white woman turns up missing, whichever comes first.

    One thing I wonder about is how we got his DNA sample, fingerprints, etc.on file. Did he mail them in with his application or what?

    KC Geezer

    Posted by wescain at 06/08/2006 @ 4:18pm

  175. k330k, i think ann's comment about how they raise kids was more of a justification, to herself, of her horribly abuse-filled childhood.

    and if u wanna call violent abusive child molesters better people, ann, go ahead. to each her own, i guess.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 4:19pm

  176. Okay, I officially declare the Exile of the Wingnuts at an end. Welcome back, you chickenshits. Have some fun for a few days, you deserve it. Damn, you were right for once! We can fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here, we really can!

    But if you're still cooing in my left ear two weeks from now, I'll be amazed.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/08/2006 @ 4:21pm

  177. And just to get back on topic, I'm ashamed that Dirk Nowitzke is from Texas.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/08/2006 @ 4:22pm

  178. All kids should be performing at high levels...in UTOPIA! As much as we would like it to be that all kids perform at high levels, it's not realistic or possible. There will always be those who are raised wrong ( see ultra liberal, ultra tolerant, touchy feely, no discipline giving parents ), those who will not learn english because they are not required to ( see liberal educators and policy makers, those that are disruptive and undisciplined, and those who are just flat out not as intelligent as others. Remember, not all humans are the same, and this is why UTOPIA will never exist! Most reasons for failure in school, concerning our kids, usually can be found in the home where there is no structure, and at the schools, where there is no accountability. That is why I stated, in essence, that the kids of conservatives are more successful than those of liberals! Conservatives hold their children to a higher standard, and give their children much more stucture, in general. They instill the values and morals ( which the " anything goes, I don't believe in discipline " left despises) that lay the groundwork for success. I wish all kids, and people in general, could be successful, but that idea just goes against the laws of nature!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 4:26pm

  179. Beau-diddly

    Just giving "Fuklibz" what it wants....no sense trying to reason, the big words just makes its head hurt.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/08/2006 @ 4:26pm

  180. Notice how the Anti-American Left.... is left with just personal attacks and the usual non-sense they are so famous for. Calif-50 was supposed to be the bellweather for the end of the republicans...right??? You got your fucking asses handed to you once again...So much for your stupid culture of corruption unless you are refering to Willam Jefferson...Demoncrat of LA...Cythia(Bush knew about 9/11 slap the Cop)McKinney, or Patrick Kennedy....You nitwits are such losers it is really laughable...Now a monster has been killed and what do you have to say for it???Pathetic pukes all of you....Yeah there will be some changes in November...but not exactly what you fools imagined

    THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A WONDERFUL SITE TO BEHOLD

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 4:27pm

  181. Or unitl the next black " STRIPPER " files a DUBIOUS claim of rape against some rich WHITE college boys!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 4:28pm

  182. Dirk is from Würzburg, a burg very familiar to me. Dirk's dad was german Handball champion, a game not related to its american namesake, but rather a form of soccer played with hands and a smaller ball, not unlike basketball.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:31pm

  183. MASK -

    Since you just want tally the pure political ramifications, I will agree that this is very good political news for Bush and the pro-war folks THIS WEEK. But, Haditha, although displaced, is not disappearing and I there are other similar incidents on the horizon. Plus, unless you see a marked decline of insurgent attacks and sectarian violence in the coming months, the exagerrated hysteria over Zarqawi's death will turn into ammunition for the quagmire crowd. Like I said on another thread, the GOP may very well end up wishing that this happened on October 15, not June 7.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 4:32pm

  184. barry, you're desperately off topic, figures

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:32pm

  185. Zarqawi's Final Atrocities

    If you are looking for the legacy of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, do not look in the concrete rubble of so-called safe house in Baqubah that became his final resting place. Instead, look less than 10 miles to the west, on the side of the road in the desert town of Hadid, for a pile of cardboard banana boxes.

    Some of the heads still had their blindfolds on. Iraqi police are still attempting to identify the murdered men.

    Days earlier, in Baquba, Iraqi police found another eight severed heads. One of those heads belonged to a prominent Sunni Muslim imam, who preached peace and tolerance.

    For the past few weeks, U.S. military intelligence analysts had seen a spike in beheadings--a specialty of the Zarqawi network.

    Of course, Zarqawi will be remembered chiefly as a beheader. He apparently enjoyed wielding the knife and slowly hacking off the head of Nicholas Berg of West Chester, Pa. In a video that Zarqawi's followers proudly posted on the Internet, Berg screams in pain in seven long minutes as Zarqawi saws through his neck.

    Zarqawi also is believed to have beheaded Eugene Armstrong of Hillsdale, Mich.

    Zarqawi is also believed to have beheaded Ken Bigley, the Liverpool, U.K.-based engineer who came to Iraq "to help people," in October 2004.

    Now it is Zarqawi's own head that is capturing the world's attention. Displaying his head has several immediate benefits: it boosts the morale of Iraqi police and military officers, who have been taking increased casualties in the past few weeks and were spooked by the Zarqawi video released last month. In that video, Zarqawi made a point of firing an M-4 and an M-249--two automatic weapons that are only used by U.S. forces. If he can take guns from the hands of Americans he killed and turn those weapons against the world's sole remaining superpower, maybe Zarqawi is invincible after all. Yesterday's air strike has already reversed the downward spiral of Iraqi police morale, one source told me.

    Nor can Zarqawi be easily replaced. He had a kind of rogue-ish charisma that resonated in the Arab world. He was featured in Arabic-language pop songs and feted on Arabic soap operas. His persona drew hundreds of Saudis, Syrians and other foreigners to fight alongside him in Iraq. There is simply no one else in the organization who has his aura.

    At the very least, the beheadings and suicide attacks will decline sharply.

    OF COURSE THE ANTI AMERICAN LIBS ARE SADDENED BY THESE DEVELOPMENTS....WHAT HUMAN SCUM

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 4:34pm

  186. Not only is Zarqawi dead, but Iraq is now blessed by God....at George's request. Does it get any better?

    Posted by Peggy at 06/08/2006 @ 4:34pm

  187. So we are all about "personal attacks", uhhh ... Fuklibs is it?

    Haven't you already exceeded your allotment of computer time for the day? Where is your mommy?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 4:35pm

  188. Hman -

    I found that particular irony (and that of Barry25, Rio, etc. ad nauseum) terribly amusing myself.

    Especially the ranting off-topic and intentional ignoring of all of the posts that refute their claims about the left supporting terrorists.

    They get so much done with their fingers in their ears, crying "la-la-la"...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 4:40pm

  189. Peg, is that OUR god, or THEIRS?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:42pm

  190. latin alert: it's ad nauseam

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:44pm

  191. don't mind me New Dawn, my other alias is "insufferable bore"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 4:45pm

  192. if I might summarize the week here at the Nation blog: it's been a pretty good week for us progressives. marriage amendment shot down in senate, ditto repealing estate tax. bad immigration bills going nowhere.Specter finding his spine and standing up to Cheney. and Zarkawi killed. not a bad week.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 5:01pm

  193. JR -

    I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong - especially when it comes to spelling, grammar, or poor use of latin.

    I correct others on that sort of thing all the time.

    (by the way, that's an insufferable "boor")

    Main Entry: boor Pronunciation: 'bur Function: noun Etymology: Dutch boer; akin to Old English buan to dwell -- more at BOWER 1 : PEASANT 2 : a rude or insensitive person

    BWAHAHahahahahahahaahahaaaa

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 5:01pm

  194. I can be an insufferable bore, without being a boor at the same time. but yes you are right.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 5:06pm

  195. LOL

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 5:07pm

  196. Though Zarqawi was an evil leader responsible for the most dramatic acts of terrorism, he was something of a sideshow.

    Sideshow?? Perhaps your mourning has clouded your thinking. How about the chief instigator of sectarian violence/ civil war?? Unbelievable!

    Enjoy your virgins, Z...now who's next?

    Posted by Sliver at 06/08/2006 @ 5:08pm

  197. How about the chief instigator of sectarian violence/ civil war??

    NOT!

    the civil war and the war against the US occupation in Iraq are far bigger than the influence of a terrorist with a few thousand followers. even Bush and Rummy realize that, hence they predict no let up in the violence.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 5:14pm

  198. Notice how the LIBZ are just HOPING the violence continues....How pathetic is that???? Man how miserable it must be to wake every morning being a anti american asshole liberal whose whole world view is so dark and disgusting and pathetic it borderlines on insanity...Why dont you nitwits take a look at yourselves and see the pathetic pukes that you are and GROW UP for once.

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 5:18pm

  199. Notice how the LIBZ are just HOPING the violence continues....How pathetic is that???? Man how miserable it must be to wake every morning being a anti american asshole liberal whose whole world view is so dark and disgusting and pathetic it borderlines on insanity...Why dont you nitwits take a look at yourselves and see the pathetic pukes that you are and GROW UP for once.

    Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/08/2006 @ 5:18pm

    Did you of all people really just tell anyone else to "take a look at [yourself] and see the pathetic [puke] that you are and GROW UP for once"???

    Libz - you are now the official laughingstock of this board.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 5:24pm

  200. And lessee - nope, can't find a single left-leaning post that said anything about hoping for continuing violence...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 5:25pm

  201. Silver -

    So Zarqawi was the "chief instigator" of sectarian violence/civil war?

    All this time I thought he was the "godfather of sectarian killing and terror in Iraq" [Zalmay Khalilzad].

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 5:33pm

  202. Fuklibs -

    Sorry to interrupt snack-time, but the left doesn't hope for more violence. We are just not deluded enough to think that Zarqawi's death will end it.

    Now, back to your peanut-butter crackers.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 5:35pm

  203. the civil war and the war against the US occupation in Iraq are far bigger than the influence of a terrorist with a few thousand followers. even Bush and Rummy realize that, hence they predict no let up in the violence.

    Sorry...not buying it.

    It wasn't Iraqis or Americans that were doing things like trying to stop elections. It was followers of guys like Zarqawi...both foreign to Iraq and domestic.

    Posted by Sliver at 06/08/2006 @ 5:40pm

  204. To LeftOfCenter (3:34 pm post) (and others)

    Alludra by any other name makes my ignore list. That's a pretty hard thing to do. I'll put up with McCarthyism from NaCl, fundamentalist bigotry and some very curious interpretations of the Constitution form LL, utter denial of facts from Rio Bravo (who usually calls inconvenient facts, no matter how well documented, "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories") and just complete steer manure from Pontificus. But I'm still reading their droppings.

    But this fellow doesn't even make any pretense of presenting a rational argument. In its place, he gives invective. He could be Ann Coulter's ghost writer. A two-year-old can call other people names, too.

    His latest name, Fuklibz, is probably the one that he's used that best fits him. Like the name itself, he's just obscene.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 6:04pm

  205. the civil war and the war against the US occupation in Iraq are far bigger than the influence of a terrorist with a few thousand followers. even Bush and Rummy realize that, hence they predict no let up in the violence.

    Sorry...not buying it.

    It wasn't Iraqis or Americans that were doing things like trying to stop elections. It was followers of guys like Zarqawi...both foreign to Iraq and domestic.

    Posted by SLIVER 06/08/2006 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person

    ah, sliver, u disproved your own statement with your own statement, twice.

    1."followers of guys like zarqawi" so u admit there are more guys like zarqawi. hence more violence to come.

    2.then u say it wasn't iraqis. but in the next sentence you say they were both foreign to iraq and domestic. doesn't domestic mean they were iraqis?

    Posted by loveloki at 06/08/2006 @ 6:06pm

  206. OK Silver -

    If you ain't "buying it" from Johannes, maybe you'll listen to Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told a House panel that the extremists associated with al Qaeda and Zarqawi represent "a fairly small percentage of the total number of insurgents." Or DIA Director Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby who said the Zarqawi elements account for "only a fraction of the overall violence."

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 6:12pm

  207. Wow! I leave for a few hours and all the crazies come out.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:21pm

  208. Can you people learn to cool it down? Stop taking everything so personally.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:23pm

  209. Now on to serious matters:

    I hope I'm wrong, but this will do nothing more to alleviate the violence than did the apprehending of Saddam or the deaths of his sons.

    The egotistical neoconservative way of looking at the world is to think that everything is structured the way they think the economy is. Boy, do I have news for them. We can run the world without CEOs (who don't make squat) and Harvard MBAs (who don't know squat) and, unfortunately, the insurgency is going to get along just as well without Zarqawi, Saddam, or any other alleged leader like all the number twos we've succeeded in killing over the last three years.

    The insurgency is not about its leaders, whether actual or merely alleged. It is about one of two things, depending on to whom one speaks:

    * expelling foreign troops from Iraq (something with which I can sympathize); or

    * an inability to abide by a government dominated by adherents to a religion (or sect of a religion) other than one's own (something with which I cannot sympathize).

    The sad truth is that Iraq is a pluralistic society and many Iraqis, perhaps more than those who do, do not believe in freedom of religion, even for other Muslims.

    The insurgency will survive Zarqawi and this is a sad fact both for American servicemen who are there because Mr. Bush denies reality and serves the forces of corporate greed and for the Iraqi people, whose blood will continue to spill in what really is a civil war, whether Mr. Bush or any of his dwindling numbers of supporters want to admit it or not.

    The only thing we can do about the first part is quit the country. There is nothing we can do about the second.

    Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I know damn good and well that I'm not.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 6:24pm

  210. Can you people learn to cool it down? Stop taking everything so personally.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/08/2006 @ 6:23pm

    Welcome to the boards, Gertrude.

    Hate to be the one to break this to you, but these boards don't work that way, in spite of any of our best intentions.

    Welcome, anyway. Keep your boots on and your pant legs rolled up in here.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 6:29pm

  211. What I'm concerned about is the fact that the World Cup is starting tomorrow. Angry terrorists + Major world event = not good. Hopefully, the Germans have done a good job with security.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:29pm

  212. Stellar post, Jack, and definitely food for thought.

    Tough to chew for some here, no doubt, but no less salient for that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 6:31pm

  213. NEW DAWN: Yeah, I was here earlier today. It seemed a lot more civil back then in the magical time of 1:30 P.M. to 3:00 P.M.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:32pm

  214. To Gertrude:

    Hopefully, the Germans have done a good job with security.

    I hope your right about that. The Germans have learned a few things about that since 1972. Unfortunately, so have terrorists.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 6:33pm

  215. Why, Gert, that explains it!

    That's nappie hour for our resident wackjobs.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 6:33pm

  216. I'm curious: do any of the crazies here ever sit back and realize that about a grand total of three other people in this world agree with them? Seriously, if some of you on this board were say some of the things you have written to a normal, everyday person on the street, you'd be laughed at.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:35pm

  217. Sorry about the typo! It is supposed to say "to say".

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:37pm

  218. God, I need a life!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:38pm

  219. You can borrow Libz, and his brain, too.

    He ain't using them...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 6:39pm

  220. You can borrow Libz', and his brain, too.

    He ain't using them...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 6:40pm

  221. Jack, the war in Iraq is a war against the former gov't of Iraq, ie the baathists, who are fighting for their very lives. religious violence was rare in secular Iraq, except Saddam trying to keep the Shia down. we back the Shia, and that complicates things a bit with Iran, who have been their protectors, most of the Iraq gov't was in exile in Iraq. I think it will take ten years or more to straighten this out, if then. Israel and the west bank is still festering 60 years and at least four wars later.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:40pm

  222. Gertrude, any civility came from the distaff side of the blog, it was nice.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:42pm

  223. hey we got through the olympics, imshallah we'll get through the world cup. besides everybody loves "football"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:43pm

  224. JOHANNESROLF: This might seem weird, but I bet that the Iranians are just happy as we are that Zarqawi is dead. After all, he was behind some absolutely brutal acts of terror committed against Iraqi Shiites.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:44pm

  225. I think it's despicable to accuse anyone of wishing for more bloodshed. they are shameless braindead robots.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:45pm

  226. Mask,

    Just curious...

    And that nonsense with the gay marriage ban...part of the good GOP week? And the ballyhoo on Wall Street over economic indicators and inflation fears? Part of the good week?

    We've redefined "GOP good week" as any week when oil temporarily dips below 70/barrel and there are no hurricanes.

    Okay.

    Posted by kfine at 06/08/2006 @ 6:47pm

  227. JOHANNESROLF: My concern about the World Cup is that terrorists might have added incetive after Zarqawi's death to strike back. It might be an unsophisticated attack like that which happened at the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996, but it would still probably harm a lot of people.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:47pm

  228. Rio, Murtha gave his blood for his country, two purple hearts, which is a lot more than can be said about you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:48pm

  229. Atlanta was one guy.

    I can't wait to see Ronaldinho.

    I heard Clyde Drexler compare Nowitzki to Bird.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:50pm

  230. RIO BRAVO: I'm sorry, but I really don't care what John Murtha thinks or says. I respect him, but he is just another voice echoing the sentiments of his ideological allies. You can find the same thing with the Republicans.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:51pm

  231. To JohannesRolf:

    [T]he war in Iraq is a war against the former gov't of Iraq, ie the baathists . . . .

    I disagree. The war in Iraq was a war aganst the people of Iraq, to whom the natural resources of Iraq rightly belong and from whom the neoconservatives wish to take it by force. Ousting the Saddam's regime was a way of achieving that end. If the neocons had been able to accomplish their goals by keeping Saddam in power, they would have done it that way. After all, people like this (and, one shouldn't have to add, from both US political parties) have been perfectly willing to prop up dictators as bad as Saddam as long as they played ball with us and overthrow even popularly elected leaders, such as Allende, who had other ideas.

    Anybody who thinks invading Iraq was even remotely about democracy is a fool. Neoconservative imperialism has nothing more to do with democracy than did Saddam's regime.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 6:53pm

  232. JOHANNESROLF: Yeah, Ronaldinho is pretty awesome. I saw him play recently in the UEFA Cup on ESPN 2 (go figure). I wish more international soccer games were broadcasted in the states: I think American club soccer is kind of boring. As for Drexler . . . well, you got me there. I like Clyde, and I think he knows what he's talking about.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:54pm

  233. look, Al Qaeda is never going to win any popularity contests in the wolrd, but then neither is Bush. hold it rabid dogs, I'm not comparing Bush with Al Qaeda, though both have done a lot of damage.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:54pm

  234. JACK RABBIT: I find it funny that everybody throws around the label "neoconservative", and yet no one is ever able to give a clear definition of what they really stand for. It's similiar to how conservatives used to label liberals with the word "communist" in an effort to close off any avenues to debate and discussion.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:56pm

  235. Jack, our points are not mutually exclusive. complexities abound in Iraq. but Bush definitely opened Tandoories box, oops no, that's my indian take out food.

    what I love about where I live: superb japanese and indian food take out, one phonecall away.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 6:59pm

  236. JOHANNESROLF: Actually, I think al-Qaeda's popularity increases and decreases in accordance to what's happening in the world. For instance, the group became very unpopular after the Amman hotel bombings in November of 2005; yet, I'm sure if the United States were to attack Iran (which I don't think will happen)al-Qaeda's popularity would again grow.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 6:59pm

  237. JOHANNESROLF: "Atlanta was one guy". Exactly my concern.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 7:01pm

  238. Gertrude, you are no doubt right. one thing is clear, Osama is hugely popular over the muslim world, as Saddam was too. because they are seen to be standing up to the US. we need to look in the mirror here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2006 @ 7:06pm

  239. To Gertruede:

    A neoconservative is a person who believes in US hegenomy, in the right of the US to use unbridled power for its own self-defined interests without being restrained by prior treaties, including the Charter of the United Nations. A neoconservative believes in the existence of a national security state, featuring a "unitary executive" even to the extent that it infriges and violates constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties or the constitutional system of checks and balances established over 200 years ago.

    Now, having said that, do you have a definition?

    While we're the use of terms, I bristle when such people are called conservative. Back in the old days, a conservative was some one who believed in small government, personal liberty and fiscal responsibility. Mr. Bush leads a regime that has expanded the size of government to support national security apparatus, thinks he has the right to listen to my phone conversations without a warrant and cuts taxes without bringing spending in line. So how are he or his supporters conservative?

    I've proposed the term yuppie fascist to describe Bush, the neoconservatives and the Christian right. It's not a new term, it was first used by the Austrian press to desribe right wing political leader Jörg Haider and has been adopted to descibe European post-fascism in general. G. M. Tamas defines that as, in part, a resistance to the Enlighment trend toward universal citizenship; a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would be an example of such a resistance.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 7:13pm

  240. JOHANNESROLF: I agree with you to an extent . . . However, I think the Islamic world must also look into its own mirror. A lot (though not all) of Muslims don't seem to be especially tolerant of Jews or any other religious group for that matter, and this hatred goes way back even before Israel was founded (though this does not make them unique in world history). Also, when an al-Qaeda attack occurs in the Middle East, it is Muslims who usually end suffering the most. Yet, no one in the Islamic world ever seems to bring this up.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 7:13pm

  241. JACK RABBIT: I was wondering when you were going to respond . . . So basically a neoconservative is the physical manifestation of the Antichrist? Just kidding! I think, though, that the word fascist is a bit too strong. I find it funnny that people who have actually lived under totalitarian systems (like, for instance, Elie Wiesel or Vaclav Havel) seem to become indignent when those who dislike George Bush call him "fascist".

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 7:22pm

  242. Anyone still here?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 7:23pm

  243. Anyone?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 7:27pm

  244. All right, then. I guess I'll leave too.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 7:27pm

  245. To Gertrude:

    Yuppie fascism is not totalitarian. It can exist within the the framework of nominally free elections, although the effect to subvert freedom and deny equality.

    I wrote these articles four years ago:

    The Rise of Yuppie Fascism: Part One and Part Two.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 7:42pm

  246. Frank:

    Our thoughts and prayers are with your son.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 7:53pm

  247. Been scanning this blog----Sorry I missed the basketball debate. Played against some really good players in my day, but I have to say my favorite players of all time are Jerry West and Magic Johnson. Was a little kid when West played, but I wore his number all the way through high school and college. Magic was the best---Showtime===could do everything----still remember his first championship when they beat the Sixers and he had to play center because Karem was hurt. God he was good. Good to see most on both sides of the political spectrum happy about Zaraquawi's death. We need to celebrate together and put our political bickering aside for awhile. Those who just want to continue to be negative, well there is no hope for them anyway. They will always be frustrated===they seem to have a deep seeded need to only see what they perceive as problems in this country. They are blind to its greatness.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/08/2006 @ 8:08pm

  248. Zero---a perfect example of what I just described- hopeless--a blind hyena.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/08/2006 @ 8:14pm

  249. JACK RABBIT: The problem with the "yuppie fascism" theory is that what do "neoconservatives" gain from stripping citizens of their rights? If their goals are primarily economic, then they have already achieved their aims by working within the rules of the system. In other words, aren't they best suited to leave the rights of Americans alone and instead pursue their goals without causing too much of a stir? Not that I really believe in any of this; I just wanted some clarification.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 8:24pm

  250. Finals are starting soon. Gotta go. I'm out like Jack Bauer on a boat to China.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 8:26pm

  251. The problem with the "yuppie fascism" theory is that what do "neoconservatives" gain from stripping citizens of their rights? If their goals are primarily economic, then they have already achieved their aims by working within the rules of the system. In other words, aren't they best suited to leave the rights of Americans alone and instead pursue their goals without causing too much of a stir? Not that I really believe in any of this; I just wanted some clarification.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/08/2006 @ 8:24pm

    They're neo-fascists. They're goals aren't primarily economic. The economics is a subset of their neo-fascism. Their lives are empty unless they torment others for any reason they can think up. The overlap with capitalism isn't required.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/08/2006 @ 8:48pm

  252. Finals are starting soon. Gotta go. I'm out like Jack Bauer on a boat to China.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/08/2006 @ 8:26pm

    Is it a reprehensible form of bigotry to hope that Miami beats Dallas just because Dallas is where that sick dwarf in the White House originated from?

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/08/2006 @ 8:50pm

  253. Man this is fun! You lunatics are still at it. I can understand your frustration, though! I mean, one of your own was just killed by the evil satan ( U.S. ), which would rile up anyone with a purpose in life. Since your purpose is to constantly attack your own people, Gov't, and Military in order to defeat them, without spending a moment of your time condemning the actions of, say, SUICIDE BOMBERS, THROAT SLASHERS, and other terrorist murderers of the innocent, it is obvious where you stand in terms of this country. Although it is a great day for many, it SUCKS to be YOU! HA HA, my little twerps!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 8:55pm

  254. A lot (though not all) of Muslims don't seem to be especially tolerant of Jews or any other religious group for that matter, and this hatred goes way back even before Israel was founded (though this does not make them unique in world history).

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/08/2006 @ 7:13pm

    You've got this backward. Muslims have historically been very tolerant of Jews (and Christians). Jews fled to North African Muslim societies during the Spanish inquisition. They lived peacefully in Muslim Spain for many, many years before that. Comparing European treatment of Jews to Muslim treatment of Jews is extremely unfair to the Muslims.

    Muslim hostility toward israel shouldn't be interpreted as general hostility to Jews because of their ethnicity. Muslims have very valid reasons to be hostile to the artificial israeli state that was imposed upon them by Europe and America through the UN. That's what has caused any change in Muslim attitudes toward Jews and is being reinforced with each passing day by the brutalization at the hands of israel and the US. Actions have consequences and grim reapers shouldn't act surprised at predictable whirlwinds.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/08/2006 @ 9:04pm

  255. Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/08/2006 @ 8:08pm

    One of the most sane posts I have seen from a "conservative" poster here today (don't know if you take that as an insult, Len - actually, today, I hope you don't - I'm being sincere and genuine with you).

    Fuck this beheading scum, Zarqawi, and I hope that if there is a hell, he really is there, turning on a spit over an eternal fire (so much for your virgins, asshole - surprise, surprise).

    I cried, literally broke down and shed tears and felt sick when I watched and listened to Nick Berg's tortured cries as a knife carved its way through his neck and took his head off. Not because I am a pacifist or anti-war or anti-death (I'm not any of those things), but because there are clearly some human beings in the world who are no better than rabid animals, and they need to be put down (so much for being made in God's image, huh? Go figure...).

    Zarqawi was clearly one of those rabid animals in need of putting down as a danger to himself and others, and now his evil has been bombed into oblivion and no longer matters. Next!

    However, any poster here who dares to continue classifying the entire left (which I am absolutely a part of) as supportive of someone like Zarqawi is bigoted, partisan, and altogether willfully ignorant of the multiple posts to the contrary on this board and is clearly foaming at the mouth with absolute untruths... uh-oh, starting to look a little... rabid?

    All this considered, Len, I don't believe in "celebrating" any death, any where, any time. Here you I clearly differ.

    And your attempt to segue from your proposed death-party to "those who just want to continue to be negative" is to imply what, exactly?

    Negative who? Negative how? You don't really specify... Go figure...

    Negative for saying that Zarqawi's demise wasn't a good thing? Haven't seen anyone on this board do that... Did I miss a post? Please direct me to it.

    You go on:

    "They will always be frustrated... they seem to have a deep seeded (that's "seated") need to only see what they perceive as problems in this country. They are blind to its greatness.

    Wow, I don't like these "they's" already - they sound like unAmerican scum. Wait, who are they again, exactly - you weren't really clear...

    Ohhhhhhh, the negative people...

    Wait, where were we...

    What were they negative about again?

    Did they say they support Zarqawi or his ilk? Did anyone say that his death doesn't matter at all? No?

    Who are they again, Len? Do you mind pointing them out in detail, so someone, dear God, anyone on this board has a clue who you're talking about besides you?

    _____

    FrankGrits - Welcome, welcome, haven't seen you in a good long minute or three.

    I don't pray, but I do wish nothing but safety and an eventual but inevitable homecoming for your son, and certainly all in one piece. I also hope that he never has to compromise his honor, integrity, respect, courage, or self-control, in this "war" or anywhere else. The current leaders aren't making this task easy on our troops. Give your boy your love, and my words, if you feel they're in any way appropriate.

    ND

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 9:26pm

  256. Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 8:55pm

    I'm saying this as a non-partisan.

    You are seriously in need of medical attention. Your posts are so angry, yet so strangely impotent and void of any meaning or import, that it boggles the mind. It's like watching a speed freak jones for a fix. You're like a twitchy little rodent. A child learning to talk and just blurting every sound its learned, in rapid succesion.

    It's just weird.

    Have you considered therapy? I mean, left, right, Republican, Democrat - I don't care what you are, politically, Barry, but your thought flow is so manic it's disturbing.

    Seek help. Really.

    Seek help.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 9:30pm

  257. I wasn't trying to imply that all Muslims or even a majority of Muslims hate Jews. And I am aware of the tolerance Muslims had towards Jews as well as other ethnic and religious groups in past centuries. All I'm trying to say is that Muslims, along with other ethnic and religious groups, have held strong anti-Semitic feelings in the past even before Israel existed. By the way, I'm not a Zionist or imperialist or anything of the sort. It's just that I don't like intolerance, no matter who perpetrates it.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 9:33pm

  258. "They're neo-fascists. They're goals aren't primarily economic. The economics is a subset of their neo-fascism. Their lives are empty unless they torment others for any reason they can think up. The overlap with capitalism isn't required". What?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 9:35pm

  259. To FromRedBird:

    I think Gertrude has it right. It has everything to do with economics.

    To Gertrude:

    By stripping citizens of their rights, the yuppie fascists (or, if you prefer, post-fascists) promote the corporate state (Mussolini's term for the fascist state), but the difference is that the private corporation rather than the government is the dominating social institution. If the phone companies are cooperating with the government in spying on us, is the government going to tell the phone companies who's taking to union organizers? There is no government censorship of the news, but, as Amy Goodman asks: would we know the difference right now if there were? Why did the US media (that so-called librul media), especially broadcast media, do such a dreadful job informing the American public prior to the invasion?

    The idea is to keep us from knowing too much or asking too many questions. That's the point in any totalitarian society of government control of the press or laws that allow the government to routinely spy on private citizens or laws that limit what an individual can say.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 06/08/2006 @ 9:37pm

  260. I believe I read somewhere that Zarquawi was considered a loose cannon by the higher ups in the Al Quaeda leadership. He had lost their favor. Suddenly he's dead and our leaders are playing dumb and claiming some sort of big victory. Then we clean him up and lay him out like a martyred diety. A shadow victory at best a blunder at worst.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 8:13pm

    Wow, it was always my understanding that he was a punk from the get-go, a minor thug (capable of terrible, terrible things if he got the chance), and that he latched onto Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda kinda by default - like a small dog running and yapping relentlessly around the ankles of a big one (What are we gonna do today, Spike? What are we gonna do today? Pant-pant)

    It was my understanding that Bin Laden realized Zarqawi could be a "useful fool" and after a couple of weeks of Zarqawi tooting his own horn and publicly volunterring to kiss Bin Laden's ass, that Bin Laden finally condescended to allow Zarqawi to operate "under Al-Qaeda's banner".

    I must not have been reading a "mainstream media, liberal-left-wing" news source when I read that...

    Curious, no? Almost sounds like an "alternate" history, doesn't it?

    None of which changes the fact that it's a good thing that he's already starting to putrefy as we speak...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 9:38pm

  261. Yeah asshole..... us real americans ARE angry when you fucking LIBZ are constantly putting down our military, BUSH, and everything else positive about America. Your the FUCKING NITWITS that need therapy and heavy medication. I detest you people so much I cant even type what I feel. And believe me....MANY REAL americans feel the same way!!! As evidence by your asswhippin in Calif-50...the supposed Bellweather of republican defeat....you had your anti-american asses handed to you....I can'r wait for November....And watch all of you boo-hooing once again about how your election was stolen from you....pathetic SCUM all of you!!!!

    THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 9:40pm

  262. Posted by JACK RABBIT 06/08/2006 @ 9:37pm

    The articles you wrote (that you posted a link to earlier) were fascinating and enlightening, Jack.

    Thanks for making me think. I'll look at the rest of your posts here in a new and even more respectful (not that it was ever disrespectful) light.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 9:42pm

  263. New Dawn, It's LIBERALISM that is the untreated mental disorder. I'm here tryin' to treat it, giving my own personl time and effort to those in need, and yet you blast me! Now here's a question: how much time do you and your ilk spend condemning the acts of zarqawi, bin laden, saddam, or terrorists worldwide, as opposed to the time and effort you give to ATTACKING your own administration, military, or people? If the answer was even 50%, I would give you some credibility. But being as it is that we both know that well over 90% ( I'd say 100% ) of your time and effort is focused on attacking your own people, administration and military, I can safely and assuredly state again that today's liberlism is a "seditious mental disorder"!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 9:44pm

  264. Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/08/2006 @ 9:40pm

    Interesting... I post to Barry and Libz answers... yet further evidence of a mental disorder, clearly displayed to every poster, right and left, on this site...

    Schizophrenia can be dangerous to you and your family, friend.

    Did I mention that you should immediately seek help, Barry25/FukLibz/Sybil?

    Oh, by the way, I live in California, and you are really making a mountain out of a molehill. The district was going to vote in another Republican no matter what.

    Wow, dangerously delusional, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, and flighty? Poor Barry25/FukLibz/Sybil.

    It truly sucks to be you, impotent insect. God must hate your guts to have created a creature so small and ineffectual, in such pain and loneliness. Do you need a hug?

    Find it somewhere else.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 9:47pm

  265. how much time do you and your ilk spend condemning the acts of zarqawi, bin laden, saddam, or terrorists worldwide, as opposed to the time and effort you give to ATTACKING your own administration, military, or people? If the answer was even 50%, I would give you some credibility. But being as it is that we both know that well over 90% ( I'd say 100% ) of your time and effort is focused on attacking your own people, administration and military, I can safely and assuredly state again that today's liberlism is a "seditious mental disorder"!

    Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 9:44pm

    I'm actually around 65-35, but what do you know?

    Don't read much, either, I see, and certainly not my previous posts, today or otherwise. You're trying to vilify the wrong guy, little fella. I've railed against terrorism and extremism in depth and on several occasions.

    I stay on topic here, for the most part (until inevitably distracted by manic folks like you), and my posts reflect that.

    What's interesting about you is the screen-wide brush with which you like to paint all things that don't agree with your limited worldview. It's interesting and speaks volumes about the real you, the little man frantically typing away in your tiny room and spitting venom in as wide a spray as you can manage in search of some sick from of acceptance, without ever actually slowing down long enough to consider intricacies, innuendos, implications, subtleties, or subtext on any given subject.

    You are an enormously simple fellow, clearly lacking any real education in either standard schooling or real-world experience. Your rants even offend the sensibilities of many of the site's conservative posters, even if they don't say so. Very few defend you, because you're an embarassment as a representative of any "side".

    You are an abomination and an anomaly. You insult our collective intelligence with your very presence.

    Seek help. really.

    Seek help.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 9:54pm

  266. By the way you LIBZ did predict a victory for BUZZBRAIN so dont hand me that rewriting history shit...I can post many an artical stating that fact...your just embarassed your ass was handed to you...just like it will be in November....And when we want medical advice...I sure wont ask some stupid nitwit Liberal anti american twit...go suck on your mommies tit fool

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 9:55pm

  267. Yes, the media was unquestioning in the lead up to the invasion. In my opinion, this was because the war was a popular cause among the American public in general, which translates to that it was popular with consumers. But now when you watch the news, you can start to detect a more critical tone in regards to the Bush administration, which is a result of Bush's increasing unpopularity. To me, this indicates that the media in general is not ideological and instead covers (or rather doesn't cover)stories which will increase viewership.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/08/2006 @ 9:55pm

  268. "Now tell me Barry, what is their to respect?"

    I have TOTAL comtemt for you LIBZ...There is NOTHING to respect about Hyopocracy on a grand scale that you shit for brains fools exibit each and every day...Again I ask...if you were as fucking smart and as respected as you think you are...why are you nitwits in the minority...and will continue to stay there???(THANK GOD!!!!)

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 9:58pm

  269. ok before you nitwits attack my spelling(fast typing) instead of addressing my points:

    contempt

    hypocracy

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 10:03pm

  270. Yeah asshole..... us real americans ARE angry when you fucking LIBZ are constantly putting down our military, BUSH, and everything else positive about America.

    Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/08/2006 @ 9:40pm

    You are straight tripping. Just mental. I mean, scary-should-be-locked-up-before-it-explodes metal.

    Find a post of mine where I put down the military or ANYTHING positive about America, and I will send fifty bucks to any right-wing cause you request.

    You got fifty witnesses on this board to this wager.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:05pm

  271. mental

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:05pm

  272. contempt

    hypocracy

    Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/08/2006 @ 10:03pm

    It's "hypocrisy".

    That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

    You are nowhere near qualified to have as deep a discussion as you are shooting for, little fella. I mean you are waaaaaaay out of your league.

    Stop now before you get hurt.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:06pm

  273. kudos to all the true blue posters blogging today on this thread.

    yes the hamsters scurried through the site to sing ding dong the witch is dead while they celebrated the death of their flying monkey Zarqawi.

    And you all just kept talking about basketball

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    (I think that about sums up the importance of the news story)

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:07pm

  274. it must suck to be a conservative now a days

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:07pm

  275. Fuklibz -

    Do you rail against public school edumacation and raises for teachers? How about exit exams?

    BWAAHAHHAAHahahahahahaahHAHAHAhahahahhahaahahHAHAhahahahhaaaaa

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:08pm

  276. Did the message get throught to even your thick sculls ...or are you reduced to nitpicking typos???? When you dont have logical responses I guess thats all you got...Pathetic

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 10:08pm

  277. oh... you also spelled fuck wrong

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:09pm

  278. No I am very proud to be conservative and a real american....unlike you traitorous fuckups on the left who dont even like to be called LIBERAL

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/08/2006 @ 10:09pm

  279. i like being called liberal

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:10pm

  280. but isn't pride a sin

    pride... conservative

    yup, sin

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:11pm

  281. hi dawn

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:13pm

  282. :)

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:13pm

  283. hi frank

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:14pm

  284. Oh and you do understand that your present leaders are not conservatives, right?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 10:14pm

    i think it's important for the future death of the conservative movement that our present leaders be strongly identified as conservatives

    as a matter of fact

    we should never tire of saying it

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:16pm

  285. NEW DAWN, I find it incredible that after Cunningham, these republicans would dare to vote for another conservative. What's wrong with THIS picture?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 9:55pm

    Consider the candidate, the individual, and not the party, Frank, is all I can say on this one.

    The decision of the voters was just democracy in action. I'll say this, too, though. Read about the candidates, and about the fellow who was elected. I did. He isn't the devil, and his appointment doesn't disturb me. If there's something about him that jumps out at you that makes him a bad guy besides being Republican, please tell me.

    These Barry/Libz/Lunatic fellows, however, want to rewrite a history: my personal experience. And I will not allow them to do that. I don't really mind about District 50 at all.

    I was going to ignore you, Barry/Libz/whatever, but I figured why bother? I can take you.

    Bring it the fuck on, you foul-mouthed, clueless moron.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:20pm

  286. < unabashed liberal

    Heya, Will.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:23pm

  287. Anderson Cooper is reporting tonight that Al Quaeda is also celebrating the death of Zarqawi. Also that he was responsible for a very small percentage of the killing in Iraq. Stay tuned.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 10:20pm

    I think it was the new balance tennis shoes Zarqawi was wearing in the last video he released that did him in.

    You just can't be a feared terrortist leader while wearing brand new white tenny's

    Those al Qaeda guys were probably lining up to turn his sorry ass in

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:25pm

  288. Heya, Will.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 06/08/2006 @ 10:23pm

    So where's our widdle fwend who can't spell fuck?

    Do you think he went away mad?

    or did he just go away?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:26pm

  289. He/she couldn't accept my challange. Or he/she is typing and worrying about spelling stuff right.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 10:29pm

    perhaps he's confering with the other chimpanzees

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:32pm

  290. i hear they almost have the first few lines of the work of shakespere

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:32pm

  291. it's amazing how far they got in twenty year

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:33pm

  292. Didn't spell fukc right? What?

    That couldn't possibly be. It's only four letters long, for fkcu's sake. Who in the kfuc could possibly be stupid enough to mistype the word fcuk?

    I mean, really, now. I could spell fkuc in the fourth grade.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:34pm

  293. He/she couldn't accept my challange. Or he/she is typing and worrying about spelling stuff right.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 10:29pm

    It';s abowt fukcing tyme.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:35pm

  294. Ah, the good old days.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 10:33pm

    you know it's strange but the further we get into this administration, the more relaxed I get.

    it almost as though i can get a glimpse of the future through the fog... and the hamsters ain't in it.

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:37pm

  295. Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/08/2006 @ 10:33pm

    KGO, nine to noon. Available on the internet.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:37pm

  296. Frank -

    Not really. Not bad for a succubus devil-bitch from the bottom ring of the deepest hell.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:39pm

  297. Vilifying 9/11 widows? How low can you go?

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:39pm

  298. she's probably all skin and bones due of her meth addiction

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:40pm

  299. Frank -

    You have a talent for baaaaaad visuals... Weren't you the one who flopped Sheehan's boob into a discussion once and totally derailed everything after?

    I remember. It was you.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:40pm

  300. i don't think those cheaks can get any more sunken

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:41pm

  301. Will -

    I'm betting on coke. Meth may not be just for poor folk anymore, but coke still has more class.

    Disclaimer: I have not touched either of the abovementioned drugs in over a decade. They are bad. Stay in school, kids.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:42pm

  302. Frankgrits, so you admit that you spend ALL your time attacking this administration, military and the american people, because you have no RESPECT for this administration! Does this mean you have respect for Al Qaeda, zarqawi, bin laden, saddam? You fool!

    Oh shit, Will is on the knob...I mean blog! This loser, like I have stated in the past, is on this blog day in and day out! What a life! He's definitely the "social butterfly"! Ignore the dork!

    New Dawn, for the supposed tolerant, understanding, deep-thinking left that you obviously are a part of, you certainly show a lot of hostility and engage in name-calling with the best of em'. I have no problem with the name-calling or being intolerant either, but at least I admit it! You are a bonafide hypocrite!

    Fuklibz, keep up the good work, but don't take on Will C. ( C for COCKCHUGGER ) for he's already my little bitch. He's really mad at me because I did his mom. It was her first time since she bore his boring ass. She had swore off sex once she saw what a horrible piece of shit it created, but once I got hold of her, she came around...Just kidding, no disrespect to Will's mom, just to Will!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 10:43pm

  303. i don't know dawn

    she's got them wild meth eyes... always rolling around the room.

    though she might do a little blow to ease the come down

    numb the nose so she can sleep through the burn

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:45pm

  304. hey my widdle fwend bush boy is back!

    hi bush boy

    smoke any pole lately?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:46pm

  305. everyone knew that bush boy and my mom were a thing right?

    you got to hand it to the boy for giving that dryed up gray and dusty pussy a little sweetsweet love every now and again

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:48pm

  306. Ya New Dawn, but all that acid has sure fucked up your mind...I think you're havin' a flashback right now! You libz are sooooo articulate, which makes you think that you are soooo smart! Jeanine Garafalo is one of the most articulate people on the radio dial ( sincerely ) and yet she is a bonafide racist ( against whitey...she's white )and as looney as they come! Now, grow up, have some pride, get back to the issue, and stop wasting your time worrying about SPELLING! This is an old tactic used by the left when they ain't got nothin' else. Anybody remember Dan Quail?

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 10:50pm

  307. pride? you mean the sin!

    nah you hamsters can keep that one

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:52pm

  308. New Dawn, for the supposed tolerant, understanding, deep-thinking left that you obviously are a part of, you certainly show a lot of hostility and engage in name-calling with the best of em'. I have no problem with the name-calling or being intolerant either, but at least I admit it! You are a bonafide hypocrite!

    Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 10:43pm

    Okay, lessee, which incarnation, which manifestation, which personality is this? Oh, yes, Barry...

    Depends on what I can tolerate. You're a little much. I never claimed to suffer fools. Find a post where I claimed I would.

    And find a post of mine where I have claimed I am above name-calling and I will send fifty bucks to any right-wing cause you select. If the shoe fits, I'll not only suggest you wear it, but will forcibly hold you down, take your own foot out of your mouth, and stuff it into the shoe for you. I've never claimed any different, here or otherwise.

    You don't even know what the word hypocrisy means, "fool".

    And "I fucked your mother" references? And you expect anyone here to take you seriously? What are you, twelve? You're not even funny enough to be a joke, little fella.

    Pass that on to your other personalities for me, willya?

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:52pm

  309. You just commented on how spelling is useless (so much for your edumacation, you idiot), then proceeded to quote one of the most recognized names in politics (since you didn't want to discuss spelling), Dan Quayle...

    and YOU SPELL THAT WRONG, TOO.

    Now, I just feel sorry for you.

    And you talk like we're missing some grand point you made sometime today... Which was what, exactly?

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:54pm

  310. Anybody remember Dan Quail?

    Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 10:50pm

    republican wasn't he?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 10:56pm

  311. Barry -

    Acid was never my "thing" (I made too much money for that - how trite), and I kinda like Janeane Garafolo. I'd ask you to provide a link to evidence of her racism, but I know facts aren't your thing...

    Don't trouble yourself.

    Oh, did I mention you should really seek professional he--

    I did?

    Well, you really should.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 10:57pm

  312. Will, how can you talk about your own mother like that, even if it were true. You see, when liberals raise children, these kids grow up to have no respect for anyone but themselves. Will is a perfect example! Disrespecting his own mother during her golden years? You didn't put her in a home, did you Will? It's obvious that Will would have much more respect for his mother if he were raised by a conservative! He also would probably have much more of a life too, instead of being on this blog day in and day out! C'mon Will, just one day, get out and have some real fun! You're still my bitch, Willy! I worked you over real good once again. Damn, I'm just flat out GREAT!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 10:57pm

  313. This is like trying to scrape Barryshit off my shoe. What a waste of skin, bones, and vital organs Barry/Libz/whatever is. How tragic and sad.

    Night, little fella. Don't let the bogeymen getcha.

    Night, Will...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/08/2006 @ 11:00pm

  314. After the 04' victory she ranted about the " CRACKERS " and "REDNECKS" ( both derogatory terms used to describe whitey )who re-elected him! The other day, when her psychotic ass got Sam Seader ( hope I spelled that one right ) to walk off set, she stated that " when white people get mad, they kill people" . She stated this more than once. If thiese are not blatant examples of racism, then I don't know what are. What if I said, " when black people need something, they steal it"? I'm sure you wouldn't call that racist, now would you. Spin your way out of this one, but hurry!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 11:03pm

  315. Aw, c'mon New Dawn, I got ya cornered, and you're just gonna back down like a typical softy liberal. What would this country be today, if we all just backed down. Grow a sack and answer my question!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 11:05pm

  316. I worked you over real good once again. Damn, I'm just flat out GREAT!

    Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 10:57pm

    I love my mom

    and old ladies need love to

    and you're the man for the job

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    I just hope your post wasn't an example of how you work on that dryed up gray and dusty pussy.

    you advertised your self as bush boy

    (that was a little limp)

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 11:06pm

  317. see ya dawn

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 11:07pm

  318. New Dawn, so only POOR people did acid? Wow, that's enlightening! A little discriminatory too! Maybe they are right about the insane mindset of liberal Eliteists! I'm not sure though, I''' have to confirm that one with john kerry's butler! PBJ anyone!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/08/2006 @ 11:08pm

  319. Grow a sack and answer my question!

    Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 11:05pm

    I don't really thion you can be a racist with your own race

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 11:09pm

  320. correction... think

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 11:10pm

  321. wow - 4 pages since I last checked. Someone has let the lunatics loose. I might have to rethink my position on forced sterilization.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2006 @ 11:21pm

  322. they get mad when we don't take them seriously

    this was supposed to be a big day for them.

    Posted by Will C. at 06/08/2006 @ 11:24pm

  323. Birdy, you are correct about muslim tolerance for jews. the ottoman empire was multi racial, multiethnic and multi religious. only 25% was muslim. jews made up 25% of Baghdad.that said there were arab progroms against jews in the 19th century.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:10am

  324. Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 11:03pm | ignore this person

    Aw, c'mon New Dawn, I got ya cornered, and you're just gonna back down like a typical softy liberal. What would this country be today, if we all just backed down. Grow a sack and answer my question!

    Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 11:05pm

    Again, paragraph after paragraph of ranting (per the norm with you, little fella), some accusations and supposed quotes (they aren't quotes from the person you're quoting just because you put quotation marks around them, little fella), and not a link in sight.

    Imagine my boundless surprise. And even then, Janeane is relevant to what discussion again?

    All of your smack talk of growing sacks is funny considering you're doing it anonymously over the internet.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 12:40am

  325. The problem with the "yuppie fascism" theory is that what do "neoconservatives" gain from stripping citizens of their rights? If their goals are primarily economic, then they have already achieved their aims by working within the rules of the system. In other words, aren't they best suited to leave the rights of Americans alone and instead pursue their goals without causing too much of a stir? Not that I really believe in any of this; I just wanted some clarification.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/08/2006 @ 8:24pm

    To FromRedBird:

    I think Gertrude has it right. It has everything to do with economics.

    Posted by JACK RABBIT 06/08/2006 @ 9:37pm

    Gertrude's right and you're right, too? OK. Whatever.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 02:40am

  326. "They're neo-fascists. They're goals aren't primarily economic. The economics is a subset of their neo-fascism. Their lives are empty unless they torment others for any reason they can think up. The overlap with capitalism isn't required". What?

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/08/2006 @ 9:35pm

    Whaddya mean "what"? 'Cause I used "they're" instead of "their" in the second sentence?

    Busholini's followers are neo-fascists. Fascism is not economically rational. They have issues.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 02:47am

  327. I wasn't trying to imply that all Muslims or even a majority of Muslims hate Jews. And I am aware of the tolerance Muslims had towards Jews as well as other ethnic and religious groups in past centuries. All I'm trying to say is that Muslims, along with other ethnic and religious groups, have held strong anti-Semitic feelings in the past even before Israel existed. By the way, I'm not a Zionist or imperialist or anything of the sort. It's just that I don't like intolerance, no matter who perpetrates it.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/08/2006 @ 9:33pm

    Muslims were intolerant in the past for sure. Christians for instance weren't and aren't allowed to ring their church bells. There were and are other restrictions on both Jews and Christians. Probably less on Jews because they aren't proselytizers.

    That's a far cry from the astronomical mass murder carried out against the Jews by the "cultured" (they love that word) Europeans.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 02:54am

  328. Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/08/2006 @ 9:40pm

    Why hasn't this roll of toilet paper made my ignore list yet?

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 02:56am

  329. All better, now.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 02:58am

  330. So where's our widdle fwend who can't spell fuck?

    Do you think he went away mad?

    or did he just go away?

    Posted by WILL C. 06/08/2006 @ 10:26pm

    I'll bet he can't perform it, either.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 03:00am

  331. You and E. J. Dionne remind me of a George Price cartoon, when, with knees high and neckties flapping, you each are carrying a goal post, and between you the whole goal post apparatus, down the field, just ahead of furiously rushing foothall players with the ball. Of course it can't make any difference, there are so many sadistic killers ready to spring up and take his place, etc., etc., etc. Not a word about what a surge of hope his death will give the Iraqi people, or how it will help the infant government struggling to walk its first steps, or how it will help silence the idiots in this country who claim there has been no progress made in Iraq and the entire venture was a mistake.

    Posted by L. B. Hughes at 06/09/2006 @ 03:02am

  332. Birdy, you are correct about muslim tolerance for jews. the ottoman empire was multi racial, multiethnic and multi religious. only 25% was muslim. jews made up 25% of Baghdad.that said there were arab progroms against jews in the 19th century.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 12:10am

    There were Arab pogroms against Arabs but they aren't called pogroms in that case.

    They sure as hell didn't murder 138,000 Jews in an area the size of greater Detroit and enumerate them as "Jewish bandits", as the Germans did.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 03:10am

  333. Not a word about what a surge of hope his death will give the Iraqi people, or how it will help the infant government struggling to walk its first steps, or how it will help silence the idiots in this country who claim there has been no progress made in Iraq and the entire venture was a mistake.

    Posted by L. B. HUGHES 06/09/2006 @ 03:02am

    Progress! Hell, yes! Potable water replaced with near-sewage, electricity increased from 24 hours a day to four hours a day, hospitals reduced to rubble that haven't had 20% of the medications available three years ago, rampant ethnic cleansing, young children murdered in their beds by foreign invaders, torture chambers multiplying like a hydra . . . when are those assholes ever going to thank us for being such good Christians?

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 03:20am

  334. We could have just ignored them and let them live like human beings but we didn't . . . we did the right thing. And we're not leaving until they're all good and saved!

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 03:24am

  335. in an isolated house in middle of nowhere ,why was there no interest in capturing these lads and the intelligence, rather than blow it to bits

    Posted by deon at 06/09/2006 @ 04:30am

  336. Why hasn't this roll of toilet paper made my ignore list yet?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 06/09/2006 @ 02:56am | ignore this person

    Takes him, what, 10 minutes to create a new profile? Takes me 2 seconds to ignore his 10 minutes of hard work.

    Posted by vvvenus at 06/09/2006 @ 04:48am

  337. The US could have hired Zarqawi instead of killing him, he would be a very efficient US Marine, his expertise killing civilians would be an added value for the Marines, when revenging their fallen soldiers.

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 06:56am

  338. New Dawn---sorry for the late response--been busy. "They" would be people like Chimmy, Zero most of the time, and apparently this AREYOUOK character. They are negative and frustrated. They do not see the greatness in America, only the negative. They can't even join together in celebration (if not celebration then acknowledgement that we have been successful in meeting a goal in Iraq)---They are partisan to the bone. They will never be happy. They will always be frustrated, and they will always be on the very fringe of the American political spectrum destined for the dust bin of history.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 07:58am

  339. LEN MOSSE,

    I agree with you, I do not see the greatness of America at this moment, seen you are more capable than me to see this greatness, do you mind to mention other great news, this can probably help me and millions of others to see them, I confess I am not able to see that greatness you see.

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 08:24am

  340. Bird, what's yer point?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 08:33am

  341. there has been no progress made in Iraq and the entire venture was a mistake.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 08:33am

  342. Hello Johannesrolf, How are you doing, its a long time i have not been posting here, but I see nothing has changed, the neocon bloggers continue to post here as if they would need to convert us.

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 08:43am

  343. U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the American airstrike targeted "an identified, isolated safe house." Four other people, including a woman and a child, were killed with al-Zarqawi and Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi, the terrorist's spiritual consultant

    discuss, please

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 08:55am

  344. I know there must be some long faces here at The Nation with the death of Zarqawi. As a consolation and hopefully to cheer you folks up, it should be noted that Capital Hill Democrats are not discouraged.

    Democrats Vow to Fight On After Zarqawi Loss by Scott Ott

    (2006-06-09) -- As Blackberry devices and cell phones on Capitol Hill hummed with news of the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi yesterday, Congressional Democrats vowed that despite the loss they would fight on in "the war on the war on terror."

    "Zarqawi will be missed because he put a human face on the futility of the illegal U.S. occupation of Iraq," said one unnamed lawmaker, who assured a reporter that "Democrats are still optimistic. We're still looking for the silver lining."

    Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, a former Marine and vocal critic of the military occupation of Iraq, immediately denounced "the Zarqawi massacre" and suggested that the F-16 pilot who dropped the bombs had snapped under pressure and murdered the al Qaeda leader "in cold blood."

    Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA, demanded an explanation of the secret intelligence gathering techniques and surveillance used to find Mr. Zarqawi.

    "I want to give the president an opportunity to explain the program to the Congress and to assure the American people that nobody's civil rights were violated," said Sen. Specter.

    Meanwhile, Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and former presidential candidate Al Gore observed a moment of silence as they heard of the passing of Mr. Zarqawi, a fellow Internet pioneer.

    http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2278

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 08:55am

  345. Ponti, pathetic

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 08:57am

  346. welcome back areyouok. the Tories are getting desperate. they have nothing, NOTHING, so they resort to McCarthy ite smears. yeah, the 60 % of americans who now oppose the war, they're all traitors.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 08:59am

  347. al-Zarqawi bla, bla, bla...............for two more weeks and the mess in Iraq goes on.....................and the contractors continue to get their pockets full with your taxes..................American greatness at work..............

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 09:01am

  348. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 08:57am

    Ponti, pathetic

    Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, a former Marine and vocal critic of the military occupation of Iraq, immediately denounced "the Zarqawi massacre" and suggested that the F-16 pilot who dropped the bombs had snapped under pressure and murdered the al Qaeda leader "in cold blood."

    Johannes, weren't you just starting to pursue this angle in your last post above? Seems you were anticipated.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:07am

  349. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 08:57am

    Hey Johannes, do you think the NSA was tapping Zarqawi's phone without a warrant? Perhaps the ACLU should take up this issue?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:11am

  350. Ponti, absurdicus

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:13am

  351. PONTIFICUS

    I see you are full of energy and pro-war, why dont go yourself and with your family and fight there in Iraq?

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 09:14am

  352. name this quote.

    "As the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I have seen no evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to our nation."

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:14am

  353. I was pursuing no angle. I quoted a news source. you are incapable of anything but sarcastic sniping, who do you think you're reaching with your nonsense?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:16am

  354. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 09:14am

    Answer my question first. You called my post absurd, yet it anticipated your post on 'the Zarqawi massacre'. Weren't you already laying out the story line of Zarqawi's extermination as an outrage, because he chose to hide among women and children?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:18am

  355. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 09:16am

    I was pursuing no angle. I quoted a news source.

    Are you saying your post had no point? Please explain, because to me, it seemed that you were trying to insinuate that it was an atrocity, because a child had been killed. BTW, other reports have indicated that the two women he was with were spies. Should we have waited until he was alone, and are you going to call it an atrocity because we didnt?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:21am

  356. Posted by AREYOUOK 06/09/2006 @ 09:14am

    I see you are full of energy and pro-war, why dont go yourself and with your family and fight there in Iraq?

    Why don't you go live in a country where the US military doesn't protect you?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:23am

  357. Ponti, you are putting words in my mouth. I can speak for myself.

    the reason for my quote is simple. an innocent woman and child were killed along with Zarkawi. this had not been reported in any previous news story I saw. I have long been a vocal critic of the air war in Iraq, and this is why, innocent people are killed. whatsa matter this line of discussion too humane for you? not enough grrr kill, kill for you?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:24am

  358. Answer my question first

    who do you think you're talking to? your child?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:25am

  359. Hot off the AP wire as of ~6am EST

    Poll: Majority support troops, not Iraq war Many in U.S. say atrocities against civilians isolated, but invasion a mistake

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13216921/

    Just especial for the wingers...see, we ARE allowed to support the troops and not the war.

    WillC

    LOL on the "ding-dong the witch is dead..." excellent post.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 09:26am

  360. it anticipated your post on 'the Zarqawi massacre'.

    this was not in my post. you are dishonest as well as callous.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:27am

  361. PONTIFICUS

    I live in a country the US Military does not protect, and very happy about that, besides, I think everybody must be happy Zarqawi is dead, he of course hided with children and women, but that does not change yje fact that the US has killed scores of civilians, the US uses those kids and woman as well.

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 09:28am

  362. just express your views without putting words in my mouth, I stated NONE of the things you are ranting about.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:31am

  363. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 09:24am

    I have long been a vocal critic of the air war in Iraq, and this is why, innocent people are killed. whatsa matter this line of discussion too humane for you? not enough grrr kill, kill for you?

    No Johannes, you argument was not too humane for me. Innocent people are killed in every war, that does not mean every war is wrong. If your 'humanity' precludes even the killing of animals like Zarqawi because innocent people may get killed in the process, then you have lost your perspective over your hatred for George Bush.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:31am

  364. Why don't you go live in a country where the US military doesn't protect you?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/09/2006 @ 09:23am

    Iraq possibly?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:32am

  365. hail nero!

    Burn baby burn

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:32am

  366. LEFTOCENTER

    The old, "i support the troops" but they are dying for lie, and i support the troops, but they will lose?

    As Yoda once said.

    "Truly amazing the mind of child"

    or is;

    "The dark side has clouded your vision;"

    more appropiate?

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 09:35am

  367. If your 'humanity' precludes even the killing of animals like Zarqawi because innocent people may get killed in the process, then you have lost your perspective over your hatred for George Bush.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/09/2006 @ 09:31am

    That's the same argument your boy osama used to attack the world trade center.

    Further proof that evangelic conservatives are all the same regarless of their religious trappings?

    hmmmmmmmm

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:35am

  368. hail nero

    burn baby burn

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:35am

  369. Posted by CPT 06/09/2006 @ 09:35am

    you know yoda was a muppet right CPT?

    (is it true kermit is your hero)

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:36am

  370. Posted by AREYOUOK 06/09/2006 @ 09:28am

    I live in a country the US Military does not protect, and very happy about that

    That makes two of us. Did you know that all of our armed forces are voluntary? By the way, which country do you live in? Because most of the free world's security depends on the US, nobody else has any military to speak of.

    besides, I think everybody must be happy Zarqawi is dead, he of course hided with children and women,

    I don't think everybody is.

    but that does not change yje fact that the US has killed scores of civilians, the US uses those kids and woman as well.

    In World War II, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. Why is it wrong now, and not then? Because you don't agree with the reason for the war?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:38am

  371. f your 'humanity' precludes even the killing of animals like Zarqawi because innocent people may get killed in the process, then you have lost your perspective over your hatred for George Bush

    I did not say anything like the above

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:39am

  372. Because most of the free world's security depends on the US, nobody else has any military to speak of.

    bullshit

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:40am

  373. All

    Its hard to know why ultra-liberals are seemingly upset or dismissive of ZARAQAWI's death?

    I guess you guys are way too smart and sophisticated to feel much happiness at the AQ leaders death.

    Maybe it is the benefit to Bush that this will have, i guess many of you have invested way too much time and effort into hating Bush that anything the benefits him is bad for you, HENCE. You (some)have "rationalized" the meaning of ZARAQAWIs death to a minimal impact.

    What a wonderful world you guys live in.

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 09:41am

  374. That makes two of us. Did you know that all of our armed forces are voluntary? By the way, which country do you live in? Because most of the free world's security depends on the US, nobody else has any military to speak of.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/09/2006 @ 09:38am

    who's threatening the free world again?

    romulans? klingons? the emperor and his storm troopers?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:43am

  375. PONTIFICUS

    In WW2 the US troops did not kill voluntarilly civilians, in Iraq yes, furthermore, Nazism whas not a lie, WMD in Iraq yes.

    Of course I will not say where I live, because I do not want the CIA to come up and send me to an illegal prison and torture me, you see Bush is spying, so we have to be carefull

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 09:44am

  376. WILL C.

    You know Star Wars was a JUST a MOVIE? RIGHT?????

    a fictional one at that, take a knee and drink some H2O

    Take a seat i am about to burst your bubble, THE WHOLE MOVIE is NOT real.

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 09:45am

  377. I guess you guys are way too smart and sophisticated to feel much happiness at the AQ leaders death.

    Posted by CPT 06/09/2006 @ 09:41am

    why would we rejoice at the death of any of gods children?

    (evangelics of course throw a party)

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:45am

  378. You know Star Wars was a JUST a MOVIE? RIGHT?????

    a fictional one at that, take a knee and drink some H2O

    Take a seat i am about to burst your bubble, THE WHOLE MOVIE is NOT real.

    Posted by CPT 06/09/2006 @ 09:45am

    yeah... that's how i knew yoda was a muppet

    at least try to keep up with the conversation cpt

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2006 @ 09:46am

  379. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 09:39am

    f your 'humanity' precludes even the killing of animals like Zarqawi because innocent people may get killed in the process, then you have lost your perspective over your hatred for George Bush

    I did not say anything like the above

    Hmm, okay, then what exactly was your point in making a special post about the killing of a child? It was in all of the news articles that I read.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:47am

  380. Odd how this news has brought out a bunch of wingers, who all seem to be screaming something along the lines of "In your FACE, Libs!" as if the left was somehow rooting for this Zarqawi cockroach to survive. You wingers, deep down, know as well as we do that the political left isn't rooting against the US, nor does it mourn that beast.

    Despite a justified sense of relief that Zarqawi has left this world, everyone, optimists and cynicists alike, should probably try to remember that this monster represented the head of an organization that 1) is a very small but very vocal group that hase been responsible for only a very small but very visible portion of the violence in Iraq and 2) is a decentralized organization specifically designed so that if one leader is lost, three spout in his place.

    More and greater challenges lie ahead for the US and for Iraq. Anyone who wishes peace for that very troubled corner of the world should mute their celebrations and keep their eye on the ball. Getting distracted by some sort of ritual dance around a corpse to score points against domestic political opponents isn't going to help make anyone safer, US troops and Iraqi citizens alike.

    Posted by breasonable at 06/09/2006 @ 09:47am

  381. Posted by AREYOUOK 06/09/2006 @ 09:44am

    PONTIFICUS

    In WW2 the US troops did not kill voluntarilly civilians,

    Oh yeah? did you hear about the firebombing of Dresden?

    in Iraq yes, furthermore, Nazism whas not a lie, WMD in Iraq yes.

    You mean all those mass graves of Saddams were faked? The torture chambers were imaginary? Saddam's threats weren't real? Zarqawi's beheading videos were faked? What do you mean exactly?

    Of course I will not say where I live, because I do not want the CIA to come up and send me to an illegal prison and torture me, you see Bush is spying, so we have to be carefull

    Do you see any difference between Saddam and Bush? Which do you think was worse?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:50am

  382. B, reasonable as your moniker suggests.

    and speaking of ball, sorry, all the aged stars of Miami did squat in the last 5 minutes of the game, I change my prediction. Dallas in 6.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:51am

  383. Ponti, try to respond to what others actually say, not what you would like to attack.

    the deliberate targeting of a civilian population is and was a war crime. Coventry, London, Madrid, and yes Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all crimes against humanity. had the allies lost the war, the architects of these bombing campaigns would have been hanged as war criminals, and they knew it, even mentioned that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:54am

  384. George Bush never hestitated to throw out a phony Orange Terror Alert, and they tried before to find phony chemical weapons - trumpeted at first then repudiated - they try these things till they no longer work, then no more fake Iraqi mobile weapons labs or fake orange alerts come up. They merely took 2 bodies from a morgue - or just off the street, they blew them up, then they said it was Zarqawi.

    Right now you have the new Prime Minister of Iraq telling the terrorists in Iraq that he hates Americans, he says Americans are against God, because Americans are slaughtering innocent people every day. Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq says - to the terrorists in Iraq - that American troops are Satanic, because they are slaughtering innocent people every day. The racist US media also says today that $2500 payments to the bereaved are an Iraqi custom, or part of an Iraqi way of life.

    Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 09:55am

  385. PONTIFICUS

    Saddam whas put in power, financed and groomed by the US, so the US is a partner of this atrocities.

    Dresden, at the time the technology only allowed massive bombing, today you have the technology to be precise, why dont use it ?

    Have a nice day

    Posted by areyouok at 06/09/2006 @ 09:57am

  386. WMD in Iraq yes.

    You mean all those mass graves of Saddams were faked? The torture chambers were imaginary?

    changing subjects in midsentence.

    I wouldn't bring up the torture chambers now, as the US has been shown to have torture chambers in Iraq, and our puppet gov't is also implicated in torture.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 09:57am

  387. Posted by CPT 06/09/2006 @ 09:41am

    Maybe it is the benefit to Bush that this will have, i guess many of you have invested way too much time and effort into hating Bush that anything the benefits him is bad for you, HENCE. You (some)have "rationalized" the meaning of ZARAQAWIs death to a minimal impact.

    What a wonderful world you guys live in.

    In Leftyworld, the verdict is already in, and it has been in since he was first elected: Bush is wrong, impeach him.

    If Bush can't kill Zarqawi, it proves the charge. If Bush kills Zarqawi, then in Leftyworld, it cannot really be a victory at all. Ditto for Saddam.

    We're in Looking Glass land. Verdict first, trial later.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 09:57am

  388. Pontificus - I think you have taken the award for the most straw-man arguments in one post.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 09:58am

  389. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 09:57am

    I wouldn't bring up the torture chambers now, as the US has been shown to have torture chambers in Iraq, and our puppet gov't is also implicated in torture.

    God I love that false moral equivalence of America- and Bush-haters like you, Johannes. A few rogue Americans, later jailed for their crimes, are the moral equivalent of a modern fascist state which institutionalized murder, torture, and rape. Like I said, you're a chowderhead who doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 10:01am

  390. Posted by HMAN23 06/09/2006 @ 09:58am

    Pontificus - I think you have taken the award for the most straw-man arguments in one post.

    Perhaps you can cite a few.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 10:02am

  391. "Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, a former Marine and vocal critic of the military occupation of Iraq, immediately denounced "the Zarqawi massacre" and suggested that the F-16 pilot who dropped the bombs had snapped under pressure and murdered the al Qaeda leader "in cold blood."

    I'm reading this from the posting above and do not know for sure of it's authenticity. I didn't read Murtha's statement first hand; but if this is accurate and he did say this, are you kidding me?

    Is he really feeling sorry for Zarqawi? Is he really suggesting that the pilot wasn't following orders to kill a murderer in war but rather that the pilot "snapped under pressure" and the killing of Zarqawi was a cold blooded murder? What a moron.

    If I were a betting man, I would place an extremely large wager that the pilot was simply following orders to kill the bad guy. I seriously doubt if he "snapped under pressure".

    Good ridence Zarqawi. However, as I've always said, terrorists are like cockroaches; you can't just kill one and think you have defeated all of them, we should use the military equivalent of a bug bomb and kill them all.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/09/2006 @ 10:05am

  392. it has been in since he was first elected: Bush is wrong, impeach him.

    this is a lie. Bush had huge appro ratings, which included dems. so stop lying already.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:06am

  393. We have some of the very, very brightest, most intelligent of George Bushs defenders here this morning.

    Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 10:07am

  394. Todt, grrr, kill, kill

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:07am

  395. We have some of the very, very brightest, most intelligent of George Bushs defenders here this morning.

    NOT!

    nice ad hominem attacks Ponti. you got NOTHING so of course you have to resort to that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:09am

  396. Johanne,

    "Todt, grrr, kill, kill"

    Yes....

    Kill the terrorists....

    That's why it's called the war on terror.

    That's why we are STILL in Iraq, whether you like it or not.

    That's why we WON'T be leaving Iraq any time soon, whether you like it or not.

    We WILL be killing more people, most of them happen to be Arabs. Does that offend you?

    If it does, I suggest you GET OVER IT. This fact will not change.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/09/2006 @ 10:13am

  397. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 10:06am | ignore this person

    Actually, JOHANN, it's not a lie.

    I got onto a blog back in 2002...and they were already posting links to "impeachment website/petitions" over "Florida 2000".

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 10:14am

  398. Posted by AREYOUOK 06/09/2006 @ 09:57am

    Saddam whas put in power, financed and groomed by the US, so the US is a partner of this atrocities.

    Total leftist fantasy. Total crock of shit.

    Dresden, at the time the technology only allowed massive bombing, today you have the technology to be precise, why dont use it ?

    Idiotic statement. Yes, we have the technology to pinpoint a given house. We do not have the technology to discriminate individual occupants of that house.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 10:15am

  399. Pontificus - Although a dangerous man in his own right, Zarqawi has always been more of a political tool for Bush. That is why Bush elected NOT to take him out in 2002 when he could have at any time for almost a year. I will not deny that killing Zarqawi was a good achievement. I also will not claim that Zarqawi was "insignificant." However, I will claim that the significance of Zarqawi's death is being overblown by the administration for political and p.r. reasons.

    If Zarqawi's influence and role is as significant as you claim (and this represents another "turning point"), you have to deal with the inconsistency of Bush choosing NOT to eliminate him in 2002. For if Zarqawi IS as important to the outcome in Iraq as many like to think (which I do not), then the White House was either incompetent or was willing to sacrifice the lives of Zarqawi's victims to achieve political ends. The only other conclusion is that Zarqawi was not important enough to target in 2002 so his death should not be overblown today. Please reconcile this.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:16am

  400. Todd - the Murtha quote is not real (or is a quote taken from his comments on Haditha - as are the other "quotes" in Ponti's post). Pontificus was making a funny.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:20am

  401. We WILL be killing more people, most of them happen to be Arabs. Does that offend you?

    yes it does you racist. you take delight in killing. when you describe human beings as cockroaches that must be exterminated you follow in the inglorious footsteps of Goebbels and Hitler, in other words you have become them.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:24am

  402. Pontificus was making a funny.

    no, was attempting a funny, but really just lying, like the rest of his posts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:26am

  403. "yes it does you racist. you take delight in killing. when you describe human beings as cockroaches that must be exterminated you follow in the inglorious footsteps of Goebbels and Hitler, in other words you have become them."

    You are certainly free to your opinion of me, I can assure you I have formed my opinions on you as well.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/09/2006 @ 10:27am

  404. Mask, one blog? absurd. Bush had huge appro ratings, they did not come from Tories only, give it up, the facts are gainst you, and clearly so.

    touching the solidarity you show with the grr kill, kill crowd

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:28am

  405. Todt, why don't we let the rest of the people blogging here decide, they know who you are, and yes, they know who I am.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:30am

  406. Posted by HMAN23 06/09/2006 @ 10:16am

    Although a dangerous man in his own right, Zarqawi has always been more of a political tool for Bush. That is why Bush elected NOT to take him out in 2002 when he could have at any time for almost a year.

    I think this is a ridiculous premise. If one is willing to believe conspiracy theories such as this, practically anything is possible. Show some evidence that Bush could have taken out Zarqawi in 2002. I do believe that it has been shown that Clinton could have taken out bin Laden in the late 90's, but pure fecklessness, not deviousness, prevented it.

    The only other conclusion is that Zarqawi was not important enough to target in 2002 so his death should not be overblown today. Please reconcile this.

    If I accepted that your premise was true, this would be very difficult to reconcile. I don't accept the truth of the premise. Please provide some evidence that it is.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/09/2006 @ 10:32am

  407. Todd - Please. You only have so much energy. I suggest you save your resources protecting the sancity of your marriage. Or maybe preparing for the rapture. Maybe there is a Dynasty Tax repeal rally you can attend. Leave foreign policy to the adults.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:33am

  408. The moral equivilency argument of the LEFT:

    "There is NO difference between us and them"

    "Killing humans is killing humans, even if they are terrorists"

    It is a completely weak argument, that does not hold up to scrutiny.

    Why? Because we do not practice, that ridiculous standerd, we make distinctions between involuntary mansluaghter and Murder 1.

    Hence we can eradicate slimeball, disgusting,cockaroaches masquerading as terrorists, and feel good about it.

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 10:38am

  409. WHO HAPPEN TO BE ARABS

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 10:40am

  410. CPT, grr, kill, kill

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:44am

  411. Whoa! Its one of the marines.

    Are you really eradicating slimeball disgusting cockroaches?

    Youre a United States Marine - are you in Haditha sir?

    Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 10:45am

  412. I believe you said: Hence, we can continue to eradicate slimeball disgusting cockroaches.

    Is that what US Marines in Iraq like yourself do?

    Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 10:46am

  413. Wow, a real US Marine, in Iraq, posting here.

    Whats it like, sir? Thanks for fighting in vain sir.

    Are you really a Marine?

    Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 10:48am

  414. Pontificus -

    Conspiracy theory. Did you bother to read the full article you are posting on. Besides NBC, the 2002 decision is widely reported. Go do some reaearch yourself.

    Then answer my question. If you can.

    p.s. bringing up Clinton/bin Laden is a good example of a straw-man argument.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:49am

  415. Hey, arent you a man? I thought you were a US Marine.

    You said, hence we can continue to eradicate slimeball disgusting cockroaches in Iraq.

    You sound like a very powerful United States Marine in Iraq, why are you such a coward that you run away from me?

    Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 10:49am

  416. What is it like, sir, being sent to fight in vain in Iraq, and as you said, eradicate disgusting Iraqis as you said, US Marine sir?

    Posted by conshame at 06/09/2006 @ 10:50am

  417. has any Tory expressed the slightest regret at the death of the aforementioned child? NO!

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:51am

  418. Con, he's a very powerful marine in the homeland. that says it all.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:52am

  419. Johannes, Miami quit going inside to Shaq, hence their loss. The series will go to 7 games. Who will win? I have no idea. I'm rooting for Miami. Anyway, JT was on fire. He must be stopped. This thread is ten pages already. Can we conclude this thread dead. Moving on.....

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 10:52am

  420. K300K - 1 for 10 from the line didn't help.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:55am

  421. that's the beauty of the thing. to be a warrior you have to actually be where the war is fought. to be a pacifist, that you can do anywhere.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:55am

  422. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 10:28am | ignore this person

    No, merely pointing out that you were wrong, when you said that what HE said was a "lie".

    Sure, Bush had high approvals, but in 2002 (post Enron, post Patriot Act) they had shaken free to 65% and the other 35% were back onto "Florida 2000" and in the late fall of 2002, I saw a link to an "impeachment website" from a poster, with the explanation that "another recount shows Gore won it".

    The furor over them died down by 2004 and Dem primary season, but I definitely remember them BEFORE that.

    So there WAS a contingent of the Left who hated Bush and wanted him out of office WELL BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 10:56am

  423. to be a pacifist, that you can do anywhere.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 10:55am | ignore this person

    "anywhere" there's a "warrior" protecting you, that is!

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 10:56am

  424. this thread evidently is not dead.

    I digress, yess, in the last three minutes Miami folded. neither team was particularly inspiring, but that's the case often in super bowls too.

    I think it's Dallas' year, but it's too early to crow.

    one does not usually brag about being ten points down, but Dallas' 15 to 0 run was impressive.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:00am

  425. Mask, arm chair warriors are not protecting anyone.

    and from whom may I ask? Saddam? hahahaha

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:01am

  426. Massk, 65% appro? you all can just dream about that, it will never happen again for Chimpy and you Tories.

    the Bush haters thing is very shopworn, now that the numbers are reversed, and you're in the minority.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:04am

  427. Mask - who gives a shit? There was probably a "contigent" who wanted Bush out in Feb. '00 .... and (gasp) and impeachment website. Big deal.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:05am

  428. JOHANNE

    Then I would invite you to go spend some time ala the missionaries who went to EXPOSE US troops atrocites and end up being kidnapped by those, they went to "help"

    And WHO rescued the PACIFIST????

    The US FORCES.

    Your welcome

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 11:05am

  429. Pontificus?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:06am

  430. Joahnne

    I know the truth hurts

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 11:06am

  431. they're not protecting me, while in Iraq, on a fool's errand. quite the opposite.

    I would take one diplomat negotiating over a thousand warriors, but that's just me, a man who spent his childhood in a country devastated by war. I doubt any of the armchair warriors can say the same.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:07am

  432. does it hurt you?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:08am

  433. JOHANNE

    Your silly statements notwithstanding, you it IS easy to be a pacifists here, why dont you go there and advocate pacifism to ISLAMIC fundies??

    ??????

    Didnt think so, and ask yourself why that wouldnt be prudent

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 11:09am

  434. And WHO rescued the PACIFIST????

    only in your mind does that whitewash atrocities committed by US troops

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:09am

  435. JOHANNE

    Neville Chamberlain would be proud of you

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 11:09am

  436. Your silly statements notwithstanding, you it IS easy to be a warrior here, why dont you go there and advocate your war to ISLAMIC fundies??

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:10am

  437. the world has changed in the 70 years since Chamberlain. obviously these changes have passed you by.

    try JFK, who averted a nuclear exchange, with NEGOTIATION, against the advice of the chiefs.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:13am

  438. Odd how this news has brought out a bunch of wingers, who all seem to be screaming something along the lines of "In your FACE, Libs!" as if the left was somehow rooting for this Zarqawi cockroach to survive. You wingers, deep down, know as well as we do that the political left isn't rooting against the US, nor does it mourn that beast.

    Despite a justified sense of relief that Zarqawi has left this world, everyone, optimists and cynicists alike, should probably try to remember that this monster represented the head of an organization that 1) is a very small but very vocal group that hase been responsible for only a very small but very visible portion of the violence in Iraq and 2) is a decentralized organization specifically designed so that if one leader is lost, three spout in his place.

    More and greater challenges lie ahead for the US and for Iraq. Anyone who wishes peace for that very troubled corner of the world should mute their celebrations and keep their eye on the ball. Getting distracted by some sort of ritual dance around a corpse to score points against domestic political opponents isn't going to help make anyone safer, US troops and Iraqi citizens alike.

    Posted by BREASONABLE 06/09/2006 @ 09:47am

    It ws so good it bore posting again.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 11:14am

  439. JOHANNE

    Didnt have to go there to THEY brought to us; they started it, we will finish

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 11:17am

  440. That's probably a tough one I gave you Pontificus. See 'ya around.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:18am

  441. "Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, a former Marine and vocal critic of the military occupation of Iraq, immediately denounced "the Zarqawi massacre" and suggested that the F-16 pilot who dropped the bombs had snapped under pressure and murdered the al Qaeda leader "in cold blood."

    I'm reading this from the posting above and do not know for sure of it's authenticity. I didn't read Murtha's statement first hand; but if this is accurate and he did say this, are you kidding me?

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/09/2006 @ 10:05am

    Didn't even check to see that this was from a joke website and intended as satire... Just went off with useless observations and accusations about something that never happened.

    You're a worthless idiot, same as always.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 11:18am

  442. Role players for Miami did not step up. Dallas did a great job on Shakfu and made role players beat them. First quarter they did a good job --after that didn't show up. Miami's chances rest with the Heat players not names O'Neil and Wade. Avery Johnson doing a spectacular job preparing his team.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 11:21am

  443. JOHANNE

    JFK negotiated???? With a blockade, an act of war; dont think that the "negotiations" would have meant anything, without that STICK.

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 11:21am

  444. HMAN23 - I forgot about the atrocius free-throw shooting. Alright, alright the thread is "evidently" not dead. Continue....

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 11:22am

  445. he negotiated. the blockade without negotiations would have led to war. we have no shortage of sticks, what we lack is honest negotiators.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:23am

  446. The moral equivilency argument of the LEFT:

    "There is NO difference between us and them"

    "Killing humans is killing humans, even if they are terrorists"

    It is a completely weak argument, that does not hold up to scrutiny.

    Why? Because we do not practice, that ridiculous standerd, we make distinctions between involuntary mansluaghter and Murder 1.

    Hence we can eradicate slimeball, disgusting,cockaroaches masquerading as terrorists, and feel good about it.

    Posted by CPT 06/09/2006 @ 10:38am

    You terrified, bed-wetting child... Whatever would you do without some nebulous enemy to whitewash? Dozens of left posters here have disputed your characterizations of them, and still you blather on.

    What I find most amusing is that you guys all seem to walk in lockstep and spout the same whitewash gibberish about the nebulous "left".

    Such scared little rabbits you all are.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 11:24am

  447. I've always liked Avery Johnson. He's a very, very good coach and much deserving of his award. Ditto with the role players. Antione Walker makes me want to barf sometimes.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 11:25am

  448. Pssst...Guys? Shhhhh. They might be listening. They're very well connected, you know.

    Look...if we lefties all just back out of the room, very quietly, they'll never know we've gone. They'll keep the ranting going, keep ramping up their usually unused testosterone over the fact that we killed a man who had never been a threat to our country until we decided to invade the country in which he lived, and we can go talk about something useful in the other room.

    Shhhhhh.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:39am

  449. "...that does not mean every war is wrong."

    Uh, hate to point out the obvious, but are ANY wars right? (in an epistemic sense) I mean, the very fact that it happens does mean that someone is pretty fucked up, and hence, war of any sort is WRONG. Necesary, perhaps in some instances, but wrong nonetheless. Like this "Iraq debacle" fer instance...sold to us via BS as associated with 9/11, etc, etc. (Which of course was later retracted, and then later yet re-said.) A case of a war that was neither "right" (unless you infer right-wing), nor necessary.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 11:42am

  450. Eeeeeek! CPT is quoting Yoda now?

    The end is near!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 11:43am

  451. Innocent people die in wars----it is always a trajedy. The quote below is not meant to try to justify the war in Iraq (we can continue that argument at another time). It is being offered to those who think that there is never a reason for war.

    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 11:45am

  452. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/09/2006 @ 11:45am

    Again, a salient post, Len.

    Afghanistan, Taliban, Bin Laden - worth fighting against.

    Iraq - yeah, not so much.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 11:47am

  453. Not in the mood to argue about Iraq today---kind of had my full of it. However, there were many on the Left who opposed our efforts in Afghanistan. I remember the marches. I am sure that you were not one of them New Dawn. The quote was more for them.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 11:51am

  454. Thanks, Len, for not painting me with the big brush. I appreciate that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 11:52am

  455. hman,

    "Leave foreign policy to the adults."

    I can assure you Hman, I lobby my senators and congressmen to hear my opinion on foreign policy, your view of foreign policy is of no greater importance than mine, unlike the marriages of gay people according to over 20 state constitutions.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/09/2006 @ 11:56am

  456. New Dawn,

    "You're a worthless idiot, same as always."

    Hmmm, there goes the pot calling the kettle again. So I'm supposed to be tolerant of gays, but you obviously don't have to be tolerant of me...

    Interesting....

    Have you looked up the word hypocrisy in the dictionary lately New Dawn?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/09/2006 @ 11:58am

  457. That the best you got, minority-boy?

    You might want to look the word up before you accuse others of it. I do tolerate you, stupid. You can remain a worthless idiot and I'll still tolerate you.

    Have I ignored you yet? Why would I? You never cease to amooze me, like a clown.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 12:01pm

  458. Oh, and Todd, I would never suggest you move out of my state just because you're a worthless idiot, nor would I try to deny your marriage because of it.

    That would be bigoted of me.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 12:03pm

  459. In March Jody Casey, a US veteran of the war in Iraq, told Newsnight that when insurgents have let off a bomb, "you just zap any farmer that is close to you ... when we first got down there, you could basically kill whoever you wanted, it was that easy".

    On Sunday another veteran told the Observer that cold-blooded killings by US forces "are widespread. This is the norm. These are not the exceptions." There is powerful evidence to suggest that US soldiers tied up and executed 11 people - again including small children - in Ishaqi in March. Iraqi officers say that US troops executed two women and a mentally handicapped man in a house in Samarra last month. In 2004, US forces are alleged to have bombed a wedding party at Makr al-Deeb and then shot the survivors, killing 42 people. No one has any idea what happened in Falluja, as the destruction of the city and its remaining inhabitants was so thorough. Link [guardian.co.uk]

    It takes a real man.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 12:06pm

  460. "...that does not mean every war is wrong."

    Uh, hate to point out the obvious, but are ANY wars right? (in an epistemic sense) I mean, the very fact that it happens does mean that someone is pretty fucked up, and hence, war of any sort is WRONG. Necesary, perhaps in some instances, but wrong nonetheless. Like this "Iraq debacle" fer instance...

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/09/2006 @ 11:42am

    After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US, were we right to go to war against them?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/09/2006 @ 12:06pm

  461. John Stuart Mill was speaking more from a pragmatic approach than a philosophical approach - he presupposes the necessity of war.

    However, if mankind were to agree to solve all differences peacefully (clearly unlikely), then this approach (in my mind) would be more civil and more noble than, not uglier than, war.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/09/2006 @ 12:10pm

  462. A chilling report from the Boston Globe on Thursday reveals that the amount of cash the U.S. military has paid to families of Iraqi civilians killed or badly injured operations involving American troops "skyrocketed from just under $5 million in 2004 to almost $20 million last year, according to Pentagon financial data." The payments can range from several hundred dollars for a severed limb to a standard of $2500 for loss of life. http://tinyurl.com/ft8se

    $20 million/$2,500 = 8,000.

    War against terror-- or state terrorism?

    America-- constitutional republic or failed state?

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 12:14pm

  463. ILP

    Yes, wrong in an epistemic sense, necessary (that instance) yes as well.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 12:19pm

  464. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 06/09/2006 @ 12:14am

    ....I suppose next you're going to tell us that we are responsible for the same mass graves that Bush gave as a reason for having to depose the madman...???

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 12:28pm

  465. It's interesting that initial reports are never "accurate" in situations such as these. The number of casualties; whether there were any children; whether he was dead or alive when found; where he was found; what he did/said before dying; what/whose intelligence led the military to conclude his location. Since only one answer to these questions is the right in each case, why is it so hard to get them correct?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 12:30pm

  466. I repeat, not a word of regret at the death of a child.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:33pm

  467. Physics:After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US, were we right to go to war against them?

    I know it seems simple, but it wasn't. a state of war, from the japanese point of view, existed for four months before the attack. Japan attacked the colonial possession of the british and the americans, they claimed to be liberating brown and yellow skinned people. could this have been avoided? I don't know.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:38pm

  468. johanne,

    "I know it seems simple, but it wasn't. A state of war, from the Japanese point of view, existed for four months before the attack. Japan attacked the colonial possession of the British and the Americans; they claimed to be liberating brown and yellow skinned people. Could this have been avoided? I don't know."

    Oh my goodness...

    You are apologizing and creating excuses for WHY Japan attacked Pearl Harbor drawing the U.S. into the war.

    Just because from the "Japanese point of view" they were already involved in the war DOES NOT give them the right or justification for attacking us. When they did...it was on...and we were in our clear right to defend ourselves.

    Just as when terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9-11 we are in our right to defend ourselves by killing every last twit of a terrorist regardless of what country they hail from or we have to track them down in.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/09/2006 @ 12:47pm

  469. You are apologizing and creating excuses for WHY Japan attacked Pearl Harbor drawing the U.S. into the war.

    no, I'm not.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:51pm

  470. ....I suppose next you're going to tell us that we are responsible for the same mass graves that Bush gave as a reason for having to depose the madman...???

    Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 12:28am

    Thanks for letting me know what you suppose. That's really, really interesting.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 12:54pm

  471. to look at the opponents point of view is not apologizing or creating excuses, it is just what it is, looking at the opponent's point of view. you might try it sometime.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:55pm

  472. Just as when terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9-11 we are in our right to defend ourselves by killing every last twit of a terrorist regardless of what country they hail from or we have to track them down in.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 06/09/2006 @ 12:47am

    Hey, stupid.

    There were no terrorists in Iraq responsible for 9/11 at the time of 9/11. Our subsequent activities have drawn them there because now they can shoot at and kill U.S. troops directly.

    And before you think this justifies your "fight them there instead of here" argument, take a look at the world terrorism levels, including, most recently, the foiled Canada plot... ALL of the world's terrorists are not being drawn to Iraq...

    But there sure weren't any responsbile for 9/11 in Iraq before we went there.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 12:57pm

  473. Today the New York Times states something to the effect that the possible replacement for zarqawi has been in Iraq conducting terrorist ( suicide bombing ) training since 2002. Hmmmmmm....I thought that there were no ties to terrorists until the Evil Satan U.S. invaded a that peaceful country. These writers at the NYT screwed themselves with their own words! Beautiful!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 12:58pm

  474. Birdy,Nathan, we need to be very careful with sarcasm here, especially subtle sarcasm. we are so polarized, as is the country as a whole, that this is easily misunderstood. maybe with sarcasm, we need to lay it on real thick.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:58pm

  475. to look at the opponents point of view is not apologizing or creating excuses, it is just what it is, looking at the opponent's point of view. you might try it sometime.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 12:55am

    Didn't one of our wingers say something earlier about knowing the enemey and exploring their motives?

    I guess it's okay when they suggest it, but actually do it, and there's a problem...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 12:58pm

  476. Jason Terry was pretty great last night.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 12:58pm

  477. Todt=moloch

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 12:59pm

  478. enemy whoops

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 12:59pm

  479. Todt=moloch

    What?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:00pm

  480. Hmmmmmm....I thought that there were no ties to terrorists until the Evil Satan U.S. invaded a that peaceful country. These writers at the NYT screwed themselves with their own words! Beautiful!

    Posted by BARRY25 06/09/2006 @ 12:58am

    Sorry, Barry, you expose your ignorance yet again (and are on your way to setting a record for such exposure).

    My understanding (and everyone else's who's picked up a paper besides the NYT) was that there were indeed terrorist training camps in northern Iraq, outside of Saddam's control.

    This is not news.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:01pm

  481. Yeah, the group was called Ansar al-Islam, and they created a lot of havoc for the Kurds.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

  482. New Dawn, how would you or anyone on the face of this planet know " for sure " that there were no terrorists in Iraq that were responsible in one way or another for 9-11. Were the hijackers themselves the only ones responsible? Do you have a way of keeping track of the whereabouts of every terrorist affilliated with al qaeda at all times? Pathetic! How asinine can one person be! I could understand if you stated that you have seen no PROOF of terrorists involved in 9-11 being in Iraq. But to state it as fact, as if anyone knows for sure, is just plain STUPID! You lack any and all credibility with idiotic statements like that!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:04pm

  483. But there sure weren't any responsible for 9/11 in Iraq before we went there.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 06/09/2006 @ 12:57am

    Nor, come to think of it, are any of those responsible for 9/11 there now...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:04pm

  484. BARRY25: I can understand whay you're saying, but still . . . Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had very little in common ideologically other than that they hated the United States. The Baathists were secular while al-Qaeda is (obviously)religious in the extreme.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:06pm

  485. Sorry for the typo above.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:07pm

  486. I am curious to see who gets the 25 million. Will it end up in the hands of the insurgents?

    Posted by Hernova at 06/09/2006 @ 1:08pm

  487. Barry -

    I "know" what I state as "fact" the same way everyone else does who doesn't live in the Middle East. I read a dozen world newspapers and watch a half dozen news outlets for their coverage.

    Tell me, Barry, are you a Christian? How do you know that anything you believe is a "fact", by your definition of fact?

    Nice try at applying your warped double standard to knowlege of the facts surrounding world events...

    God, you are as dumb as a box of rocks. And still haven't sought that therapy I suggested, I see.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:08pm

  488. And by the by, I have never used the phrase "for sure".

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:09pm

  489. I was thinking that maybe an al-Qaeda member tipped off the United States. After all, Zarqawi and Bin Laden disagreed on a lot things, and maybe he (Bin Laden, that is) thought that Zarqawi was ruining al-Qaeda's "image", if there is such a thing.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:09pm

  490. Gertrude, you're absolutely right. But by paying the families of suicide bombers, saddam definitely showed he was willing to encourage and pay for the terrorist actions of religious fanatics ( from the religion of peace: Islam )even though he supposedly hated them. If he was willing to pay them, I'm sure he'd be willing to supply them if he had the weapons that clinton, the UN, kerry and many other dem's told us he had in 98'!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:10pm

  491. ....I suppose next you're going to tell us that we are responsible for the same mass graves that Bush gave as a reason for having to depose the madman...???

    Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 12:28am

    What's the definition of a mass grave, anyway? The 500 corpses, max, that they actually have, or the 400,000 claim made by Tony Blair. Smells like hyper-exaggeration on steroids, so far. It wouldn't surprise me if, in 40 years, we find out that the US killed more Iraqis in 3 years than Saddam did in 25 years. I'm more than willing to accept evidence, though. All I've seen, so far, are accusations and claims.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 1:11pm

  492. "I could understand if you stated that you have seen no PROOF of terrorists involved in 9-11 being in Iraq."

    Okay, here you go, little fella.

    I have seen no proof of terrorists involved in 9/11 being in Iraq, because there isn't any.

    Not to hear your dear leaders tell it, though...

    Thanks for exposing their lies for us.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:11pm

  493. BARRY25: I don't know . . . Why would he want to give valuable WMDs away to people he couldn't really trust? Also, don't insult the entire religion of Islam; yes, Muslims have done a lot of terrible things. But so have Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhits,secularists, etc.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:12pm

  494. ....I suppose next you're going to tell us that we are responsible for the same mass graves that Bush gave as a reason for having to depose the madman...???

    Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 12:28am

    And, who was it that has been encouraging armed revolts in Iraq since the early 70's, anyway? The good old USA. But we don't share any complicity in the resulting bloodshed?

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 1:13pm

  495. You are "sure" that there were no terrorists responsible for 9-11 in Iraq. How could you or anyone be sure of that? It's completely asinine given the fact that it would be impossible for anyone to know. Shit, they don't wear uniforms or carry ID's linking them to al qaeada. You're just full of hate, so you see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe.

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:13pm

  496. Posted by BARRY25 06/09/2006 @ 1:04pm

    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is faulty reasoning at best. Foreign policy cannot be conducted by demanding the world to prove a negative.

    Posted by breasonable at 06/09/2006 @ 1:14pm

  497. FRBIRD: That's not what I suppose. I just find it ironic that Bush's mission (now that wmd's did not exist) was to depose the madman who was responsible for the torture and killing of the good people of Iraq. But now, Bush has made the U.S. the owners of that franchise.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 1:14pm

  498. Did I miss something between these two statements, both made by those on the Left?---

    1. "Saddam had no ties to Al Queda; he and they hated each other"

    and

    2. "Zarqawi, a member of Al Queda, was operating a lab in Iraq in 2002 and Bush negated strike plans from the military to take him out THEN, so he'd have his excuse for invading".

    So, isn't that a bit contradictory?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 1:15pm

  499. FROMREDBIRD: But I think the United States was right in encouraging rebellions against Saddam. I think it was equally right for America to help the Tibetans fight the Chinese and the Eastern Europeans revolt against the Soviets. In fact, we should have done more of this in the Cold War, instead of aiding and supporting dictators like Pinochet, Suharto, etc.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:16pm

  500. I was thinking that maybe an al-Qaeda member tipped off the United States. After all, Zarqawi and Bin Laden disagreed on a lot things, and maybe he (Bin Laden, that is) thought that Zarqawi was ruining al-Qaeda's "image", if there is such a thing.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 1:09pm

    Reports from April indicate that Zarqawi had been "demoted" within al-Qaeda. Huthayfah Azzam, son of Abdullah Azzam, the mentor of both Osama bin Laden and Mr. Zarqawi, said Zarqawi was stripped of his political duties two weeks ago due to concerns that his actions were hurting the Iraqi insurgency's support in the Arab world. http://tinyurl.com/g2v94

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 1:18pm

  501. Lets put all this moral equvilency, stuff to rest, about understanding our enemy and their motives.

    Thats all well and fine, but in the words of the Irish terrorist Micheal Collins:

    "If you have to target innocents to further your cause, then your cause is NOT just"

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 1:20pm

  502. FROMREDBIRD: Thanks for the info . . . But still, Zarqawi was a popular person among jihadists, and maybe Bin Laden felt a little bit insecure about his influence over his followers. After all, it is suspected that bin Laden was behind the murder of his own mentor, Abdullah Azzam, back in 1989.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:20pm

  503. hiya Gertie, yes Terry was good.

    Todt=moloch. Todt, the death guy, who wants nought but to kill, kill

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

  504. No, Mask. Are you being a dipshit on purpose? Zarqawi's labs were in the protected-from-Saddam area that was the Norther No-fly zone.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

  505. CPT: "If you have to target innocents to further your cause, then your cause is NOT just". I agree.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:22pm

  506. On a related note, Ayman al-Zawahiri recently praised his muslim brothers in Sudan, and called U.N. officials part of a Zionist-Crusader plot.

    I just love how those on the left claim Sunni extremism is a product of America's foreign policy.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 06/09/2006 @ 1:22pm

  507. MASK

    How many times have i told you? Stop with all that logical stuff

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 1:22pm

  508. I agree that all religions have done terrible things. There is no comparison, though, between all other religions and islam today. I'm talking about the here and now. I don't believe that all muslims are bad people. I believe that the majority are good people of faith. They do, however, have a responsiblility and obligation to weed out those scumbag extremists who have hijacked their religion. They have not done this and therefore they are complicit in the actions of the extremists. Unless the media is just covering it up, I have not seen many if any examples of muslims in this country or anywhere else turning in those who preach jihad at thier mosques! You cannot tell me that many peaceful muslims have not been aware of pending attacks and yet have done nothing to stop it! One example would be of the muslim child in school in NY who was staring out the window at the trade center and told his teacher that those buildings won't be standing soon! How did he know? This was a story reported on the history channel's " inside 9-11".

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:23pm

  509. JOHANNESROLF: "Todt=moloch. Todt, the death guy, who wants nought but to kill, kill" Okay . . .

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:23pm

  510. BARRY25: You have to realize, though, that when al-Qaeda or any of the other Islamist groups launch attacks in the Islamic world, it is usually Muslims who suffer the most. I don't think they are complicit . . . I just think that al-Qaeda is a secretive group and usually doesn't let their intentions be known to a wide group of people, Muslims included.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:25pm

  511. NATHANHALE

    No fly zones, were not legal according to many here?

    No fly doesnt mean no walk, he had ground forces, if you choose to believe that SADDAM would allow anyone in his country that he did not know about, with his gestapo like secret police, then your fooling yourself.

    Especially since he SO HATED islamic fundies

    Posted by CPT at 06/09/2006 @ 1:26pm

  512. ZEDDMEN: It's funny you mention Sudan. Bin Laden is not very popular with the Sudanese government anymore, and al-Zawahiri criticized that same government in a recently released video tape.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:27pm

  513. FROMREDBIRD: But I think the United States was right in encouraging rebellions against Saddam. I think it was equally right for America to help the Tibetans fight the Chinese and the Eastern Europeans revolt against the Soviets. In fact, we should have done more of this in the Cold War, instead of aiding and supporting dictators like Pinochet, Suharto, etc.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 1:16pm

    The point is, are you willing to share responsibility for the resulting violence? How can you give someone a gun to go murder someone else then scream "murder" when the person you sent gets killed?

    Second point: the arms the US provided were never to replace dictators with democracy. The purpose was to undermine the dictators who weren't "our" dictators. The US has never had compunctions about supporting armed revolt against democracies either.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 1:29pm

  514. Barry - You are an idiot. I have no proof that YOU were not involved in 9/11.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:29pm

  515. If you have to kill innocents to further your cause, then your cause is NOT just"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:30pm

  516. [i]I just think that al-Qaeda is a secretive group and usually doesn't let their intentions be known to a wide group of people, Muslims included.[/i]

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 1:25pm

    There is nothing secretive about Al-Qaeda, everybody knows who they are and what their goals are. I mean really, they've released more direct to video than Jean Claude Van Damme.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 06/09/2006 @ 1:30pm

  517. Birdy you're right about that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:31pm

  518. FROMREDBIRD: Hence why I brought up Pinochet and Suharto. Let's say that the United States had the best intentions in aiding a resistance group to fight a dictator. Would you support such an effort then?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

  519. CPT, how ignorant do you want to play on no-fly zones? The war in Iraq is illegal to many of the people here, but that doesn't mean we're not neck-deep in it (well, not you or me, of course). How was the madman going to take out Zarqawi, when it took the Bushman so long to do it?

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

  520. CPT,No fly doesnt mean no walk, he had ground forces,

    those ground forces would have been attacked by our air forces and the Pesh merga, Saddam left them alone up there

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:33pm

  521. ZEDDMEN : I'm not saying their goals aren't well-known. What I am saying is that there specific plans for attack aren't just given away freely to whoever asks. It would be pretty awesome if they did, though.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:33pm

  522. You're just full of hate, so you see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe.

    Posted by BARRY25 06/09/2006 @ 1:13pm

    Say that in a mirror, little fella.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:37pm

  523. "I think it was equally right for America to help the Tibetans fight the Chinese and the Eastern Europeans revolt against the Soviets."

    there was precious little there. indigenous rebellion were mostly sold out by the US, that includes the tibetans, the Chechens, etc. eastern europe mostly liberated itself.

    that does not mean the US did not have their bright moments, the Berlin airlift for instance. yet when the wall was built in Berlin, they did nothing. I was in germany at that time and we were astonished and disappointed to say the least.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:38pm

  524. NEW DAWN and BARRY25: Enough with the personal attacks. I'm getting a headache.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:38pm

  525. Gertrude, c'mon, you and I both know that jihad was and is being preached in Mosques in this counrty daily. They have even taken to the streets of NY holding up signs showing a nuclear bomb hitting israel. You seem very rational, which is refreshing, but let's be real here! And yes, innocent muslims are very often the victims of those who have hijacked their religion! One way they can stop it, though, is to stand up to it.

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:39pm

  526. ZEDDMEN: It's funny you mention Sudan. Bin Laden is not very popular with the Sudanese government anymore, and al-Zawahiri criticized that same government in a recently released video tape.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 1:27pm

    Where is the outrage by Sunnis about genocide being carried out in the Sudan, terrorist attacks against Shias in Pakistan, or attacks against Buddists in Thailand? Nothing of which has to do with the U.S..

    As far as al-Zawahiri's lastest tape, you can find it at the BBC website.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 06/09/2006 @ 1:40pm

  527. JOHANNESROLF: I think with the Berlin Wall the United States didn't directly intervene because our leaders at the time were fearful about the possibility of a nuclear war. I'm not making excuses, but I think that the U.S. government (rightly or wrongly) was acting in its own best interest at the time.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:41pm

  528. Gert -

    This guy has been launching personal attacks and nothing but since he got here. I'm sick of it.

    I often post long and detailed posts with nothing personal in them at all.

    Use your ignore function if you don't like my posts, but don't you dare suggest that I censor what I'm saying.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:41pm

  529. Barry posts:

    "I agree that all religions have done terrible things. There is no comparison, though, between all other religions and islam today. I'm talking about the here and now. I don't believe that all muslims are bad people. I believe that the majority are good people of faith. They do, however, have a responsiblility and obligation to weed out those scumbag extremists who have hijacked their religion. They have not done this and therefore they are complicit in the actions of the extremists."

    Do you also rail against Christian extremists?

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:44pm

  530. BARRY25 and ZEDDMEN : Oh, I wish that Muslims would say more about the genocide in the Sudan, and I don't doubt the fact that there are many Islamic extremists. However, I don't think that all the extremists are necessarily working in concert. For instance, the terrorist campaigns being waged in Chechnya and Palestine are just as nationalistic as they are religious, while al-Qaeda and its allies seem to be motivated equally by politics and religion.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:45pm

  531. FROMREDBIRD: Hence why I brought up Pinochet and Suharto. Let's say that the United States had the best intentions in aiding a resistance group to fight a dictator. Would you support such an effort then?

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

    I might if it was a certifiably, egregious dictator and the prospects were for a quick, successful resolution with a limited amount of bloodshed. There actually would have to be major murder taking place for me to be in favor of that. Interestingly, the one case where that was evident recently was Rwanda (1 million murdered?) which the US didn't want to have anything to do with. We chose to focus on Saddam. Total corpses so far: 500.

    I think, however, that diplomatic and economic isolation could work in most cases.

    Speaking of Rwanda . . . just viewed recently Rwanda Hotel and Sometimes in April. Both good unless drama, misery, fear, and horror turn you off. Too bad it's so common in the real world.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 1:47pm

  532. NEW DAWN: I like your posts, and I'm not saying you should censor what you write. What I am saying, though, is that the debate becomes somewhat muddled with all the personal attacks. Other than that, I have no problem with what you write.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:48pm

  533. "Don't you dare" Gertrude! Just kidding, I'll try to tone it down for you!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:49pm

  534. FROMREDBIRD : I agree that we should have stepped in in Rwanda. I also believe that we were right to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo, though I don't agree necessarily with some of the tactics we used.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:49pm

  535. BARRY25: Thank you, kind sir (or mam).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:50pm

  536. Yeah Liberty - Bush identified the goal so clearly that he did not even have to use the word "democracy" once - amazing!!

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:50pm

  537. This guy has been launching personal attacks and nothing but since he got here. I'm sick of it.

    I often post long and detailed posts with nothing personal in them at all.

    Use your ignore function if you don't like my posts, but don't you dare suggest that I censor what I'm saying.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 06/09/2006 @ 1:41pm

    Why don't you just ignore him?

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 1:51pm

  538. Gertrude -

    I meant no disrespect, but you don't appear to have been here long enough to understand why I finally, yesterday, abandoned any semblance of civility with this guy and his ilk (Aludra, FukLibz, Libzsuk, etc.).

    Their sole purpose here is to muddle any real debate with nothing but left-hate.

    I've just had enough and have chosen to fight fire with fire. They don't understand or accept anything else.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:51pm

  539. Fromredbird -

    My only ignore listees so far are Rese, Plunger, and Mask, all for the same thing...

    Wasting too much screen space.

    But you're right, maybe I should.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:52pm

  540. I think with the Berlin Wall the United States didn't directly intervene because our leaders at the time were fearful about the possibility of a nuclear war

    er, no. Russia would never have gone to war over Berlin. the wall was a bluff, a successful one. I realize opinions may vary here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:52pm

  541. Oh, you meant ignore me!

    LOL No sweat off my back, babe!

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:52pm

  542. NEW DAWN: I know what you mean when your talking about FukLibz and his/her buddies. But with BARRY25, well, I don't think he/she is any where near as crazy as those listed above. But, whatever. I meant no offense.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:53pm

  543. Gertie, Birdy, I think a good example of engagement is South Africa.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:53pm

  544. JOHANNESROLF: I'm not saying we were right . . . I just think that was what the American government's frame of mind was at the time.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

  545. actually he is just as nasty insulting and yes, crazy

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

  546. Ya, like timothy mcviegh. That scumbucket lowlife and all the abortion clinic bombers are christian nuts. They are in jail or dead with no network of support. They are, in no way, however, comparable to islamic extremists and their networks and actions. NO COMPARISON WHATSOEVER. If there ever is a time when Christians start terrorizing the world , beheading, targeting and blowing up innocent women and children, then I will absolutely RAIL against them. Until then, let's focus on the REAL perpetrators of terror!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

  547. JOHANNESROLF: Yeah, we (the United States as well as the rest of the world) should have done more to make those racists in South Africa get rid of the apartheid systm.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:55pm

  548. Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 1:53pm

    Now I know you haven't seen enough of this guy's posts yet...

    And don't let his false concern for your feelings fool ya. He's patronizing you. And I'm not entirely convinced that this is just another of Fuklibz' alter egos. They do respond interchangeably for one another...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 1:56pm

  549. no newdawn, he did not mean ignore you.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/09/2006 @ 1:56pm

  550. FROMREDBIRD : I agree that we should have stepped in in Rwanda. I also believe that we were right to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo, though I don't agree necessarily with some of the tactics we used.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 1:49pm

    I recoiled at the damage done to Serbia but you can't sit by while people are being systematically slaughtered. That was the case in Bosnia. Not so sure about Kosovo which is when the heavy bombing by the US started. I suspect that there was a policy decision made to beat the crap out of a small country to up our stature and Kosovo was the excuse. I may be underinformed about the extent of the prior bloodshed in Kosovo, though. I've never taken the time to look at it in detail. At the time I was too busy to even read the newspaper.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 1:57pm

  551. BARRY25: I agree that the Christian extremists in America are no where near as deadly as the Islamic extremists elsewhere. However, there are Chrisitan extremists in other parts in the world who have caused a lot damage. Take for the instance the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 1:58pm

  552. FROMREDBIRD: Wasn't Slobadon Milosevich committing the same types of atrocities in Kosovo that he had done in Bosnia? I might be wrong here; I'm not an expert on the Balkans in any stretch of the imagination (or any other region, for that matter).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

  553. Oh, you meant ignore me!

    LOL No sweat off my back, babe!

    Posted by NEW DAWN 06/09/2006 @ 1:52pm

    No. I meant you ignore the neo-fascist, ingrown toenail.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

  554. Posted by LOVELOKI 06/09/2006 @ 1:56pm

    You are such a sweetheart, Loki. I mean that. Thanks!

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

  555. johannesrolf, i am sad that any more innocents have died. children or adults. redbird's posts about the killing of innocents are what i have suspected to be true for quite some time now.

    why didn't we try to capture the guy? he was in an isolated area, right?

    Posted by loveloki at 06/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

  556. Ingrown toenail!

    BWAHahahahahahaaaa

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

  557. Liberty, I just love the leap you take. Have you ever seen me argue that this is the only war in which war crimes have occurred? What you may have seen me argue is that the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11 was "Here's our chance to get Saddam".

    My statement is meant to insult Bush and people of his mindset who proffered a vision of setting Iraq free but were heedless of the inevitable atrocities of war, and, further, clueless about the possibility of what happens when a nation slips into civil war (read, for example, "Love thy Neighbor" by Peter Maass). I do not suggest that veterans are war criminals because of their status of being veterans. I rather suggest that the war criminals are those (read, Bush) who said that war in Iraq was a last resort, knowing full well that war as a last resort was not the policy.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 2:01pm

  558. NEW DAWN: I'm sorry, I am new here. But still. Not to be corny or anything, but, "Can't we all just get along?"

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:01pm

  559. Fromredbird and Loki -

    I wondered the same thing, in retrospect...

    The military men are saying that this was the first time they were 1000% percent sure where Zarqawi was... I wonder why they couldn't have surrounded and isolated he and his cohorts inside, then captured them (or at least tried to do so)?

    Seems like swatting a fly with an elephant, dropping not one, but two five-hundred pounders on them...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 2:03pm

  560. Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 2:01pm

    We sane people can... ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 2:04pm

  561. Gertie, Birdy, I think a good example of engagement is South Africa.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 1:53pm

    It is and it was initiated and happened because the International Longshoremens union refused to unload South African ships. What does that tell us about America's political nomenclatura?

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 2:04pm

  562. On to serious matters: the World Cup. If the United States loses, I've found a way to come up with another country to root for: just pick the country you'd most like to travel to. In my case, it's Brazil. If anyone chooses Poland, you're crazy (no offense to the Poles or anything).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:04pm

  563. Todd

    ...Just as when terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9-11 we are in our right to defend ourselves by killing every last twit of a terrorist regardless of what country they hail from...

    Of course this still leaves at issue why we went to Iraq then....

    And in Iraq, how do they tell the "terrorists" from insurgents I wonder? Wait, I know! They ask them for their union cards before they shoot them!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 2:05pm

  564. Liberty - But Bush did mention weapons six times; terrorists (four times); threat (four times); and disarm (three times); as well as Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

    Gertrude - please, pease ... stop trying to have a rational discussion with posters like Barry. There are plenty of folks from the right if you want intelligent dialogue. Barry is a dead-ender.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:06pm

  565. Yes, you are correct. But again, you are only muddying up the debate by bringing these examples of christian wrongdoing, terror, or whatever into it. It is not comparabl;e! We both agree that all religions have blood on their hands as do secularists. None of them are causing anything NEAR the amount of horrific pain and devastation to the world, as a whole, as islamic terrorist are today! NO COMPARISON! So bringing other religions into this debate is futile and basically a non-issue! All religions AND secularism are dangerous! History has proven that! But, c'mon, you're comparing apples to oranges!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:06pm

  566. Gertie, you may have misunderstood me as far as South Africa goes. I think that was our success story.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:06pm

  567. JOHANNESROLF: Oh, I'm sorry.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:07pm

  568. I'm down on Poland, secret Cia prisons turn me off. as the world cup goes on, we'll find a surprising underdog to root for.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:09pm

  569. Johannesrolf, you deserve an award for continuing to rebut the losers who ... well ... I guess the argument is, if you point out the shocking escalation in terrorism in Iraq and the complete lack of any benefit to ordinary citizens of the removal of Saddam, then you hate the USA.

    It's such a stupid argument it makes my head spin trying to think of a reply. So I will continue to depend on you.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/09/2006 @ 2:10pm

  570. BARRY25: My whole point to this is that I don't think Islamic terrorism is as monolithic as reported. Do I think it is a very, very, serious problem? Absolutely. Hey, I was alive when 9/11 happened too, and I have not forgotten it in the slightest. But, I believe that the jihadist movement is more fractured and divided ideologically than some would like to admit.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:10pm

  571. gertrude, the fighting and arguing on this particular thread is nothing. sometimes people come pretty close to meeting each other somewhere to physically fight. i think it's all funny. just another amusing aspect of the nation blog. there have been quite a few who couldn't stand it anymore and left. remember frank thomas anyone? or lennonist? there have been lots of others.

    anyway gertrude, welcome and i hope u stick around.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/09/2006 @ 2:10pm

  572. my beloved grandma was named Gertrude Bedenk. Bedenk could be translated as: think!

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:11pm

  573. FROMREDBIRD: Wasn't Slobadon Milosevich committing the same types of atrocities in Kosovo that he had done in Bosnia? I might be wrong here; I'm not an expert on the Balkans in any stretch of the imagination (or any other region, for that matter).

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

    I have a vague impression that they were significantly less in Kosovo but as I said I haven't looked closely enough to form a solid opinion. Then, of course, there's the gas pipeline through Albania and the huge US military base being built to protect it. Quid Pro Quo for Albanian cooperation?

    I have to go now.

    Posted by fromredbird at 06/09/2006 @ 2:11pm

  574. Milosevic was a lowlife scumbucket! Funny thing is, the left had no problem with clinton taking him down without approval of congress or the UN. They had no problem with clinton bombing innocent women and children in his attack on milosevic( probably because they were christian: also see: WACO and Ruby Ridge ). Seems a little hypocritical to me!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:11pm

  575. JOHANNESROLF: It seems like a lot Eastern Europe/Russia is a mixture of an industrial city where all the companies have left and Nebraska. I know I'm making a lot of sweeping generalizations here, but from what I've seen on Frontline and other shows about the area, well, it looks pretty depressing.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:12pm

  576. BARRY25: Hey, I'm of the "left" (whatever that means), and I had a big problem with Ruby Ridge and Waco. And like I said, I didn't agree with some of the tactics Clinton used in Kosovo or Bosnia.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:14pm

  577. Paradigm, that kind message is award enough for me, thank you. and thank you all.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:16pm

  578. Barry

    You really gonna bring the lawbreakers at Waco into this? Bunch of fundyvangelist nutjobs with illegal automatic wepons and explosives refuse to open the door to a federal warrant...then set themselves on fire and shoot each other. What kind of comparison is that to anything here? Oh, wait, that's right - easy to compare them to the fundyvangelist Muslims who wail and beat themsleves with chains.

    Guess there is a comparator...just not the one you were looking for.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 2:18pm

  579. By the way everybody, I just want to clarify something: my name isn't really Gertrude. You see, Gertrude is really my grandma, and she has a subscription to the Nation. She lets me use her subscription to access some of the "restricted" features on this sight. I hope I'm not creeping anybody out! It's not my intention.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:18pm

  580. LEFTOFCENTER: Please. A lot of the people who died at Waco were children.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:19pm

  581. Sorry for the "sight" typo. It's supposed to be site.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:20pm

  582. gertrude, how would that creep anyone out?

    Posted by loveloki at 06/09/2006 @ 2:20pm

  583. you should see the former east germany. I read Der Spiegel on line, and the reports from there are scary, but I think germany will prevail.

    I will tell this tale one more time for newcomers. when west germany absorbed east germany, overnight, whether they wanted to or not, the result was the largest transfer of assets in the history of the world. they ruined their economic miracle in the process.

    my point is, imagine if the US had undertaking something like that, what a country we would have and leave for our children. BEDENK

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:20pm

  584. LOVELOKI: I don't know . . . I'm a guy using my grandmother's name. Isn't that just a little bit creepy?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:21pm

  585. Anyone still here?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:24pm

  586. Gertrude,

    Note Barry's 2:11pm for two things: first, Ruby Ridge was under Bush I's administration; second, conflating "the left" with "anything done by a democrat or, in particular, Clinton". This inability to keep to the point, make accurate counterpoints, and understanding our point of view largely makes Barry's participation on this site a waste of space.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:25pm

  587. Gertie, so we have something in common.good

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:25pm

  588. On to serious matters: the World Cup. If the United States loses, I've found a way to come up with another country to root for: just pick the country you'd most like to travel to. In my case, it's Brazil. If anyone chooses Poland, you're crazy (no offense to the Poles or anything).

    Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    I'd love to go to Holland, wooden shoe?

    Posted by cliffy at 06/09/2006 @ 2:27pm

  589. TJBEHRENS1: I didn't know Ruby Ridge took place under Bush 1 . . . Whoops. JOHANNESROLF: Yeah, I guess.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:28pm

  590. CLIFFY: Ha Ha! I get it.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:29pm

  591. What do any of you think the United States in particular and the world in general should do about the genocide in Darfur?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:30pm

  592. Hello?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:32pm

  593. Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person

    So because he couldn't FLY there....he was powerless to stop Al Zarqawi from living there?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 2:33pm

  594. liberty, the building was on TV from the first. east germany was losing thousands of their citizens, who were using Berlin to flee that country. that was the reason for the wall. I will look at that site and report back to you.

    warning: book recommendation: THE DIVIDED NATION, a history of Germany 1918-1990, Mary Fulbrook, Oxford University Press,1992

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:33pm

  595. Posted by GERTRUDE 06/09/2006 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person

    Actually GERT, I can make a few points on why we should NOT go into Darfur...

    1. Sudan "has no WMDs."

    2. Sudan "didn't attack us on 9/11."

    3. Omar Al-Bashir "may be a "bad guy", but that doesn't justify invading his country."

    4. "We have" Sudan "contained, so they may be a threat to their own people, but not to their neighbors".

    5. "We'll just end up creating more terrorists if we go into" Darfur.

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 2:36pm

  596. Any takers on the Darfur question? If not, that's cool.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:36pm

  597. I'm sorry for my last post. I posted it accidentally after MASK.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:37pm

  598. Dang, GERTRUDE. Are there any other women on this site. Come on, I won't tell anybody. I'm not into soccer much though, but I'll root for the U.S. Then when they get knocked out, I guess I'll root for Paraguay. Side note: I had always remembered WACO being on Clinton's watch since so many conservatives use that against Clinton. Wow, memory can be fleeting.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:37pm

  599. Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 2:33pm

    You're right. We really should have expected Saddam to do the right thing and expel from his country a guy we thought was bad. Saddam was really a great disappointment as a head of state, wasn't he? Such potential for using his rage against those we disliked. If only we couldn't have found more common enemies we might just still have the beautiful relationship we began in the early '80s.

    Sighhhh....

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:38pm

  600. I think we should have gone to Darfur instead of Iraq. Would have been worth it then, IMO.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:38pm

  601. Darfur? organize a coalition of african states, similar to Nato in the former yugoslavia, and support them sending in peacekeeping troops. get the UN involved and supporting them, instead of constantly attacking them, that would be a start.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

  602. K330K: You must have missed what I said earlier . . . I'm not really a woman. Sorry!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

  603. Waco was a Clinton/Reno affair. Ruby Ridge took place in August 1992.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

  604. Tongue in cheek, eh Mask.:)

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

  605. JOHANNESROLF: Yeah, that sounds like a good plan. However, wouldn't China and Russia try to derail a U.N. intervention?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:40pm

  606. Mask, can you ever be serious, instead of using every topic and every argument as a club? nah

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 2:41pm

  607. GERTRUDE: I got it. I was just a little disappointed that you were not a woman. Other than that, you are cool as hell. Like your posts.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:41pm

  608. K330K: Oh, sorry. Thanks for the compliments, by the way.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:42pm

  609. Johannes: Wasn't that approach taken in Rwanda, or no?

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:42pm

  610. GERTRUDE: I was just a little disappointed that you were not a woman. Other than that, you're cool as hell. Like your posts too.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:43pm

  611. Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:43pm

  612. Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:44pm

  613. K330K: The U.N. had forces on the ground, but the higher ups wouldn't let them intervene.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:44pm

  614. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/09/2006 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person

    Oh well, my mistake again.

    GERTRUDE: I did get it. I was just a little disappointed. Other than that you're cool as hell.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:45pm

  615. Please ignore last post. I was on the wrong page and was wondering why I couldn't see my postings. Duh-duh-uh. My bad.

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:46pm

  616. Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 2:33pm Tell you what, mask...when you stop trying to mask the facts, I'll take up the debate. Meanwhile, maybe you'll explain to me why the Bush administration skipped three opportunities to take Zarqawi out...(but you probably won't).

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 2:50pm

  617. Anyone moron Right wingers ever heard of Israel? Look no further to see what long-term effect killing terrorist leaders has...

    Posted by rmjlattanzi at 06/09/2006 @ 2:50pm

  618. Do you think they would be allowed to intervene this time? Besides, why aren't conservatives so upset about the situation in Darfur since they always bring up the mass murders committed during Saddam's reign?

    Posted by k330k at 06/09/2006 @ 2:51pm

  619. Who's better: Bob Dylan or Neil Young? I like Dylan from 1959-1979; since then it's been a series of ups and downs. As for Young, I like his Crazy Horse stuff better than his country-rock (though that's pretty good too). I guess what I'm trying to say is, I like both of them a lot, but both are musically flawed in some way.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:51pm

  620. The issue with Darfur, I think, is that it has to be an international effort and we're doing our darnedest to unplug the ability of our international body to work together on such "projects". I think it could end up being disastrous if the US (particularly under these knuckleheads) decided to lead the charge to Khartoum. But with Bolten as our liaison to the world, we're on our way to becoming as internationally popular as Cheney is popular throughout this country.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 2:52pm

  621. K330K: I have no idea why conservatives aren't more upset about Darfur: I wish they would be. As for the U.N., I still think they are afraid to get involved into a major conflicts.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:53pm

  622. TJBEHRENS1: Yeah, if the U.S. get involved alone in Darfur it would be disatrous. But if there is going to be some international effort to stop the genocide, the U.S. has to play a major role in some capacity.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 2:54pm

  623. It was nice talking to you all again. I might be back later today, but if not, adios.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 3:02pm

  624. Gertie

    don't intend to demean the deaths of children in Waco, it was the wingnut using it for a comparison that I was going to...besides, they killed themselves, which is sad....but hardly germane to the thread.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 3:09pm

  625. LVLIBERTY1: All right, I've got one more post; then I've got to go. Yeah, Dylan's stuff with the Band before they were the Band is pretty awesome. If you haven't already, check out either the Royal Albert Hall concert CD or the Basement Tapes. It's some of the best music I've ever heard. Alright, sorry I can't stay longer. Bye!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 3:14pm

  626. Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 2:50pm

    If we are to believe the HUGE importance of this guy to what is happening in Iraq, a good question, and a hard thing to reconcile.

    I posed the same question earlier to Pontificus (at 10:16); his response was that the 2002 decision is a "wild conspiracy theory". And still has not attempted to reconcile things.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 3:25pm

  627. "Anyone moron Right wingers ever heard of Israel? Look no further to see what long-term effect killing terrorist leaders has..."

    Yes...

    That's my point. you can't just kill SOME terrorist leaders, one must kill ALL terrorist leaders.

    terrorists = cockroaches

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/09/2006 @ 3:31pm

  628. Posted by HMAN23 06/09/2006 @ 3:25pm

    To some degree, I appreciate the lack of "Woohoo! We killed that som-bitch!" (See CPT for such mindless cheerleading) on the part of the president and military personnel who have spoken about the death of Zarqawi. Perhaps they are tired. Perhaps they are learning that there might not actually ever be another moment when we can mount a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" without that nasty, nagging feeling in their guts.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 3:38pm

  629. HMAN, has anyone posted a plausible theory as to why Zarqawi was not taken out? Could it actually be possible that, for Bush and the neocons, he was more valuable alive?

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 3:39pm

  630. TJ -

    Bush was saying today (was it yesterday?) that now military forces can spend more time looking for other bad guys, including Bin Laden.

    Everyone please forgive me that I'm bothered it's taken four years and more than one claim that "he doesn't matter anymore" for the Pres to get behind that action...

    Just an observation...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 3:40pm

  631. Nathan -

    Like Saddam used to be when he was photographed smiling and shaking Rummy's hand?

    Perish the thought, or be called unAmerican for even thinking such a thing!

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 3:42pm

  632. Liberty, wasn't Gen. Tommy Franks in charge when Osama slipped through the fingers of the best Afghan militias at Tora Bora? Oh, but it was so long ago, my memory could be faulty...

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 3:47pm

  633. Interesting how two 500 pound bombs that left craters somehow leave an intact body.... So why not capture Z for interrogation at Gitmo?? We caught Saddam in his "safe house". Just wondering.

    Posted by Skoal at 06/09/2006 @ 3:47pm

  634. New Dawn, unAmerican, as in, it would be unAmerican to think that Bush stole the 2004 election in Ohio...or the 2000 election in Florida?

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 3:50pm

  635. Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 3:50pm

    Precisely! ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 3:55pm

  636. Or pointing out when the misadministration says one thing, then later changes its story.

    Very unAmerican.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 3:57pm

  637. Liberty-

    From the WSJ:

    Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who was in the White House as the National Security Council's director for combating terrorism at the time, said an NSC [National Security Council] working group, led by the Defense Department, had been in charge of reviewing the plans to target the [Zarqawi's] camp. She said the camp was "definitely a stronghold, and we knew that certain individuals were there including Zarqawi." Ms. Gordon-Hagerty said she wasn't part of the working group and never learned the reason why the camp wasn't hit. But she said that much later, when reports surfaced that Mr. Zarqawi was behind a series of bloody attacks in Iraq, she said "I remember my response," adding, "I said why didn't we get that ['son of a b-'] when we could."

    [Retired] Gen. [John M.] Keane [then-U.S. Army vice chief of staff] characterized the [Zarqawi's] camp "as one of the best targets we ever had," and questioned the decision not to attack it.

    Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq." Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:00pm

  638. Posted by NEW DAWN 06/09/2006 @ 3:40pm

    Yeah right, before it was "I truly am not that concerned about him."

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:06pm

  639. HMAN, maybe Liberty's post @ 3:36 was designed to throw us off the mark a little bit...sort of like when he claimed, after that little quail-hunting incident that involved shooting somebody in the face, that Dick Cheney had stopped drinking.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 4:08pm

  640. Nathan -

    Why did the White House decide not to get/kill Zarqawi in 2002? I see your implied point. On some level, I can see where allowing a known terrorist with face you can use as poster-boy would have some value. But, if they found Zarqawi anywhere else, I suspect that they would have either apprehended or killed him. No, I think the decision wasn't based on allowing him to ive per se, but to preserve the main goal. Iraq, and not Al Qeada, was the primary issue. A strike in Northern Iraq would have hindered the drive for war on Iraq.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:17pm

  641. Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person

    THIS post was completely serious...in its point.

    Same arguments Left used against Iraq...can now be used by the Right for Darfur.

    Essentially, the Iraq War has ended (possibly for as much as 10 years) ANY U.S. military intervention ...anywhere. Whether the "liberation of terrorist-held nations" (or "wars for oil" if you like)...or the "humanitarian international peacekeeping" missions (or "more Somalias", if you like).

    The pacifists (the really truly pacifists) have won...as they did after 1973. It took Reagan to get the military out of the United States again (less Carter's disasterous rescue mission of 1980), and it looks like we're in for another 10 years of no "overseas adventures".

    Sound good, my liberal friends....fine...but remember that means YOUR missions too (like Darfur, or some future "Rwanda"). No money, no will, and nobody (i.e. a President, Dem or Repub) willing to risk "Bush 2006 poll numbers" to do it.

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 4:19pm

  642. Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person

    Didn't realize I was "masking the facts", when all I did was post two statements of the Left about Iraq, Saddam, and Al Queda...and ask about the contradiction.

    Not an endorsement of Bush's actions...just a question about two seemingly different views on Al Queda's presence in Iraq.

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 4:21pm

  643. Not spamming, but this is amazing too....

    this piece by David Corn, in a little over 24 hours....has engendered 690!!!! posts?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 4:22pm

  644. 690 posts Mask, but probably a couple hundred involving Fuklibs, Barry25 and the NBA. You need to discount.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:27pm

  645. And mine. I really haven't contributed anything here.

    Damn! Now I've added another useless post. So much subtraction.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:29pm

  646. That's my point. You can't just kill SOME terrorist leaders, one must kill ALL terrorist leaders.

    terrorists = cockroaches

    Todd (aka OKSPORTSGUY) 3:31

    No. You only have to kill the ones who can't be bought or otherwise persuaded, which is the way it always ends. Like with Qaddafi.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/09/2006 @ 4:34pm

  647. Posted by HMAN23 06/09/2006 @ 4:17pm I dunno. But it seems that the Bush administration plays whatever angle gives the most political benefit.

    ...by the way, Mask, I saw your post a few minutes ago, but I grow weary of your intellectual laziness posing as deep thought.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 4:39pm

  648. The total number of posts is given by

    x = p + r / (v + cp) - 2c

    where p is the raw number of posts, r is the responsiveness factor (may be negative), v is the venom quotient, cp is the cut/paste percentage, and c is the number of lines copied from any Ann Coulter piece

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/09/2006 @ 4:43pm

  649. So, in fact, there have been only 4.356 posts. Damn again! Now only 4.324 posts thanks to this little non-responsive post.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:49pm

  650. TJ - You're cracking me up...

    Whoops - now, I'm contributing...

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 4:54pm

  651. Shoot, I forgot the Rese/Plunger exponent in the divisor.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/09/2006 @ 4:55pm

  652. It took Reagan to get the military out of the United States again (less Carter's disasterous rescue mission of 1980), and it looks like we're in for another 10 years of no "overseas adventures".

    Posted by MASK 06/09/2006 @ 4:19pm

    What...Grenada? Big, tough man that Republican icon was. Couldn't use the military to do his work in Central America apparently. Didn't exactly use the military wisely in the Middle East. What exactly did Reagan do to get us back out there in the swing of things? Unleash Ollie?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:56pm

  653. "Liberty, wasn't Gen. Tommy Franks in charge when Osama slipped through the fingers of the best Afghan militias at Tora Bora"

    Hmmmm Wasn't it B.J Clinton and his lovely wife Hillary Rotten in charge when Osama slipped through thier money grubbing fingers 3 diffrent times???Hypocrisy thy name is LIBERAL

    THE LIBERAL CRACKUP IS A BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/09/2006 @ 4:57pm

  654. "Took Reagan". Geez.

    You're reaching so far into your bag of skepticism that you're blaming us for crippling our military's ability to react to rational needs for engagement?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 4:58pm

  655. "What exactly did Reagan do to get us back out there in the swing of things"

    Bring down your Commie bretheren the Soviet Union....not a small feat nitwit...much more impressive than your pathetic peanut farmer or B.J Clinton

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/09/2006 @ 4:59pm

  656. The question is: what will it take before the political climate in this country begins to grow up and lead the world toward a safer future? This will not "take" a Reagan clone or, God forbid, a Bush clone.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 5:00pm

  657. Or God forbid sojme Anti-American LIB TRAITOR

    Posted by FukLibz at 06/09/2006 @ 5:01pm

  658. Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/09/2006 @ 4:57pm

    Hey, look what's back.

    Paradigm -

    Better revise your calculations again and factor in the raving fruitcake.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 5:02pm

  659. Or God forbid sojme Anti-American LIB TRAITOR

    Posted by FUKLIBZ 06/09/2006 @ 5:01pm

    None of those here, little fella. Better seek another site to rant on.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 5:02pm

  660. Hey Aludra, is your sister still a whore?

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 5:04pm

  661. Reagan. Lebanon. Truck bomb. Cut and ran. Got it?

    Memo to America: no more fake cowboys.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 06/09/2006 @ 5:05pm

  662. I didn't know those kids in Waco had killed themselves! Where did you get that info.....Air America? Those nutty christians, in Waco, were CONTAINED ( liberal for: no threat to anyone so leave them alone and everything will be just peachy, you know, the argument used by the left, saying that Saddam was contained, therefore we should have left him alone ). Yet, you still have no problem justifying our gov't escalating the standoff and burning innocent women and children ( Americans, even if they are believers in the ultra-evil, intolerant religion otherwise known as christianity) alive on U.S. soil and private property for that matter. Remember.....they were CONTAINED!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 5:11pm

  663. it is nice to know that there is at least one lefty on this site that can be rational and get along with everybody while having a sane debate. Gertrude, or shall I say, Gertrudes grandson, has been a pleasure. You other nuts can learn a lot from him. Thanks again and keep up the good work. You're a role model for all!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 5:16pm

  664. Myparadigm...what do you want instead...honest-to-God Yale cheerleaders? (Go George, Go! Sis-Boom-Bah!)

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/09/2006 @ 5:16pm

  665. Barry,

    We're waiting for your rant against George H. W. Bush for his attack on Ruby Ridge. And for your admission that you got your dates a little mixed up. We're waiting also to hear how Ruby Ridge and Waco connect to Iraq. C'mon, be a role model for all the kids out there.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 5:18pm

  666. Who's better: Bob Dylan or Neil Young?

    c'mon now people. when Neil Young is long forgotten, I forget him already, people will still be singing Dylan songs

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 5:45pm

  667. Reagan, Lebanon. no discernable mission. Iraq? ditto

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 5:47pm

  668. This is random, but does anyone ever notice that Franklin Roosevelt's legacy seems to become more disregarded with each passing year? I (obviously) wasn't alive when he was President, but I always assumed that since he played a major role in getting the U.S. through both the Great Depression and most of World War 2, he was one the most respected Presidents in history, along with Washington and Lincoln. Now, I know that he had a lot of faults (i.e. Japanes internment camps, not pushing hard enough civil rights for black Americans, etc.), but it does seem like he did a lot more good than bad.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 5:54pm

  669. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/09/2006 @ 5:45pm

    Curious. Did you vote for Bush the Elder in the general elections? 1992 was the year I knew that politics had become a topic to be avoided with my parents--they supported Bush strongly without being able to give me a single reason to support him.

    Also...Bob who?

    Oooo snap. That's right. I said it. Understand his place in history, but listening to him? Whew, thank you, no, I'll pass. Give me rockin' angry Neil or soft and gentle Neil any day.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 5:57pm

  670. LVLIBERTY1: I think Dylan's greatest period was the late 1960s to the mid 1970s, when he produced such albums as "The Basement Tapes", "Blood on the Tracks", "Desire", "Before the Flood", "New Morning", and "Planet Waves".

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 5:58pm

  671. TJBEHRENS1: Hey, I'll agree that Neil is cooler than hell. But you have to admit that Dylan wrote not only great lyrics, but also created great music. Yes, I said it. Dylan had just as good an ear for music as he did for words.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:00pm

  672. On the subject of music, here's a new question: Who's better, the Clash or the Who?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:05pm

  673. the Music Experience in Seattle had,has? a great exhibit about Dylan. Dylan once said that america's greatest living poet was Smokey Robinson. not bad. was that tongue in cheek, like much of what Dylan was saying? Smokey is very very good, but Dylan is the voice of his generation.

    liberty, I checked that site, very basic but ok. the book I mentioned, a text book evidently is more thorough and comprehensive, as are I'm sure many others.

    since we are on civil terms at the moment, allow me to highlight the crux of our disagreement, aside from the conservative/progressive split, which exists politically in all free countries.

    piety is not the same as morality. someone can be as religious, and pious as hell, sorry, and be a complete swine, or even a small swine. the Jesus bible mentions this. in fact this can be said to be THE central tenet of Christ.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 6:06pm

  674. TJB, guess I did get my dates messed up. My bad, i'll admit it. Doesn't change the fact that the left doesn't have a problem with it's gov't murdering it's own citizens when they are christian, now does it? Or when it's gov't kills innocent christians ( who were not a threat to us) over seas in it's pursuit of milosevic. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say! Waco and Ruby Ridge were brought up to show how hypocritical the left is. The left states that we should NEVER have gone into Iraq no matter how many innocent Iraqis were being killed by Saddam because he was CONTAINED and was not a threat( even though clinton, kerry and most other dem's told us he was BEFORE bush took office ) to us. Yet, when our gov't kills it's own citizens who are also CONTAINED and are not a threat to anyone else but themselves and their children, the left justifies it ( I guess because they are Christians ). Then the left does another 180, and wants us to do something about Darfur, which poses no threat to us, and also has no problem with us going into bosnia ( i guess because we were killing bad christians, including women and children of the worst order...notice a pattern here ) without the approval of the U.N. or Congress. By the way, I didn't vote for Bush 1 in 92, that vote went to Perot ( boy did i screw up ). Anyway, I have laid it out for you, and if you cannot see the blatant hypocracy of the left concerning these matters ( even though they are factual )then we'll just agree to disagree!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 6:12pm

  675. Neil's music is great...his politics suck! Too much acid! This is where it all started! Now look at what it's done to hollywood!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 6:15pm

  676. Gertie, which is better? chocolate or vanilla? that's the kind of territory we are entering here. now to brass tacks

    . I loved the who, saw them do Tommy at the Fillmore East when it came out, especially liked their mini opera which preceded it.anyone know the name of that?

    hell I still like their songs, like Boris the spider, or welcome to my life, tatoo. in their time, they were one of the very best, along with the Kinks, the Yardbirds,the Doors, the Stones, and of course, well you know who.

    but the band that towered over them all was and always will be the Beatles. they, like Gershwin and Rodgers and Hart will live forever.

    the Clash were the last rock band that mattered. in their time of punk rock, they were the Beatles to the sex pistols, read Stones. they were far more talented musically than the Pistols, and we didn't realize how good Joe Strummer was until he was gone.

    the whole thing was over in 4 years. they were the best white Reggae band, their lyrics were what John Lennon was hoping for but did not live to accomplish. there is a documentary on the Clash around, and the movie Rude Boy. a comparison of those two shows how much better they got in that short time. I like the live Clash album.

    so there. I'm really by nature and training more of a cultural correspondent, as one might gather from this. the political is forced upon me by events, so to speak. thanks for asking and thanks for listening.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 6:21pm

  677. Zepplin beats em' all! No contest!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 6:22pm

  678. I just realized I forgot to answer the question. I would have to say.... drumroll please, the Clash. because they towered over their peers. also Pete Townsend has grown into a jerk, and Keith Moon is irreplaceable.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 6:26pm

  679. I have to run off to work, but look forward to hearing from all y'all when I return. tonight's show is mercifully brief, later

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 6:30pm

  680. Damn...looks like there IS common ground! Music....go figure.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 6:31pm

  681. JOHANNESROLF: Sorry. I couldn't resist comparing the Who and the Clash BARRY25: Yeah, Zeppelin is one my favorite bands as well. By the way, I don't think liberals rejoice in the murder of Christians, just like I don't think conservatives rejoice in the murder of Muslims. LVLIBERTY1: I don't know . . . Robert Plant and Eric Clapton were/are pretty good white blues signers too.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:35pm

  682. LEFTOFCENTER: Sports, music, movies, lit., art . . . These things usually seem to function as great ways to end hostilities. Plus, I think they are much more fun to talk about than politics, anyway.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:36pm

  683. Oh yeah, to answer my own question: I would have to go with the Clash, only because they were a bit more experimental than the Who.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:40pm

  684. no,no, no Clapton can't sing, he's an awful singer. what brought this home to me is the album he cut with BB King, who really can sing.

    and yes music soothes the savage breast, or:

    music for a while, shall all your cares beguile. anyone know where that is from?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 6:42pm

  685. Gertrude, I agree with that. But then, what explains the left's inconsistency on these issues. I can only see that only christianity makes the difference between, when it's ok to act and when it's not. Please enlighten me. Why then, is it ok to attack some people who pose not threat, yet in other situations, it's absolutely not ok to attack people based solely on the fact that they weren't a threat. Isn't that a blatant contradiction?

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 6:43pm

  686. JOHANNESROLF: Clapton is not an awful singer. Have you ever listened to "Layla"? Could you imagine anyone else singing that song?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:43pm

  687. of course, Gertie, but he can't sing, something he would probably be first to admit. my cab awaits

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 6:46pm

  688. BARRY25: Good question. I think that it is more of a situational thing than anything else. For instance, I think it would have fine if the United States had stepped into Rwanda to stop the genocide there. On the other hand, I don't think we should have gotten involved in Vietnam solely because it was a civil war being fought by two sides which, in the end, didn't really want us being there in the first place. I don't know if that is an adequate explanation, but as I said before, I think it depends on the situation at hand.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:48pm

  689. JOHANNESROLF: See ya for now!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:48pm

  690. Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 6:53pm

  691. BARRY25: Were you trying to respond earlier?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 6:58pm

  692. Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 7:21pm

  693. LVLIBERTY1: I guess so . . . Talk to you some other time.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 7:24pm

  694. Gertrude, I agree with your take on Vietnam, but if we are going to step in when genocide is going on in africa, the we should step in when the same is going on in Iraq, which it was. Maybe some on the left are more tolerant of innocent arabs being slaughtered by saddam, than they are of Africans slaughtering each other. If so, wouldn't that be somewhat racist?

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 7:41pm

  695. BARRY25: Like I said before, it just depends on the situation. Hey, I'm happy as anybody that Saddam is gone; he truly was a monster. I just don't know if we (as in the United States) did it in the proper manner. Also, you have to remember that we didn't go to Iraq to overthrow Saddam; that was just an added benefit for the Bush administration at the time the decision was formulated. All in all, I think that there are clearly times when we should intervene, and others when we clearly shouldn't, and a lot of other times when it just isn't clear what we should do (sorry for the awkward wording).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

  696. I agree with everything you just stated, including the fact that we went there over the WMD issue first and foremost! Yet, my point was, the argument made by the left over Iraq is that we should never have gone there because he was contained, not a threat! Those very same people want us to go into other countries which are no threat whatsoever which is a complete contradiction to their stance on Iraq. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies of many on the left. And when one is inconsistent, they lose all credibility. Do you at least understand my point?

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 8:41pm

  697. BARRY25: I do. But I wouldn't necessarily say that all liberals didn't want to see the United States remove Hussein from power in a forcible way. Many of those who write for Dissent Magazine and the New Republic were in support of the invasion precisely because they wanted to see Saddam overthrown. If you haven't already, read Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 8:48pm

  698. Cool. You're alright Gerti! It's been a pleasure, havin' you here calms me down and has obviously brought an element of sanity to this blog. See ya around, time to BBQ!

    Posted by barry25 at 06/09/2006 @ 8:58pm

  699. Thanks. Talk to you later.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/09/2006 @ 8:58pm

  700. Keb Mo - Perpetual Blues Machine smooth baby

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2006 @ 9:20pm

  701. Jesus Jumping Christ,

    I come back on the thread at the end of the work day and everyone is having a lovefest...

    Let me remind you all who Barry is. This was his first post on this thread (and just like almost every other post he's ever posted):

    It's a dark day for the left! Recently, a few events have set back the causes of the DNC, The Nation, Al Qaeda, and the rest of you liberal lunatics! Canada's arrest of a terror cell, San Diego's rejection of the liberal Buzzbee, and now the unfortunate death of Zarqawi are all settbacks to these causes! My sincerest apologies for these devastating blows to your "partners in crime", but hopefully, in your best interests, another great man like zarqawi will rise up again to push forward the good intentions of you all! Now wrap that lowlife piece of shit in bacon and bury his worthless ass! It's a great day for all of humanity, except the traitorous left...that is!

    Posted by BARRY25 06/08/2006 @ 3:31pm

    And by day's end, everyone is practically making love over music.

    What short memories. What courage of everyone's convictions.

    I'm totally disgusted.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/09/2006 @ 9:50pm

  702. ...by the way, Mask, I saw your post a few minutes ago, but I grow weary of your intellectual laziness posing as deep thought.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 06/09/2006 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person

    "Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect"---Adm JT Kirk

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 9:52pm

  703. BTW, guys....

    wasn't PRAISING Reagan necessisarily about Grenada...merely pointing out that American troops didn't start getting deployed in combat missions again UNTIL Reagan.

    My POINT was....like Vietnam, Iraq will keep the troops home for a long time...no more Iraqs, but no Darfurs or Haitis either.

    Nobody gets to play with the toy soldiers, whether it's to "steal ME oil" or free people from Islamist terror....or humanitarian missions!

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2006 @ 9:54pm

  704. The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqwawi will change the situation in Iraq just as much as the death of Franklin D.Roosevelt changed World War II: not one bit! Although we mourned the death of FDR, his death did not diminish the resolve of the American people nor of our armed forces. We went on to defeat fascism and secure peace in the world.

    Bush has no moral authority in prosecuting his war of armed aggression against an innocent people. Let's face reality, please! Bush lied us into attacking Iraq; he circumvented the UN because he knew he had no support at the UN and would not receive authorization to attack an innocent people regardless of the pretext. He just wanted to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for "trying to kill my daddy"! Reality check, now! BUSH IS A LITTLE BOY, IMMATURE JUST AS HIS DADDY WAS IMMATURE. Some things change; many don't!

    Now we have a lunatic in charge and are justifiably terrified of what he will do next. God help us! Bush sure as hell will not!

    Posted by Spider540 at 06/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

  705. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/09/2006 @ 6:20pm

    Admirable.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 9:58pm

  706. Ignorance is bliss johannesrolf (especially when ideology trumps facts). There in fact were car and bus bombings throughout Iraq in the mid 1990's during Saddam's Reign which were generally attributed to the Iraqi National Accord and in which children amongst others were killed.

    Never heard of Ansar al-Islam? That Zarqawi belonged to this al Queda sympathetic organisation is generally accepted. What distinguishes the present insurgency from Saddam's reign of terror is that the current Iraqi insurgents pursued the same violent and bloody activities formerly as paid agents of the state. Zarqawi was probably too much of a religious fanatic for the present Baathist insurgents so they "fingered" him.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:16pm

  707. how many car bombings in Iraq?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:19pm

  708. new dawn, I put barry and the other nasty fucks on delete. after two days of hot and heavy disputing, some of us needed to connect as human beings. I'm sorry this disappoints you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:22pm

  709. Jones, you don't need to be snide, or maybe you do. I did not know about Bus bombings in Iraq during the 90s, so if you want to include citations that would be good.

    of course I am aware of ansar , we have been discussing that all along, so don't presume ignorance on anyone's part.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:29pm

  710. spider, good post. actually after FDR died, Hitler and his gang thought that would be a turning point for them, turn the tide so to speak, hahahah

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:30pm

  711. Lefty, right, Keb Mo is very good

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:32pm

  712. Dawny, remember it's all just talk . we are not exactly saving the world here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:37pm

  713. so much anger. Republicans keep winning elections, and we keep killing terrorists.

    Posted by koza at 06/09/2006 @ 10:40pm

  714. we? I don't think you left your comfy chair.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 10:41pm

  715. "Dr. Allawi's group, the Iraqi National Accord, used car bombs and other explosive devices... Ex-CIA officer Robert Baer, recalled that a bombing during that period "blew up a school bus; schoolchildren were killed.".....

    Continuing in my "snide" mode I suggest you do your own spade work. This abstract is from:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0609-02.htm

    "Published on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 by the New York Times Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks by Joel Brinkley"

    ps. Matey to show you I am a nice bloke I wont send you an invoice nominated "Education Fee".

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2006 @ 10:48pm

  716. Read the last few pages on this board---WOW---blew me away. People having civil conversations. Disageement, but still civil, and respectful for the most part----What a concept. I'm sure it will be short lived. By the way always been a CSN freak myself. I guess it is true that music can soothe the savage beast.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/09/2006 @ 11:00pm

  717. Posted by LRJONES4 06/09/2006 @ 10:48pm

    Thanks for the bizarre condescension, Tin Tin. We're honored by your presence.

    All,

    Did you see that LL voted for outside the mainstream in '88 and '92 because the GOP presented a candidate not conservative enough for him. I do admire this. But we should remember this moment when he attempts to isolate us--who exactly is less mainstream: the Green Party or the American Independent Party?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:02pm

  718. C'mon - all this talk of great bands and yet ... no Deadheads out there?

    Hit archive.org and stream some '77 shows - mmmmm . . . tasty.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:08pm

  719. LL: Is George W. conservative?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:11pm

  720. Jonesy, we usually provide citations, particularly when dealing with little known facts. and ease up on the snideness, lest you be ignored.

    now, what was your point?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:18pm

  721. Thank you TJB. I take it you are the straight man around here? There seems to be a fair sprinkling of comedians as well.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:27pm

  722. Jones, do you have a point?

    insulting people needlessly will get you ignored, and then you can crawl back to under whichever rock you have crawled from.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:30pm

  723. ah what the f...ignored

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/09/2006 @ 11:31pm

  724. I found it interesting how all the overpaid, pampered TV pundits were gleeful about Zarqawi's death. And yet, the one man you'd expect to be the happiest, Michael Berg, was not happy--and emphasized that he believes Bush is the real terrorist. It got me to thinking: is the U.S. guilty of a lot of the same crimes we blamed on Zarqawi?: [beggarscanbechoosers.com]

    Posted by sam1smthcx at 06/09/2006 @ 11:41pm

  725. Is the U.S. guilty of the same crimes as Zarqawi? BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com [beggarscanbechoosers.com]

    Posted by sam1smthcx at 06/09/2006 @ 11:45pm

  726. Posted by LRJONES4 06/09/2006 @ 11:27pm

    Stick around and you'll find that some of us play specific roles while others range from brilliant to rippers of new ones for those who visit this site and remind all that evolution is never a complete or even process.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:48pm

  727. JR,

    Your problem is that of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm all for informed debate but if you were unaware of the situation in Iraq during the Saddam years it is rather pointless of you trying to make comparisons with the present situation. That was the point of my challenge to you.

    I did not have you in mind for a comedy routine. I was responding to JTB's welcome and some of the genuinely humourous content on this forum.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/09/2006 @ 11:51pm

  728. Dawny, remember it's all just talk . we are not exactly saving the world here.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/09/2006 @ 10:37pm

    Your 10:22 was patronizing, but calling me "Dawny" takes the cake...

    All of you can go to hell if this is what I can expect from the rational people...

    I'm seriously disappointed.

    Johannes - That shit was totally unwarranted and unnnecessary.

    Whatever, dude.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/10/2006 @ 02:46am

  729. ND

    The music refs have been serving as "control rods" relative to the normal runaway nuclear reaction mode. Kind of refreshing actually for people who normally rant at one another to take a time out and chat - even for a sec - on minor things they agree on.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2006 @ 08:16am

  730. sehr geehrter Herr New Dawn, my we are thinskinned aren't we?

    your sour attack on the bonhommie that reared its ugly head here after two days of sparring was surprising and a bit sad.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 09:18am

  731. Jonesy, so you knew something I didn't. my congratulations. this however did not invalidate my points, nor sanitize your snide appearance on this forum. you might try answering the question of how many bombings, and why that would invalidate my points.

    I too get some glee with gotcha rhetoric, but I attempt to be civil about it. that said, I welcome your contributions, just ease up on the snide, too much pepper spoils the soup.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 09:40am

  732. I didn't vote AIP because I thought they could win. It was a protest vote that I and many others made, others for Perot in '92 to let the GOP know we were dissatisfied.

    I have made the point before that if liberals are dissatisfied with the Dems, it is necessary sometimes to lose elections and send a message to your party that you won't give them your vote no matter what candidate they put up.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/10/2006 @ 01:11am

    I should have recognized in your posts the same idealism (on the opposite side of the political spectrum) that I and others on this site have. But it is now so much more amusing that you visit here often with the intent of poking a finger in our faces when our ideals are shot down by this vote, that poll, or another unpredictable presidential action. Your willingness to vote your beliefs rather than settling for the lesser of evils is little different than the choice made by those of us who voted for Nader. But if you were unsatisfied with Bush I as a candidate and have less than a warm and fuzzy feeling about Bush II, then you have been without presidential representation of your views for the last five elections; and, save his tax cuts, I am not sure what the attraction to Reagan might have been. You must be as frustrated as we are. So why are you here (not that I mind...most of the time [obviously, your views on gay marriage, I think, are beyond the pale]) rather than trying to speak with those on "your" side about getting either the GOP to follow their promise or another party to do what the GOP fails to do? Has it reached the point where the best you can hope for is to keep those on our fringe farther from political power than those on your fringe?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 09:59am

  733. JOHANNESROLF,

    LRJONES certainly knew how to make an entrance! Thank goodness this wasn't a meeting face to face. I think someone might have walked away with a bloody nose.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 10:04am

  734. This is way late, but as to the definition of a 'neoconservative,' this from the Christian Science Monitor is a good primer on the ideology and ideologues who would rule our world:

    http://tinyurl.com/8ay2r

    Posted by skeletonman at 06/10/2006 @ 10:04am

  735. JOHANNESROLF...."we? I don't think you left your comfy chair." Wrong again! LOL...you will spout your opinion whether you know what you are talking about or NOT. it seems the only goal, to be right and tear everyone else down. Since you dont know a thing about me, the question begs, "Since you are not talking about me, "Are you talking about yourself?"

    Posted by koza44 at 06/10/2006 @ 10:14am

  736. 44 , why don't you tell us about YOUR battling the forces of evil?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:19am

  737. JO HANNESROLF....Good answer LOL

    Posted by koza44 at 06/10/2006 @ 10:25am

  738. Lefty, nicely put.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:28am

  739. libert:"no waivering on the War on Terror"

    I think you mean wavering.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 11:23am

  740. New Dawn, we have had some pleasant exchanges in the past. here's to more of those. my appellation was intended as goodnatured ribbing, I'm sorry you were offended. I suggest we smoke a virtual peace pipe, the nature of the smoking substance ad libitum.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 11:38am

  741. ND

    The music refs have been serving as "control rods" relative to the normal runaway nuclear reaction mode. Kind of refreshing actually for people who normally rant at one another to take a time out and chat - even for a sec - on minor things they agree on.

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/10/2006 @ 08:16am

    You're absolutely right. I had a long day and a long night, and came back still feeling like breaking something. To any I offended, I apologize.

    Especially Johanne, who is usually measured and thoughtful and kind.

    However, these boards are not generally intended for discussing the wonderful power of music to soothe and even occasionally unite the savage beasts.

    If that and basketball are all we can get along about, there is still a serious problem in our country.

    I don't remember ever getting so incensed five years ago.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/10/2006 @ 11:43am

  742. Johanne -

    I think the fact that you and I were both typing what we just typed at the exact same moment speaks volumes.

    Hell, I just woke up and it's the first thing I thought to do.

    Peace, indeed, my friend. It's water under the bridge.

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/10/2006 @ 11:44am

  743. Tony Blair has just said that Iraq will continue to: 1) not get better, 2) probably get worse, 3) because we are winning and the terrorists are getting desperate.

    George Bush, the idiot, was able to stutter his lines today and he said: Still celebrate the fact that the coalition is winning, but dont expect things in Iraq to get better. Dont expect the killing or Iraqis in Iraq to decrease, dont expect the killing of Americans in Iraq to decrease, we gotta set expectations. The terrorists are really, really, really losing now - so they may get even more desperate and Iraq may get worse - but still celebrate mission accomplished again.

    Donald Rumsfeld not only said that $2500 bereavement payments are a way of life in Iraq - apparently something out of Iraqi culture (theyre animals) - but Donald Rumsfeld said: 1) we are winning, 2) things may get worse, 3) because the terrorists are getting desperate. The terrorist insurgency is in its last throes, and the more last throe they get the worse it may become.

    Conservatives have the temerity to come here on an intelligent discussion board, and use ever fake gambit in the book to try and defend the idiot George Bush - what a disgrace.

    Posted by conshame at 06/10/2006 @ 12:29pm

  744. I love that the last thing this scum seen was our troops in full AMERICAN MILITARY uniform looking down at him as he gasped for his last bit of o2.

    In a word - poetic.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/10/2006 @ 12:49pm

  745. yes, Con, the last throes. if this is victory I wonder what defeat looks like. we are in the last throes of the down is up presidency

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 1:03pm

  746. yes Pridey, you are always ready to cheer, from the safety of your keyboard. no price is too high for the Iraq debacle, as long as other people are paying that price. You exhilaration, me disgust

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 1:07pm

  747. I love that the last thing this infant seen was our troops in full AMERICAN MILITARY uniform looking down at him as he gasped for his last bit of o2.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

  748. I love how Jessica Lynch valiantly escaped from her captors, apparently she was raped - of course you take believe Jessica Lynchs story above Donald Rumsfelds word over this then she wasnt raped and she didnt valiantly escape.

    How do you know that Zarqawi looked up and saw American soldiers wearing uniforms as he breathed his last breath?

    Posted by conshame at 06/10/2006 @ 1:17pm

  749. ND

    Well, it HAS been a long five years!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2006 @ 1:42pm

  750. The Greens may yet prove to be a true political power in the US, but not in the near future.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/10/2006 @ 2:15pm

    The Green Party candidate for gov in NY wants to make sugar a controlled substance. That is a good way to consign your party to irrelevance.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/10/2006 @ 3:52pm

  751. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/10/2006 @ 1:03pm

    What a great day it is today, Johannes. I can smell the rotting flesh of a savage terrorist halfway around the world, and it smells great.

    You know what's especially noteworthy, Johannes? If it was still up to you and your friends here at the Nation, Saddam Hussein and his psychotic sons would still be operating human slaughterhouses, torture centers, and rape factories. Thank God we have a President like George Bush, and enough sensible Americans to vote for him, and ignore you. We've got to be a sharp stick in the eye to the left, and man that's a blessing.

    And if we took the suggestion of you and your gutless, yellow-bellied politicians like Dean and Kerry, who have been advocating immediate retreat and cut and run for years, Zarqawi would still be chopping off heads in Iraq. Thank God Kerry is on his GV somewhere, wearing spandex and yelling at his staff, stuffing his face with expensive truffles, well away from any position of responsibility.

    Thank God this country doesn't listen to you and yours.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/10/2006 @ 3:55pm

  752. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

    I love that the last thing this infant seen was our troops in full AMERICAN MILITARY uniform looking down at him as he gasped for his last bit of o2.

    Apparently that was Zarqawi's kid. Yes, it's a shame that an innocent child was killed in the course of killing this animal. Unlike Zarqawi, however, we don't kill children on purpose. But then again, you don't seem to understand the difference between accident and policy.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/10/2006 @ 3:58pm

  753. So deaths resulting from the half-ton worth of bombs applied with precision and all due care on a single building are referred to by the psycho-right as "accidents". Is it not our policy to bomb buildings regardless of who might be in them or are we just the most accident-prone war force in the history of history?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 4:58pm

  754. huh....the official policy of the USA during WWII was to bomb civilians! What are you talking about(history of history)? While you mourn over this infant's death, I do not see anyone mourning over the 4 1/2 million people Saddam killed over his tenure, including the Iran/Iraq war. That puts him on the "best of the best" list of socialist mass murders. We get it...that wouldnt fit for the Bush Bash Bigots!

    Posted by koza44 at 06/10/2006 @ 5:20pm

  755. Posted by KOZA44 06/10/2006 @ 5:20pm

    Have a drink. Read carefully. Cool your jets. Whatever cliche is most operative for you to make a rational response, please choose wisely and proceed with caution. Don't use my post as an opportunity to go off the deep end. Or go off half-cocked. Or play without a full deck. Or leaving the lights on when you're not home.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/10/2006 @ 7:34pm

  756. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/10/2006 @ 3:55pm

    And if horses could fly, our transportation problems would be solved and it'd be a boon for the umbrella industry!

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/10/2006 @ 7:55pm

  757. TJB,

    Not sure where you live but it's 9.51am Sun where I sit and in this neck of the woods we practice vigourous intellectual confrontation. Some of us operate better under that sort of stimulus. From what I have observed it gives others, not blessed with our cultural norms, an itchy trigger finger.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2006 @ 8:00pm

  758. Posted by KOZA44 06/10/2006 @ 5:20pm

    Hey, El Bush still has some time to catch up on the body count numbers per his recurring wet dream: feeling his little twitchy finger on the button-- oh oh oh what a climax...

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/10/2006 @ 8:08pm

  759. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/10/2006 @ 09:40am

    JR,

    Took an interest in Saddam's Iraq long before GW. Knew what was going on from Iraqi refugees. Never was too impressed by the WMD argument but the International Community should have removed Saddam because of his barbourous and often cruelly capricious treatment of his people. In my view Bush was certainly audacious and somewhat naive and perhaps even inadvertently did what had to be done with Saddam. Even if for all the wrong reasons for the invasion of Iraq he just may have set up the larger ME for a better long term future. Though some complain that he made Iraq a terrorist haven, there seems little doubt that with Usama hiding somewhere in a cave and few attacks against Western targets the Afghanistan and Iraq ventures have done serious damage to the religious extremist's cause.

    As you are no doubt aware little was known about what was going on inside Saddam's Iraq because of that state's rigourous control of information. Have you ever considered why so many Iraqis were killed during Saddam's rule? That in part should answer your question. There was extensive opposition such as the bombings by "democrats" and the state's retaliation in the hundreds of thousands of opponents (of course "friends" were also liquidated) tortured and killed, should give some indication of that opposition, often violent, to the regime. The common feature with arguments for and against the Iraq issue is the use of half truths which deceive the reader or hearer. Your statement, in my opinion, was in that category.

    My suggestion is that you get up to speed by doing a bit of googling on pre-invasion Iraq.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2006 @ 9:22pm

  760. Ponti, I was referring to the infant killed in Haditha.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:23pm

  761. I am more concerned with the 100 000 Iraqis killed by this unecessary war than by how many Saddam killed.Pol Pot killed millions and noone suggested we should invade Cambodia.

    the ones he killed during the Iran war are not a good thing to bring up as he was OUR massmurderer at that time, and we helped.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:27pm

  762. "Saddam Hussein and his psychotic sons would still be operating human slaughterhouses, torture centers, and rape factories."

    now OUR Iraqis are torturing and raping, hell US troops are torturing, and the entire country has turned into a slaughterhouse, yes we are making great progress.and as a special bonus thousands of americans have been killed and will be killed.

    Algeria had a civil war, lasted 10 years, 200 000 killed, america did not give a hoot. people are killed all over the wold. the US is not and never has been the all powerful policeman to straighten it all out. at least not with troops and more thousands killed.

    Lebanon had a ten year civil war, what did america do, nothing, except getting some marines killed. let's do a cost benefit analysis of the Iraq war, you first, since you are so gung ho, with other people's kids of course.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:34pm

  763. Ponti, I don't see you on the front lines, so you are in no position to criticize anyone's courage.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:35pm

  764. Zarkawi was not in much of a position to behead anyone until the US invasion truned Iraq into a chaotic war zone.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:36pm

  765. there are many numbers thrown around, of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam, during his rule. not one substantiation. come on warmongers, you're going to have to do better than that. I realize there may be some variation in the estimates, but assertions and propaganda are not facts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:42pm

  766. sorry, I would appreciate some numbers from non warmongers too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:43pm

  767. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/10/2006 @ 9:27pm

    JR,

    Who killed the 100.000 Iraqis?

    Ask you self this question. How many of this 100,000 were killed by the same brand of thugs who were doing this "legally" under Saddam?

    I suggest you are again deluding not only the thoughtless but yourself.

    If Bush was running the show in those days, who knows, Cambodia may have got invaded. I wouldn't have put it in the too hard basket for GW :-) I think you really know how irrelevant your Cambodian comment is but I guess it plays well to the committed. We call that a propaganda device.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2006 @ 9:47pm

  768. Took an interest in Saddam's Iraq long before GW. Knew what was going on from Iraqi refugees.

    Iraqi exiles and their lies got us into this war, so I wouldn't brag about that.

    you cannot change the fact that had the so called pres gone before the american people and said we're going to invade Iraq to depose a very bad guy, he would have gotten no appro from Congress or the american people.

    no it took fear mongering and many big lies to railroad this country into a very costly war. and we are not done paying, in blood, the blood of the poor and the treasure of us, and our children.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:47pm

  769. Who killed the 100.000 Iraqis?

    many were killed by the US war machine. there was no civil war in Iraq since '91.

    poor Iraq, poor USA, the US will leave behind a shattered country, two actually

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:51pm

  770. you armchair warriors are so brave and moral, sending other people to right a wrong by making many many more wrongs. Saddam was contained. how this will end is unclear, after america leaves, and believe me children america WILL leave, another baathist strongman will emerge, or maybe the mullahs will run the show. but first more bleeding for america and Iraq, and you guys like that very much, don't you. gives you a chanvce to posture and strut, like the miserable cretin strutted on the aircraft carrier. yes get rid of a murderer by murdering and more murdering.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:56pm

  771. gutless, yellow-bellied

    yes you armchair warriors are just that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 9:58pm

  772. and you know what? you are fooling no one, coming around here, posturing, puffing yourself up, what great soldiers you are, the lot of you, you make me sick.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:00pm

  773. .the official policy of the USA during WWII was to bomb civilians!

    yes it was.day and night bombing, british and american in germany, US in Japan, they had run out of places to bomb when they dropped the atomic bomb on the civilian population of a defeated country.

    the bombing of civilian populations was a strategic blunder, it was pure revenge.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:12pm

  774. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/10/2006 @ 9:47pm

    JR,

    Fortunately you don't represent the America that has attempted to act as a world "good cop" since WW2. There are many foreigners that have a great sense of debt to the US and its armed services.

    See where you are coming from but whether there is a Democrat or Republican administration one would expect US involvement in world affairs militarily and politically to continue as in the past. That is the burden an economic and military super power is called on to bear.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/10/2006 @ 10:13pm

  775. my family was on the receiving end of aWTC bombing every day and every night. so were the people of Coventry and London.theallies put themselves on the same level as Hitler and Tojo when they did those things

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:17pm

  776. That is the burden an economic and military super power is called on to bear.

    sounds a little like colonialism, the white man's burden. it is a burden that must be borne with great caution, and with the help of our allies and those we wish to have as allies. the Iraq war did nothing for the US but make them fear and hate us.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:20pm

  777. one would expect US involvement in world affairs militarily and politically to continue as in the past.

    yes how many countries did we invade needlessly? besides Vietnam?

    we managed to avoid war with the soviets for 50 years, and they had their nukes at our throat, and vice versa.

    war should be the absolute last resort, and not even you guys can say with a straight face that this was the case with Iraq. what would have happened had we not invaded, c'mon take a swing at it, don't be shy.

    nothing would have happened, that's what. Saddam was like you fellows, he had NOTHING.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:24pm

  778. Damn 17 pages !

    Without pretending to have read one word of any of it passed the obligatory Zarqawi was a bad bad man but... b.s. I am convinced that when Zarqawi and the other bad bad man stand before their maker and explain their motives for killing thousands of innocents ( tens of thousands in the decider's case ) Dubya has got one hope if he is to fare any better than his fellow defendant; God had better think like Pat Robertson, be as dumb as Bill Frist and be as corrupt as Tom Delay.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/10/2006 @ 10:42pm

  779. I'm sorry gang, I was sick before, you have nothing to do with it, I was mistaken, I don't know how that could have happened, i was trying so hard.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:42pm

  780. pithy, Red, and comic with that rogues gallery.I think Bush is in for a lot of tsuris even before he meets his maker.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 10:47pm

  781. a world "good cop"

    what a felicitous phrase, good cop with 500 pounders, Abu Graib and new schools one hastens to add. good cop with 200 000 troops, keeping order in Iraq and elsewhere.

    we could have spared the xpense and hired 19 suicide guys with really good boxcutters to get Saddam, recruited them from the exiles, like Challabi or Pachachi. then the Iraqis would all have gotten along and been an inspiration to the region.

    good cop is one thing but absolute ruler of the world, that sounds like judge, executioner and emperor to me, not good cop.

    maybe cop is not the only model, what about wise and considerate judges? good judges. good mediators, good negotiators. good shepherd. good night.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 11:02pm

  782. My suggestion is that you get up to speed by doing a bit of googling on pre-invasion Iraq.

    how far back should I go? I know a bit about England's big success in the region, I know something of the treaty of Versailles, we can go further, 800 years of Ottoman empire, that was Iraq.

    all this aside, I find your posts reasonable in the way that Ponti's for instance are not. and I am always ready to learn more, from posts of googles, as well as my own and other libraries. so don't be stingy, we always use more facts to feed our opinions contradictory as they may be.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/10/2006 @ 11:11pm

  783. Did someone ask for pre-war stats? Want to venture the current mortality rate in Iraq and Afghanistan? Notice how high the mortality rates were for them verus other middleestern countries..., yep, W and the GOP corporate machine is there to help..., help make money, help increase their death toll. Weird that Canada and England, countries' with socialized medicine, have better mortality rates than the US!

    ________Infant Mortality ____________________________Life Expectancy at Birth (years)

    ________Rate (per__________Under-5 Mortality Rate__________Female____Male

    ________1000 live births)_____ (per 1000 live births)______1955- 1995- 1955- 1995- ________2000________________1960-1990-2000_________1960_2000_1960__2000

    WORLD___55_________________198___93___83__________51___67___48___63

    MIDDLE EAST & N. AFRICA__52__________________250___80___64__________46___68___45___65

    Afghanistan

    ________161_________________360__260__257__________33___43___34___42

    Algeria___43_________________280___53___65__________47___70___45___68

    Egypt____40_________________282__104___43__________46___68___44___65

    Iran, Islamic Rep –––––––––36–––––––––––––––––281–––72–––44––––––––––46–––69–––46–––67

    Iraq______64_________________171___50__130__________48___60___46___57

    Israel_____6___________________39___12____6__________69___80___66___76

    United Kingdom __________5__________________27____9____6__________73___80___68___75

    Canada____5__________________33____9____6__________73___81___68___76

    United States __________7__________________30___10____8__________73___79___67___74

    http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/pop4_2003.pdf

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/11/2006 @ 12:06am

  784. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/10/2006 @ 11:11pm

    JR,

    Bit hard to debate with one who has different presuppositions. eg one who equates all military killing as murder as against one who has a theory of just wars. So all one can expect, I guess, is to try to agree on accurate data (the "facts").

    Now for a bit more polemical fun. Despite the fact that Pachachi is about 80 years old probably not a bad idea but very unlikely to have been successful. The Baathist regime would still have been in place. Also love your hyperbole in which you morph a world "good cop" into "absolute ruler of the world". Don't think even George would have gone that far.

    I take it you are of Dutch or German heritage? There is a view that this whole Iraq aka absolute ruler of the world thing is an Anglo (and those who would like to be) conspiracy. George may well be a right wing maddie but where does the leftie social democrat Blair or even the centrist Howard of Australia fit into all of this if it is not simply an Anglo conspiracy against the rest of the world?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/11/2006 @ 12:16am

  785. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 06/11/2006 @ 12:06am

    BF,

    Got a bit of a guess about mortality rates in Iraq that has little to do with depleted uranium. As you are no doubt aware Saddam and his poison gas specialists splashed a fair bit of the stuff around Iraq to pacify the natives. Christene Gosden's testimony before the US senate on the Mar 16 1988 attack on Halabja is a good place to start thinking about how much this stuff, which has mutagenic as well as carcinogenic properties, is responsible for those mortality statistics.

    This is the Statement of Dr. Christine M. Gosden before the Senate The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents -- including mustard gas, and the nerve agents ... www.senate.gov/~judiciary/oldsite/gosden.htm

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/11/2006 @ 12:40am

  786. Speaking of DU:

    http://www.idust.net/Docs/DrAl-Ali.htm

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/11/2006 @ 03:13am

  787. Lots more current stuff about DU-- I'm sure the infant mortality rate will continue to go up for the next few 100 years in Iraq (the Bushes' and GOP corporate legacy-- going for the gold as record death numbers rise):

    2003 - MEDIA: PENTAGON CONTROLLING THE NEWS - John Hanchette Former Editor U.S.A. TODAY (National Daily Newspaper)

    During a speaking tour in the Eastern United States in January 2003 with Gulf War Veteran Major Doug Rokke, I was introduced to John Hanchette who in Doug's words is "one of the good guys on the depleted uranium issue". Mr. Hanchette told me that from 1991 to 2001, as Editor of U.S.A. TODAY, he published news breaking stories on the effects of depleted uranium on Gulf War Veterans. Each time he was ready to publish a story about devastating illnesses in Gulf War soldiers, he got a phone call from the Pentagon pressuring him not to print the story. He has been replaced as Editor at U.S.A. TODAY and is now teaching journalism to college students. Interview with former U.S.A. TODAY Editor John Hanchetter by Leuren Moret, Olean, New York, January 29, 2003.

    2003 – PENTAGON – U.S. Army Colonel

    Journalist: "What about the health risks that are associated with D.U.? Or do you deny there are any?"

    U.S. Army Colonel: "You are determined to get me to make a statement about the health risks aren't you?"

    Journalist: "If you will, I want to see what the behind the scenes view of D.U. is in the Pentagon."

    U.S. Army Colonel: "Well…….(long pause, followed by heavy profanity)…. Okay, I'll give you some dirt if that's what you're looking for. The Pentagon knows there are huge health risks associated with D.U. They know from years of monitoring our own test ranges and manufacturing facilities. There were parts of Iraq designated as high contamination areas before we ever placed any troops on the ground. The areas around Basra, Jalibah, Talil, most of the southern desert, and various other hot spots were all identified as contaminated before the war. Some of the areas in the southern desert region along the Kuwaiti border are especially radioactive on scans and tests. One of our test ranges in Saudi Arabia shows over 1000 times the normal background level for radiation. We have test ranges in the U.S. that are extremely contaminated, hell they have been since the 80's and nothing is ever said publicly. Don't ask don't tell is not only applied to gays, it is applied to this matter heavily. I know that at one time the theory was developed that any soldier exposed to D.U. shells should have to wear full MOP gear (the chemical protective suit). But they realized that it just wouldn't be practical and it was never openly discussed again."

    Journalist: "So the stories that they know D.U. is harmful are true?"

    U.S. Army Colonel: "Yes, there is no doubt that most high level commanders who were around during the 80's know about it."

    Interview by Jay Shaft, Editor Coalition for Free Thought in Media, "U.S. Colonel Admits That 500 Tons of D.U. Were Just Used in Iraq" May 5, 2003.

    http://www.idust.net/Docs/AfghanTribunal.htm

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/11/2006 @ 03:34am

  788. Just noticed since accessing this site that I'm getting a lot of spyware. Spyware Doctor identifies it as alexa toolbar and Trojan Downloader Cash, amonst others. SD removes them. Anyone else having this problem?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/11/2006 @ 04:09am

  789. June 11, 2006

    Quote of the Day

    "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." – George Orwell

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/11/2006 @ 09:56am

  790. Of course back in the 80's it was Reagan & Bush Sr who armed Iraq against Iran with all those fun chemicals and biologicals!

    see: Prelude

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/11/2006 @ 09:58am

  791. "Bit hard to debate with one who has different presuppositions

    as opposed with one who shares yours? then you're obviously far afield from your usual here.

    "Also love your hyperbole in which you morph a world "good cop" into "absolute ruler of the world".

    how else would you define hegemony? this IS how much of the world now perceives good cop uncle Sam.

    "where does the leftie social democrat Blair or even the centrist Howard of Australia fit into all of this if it is not simply an Anglo conspiracy against the rest of the world?

    they are all anglo and lackeys of the GREAT power. another big booster was Berlesconi, a real model statesman

    I take it you are of Dutch or German heritage?

    born in Austria, grew up in germany, emigrated to US as teenager, citizen since 1967.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/11/2006 @ 10:31am

  792. verrry nice, Fools

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/11/2006 @ 10:35am

  793. you can see how corrosive the Iraq war has become by looking at our allies. France and germany the bedrock of Nato and the EU are alienated and sitting this madness out.

    Instead we have a new ally like Poland, who let's us put secret prisons there, and Romania who has done likewise. Italy and Spain both changed gov'ts for other reasons in addition to the war. the republican gov't here may fall. that war has been such a winner, instead of nation building, both countries have been diminished,

    and all the holier than thou-s can bask in the knowledge that a bad dictator was gotten rid of. as if this war was the ONLY solution vis a vis Saddam. no matter how much you can Satanize Saddam and make him the boogey man, the more this fraudulent adventure will be sanitized.(sic)

    Saddam never was Hitler. he was a small time desert thug, talked very big.not unlike Qaddafi or Milosovitch. the thing with Saddam's victims is that the US did nothing while these atrocities occurred and wants to now retro actively seize the issue to again retroactively justify this failed war adventure.

    another big lie is that the Marines who evidently murdered civilians are innocent until.... well that is not the only jurisprudence. there is also confessed murder. and when they change their story, in other words attempt a cover up, that to me is a self confession and is is one stage beyond innocent until....

    speaking of anglo allies, the war has been detrimental to our alliance with Canada as well, they too will have nothing to do with that war.

    this blind revenge war has ripped away the facade of the military hegemonious good cop, to expose the face of the KGB, with renditions and secret prisons and torture. is there a new gulag literature being written with america as the prison warden?

    this also applies to the homeland, we imprison far more people than other civilized countries, as well as being one of the very few with the death penalty. these things are not unconnected.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/11/2006 @ 11:04am

  794. Johann -- well said

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/11/2006 @ 11:59am

  795. yes, johannesrolf, i agree with leftofcenter. great reading.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/11/2006 @ 1:34pm

  796. Has anybody here ever read anything by Paul Craig Roberts (Z Net) or Mickey Z (Counterpunch)? If you have, do you get the impression that they are, well, slighly insane?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 2:11pm

  797. I find it funny that some on the extreme "left" are trying to paint Zarqawi as either insignificant or as just a propaganda tool used by the Bush administration as well as al-Qaeda. There have been many terror experts (Peter Bergen, Michael Scheur, Fawaz Gerges, Nir Rosen, etc.) who are critics on the War in Iraq and yet still find the capacity to admit that Zarqawi was a very dangerous figure in that country, and that the world is a better place without him.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 2:23pm

  798. the relative importance of the death of Zarkawi must be judged in the context of the gov't being accused of blowing him up out of proportion, to the point where he would have had to be in 20 places at once to commit all those atrocities at once. not that he wouldn't have done so. the bigger they made MR. Zar, the more it took attention away from the fact that they really BIG terrorist is laughing in his cave. Osama should have been job one. that would have shown the US in a firm and reasonable light.

    the longer Osama is free he is both boogeyman and albatross for Bush. the war and the failure to bring Osammma to justice will join New orleans as the Bush failures. the administration that pushed Tery Schiavos law, where the president returned to Wash overnight, special session of congress, the works. that same president took three days to address the destruction of the homeland as devastating as the WTC attacks

    .despite and because of their promises to rebuild Iraq, they haven't even rebuilt here in New Orleans AND NYC. I imagine the pentagon has been made whole, but you can still see nothing but a hole in the ground downtown.

    to those with the most righteous anger at 9/11, from the safety of their cornfields on Oklahoma or Nebraska here is a tip. I live in Manhattan, my kid went to schools blocks form the attack. he obviously was not injured, but breathed in the environment we were assured was safe. I don't know if I believe that. I'd like to. but I fear health complications for him in the future. we were all injured that day.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/11/2006 @ 4:09pm

  799. Gertrude, the biggest threat to our country does not presently come from the "extreme" left, but rather the reactionary Tory middle, which is actually extremist in disguise .conservatives, real and imagined, are beginning to realize and express this, a good sign.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/11/2006 @ 4:15pm

  800. thank you Left and Loki.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/11/2006 @ 4:22pm

  801. I wasn't saying that the extreme left is a threat to America; I was just making an observation based on columns I have read elsewhere. Also, I'm not saying Zarqawi is more important than Bin Laden or any other terrorist leader for that matter. Besides, it is the opinion of many observers now that al-Qaeda has decentralized and in the process has become more of a social or relgious movement than a terrorist group. This essentially means that the capture of Bin Laden or al-Zawahiri would be more of a symbolic victory than anything else (as would be the killing of Zarqawi).

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 4:39pm

  802. Also, no one ever said that Zarqawi planned or was present at every operation that was undertaken by Sunni fundamentalist groups in Iraq. He was just the driving force behind a lot of the most brutal attacks (suicide bombings and beheadings in particular) committed by insurgents, which obviously drew a lot of attention to him from all over the world, including Bin Laden.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 4:44pm

  803. By the way: I think George Bush is one of the most incompetent and corrupt Presidents we've ever had.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 4:46pm

  804. "Of course back in the 80's it was Reagan & Bush Sr who armed Iraq against Iran with all those fun chemicals and biologicals!"

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/11/2006 @ 09:58am

    Of course? Bit off the pace LOC. Try Germany as the prime supplier of the CW. The US was a minor supplier of precursors. JR's innocuous France was a major supplier of military arms (aircraft particularly) to Saddie. So it wasn't only you Yanks who got it wrong about Saddam's Iraq. Nothing wrong with you seeing the errors of your nation's ways though. GW has made up for the naivety implicit in your past governments' alliance with that regime.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/11/2006 @ 6:53pm

  805. LRJONES4: I agree for the most part. Still, the United States could have played a more active role in condemning Saddam's war crimes, instead of just pretending like they didn't happen.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 6:57pm

  806. Johannes----See that you have been rewriting history again. No need to use atomic bomb on Japan--nothing but revenge. The bomb as terrible as it was, saved lives.

    Also Canada's refusal to be part of the invasion of Iraq sure put them in good stead with some of their Islamic Jihadist citizens. They were so overjoyed with their decision they were only going to use a bomb twice the size of the one used in Oklahoma City rather than three times the size.

    Get out of Manhatten once in a while and breath the air of the real world. A good long visit to the rural south or midwest would do you a lot of good and probably allow you to see the world from a different perspective. I myself make it a point to visit New York at least once a year and Washington D.C. probably 10 times a year. Like the food, can't stand the traffic---I can only take it for about three days per visit but come back with an appreciation for two things: other people's perspective on the world, and how glad I am that I live where I do.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/11/2006 @ 8:39pm

  807. Gertrude,

    Which is more compelling, words or actions? Better late than never?

    Perhaps GW has balanced the scales a little for the Clinton inaction in the terrible tragedy of Rawanda. (Think Clinton still bears that burden personally).

    There are "sins" of ommission as well as "sins" of commission.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/11/2006 @ 8:49pm

  808. Robert F. Kennedy Jr - Was the 2004 Election Stolen? by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Monday, Jun. 05, 2006 at 11:45 AM

    Maybe we can begin to take the "we was robbed" crowd a little more seriously when it pushes for compulsory voting for all those eligible to vote and the introduction of pencil and paper ballots to prevent machine tampering.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/11/2006 @ 9:55pm

  809. LRJONES4: Obviously actions.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 10:05pm

  810. We should all make an effort to get the number of comments on this thread to 1000. It would be a stunning achievement in the history of the Nation website. Do not dissapoint me.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 10:11pm

  811. Perhaps some of you saw the Hume's Ghost blog "Why I do not celebrate al-Zarqawi's death" [guest blogger for Glenn Greenwald] I can't seem to get the url to work, but you should be able to find the article. Here are some extracts:

    ====quoting begins----

    As a matter of principle, I do not believe the act of killing another human is in itself ever something to be celebrated; I do not celebrate death. If the death of al-Zarqawi means that there will be less death and horror in Iraq as a result, then that is what we are to celebrate. Al-Zarqawi's death is but a means to that end and it is important to draw the distinction between his death and the consequences of that death, otherwise we dehumanize ourselves, we become desensitized to the act of killing, which should always be a solemn affair.

    In the video you will notice that President Bush says that Al-Zarqawi has been brought to justice. He has not been brought to justice, he was killed. This may have been, and for all I know, most probably was the only way to stop the horrors being committed by al-Zarqawi, but killing him has nothing to do with justice. Bringing him to justice would have meant having him stand trial for his crimes against humanity, holding him accountable before a court of law. That is the concept of justice that the civilized world has adopted. The other is punitive and vengeful - the Biblical conception of justice - and we know that for much of time that the Biblical conception of justice dominated Western society, society was not just, but unjust.

    I do not feel that celebrating is in order so long as death and mayhem in Iraq persists. I believe it calls for cautious optimism, but that there is nothing to celebrate until peace has been brought to the region. And even then it will be a time for reflection upon the cost upon which that peace was bought.

    Posted by Fishbite at 06/11/2006 @ 10:19pm

  812. Putting together the material collected on Rense.com from personal recollections and inferences, it becomes evident that: 1. al-Zarqawi was a US-Brit intel asset, ticketed for later use which explains why he wasn't eliminated sooner. (assuming he wasn't) 2. "al-Quida in Iraq" is/was largely mythic PR construction needed A. to link the war on Iraq with "the war on terror"'; B. subsequently useful to link whoever the terror warriors want to kill next – friend, foe -- to ‘cells' he planted. 3. he was brought from Jordon onto the scene right after Abu Graib photos emerged, to do the Berg Behead ("I AM A JEW") video. – which took "John Israel" off the hook, if that was who was seated in the chair watching naked Iragi's getting tortured. 4. –with the big, but MAJOR BIG role of starting the sectarian war between Shi'a and Suunis, as agent provocateur. THIS WAS TO PREVENT A UNIFIED NATIONALIST FRONT FORMING IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION – incidentally reducing political control issues to religious differences. The US stands between both parties, protecting one from the her, with a hidden asset set to punch up victims

    Posted by jones at 06/11/2006 @ 10:47pm

  813. Posted by FISHBITE 06/11/2006 @ 10:19pm

    FB,

    Don't think very many would disagree with those sentiments. Perhaps Bush, who has a quaint way with words, meant to say he got his just deserts with which sentiment. I'm sure, most would agree.

    All of us are going to die sooner or later so dying is not quite the big deal the blogger makes it out to be. If we are to take the religious terrorists seriously what better way to go? Would your blogger deny his family and associates the obvious joy they felt in celebrating his bloody demise. One can only speculate that they would have been over the moon if he had gone to his reward in bloody little fragments in much the same way many of his victims had.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/11/2006 @ 11:08pm

  814. JONES: So let me get this straight: all those suicide bombings and beheadings and assassinations we hear about never really happened? Marla Ruzika, Sergio Vieira de Mello, Izzadine Saleem, Kim Sun-il, Margaret Hassan, and all the other countless thousands who have died as the result of terrorist attacks are all really alive somewhere? Saying that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is just a ploy by the U.S. government to connect the War on Terror to the War in Iraq is like saying that the U.S. invasion of that country is just a fabrication created by Osama bin Laden to connect his jihad against the West with the War in Iraq.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 11:11pm

  815. FISHBITE: I agree with you. However, sometimes I feel that when people like Zarqawi are killed that they are experiencing their own "blowback". After all (and I don't mean to sound angry), why should they receive the right to live, a right that they denied to so many others?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/11/2006 @ 11:15pm

  816. LRJones

    Try this info out Prelude [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2006 @ 12:02am

  817. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/12/2006 @ 12:02am

    LOC,

    Notice this summary is produced by the Iran Chamber Society and is probably a little sus. Trying to check their references without any luck. Will keep at it and get you some sources of documents that show the US was officially distancing itself from Iraq's use of chemical weapons after it came to its notice (83 through 84) that Iranians were subjected to poisonous gas attacks by Iraq.

    There is little doubt that the US wanted Iran contained by Iraq but some claims about the relative extent of the US involvement are short on reliable documentation. Will get some references later to show where US ranks nation by nation in overt supply of armaments, chemical and conventional. No one is claiming the US had no part in arming and assisting Iraq but let us look at some reliable figures to get an idea of the relative size of that involvement.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/12/2006 @ 02:39am

  818. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/12/2006 @ 12:02am

    LOC,

    Conventional Arms Supplied to Iraq by Exporting Countries in Percentage Dollar Values. Taken from table on web site. See below:

    PERCENTAGE VALUE OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS 1973 to 1990

    Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact 68.9% - France 12.7% - China 11.8% - US 0.5% - Egypt 1.3% - Others 4.8%.

    PERCENTAGE VALUE OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS 1983 to 1988 (No US Arms supplied til 1983)

    Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact 57.9% - France 13.1% - China 20.6% - US 0.8% - Egypt 1.6% - Others 6.0%

    The Iraq/Iran war extended from 1980 t0 1998.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

    Will get some data on CW and FOI documentation from the US State Department records later.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/12/2006 @ 07:23am

  819. Posted by LRJONES4 06/12/2006 @ 07:23am

    Typo there: Iraq/Iran war 1980 to 1988

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/12/2006 @ 07:32am

  820. Geez,

    I really miss Zarqawi. He was such a great, misunderstood guy. All he needed was a little bit of love. Perhaps we could have given him a scholarship to Yale.

    Killing him won't fix the hole in the ozone layer or eliminate poverty or tsunamis.

    Maybe it was a mistake.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/12/2006 @ 10:50am

  821. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/11/2006 @ 4:15pm

    Gertrude, the biggest threat to our country does not presently come from the "extreme" left, but rather the reactionary Tory middle

    Johannes, America has not had "Tories" since the Revolutionary War. I know you're not a born American, but please don't confuse us with England.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 10:52am

  822. Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 06/12/2006 @ 10:50am

    I really miss Zarqawi. He was such a great, misunderstood guy. All he needed was a little bit of love. Perhaps we could have given him a scholarship to Yale.

    Killing him won't fix the hole in the ozone layer or eliminate poverty or tsunamis.

    Maybe it was a mistake.

    Maybe we could have solved his problems with some sensitivity training? He certainly had some good ideas, ie., America is the source of all problems in the world. For sure, his civil rights were violated by George Bush by the 500-lb bomb. No doubt we were illegally wiretapping his phone without a warrant, too.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 10:55am

  823. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/11/2006 @ 4:09pm

    the relative importance of the death of Zarkawi must be judged in the context of the gov't being accused of blowing him up out of proportion, to the point where he would have had to be in 20 places at once to commit all those atrocities at once. not that he wouldn't have done so. the bigger they made MR. Zar, the more it took attention away from the fact that they really BIG terrorist is laughing in his cave. Osama should have been job one. that would have shown the US in a firm and reasonable light.

    the longer Osama is free he is both boogeyman and albatross for Bush. the war and the failure to bring Osammma to justice will join New orleans as the Bush failures. the administration that pushed Tery Schiavos law, where the president returned to Wash overnight, special session of congress, the works. that same president took three days to address the destruction of the homeland as devastating as the WTC attacks

    .despite and because of their promises to rebuild Iraq, they haven't even rebuilt here in New Orleans AND NYC. I imagine the pentagon has been made whole, but you can still see nothing but a hole in the ground downtown.

    to those with the most righteous anger at 9/11, from the safety of their cornfields on Oklahoma or Nebraska here is a tip. I live in Manhattan, my kid went to schools blocks form the attack. he obviously was not injured, but breathed in the environment we were assured was safe. I don't know if I believe that. I'd like to. but I fear health complications for him in the future. we were all injured that day.

    Geez, Johannes, why don't you just say 'if George Bush killed Zarqawi, then it can't really have been a victory', and spare us the verbosity.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 11:01am

  824. Right. Two 500-pound bombs? How about two 500-pound gift baskets...of love?

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/12/2006 @ 11:04am

  825. LRJ

    I notice your Wiki figures are for "conventional arms".....from where I sit, that isn't what we were really concerned with. Nuclear technology, bioweapons, etc are where the real concern was. And back in the Reagan / Bus1 years he (Saddam) was a funded as he was preferable to Iran.

    ...and BTW....please don't confuse Dubya as being "my" president, in round 1 he won with a clear minority of the vote, and in round 2 he got his "mandate" of 1% above a tie. Whoo-hoo

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2006 @ 11:34am

  826. Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 06/12/2006 @ 11:04am

    Right. Two 500-pound bombs? How about two 500-pound gift baskets...of love?

    And did George Bush file an Environmental Impact Statement before he ordered those bombs released? Did he even bother to check whether any endangered species would be affected? No. More callous disregard for the environment. This is definitely another issue to be taken up by the International Criminal Court.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 11:36am

  827. gert Are you a jew?

    Posted by jones at 06/12/2006 @ 12:11pm

  828. Doesn't everyone here understand that whoever supports this war, Bush, Republicans and/or the hate state of Israel, is a pathologicfal liar and psychochotic killer?

    Posted by jones at 06/12/2006 @ 12:19pm

  829. It's a total mess we're in, plain and simple. Anyone whoe denies that is either dishonest or really stupid.

    Posted by rmjlattanzi at 06/12/2006 @ 12:51pm

  830. JONES: Are you an asshole?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 12:51pm

  831. JONES: And if I was (which I'm not), what difference would that make? Do you have something against Jews?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 12:52pm

  832. JONES: Are you an anti-Semite?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 1:01pm

  833. Posted by JONES 06/11/2006 @ 10:47pm

    Putting together the material collected on Rense.com from personal recollections and inferences, it becomes evident that: 1. al-Zarqawi was a US-Brit intel asset, ticketed for later use which explains why he wasn't eliminated sooner. (assuming he wasn't) 2. "al-Quida in Iraq" is/was largely mythic PR construction needed A. to link the war on Iraq with "the war on terror"'; B. subsequently useful to link whoever the terror warriors want to kill next – friend, foe -- to ‘cells' he planted. 3. he was brought from Jordon onto the scene right after Abu Graib photos emerged, to do the Berg Behead ("I AM A JEW") video. – which took "John Israel" off the hook, if that was who was seated in the chair watching naked Iragi's getting tortured. 4. –with the big, but MAJOR BIG role of starting the sectarian war between Shi'a and Suunis, as agent provocateur. THIS WAS TO PREVENT A UNIFIED NATIONALIST FRONT FORMING IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION – incidentally reducing political control issues to religious differences. The US stands between both parties, protecting one from the her, with a hidden asset set to punch up victims

    Posted by JONES 06/12/2006 @ 12:19am

    Doesn't everyone here understand that whoever supports this war, Bush, Republicans and/or the hate state of Israel, is a pathologicfal liar and psychochotic killer?

    Everyone? What about Hillary Clinton, where does her support for the war fit into this?

    Where does worldwide Jewery fit into this?

    Was the WTC bombing an inside job?

    Where are they hiding that engine that runs on water, Jones? Is it near the place where the drug companies hide all the miracle drugs they don't want us to have?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 1:59pm

  834. Pontificator

    Funny you should mention the "car running on water" thing...try this UK news item from Sept 2005 Breakthrough [tinyurl.com] and the cached Google page from December 2005 Fuel Cell [tinyurl.com]

    ...thereafter the trail disappears.

    sometimes thing do get "disappeared"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2006 @ 2:29pm

  835. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/12/2006 @ 2:29pm

    LoC, you seem like a nice, earnest person so I'll give it to you straight. Hoaxes like these are the equivalent of modern snake oil, foisted upon the credulous and the technically illiterate. Think about it rationally; if there were such a method, you could check Wall Street and see immediately the stock of every oil company go to zero.

    It's funny, I have a friend who believes this energy-from-water thing, too. He's real smart, too, just not well-educated in terms of scientific concepts. As a chemical engineer, I try to explain the fundamental impossibility of such a device. It would be the equivalent of creating something from nothing; a physical impossibility.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 2:41pm

  836. I mean, think about it for God's sake. "Spinning water at high speed" to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen? Sheesh.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 2:45pm

  837. Actually, I should elaborate just a little bit. There is one known way of liberating energy from water - thermonuclear fusion. It takes extremely high temperatures and pressures. We know how, theoretically, we just can't engineer it yet. When we do, we will no longer need much, if any, oil for energy or anything else for that matter.

    A couple of years ago a couple of 'scientists' put together a device which they claimed to demonstrate 'cold fusion'. It was shown that they were in error in their experiments. If they had been right, we would be in a different world today.

    The point is, if someone came up with a scientifically demonstrated method of 'cold fusion', it would be the greatest invention since the discovery of fire. No company or government would be able to put a lid on it, nor would they want to, because the discoverers would be immensely rich.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 3:05pm

  838. I like the cars used on the Flintstones. They solve at least the problems in the US: pollution, obesity, being able to run away from crazies usually makes them want to negotiate more than rarely being able to catch them...

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/12/2006 @ 3:14pm

  839. LoC, you seem like a nice, earnest person so I'll give it to you straight. Hoaxes like these are the equivalent of modern snake oil, foisted upon the credulous and the technically illiterate. Think about it rationally; if there were such a method, you could check Wall Street and see immediately the stock of every oil company go to zero.

    It's funny, I have a friend who believes this energy-from-water thing, too. He's real smart, too, just not well-educated in terms of scientific concepts. As a chemical engineer, I try to explain the fundamental impossibility of such a device. It would be the equivalent of creating something from nothing; a physical impossibility. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/12/2006 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person

    It finally happened: I agree with something you said! lol This is a big problem here in the US: the lack of technical education that allows the above quackery. Sorta like the magic "Laundry Disc", ya know? In the words of Homer Simpson: "We obey the Laws of Thermodynamics in this house, little lady".

    Posted by cliffy at 06/12/2006 @ 3:16pm

  840. Meant to say: They solve at least three problems...

    Posted by Bushfools at 06/12/2006 @ 3:17pm

  841. Ponti & Cliff

    I do have some degree of technical ed (being a PhD student in organic geochemistry) If you note on the page: fuel cell [fuelcellsworks.com] the consultant, Dr. Maltini is a notable consultant in the field of fuel cells, etc. If he thinks it is worth a look, then who are you, or I to say otherwise.

    I did have a link to another, moderately more technical look at the process that I have been unable to find again. As I understood it used some certain salts as a catalytic agent and involved a small hydrolysis chamber where the water spun at exceedingly high velocity. I'll see if I can't track down more info.

    ..and BTW: you don't get fusion energy from water, but from the heavy hydrogren extracted from it. Energy is gotten from water via electrolysis, however...although it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen than the thermal energy it provides using conventional technology. Of course, using solar PV has been touted as a means to this end, but the areal aspect of PV collectors does not make this very efficient.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2006 @ 4:10pm

  842. and no, I don't believe in cold fusion. Although I admit when it first came out I was intrigued at the idea.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2006 @ 4:11pm

  843. Posted by JONES 06/12/2006 @ 12:19am

    Doesn't everyone here understand that whoever supports this war, Bush, Republicans and/or the hate state of Israel, is a pathologicfal liar and psychochotic killer?

    Ponts reply: "Everyone? What about Hillary Clinton, where does her support for the war fit into this?

    Where does worldwide Jewery fit into this?"

    ***/ Yes, everyone who sees the connections and resolves to carry on as if nothing were amiss, metaphysically speaking.

    Dividing the questions: l. With this $25 million PR stunt so blatant, grotesque, irredeemable, there comes into being what is called a "Front", in geo-political analyss. The face of "Abu al-Zarqawi", as newspews always carefully put it, is the face they all wear who spear-headed the war: Neocons (Cath-o-jews), Judeo-Xian Re-pubes and Pentagon CNN "terror experts". The photo, paraded all over the world, is like barbarians' hoisting a defeated enemy's head on a pole, isn't it -- except more profoundly grotesque, in a way. The bloated face shown over and over on tv goes right up there with the geniuses who yanked up Terry Shiavo's bed-back contraption pan over and over, almost as if she were about to speak! These pictures show what the showers are inside. And it shows the depths that this war making cabal is willing to sink America to, as part of a 2. But it was parading Achilles' body that led to the destruction of ancient Troy, and that is what they have done to us. God couldn't have slapped them in the face eternally any harder, praise His name.

    Hillary Clinton? -- yew bet. Ann Coulter, pre-sex change.

    2. Shumley ("gays are the male messiahs") Boteach? Want to put a face or something on this "worldwide Jewry" thing? Don't want to tar all God's children (which Jews are not, if you believe in tbe New Testament; the Father of Christ was a Melchizedek, that's non-semitic, and Abraham paid them homage) with the same brush. There may be souls still to be saved among the tribe who rejected Him, if they will repent of their sins, renounce the wicked ways of their fathers -- and banish themselves and descendents to the gulag peninsula for perpetuity, sealed off from humanity by a high wall.

    Posted by jones at 06/12/2006 @ 4:22pm

  844. Mosse, your post in fatuous. here's why:

    the question of the atomic bomb used against Japan is in dispute. I dd not initiate this dispute, historians much more knowledgeable than you or I differ in their views, that too is history.

    the fact that Canada prevented a terrorist attack has nothing to do with their revulsion of the war. we hate the war because it's a terrible idea, not to make nice with possible future terrorists.

    and the last paragraph is just a personal attack. who gets out where is immaterial here. so you got NOTHING

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 4:29pm

  845. Ponti, when you subtract trying to put words in other poster's mouth, there is nothing left in your posts. I on the other hand have something to say with my verbosity

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 4:31pm

  846. JONES: This guy is a joke.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 4:33pm

  847. JONES:"The photo, paraded all over the world, is like barbarians' hoisting a defeated enemy's head on a pole, isn't it -- except more profoundly grotesque, in a way

    I guess it's what you would call blowback.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 4:34pm

  848. Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 4:36pm

  849. I think the Mavericks are going to sweep the Heat.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 4:37pm

  850. I hate to admit this but I think the Mavs are going to beat the heat as well. The Heat may take one game at home, but it's a done deal. Big ups to Avery Johnson. He's the man.

    Posted by k330k at 06/12/2006 @ 5:07pm

  851. Yup, Mavs in 5, defensive rebounds win it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 5:15pm

  852. Holding Shaq to only five points doesn't hurt either.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 5:38pm

  853. this thing with Shaq puzzles me. he sat on the bench most of the game, how COULD he have scored more points?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 5:44pm

  854. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/12/2006 @ 11:34am

    LOC,

    Having ascertained that the US was a minor player in the supply of conventional weapons to Iraq I think you will find on perusing the link below that it was not much more significant in relative terms than it was in the supply of conventional arms to Iraq.

    That involvement by the US is however a double edged sword as follows. If Saddam was being helped by the West and other countries to develop nuclear and chemical/bio weapons and given the assumption that the US was aware of its extent, it makes the decision to invade Iraq a very rational choice and all the immediate pre-war claims about Iraq's WMD all the more understandable.

    Or is in fact the claim about the US's involvement in the Saddam years overstated?

    You really can't have it both ways.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/12/2006 @ 6:12pm

  855. JOHANNESROLF: All I'm saying that if Shaq only scores 5 points, no matter what the circumstances, the Heat have absolutely no chance whatsoever. Also, the Mavs are doing a great job of denying him the ball and keeping him out of the game.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 6:47pm

  856. Sorry for the typo: it should be "that is".

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 6:47pm

  857. By the way: does anybody find it weird that right wing extremism seems to be more prevalent in Europe than in America? Now, I just want to clarify something before I go on: by no means do I think that the Republican Party is some progressive institution or anything. It's just that it seems like the European far right is much more openly racist and xenophobic. Just look at the success of the British National Party or Jean-Marie Le Pen: do you think anyone in America could get away with proposing some of the things that these clowns have?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 6:59pm

  858. Posted by JONES 06/12/2006 @ 12:19am

    "Doesn't everyone here understand that whoever supports this war, Bush, Republicans and/or the hate state of Israel, is a pathologicfal liar and psychochotic killer?"

    Please Mr. senoJ ! You're giving the clan a bad name. And a religious(or common garden variety?)nutter to boot.(May come as a bit of a surprise to many here but a few of us offspring of coal miners made it past primary school).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/12/2006 @ 7:40pm

  859. Posted by JONES 06/12/2006 @ 12:19am

    "Doesn't everyone here understand that whoever supports this war, Bush, Republicans and/or the hate state of Israel, is a pathologicfal liar and psychochotic killer?"

    Please Mr. Jones! You're giving the clan a bad name. And a religious nutter to boot. (In light of your great erudition and flawless logic, it may come as a bit of a surprise to many here that a few of us offspring of coal miners made it past primary school).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/12/2006 @ 7:53pm

  860. of course Gertrude, you are correct. I just think the story should be Shaq on the bench, why? rather than Shaq scores 5 points.

    the Mavs manage to have a way of going into overdrive, to come from a deficit, game one, or put the game away, game two.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 8:18pm

  861. JOHANNESROLF: I think he was sitting on the bench either because of foul trouble or because the Heat were down by so much that Pat Riley didn't want to risk injuring the Big Aristotle in what essentially was a lost cause.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 9:08pm

  862. Yep ... its a jew, alright. Not that that makes a hell a lot of difference -- its not the jew, its the jewishness in them ... and the Pentagon ... State dept. ... the Lobby ... eevagellical TV whore preachers ... nutcase middle-of-the-roaders .. Jeesus was Joo-sh (though the Christ in him was not); ya got yer Judas, whichever you choose Ya gotcha baby boomers, and yer al-Zaq's ... some baseball bloopers and ... yer Shaq! rach rach

    All part of the grotesquerie posted under Corn's blog on the death of Zarqawi

    (trying to inject some levity here -- yuk it up with The Nation's dudes and dudesses!) **** to the other jones: "May come as a bit of a surprise to many here but a few of us offspring of coal miners made it past primary school."

    ...then try to show you learned something, man, and stand up for your heritage. NEVER try to speak truth to fools in seriousness.

    s

    Posted by jones at 06/12/2006 @ 9:33pm

  863. LRJ

    True enough. But then too, we (meaning the US) must have had some measure of trust or we wouldn't have played "patty-cake" back when to begin with. So why - when he told us he had disarmed - did we choose not to believe him. Guess you can't have it both ways either.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2006 @ 9:52pm

  864. JONES: Exuse my French, but who the f*** is this guy? Is he on some sort of banned substance or something? I could literally not understand what the hell he was saying in his last post.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 9:55pm

  865. By the way JONES, I'm not Jewish: I'm of Irish and Scottish descent. Not that it really makes any difference to me; I just wanted to make things clear for you.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 9:56pm

  866. By the way: does anybody find it weird that right wing extremism seems to be more prevalent in Europe than in America?

    here the right wing extreme is called the center. the center in europe here is called the extreme left.

    Gertrude, I urge you to keep your eye on the prize, so to speak. it is clear who the enemy is that needs to be reigned in for democracy in the US to survive. their names are Bush and Cheney, Rice and Rummy, Frist and Hastert.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2006 @ 10:21pm

  867. JOHANNESROLF: Really? Though I think the Bush administration is certainly corrupt and has violated the Constitution on several occasions, I believe that they are too incompetent to pose any long-term threat to American democracy.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 10:29pm

  868. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/12/2006 @ 10:21pm

    here the right wing extreme is called the center. the center in europe here is called the extreme left.

    Which explains their failing economies.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 10:40pm

  869. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/12/2006 @ 4:10pm

    I do have some degree of technical ed (being a PhD student in organic geochemistry) If you note on the page: fuel cell [fuelcellsworks.com] the consultant, Dr. Maltini is a notable consultant in the field of fuel cells, etc. If he thinks it is worth a look, then who are you, or I to say otherwise.

    I did have a link to another, moderately more technical look at the process that I have been unable to find again. As I understood it used some certain salts as a catalytic agent and involved a small hydrolysis chamber where the water spun at exceedingly high velocity. I'll see if I can't track down more info.

    Well, I'm sure Dr. Maltini has his reasons, but I suspect that what he has is in mind is a long ways from what yahoos like JONES think the evil oil companies are keeping from us, e.g., topping off the old Yukon XL with the garden hose.

    ..and BTW: you don't get fusion energy from water, but from the heavy hydrogren extracted from it.

    Yeah, I know but did I know you were capable of understanding that level of detail? No.

    Energy is gotten from water via electrolysis, however...although it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen than the thermal energy it provides using conventional technology. Of course, using solar PV has been touted as a means to this end, but the areal aspect of PV collectors does not make this very efficient.

    Actually, electrolytic nuclear power would be ideal both environmentally and in terms of energy security, but it seems that makes too much sense for the left.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 10:49pm

  870. Sorry, 'electroyltic hydrogen from nuclear power' is what I meant to say makes the most sense for creating clean automotive fuels.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/12/2006 @ 11:00pm

  871. KRJ

    Come back! come back! -- they've Gertrued's scotch-irish Deutch up! Sees All. Knowns Nothing (a "Know Nothing, get it? rach rach). Won't stop. killing us all, the wee ones. Anti-Coulter's complaint.

    capice!capice!

    Posted by jones at 06/12/2006 @ 11:11pm

  872. Dude, I think JONES has lost it.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/12/2006 @ 11:47pm

  873. wow jones! how do u call that bringing levity to the thread?

    you're paranoid schizophrenic aren't u?

    those meds aren't actually a gov.t plot to take over your mind. there are no implants. now take your meds like a good little boy.........

    Posted by loveloki at 06/13/2006 @ 12:55am

  874. Posted by GERTRUDE 06/12/2006 @ 10:29pm

    JOHANNESROLF: Really? Though I think the Bush administration is certainly corrupt and has violated the Constitution on several occasions, I believe that they are too incompetent to pose any long-term threat to American democracy.

    In contrast, the threat posed by Chavez to Venezuelan democracy is clear and present. But my guess is that many leftists care less about democracy than they do about 'social justice', i.e., socialism.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 03:44am

  875. The death of Zarqawi won't change much. He was just one fascist in a sea of sectarian hatred. Not all Iraqis hate people based on sectarian lines, but there are many.

    Have a look at the Iraq war timeline [nicolaibrown.com] and consider trends. The only constant is deterioration.

    The whole world didn't revolve around Zarqawi... violence and death will continue without him.

    BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

    Posted by arbresforever at 06/13/2006 @ 04:00am

  876. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/12/2006 @ 10:21pm

    Hey, JR, I think Michael Barone has been paying attention to your posts. Here's what he had to say:

    It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.

    Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.

    In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. ***

    All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters. The persistence of violence in Iraq has done grave damage to George W. Bush's job rating, and polls show that his fellow Republicans are in trouble. Yet when people actually vote, those numbers don't seem to translate into gains for the Democrats. In 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the votes in the 50th district of California. In the April 2006 special primary, Democrat Francine Busby got 44 percent of the votes there. In the runoff last week, she got 45 percent and lost to Republican Brian Bilbray.

    The angry Democratic left and its aiders and abettors in the press seem to have succeeded in souring public opinion, but they haven't succeeded in producing victory margins for the Democrats. Maybe they're doing just the opposite.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 04:08am

  877. Posted by ARBRESFOREVER 06/13/2006 @ 04:00am

    BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

    Hmm, just to be sure - your idea is to cut and run?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 04:09am

  878. "True enough. But then too, we (meaning the US) must have had some measure of trust or we wouldn't have played "patty-cake" back when to begin with. So why - when he told us he had disarmed - did we choose not to believe him. Guess you can't have it both ways either."

    LOC,

    Really was just trying to indicate the idea that the US armed and made Saddam what he was is really not a sound proposition. If you read the history dispassionately it doesn't take long to see that the US was a fairly minor player and was engaging in duplicity by also supplying arms to Iran. Iran as you are aware was using superior US warplanes that caused the Iraqis no end of trouble. These were left overs from the Shah's days but somehow Iran seemed to get enough spare parts from intermediaries to keep them operational. The Oliver North Contra business probably is a measure of the duplicity of most if not all the countries that were arms suppliers to both sides. The US, I suggest, was not really being taken for a ride by the Baathists but merely engaged in the game along with all the other players.

    Those of us who think a little more highly of Dubya than most of you natives seem to, do not for a moment regard him as an intellectual but we do assume that the leadership did not have to think long and hard about Saddam's trustworthiness and an assessment, that would be hard to decry, was made that Saddam and his cronies "couldn't lie straight in bed". That I think is the answer to your question.

    I have posted before that I think Saddam's treatment of his people (and his warlike belligerence toward his neighbours and the potential that had for more wars) was a sufficient reason for his removal so the WMDs were not, in my opinion, the most pressing issue.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2006 @ 07:27am

  879. Christopher Hitchens, who still claims to be a communist, is one leftie who has earned the right to have a view on the Iraq issue because he has remained true to his anti-fascist credo. This abstract from Slate is Hitchens at his iconoclastic best as he shows the intellectual dishonesty of many of his old comrades with a bit of inescapable logic:

    ...."The latest Atlantic has a brilliantly timed cover story by Mary Anne Weaver, which tends to the view that Zarqawi was essentially an American creation, but seems to undermine its own prominence by suggesting that, in addition to that, Zarqawi wasn't all that important.

    Not so fast. Zarqawi contributed enormously to the wrecking of Iraq's experiment in democratic federalism. He was able to help ensure that the Iraqi people did not have one single day of respite between 35 years of war and fascism, and the last three-and-a-half years of misery and sabotage. He chose his targets with an almost diabolical cunning, destroying the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad (and murdering the heroic envoy Sérgio Vieira de Melo) almost before it could begin operations, and killing the leading Shiite Ayatollah Hakim outside his place of worship in Najaf. His decision to declare a jihad against the Shiite population in general, in a document of which Weaver (on no evidence) doubts the authenticity, has been the key innovation of the insurgency: applying lethal pressure to the most vulnerable aspect of Iraqi society. And it has had the intended effect, by undermining Grand Ayatollah Sistani and helping empower Iranian-backed Shiite death squads.

    Not bad for a semiliterate goon and former jailhouse enforcer from a Bedouin clan in Jordan.

    There are two important questions concerning the terrible influence that he has been able to exert. The first is: How much state and para-state support did he enjoy? The second is: What was the nature of his relationship with Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida?

    For the defeatists and pacifists, these are easy questions to answer. Colin Powell was wrong to identify Zarqawi, in his now-notorious U.N. address, as a link between the Saddam regime and the Bin-Ladenists. The man's power was created only by the coalition's intervention, and his connection to al Qaida was principally opportunistic. On this logic, the original mistake of the United States would have been to invade Afghanistan, thereby forcing Zarqawi to flee his camp outside Herat and repositioning him for a new combat elsewhere. Thus, fighting against al-Qaida is a mistake to begin with: It only encourages them...."

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2006 @ 07:44am

  880. Ponti, youre an ass, their economies are not failing, the Euro started out on parity with the $ , which has and keeps falling. they don't have the generation lasting debts. If I were running that kind of deficit my economy would be booming too. you are a simple minded ideologue with absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 07:57am

  881. One of THE worst day in David Corn's life just began....

    Fitzgerald clears Rove.

    Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 08:00am

  882. er, no, Mask. he did not clear Rove. he declined to charge him. had Rove been through any kind of judicial process and found innocent, THEN he would have been "cleared".

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:03am

  883. LRJOnes, clear and reasoned posts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:04am

  884. I have posted before that I think Saddam's treatment of his people (and his warlike belligerence toward his neighbours and the potential that had for more wars) was a sufficient reason for his removal so the WMDs were not, in my opinion, the most pressing issue.

    this is phony, Jonesy, we do not arrest people for potential and we cannot go to war for potential while we are screaming threat threat. not only were the WMDs not a pressing issue, they were non existent.

    name one threat by Saddam against his neighbors after the Kuwait invasion. name one threat against the US by Saddam.

    now c'mon Jones, don't be rehashing that same old crap, we are three years into that thing and the bare facts are pretty well lnown here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:09am

  885. Ponti, unlike you, I do my own "saying"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:12am

  886. his warlike belligerence toward his neighbours and the potential that had for more wars)

    this could also be said of Israel, and other countries too, including the US with its absurd stance against Venezuela, which is, last I heard, a sovereign country and NOT a satellite of the soviet states of america.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:14am

  887. LRJONES4: I think I heard that Zarqawi was originally a rival of Bin Laden because he didn't think he was extreme enough. This changed, however, after the invasion of Iraq, for both men knew they could enhance their own images in the Islamic world by associating with one another.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 08:19am

  888. redundancy alert: "warlike belligerence"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:20am

  889. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 08:03am | ignore this person

    JOHANN, debate the semantics ("He wasn't charged, therefore he wasn't 'cleared'"?!?!?)...

    But David Corn has spent over a YEAR now (here and on his personal blog) with a laser-like focus on Rove and his "eventual" indictment and conviction...and now Rove is "walking".

    Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 08:20am

  890. LRJONES4: By the way, your posts on the relationship between Iraq and the United States are very well written.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 08:21am

  891. Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 08:22am

  892. JOHANNESROLF: So, here's the million dollar question: What do you think the United States should do to improve the situation in Iraq? I for one have know idea.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 08:23am

  893. well, I'm glad someone finally asked ME about a plan for Iraq. I would have preferred had the question come from Rice or Cheney but...

    try a peace process.withdraw the troops at the same time, get the UN involved, get the arab states involved.get the EU involved. all these entities were marginalized by the war. let's get them involved in the peace. look Israel fought four wars against its neighbors. now they have reached a detente with their former enemies, Egypt and Jordan, and others. something has changed there. or northern Ireland. there too progress has been made. more war is not doing the trick, let's try NEGOTIATIONS

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:48am

  894. the US cannot kill its way out of the Iraq debacle.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:49am

  895. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 07:57am

    Ponti, youre an ass, their economies are not failing,

    Well, with birth rates falling, GDP stagnant, and 10 + percent unemployment, one wonders what an economy has to to do for you to consider it to be 'failing'. Become capitalist, perhaps?

    the Euro started out on parity with the $ , which has and keeps falling.

    Yeah, so what? Currencies fluctuate for a variety of reasons, with little impact on people's lives. The Euro tanked before it's latest rise, I'm sure you didn't consider that to be important.

    they don't have the generation lasting debts. If I were running that kind of deficit my economy would be booming too.

    They don't pay for their own self-defense, either. And we've had debts before, we'll pay them off again. It's pretty easy to do when your economy is growing at 5.8 percent per year. Do you know what the growth rate in Eurpose is, Hans? It's like 1 percent.

    you are a simple minded ideologue with absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion.

    You took the words right out of my mouth, Hans. You are a knee-jerk apologist for every socialist government in the world, and a knee-jerk hater of everything the US stands for. You should renounce your citizenship and go back to Germany.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 08:50am

  896. You should renounce your citizenship and go back to Germany.

    I knew you'd get around to that one eventually, hahahahah, you are a joke.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:56am

  897. I do not hate what the US stands for, I hate what they have become.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:57am

  898. the EU is paying for its own defense with NATO and are helping defend the US in Afghanistan.none of the big EU countries are socialist economies, you are clueless and just keep making dopey assertions.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:59am

  899. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 08:09am

    JR,

    The potential was highly probable given the Baathists past history of two wars in a few decades in which over a million were killed. Practically the removal of Saddam and his leadership team meant 3 birds were killed with one stone. Even if one bird had no wings.

    The US has had a bit of a history of helping remove fascist regimes from Europe and Asia. Maybe it's a cultural fixation. Maybe its a hard habit to break. I mean getting rid of fascist regimes.

    Recently the Europeans had a go at in the former Yugoslavia but apparently didn't have the heart or skill for it and had to call the US in to finish the job. Must have been lack of practice.

    Perhaps Arabs love the rigours of a fascist state?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2006 @ 08:59am

  900. they don't have the generation lasting debts. If I were running that kind of deficit my economy would be booming too.

    I should point out as well that in addition to Europe not (generally) paying for its own defense, it also does not pay for its own technological developments (medicine, computers, internet, etc) but rather imports these from the US. Europe has decling birth rates, leading to a demographic trend which indicates economic collapse in the next few decades. France and Germany, the largest continental European economies, have 10 percent plus unemployment rates, even after you consider the multitudinous government welfare recipients (which are not included in the unemployment rates). GDP growth ratess across Europe are stagnant, falling generally in the 1-2 percent range, compared to 5.8 percent in the US.

    And these are the systems you would have us emulate, Hans?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 08:59am

  901. And we've had debts before, we'll pay them off again.

    yes, under dem presidents, for instance.

    many economists have stated that the US will not be able to grow itself out of these enormous deficits.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:03am

  902. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 08:59am

    none of the big EU countries are socialist economies, you are clueless and just keep making dopey assertions.

    And you keep redefining your positions by changing the semantics. The big EU countries are far more socialist than we are, which is what seems to make you admire them so much, and you keep wishing to see our (successful) economy run more like their (failing) ones. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, Hans, and yet you refuse to see. This is what makes you a blind ideologue.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 09:04am

  903. it also does not pay for its own technological developments (medicine, computers, internet, etc) but rather imports these from the US.

    this is such bullshit. again your entire argument is a straw man. where did I state that we should emulate the economies of Europe? where has anyone here stated that. you are a buffoon and a nasty one at that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:05am

  904. The potential was highly probable

    whatta bunch of crap. do you read this before you post?

    what threat was Saddam to anyone after '91? I have received no answer to this question. because he wasn't.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:09am

  905. The US has had a bit of a history of supporting fascist regimes from Europe and Asia and the world over.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:12am

  906. JOHANNESROLF: I think your plan is the best for the withdrawal arguement. Now, does anyone have a decent "we stay the course" plan? In other words, what should the U.S. do in Iraq if we are to stay there?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:19am

  907. "I do not hate what the US stands for, I hate what they have become."

    Amen.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/13/2006 @ 09:19am

  908. By the way: only 19 posts until 1000! Let's keep it goin' folks!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:19am

  909. there are several countries with far higher growth rates than the US. why don't you move to China, Ponti?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:27am

  910. You know what would be awesome: to have basketball become as popular as soccer worldwide. When you think about it, basketball is similar to soccer in that it is fast-paced and requires relatively little equipment. My real dream would be to have the foreign basketball leagues achieve the same level of excellence as the NBA.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:28am

  911. My real dream would be to have the foreign basketball leagues achieve the same level of excellence as the NBA.

    who won the olympic gold? judging from the number of foreign stars in the NBA, they appear to be pretty excellent now.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:31am

  912. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 09:05am

    this is such bullshit. again your entire argument is a straw man. where did I state that we should emulate the economies of Europe?

    So, are you saying now that we shouldn't? Because that seems to be the premise of so many of your posts, where you expound on the virtue of socialized medicine, ever higher and higher taxes, big government, etc. You seem to really get off on countries like Venezuela, where the current El Presidente is busy packing the courts and extending his term to infinity, taking property from people, presumably all actions you deem laudable because he is a socialist. In short, you seem to be denying the socialist theme, while playing all the notes.

    It's been said that the only way a leftist can be elected in America is to lie about what he/she stands for (see: Hillary Clinton), so I guess you're right in tune.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 09:33am

  913. Posted by DRHAMMER 06/13/2006 @ 09:19am

    "I do not hate what the US stands for, I hate what they have become."

    Amen.

    Liberals love America like OJ loved Nicole.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/13/2006 @ 09:34am

  914. JOHANNESROLF: No doubt. What I'm trying to say is that I hope one day foreign leagues in and of themselves achieve the same sort of popularity and talent-level as the NBA. This way, global basketball will become like global soccer, in that there will be strong leagues everywhere, not just in one country. Remember, as good as foreign players have become, they still come to the NBA.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:35am

  915. Gert, the situation is similar to the state of soccer here. the best american players play in Europe, because that's where the big money and the best competition is. Even in "american" sports like baseball the world is catching up, ie baseball, the US went nowhere in that baseball thing a few months ago. that leaves American football, which also is increasing its popularity, especially in germany. but I doubt that any sport will rival soccer in worldwide popularity.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:43am

  916. Ponti that was your last asinine post with me. can you get anymore stupid?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:45am

  917. JOHANNESROLF: Good analogy.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:46am

  918. It's strange how we never hear too much about what's going on in Afghanistan. You'd think that a resurgency of the Taliban would be big news to someone, but apparently not.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:49am

  919. Come on people! Only six more to go!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:51am

  920. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 09:09am

    JR,

    Only took him twelve years to get over what was a devastating Iran stoush before invading Kuwait. He was still a big fish in a small (Gulf) pond and had he not been contained through US/Brit air strikes, post the Gulf War, and finally removed in 2003 there is little doubt he would have been sparring for another fight.

    That is, as you say, a potential and to which different analysts would assign different probabilities. What was not a potential but a documented reality was his horrifically, barbaric and sadistically cruel treatment of his people. If the potential dangers didn't concern you how about the capricious cruelty that this regime perpetrated on its own men, women and children? Did that leave you coldly indifferent? Or were you totally ignorant of that aspect of Iraqi life?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2006 @ 09:56am

  921. Gert, I'll help: that Larry Bird was no damn good.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 09:56am

  922. JOHANNESROLF: Great idea! Here's another one to get everyone going: George W. Bush is hands down the greatest President ever.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 09:59am

  923. LR, would coulda shoulda. not a good basis to go to war on. remember the Bush gang did not go before the american people with that line. they went with mushroom clouds and warnings of 45 ,minutes to attack, Blair,.

    "had he not been contained through US/Brit air strikes, post the Gulf War," aha, so he WAS contained, I thought so.

    "his horrifically, barbaric and sadistically cruel treatment of his people." Saddam was not alone in this. also this was NOT the casus belli. the casus belli was the trumped up scare of WMD. everything else is just ex post facto rationalizations and excuses.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:02am

  924. LRJONES4: I think what JOHANNESROLF is trying to say is that although Saddam Hussein was unbelievably cruel to his own people, he wasn't much of a threat to anyone else, which was a result of the First Gulf War as well as the sanctions and the airstrikes that you mentioned.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 10:02am

  925. 1000!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 10:03am

  926. We did it! Now I have to go wash the dishes. Adios, muchachos!

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 10:04am

  927. P.S. Maybe we should now move these discussions to another thread.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 10:05am

  928. Lr, you keep bringing up the Iran Iraq war, a miscalculation by Saddam, who attacked. a salient point in that war is that the US supported Saddam. that can't be denied. they told him we will not let you lose. the whole world including the Us sold him arms, including Russia and EU countries. why do you thing Iraq owes everyone so much money?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:05am

  929. as long as they keep this thread open.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:06am

  930. Posted by LRJONES4 06/13/2006 @ 09:56am . ...so, we shoulda invaded the USSR after WWII to enforce regime change & get rid of Stalin

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/13/2006 @ 10:11am

  931. Nathan, excellent point. but then HE had nukes and the world's largest army pointed at the Fulda gap.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:13am

  932. LRJ

    I have posted before that I think Saddam's treatment of his people (and his warlike belligerence toward his neighbours and the potential that had for more wars)was a sufficient reason for his removal

    So you are *for* pre-emptive war then? Hmmmm, interesting. It was the US' altruism towards the poor oppressed Iraqi people that saw the reason for war then. So the US should have a clear field to attack any nation that "whoops up" on its own people or its neighbors? Guess we will be waging wars in N Korea, Darfur, and a half-dozen other nations by like next week.

    While your posts are very rational, I cannot buy your rationale.

    Where you from BTW? You allude to being from "elsewhere" and am kinda surprised that anyone in another nation holds Dubya in high esteem.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/13/2006 @ 10:26am

  933. Posted by GERTRUDE 06/13/2006 @ 10:02am

    Gertrude,

    There were no WMDs found in Iraq. Would then the air strikes have continued? Would the sanctions have continued? Would Saddam have been contained?

    Large Iraqi army and Fedayeen with nothing to do. Chinese and French and others looking to sell arms. Come, come JR you didn't arrive in the last shower and neither did we.

    Gertrude past your 1000 yet?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2006 @ 10:30am

  934. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/13/2006 @ 10:13am As the world's cop, how much should the expected cost of our altruism steer our policy decisions? LRJ, feel free to step up & take a swing at that one...

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/13/2006 @ 10:31am

  935. Hey David,

    Whatcha doin'? Typing up a furious response to the news that Rove WON'T be charged?

    Posted by Beausoleil at 06/13/2006 @ 10:44am

  936. LRJONES4: Let me make myself clear: I'm very glad Saddam is gone. However, I believe that even if we had stopped "containing" him, he would have hurt no one except his own. The only thing he would have gained by invading another country would have been the total destruction of his military by the United States and its allies.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 10:47am

  937. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/13/2006 @ 10:26am

    LOC,

    Melbourne Australia. Its 1.34am Wednesday here. Off to bed will think about your post and reply later as brain is slipping out of gear.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2006 @ 11:37am

  938. you -- this thread - is why America is dead.

    Hated by everyone else (justified) Hating each other (justified) Hating yourself (justified)

    Whoever predicates on a lie spreads it Whoever knowingly and deliberately predicates on a lie becomes it.

    Any critical look at what went down shows the official story is a lie from start to finish. Everything except the killing. Killing for progressives. You owe your freedom to 500 bombs.

    Posted by jones at 06/13/2006 @ 11:58am

  939. And it is the jewishness in you. Can't shut up after being proven wrong. God's good guys, a trait.

    Posted by jones at 06/13/2006 @ 12:03pm

  940. As far as the advantages or disadvantages of Europe over the USA....

    what if we just look at the "voting with your feet" vote?

    Or....where are people wanting to move TO and where are people wanting to move FROM? Especially if you're successful?

    Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 12:05pm

  941. JONES: Are you talkin' to me, punk? Most likely not. You probably don't even know who you're talking to.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 12:39pm

  942. JONES: I'm guessing you're probably not from America. I hope not: just knowing that you could be in the same country as me is alarming. By the way, who the f*** are you anyway?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 12:41pm

  943. "And it is the jewishness in you. Can't shut up after being proven wrong. God's good guys, a trait."

    this is a racist slur, that has no place here. if you want to have a place here, cut that out.

    "what if we just look at the "voting with your feet" vote?"

    yes, let's. the europeans are no longer coming, why should they? our immigrants are mostly the wretched refuse from Mexico and points south. the Irish who used to come are going back, immigrants are also desperately trying to get into europe. the moroccan straight has them swimming and rafting to get to Europe.

    my platform has never been things are so much better there. we can however learn from them what works and try it here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 12:41pm

  944. JOHANNESROLF: Do you know who this JONES guy is? He's like the liberal version of FUCKLIBZ, or whatever the hell that guy's name is.

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 12:52pm

  945. is this the sad end of this monster thread?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 4:06pm

  946. What do you mean?

    Posted by Gertrude at 06/13/2006 @ 5:00pm

  947. Hitchens.

    Yes, he fashions himself into whatever you think he is not, joining with no one so that his exclusivity makes him feel superior to all. MASK, only wordier and without the ability to find humor.

    On what basis did Iraq become our primary target? Fascist activities can be observed in Iraq's neighborhood (to use W's favorite euphemism for "that place what's got lots of Arab-type folks") from Syria and Iran to our friends in the Holy Land, in South, Southeastern, and Eastern Asia, throughout Africa, and scattered little zones throughout the rest of the world. We can point to Saddam's history to set him apart from others. But by choosing to look at history to the detriment of the present, our attack on global fascism (a war, by the way, that virtually no Americans might agree to particpate in, Hitchens or no Hitchens) was over before it ended and we end up embroiled in the upheavel.

    The US has a long history of coaxing or threatening other countries into activities of our liking. This is not always a bad thing for them or us. But I think we need more confidence in the rightness of our system. If we had, we would recognize that the democratic way is on the march, whether or not we enter the fray or not. Given that, it would make more sense to me to stay out of the fray until the dust begins to settle.

    Then we can send in our best troops: the investors!

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/13/2006 @ 5:16pm

  948. TJ, what's also on the march is left wing politics, all over de woild

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 5:35pm

  949. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/13/2006 @ 10:26am

    LOC,

    Interesting question. We foreigners generally are not particularly interested in US party politics so are left a little cold about the concern you have about the integrity and honesty of your present administration. Welcome to the real world. There are few persons, left or right leaning, of absolute integrity that make it to the top in politics. That goes with the territory. Being too long in office might not be a good thing as reformist zeal seems to get lost in the reality of politics.

    In view of that it is obvious that the anti-Bushites have a long list of grievances and the Iraq war just becomes another issue that gets lumped in. Because of that one needs, in the case of Iraq, to do a bit of spade work to separate political spin and fiction from those things that can be verified. For example that is why it is important to get the Iran/Iraq war details sorted out as accurately as the data will allow. That is because there has been a negative feed in to GW and his Iraq venture from an obviously distorted view of the US involvement with Saddam in that period. That distorted view has implications for what one thinks about the Adminstration's pre-war WMD arguments.

    As far as pre-emptive war goes I think it should be used very sparingly and wisely. Afghanistan was crying out for a decent dose after 9/11 and Iraq probably should have been on a short list. Darfur should not be allowed to become ,if it has not already, another Rwanda. That does not necessarily mean a pre-emptive US led war in that region is the best option.

    My position is that the UN should have done much more to curb Saddam's human rights abuses. If the US is there by default (no WMD) let's make the most of it and help to set up a prosperous, pluralistic and hopefully democratic Iraq that will be a help and beacon to the Arab world, which world a few short years ago was in danger of being overwhelmed by a benighted medievalism let alone a ruthless belligerent. The US at least has given ME moderate Arabs time to build a better region in terms of governance and human rights.

    Success there will also have a tremendous spin off for the West generally.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2006 @ 8:04pm

  950. Success there will also have a tremendous spin off for the West generally.

    Posted by LRJONES4 06/13/2006 @ 8:04pm

    We have to hope this--you're right. So many "if's" remain. Even when we are finally able to back out of Iraq (to the degree that we actually intend to), the new leaders of Iraq will have an extraordinary job to do. Guiding different sects who despise each other toward a new, common goal without (we hope again) authoritarian coersion will be a remarkable feat. The problem is that each of these sects has its own common ally or allies in neighboring countries, allies that have stronger ties than any that exist to the West.

    What we could end up with is Israel North, where we will have to dump ridiculous sums of cash and tons of military equipment to prop up a rather harsh, regionally unwelcome regime. I hope not. We have our own problems here at home.

    By the way, LR, if my wife and I come to Melbourne early next year for the Australian Open, could you put us up? There's a good mate.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/13/2006 @ 9:06pm

  951. the Iraq war just becomes another issue that gets lumped in.

    this is where you're wrong, aussie.I know that your country has a few dogs in the hunt and a right wing poodle prime minister, who went along for the ride on that adventure. here the war is a really big deal.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 10:52pm

  952. Of course David Corn is right in claiming that the death of Zarqawi will not have much influence on the insurgency. He is wrong to accept the estimate of fighters under his control at several hundred. More likely it was a couple of dozen. The estimate is just another government trick. It is also a safe bet that most suicide bombers had never heard of Zarqawi. (Let's remember that only about 10% of the far better educated American public has heard of Attorney General Gonzales.) These terrorist attacks have a life force of their own and they owe absoutely nothing to so-called leaders. Bin Laden is almost as insignificant as Zarqawi was.

    Sidney Gendin watchingpolitics.com

    Posted by SidneyGen at 06/14/2006 @ 09:51am

  953. Bush takes a leak in the Pacific Ocean and his cult followers imagine a tsunami is on its way.

    Next thing you know, they'll be telling us to watch our mail boxes for the latest brochure on the vacation paradise of the century - the 51st state called Bush, formerly known as Iraq. Go to Iraq and never come back. Twenty-five hundred haven't and another 25 thousand only parts of them came back.

    War without end. Amen. Amen.

    Posted by gamecock69 at 06/16/2006 @ 12:10pm

  954. Bush makes another carrier landing with another "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the rightwing nutz drink the coolaid

    There is light at the end of the tunnel, and the body count today is...

    Posted by gamecock69 at 06/16/2006 @ 1:28pm

David Corn David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Bill Moyers Tells a Tale of Two Quagmires: Vietnam & Afghanistan | "Once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it..."
John Nichols
65 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
111 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
71 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
62 Comments