Lieberman Stays the Course With Bush

Senator Joe Lieberman has maintained his status as the Bush administration's favorite Democrat.

Lieberman did not merely vote against the proposal by Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold and Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry to get U.S. troops out of Iraq by next year, the Connecticut Democrat also voted against a vaguely-worded proposal by Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed and Michigan Democrat Carl Levin that urged the Bush administration to start thinking about an exit strategy.

Lieberman was one of just six Democrats who backed the administration's position on both measures. The others were Minnesota's Mark Dayton, who is not seeking reelection this year, and four Democrats who represent Republican-leaning southern and western states: Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, Arkansas's Mark Pryor, Florida's Bill Nelson and Nebraska's Ben Nelson.

Even Republican Lincoln Chafee, who faces an aggressive challenge from a conservative is his party's primary this summer, voted for the Levin-Reed proposal, which called on the president to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq and to submit a long-term exit strategy to Congress.

There was no expectation that Lieberman would back the Kerry-Feingold proposal, which drew just 13 votes -- from its sponsors and Senators Dan Araka and Dan Inouye of Hawaii. Barbara Boxer of California, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jim Jeffords and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

But there had been speculation that Lieberman would join the vast majority of his fellow Democrats -- including Connecticut colleague Chris Dodd -- in backing the Reed-Levin amendment. During Wednesday's debate on the measures, Lieberman, long the most outspoken Democratic advocate for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, admitted that Iraqis need to be given real responsibility for defending and governing their country.

But, when it came time to vote, the senator was not willing to break with the Bush administration. Instead, saying that he did not want to tie the president's hands, Lieberman joined most Senate Republicans in refusing to provide any check or balance on the administration's warmaking.

There is no mistaking the position that Lieberman has put himself in. Though he represents a state that voted against Bush's election in 2000 and against the president's reelection in 2004, and though Connecticut voters express higher levels of opposition to Bush and his war than voters in most other states, Lieberman has signaled that he will continue to give the administration a blank check to wage exactly the war it wants in Iraq.

Lieberman has wedged himself so firmly in the administration's corner that, during the Senate debate on whether to push for any sort of exit strategy, the Connecticut Democrat was not given floor time by the his own party's leadership. Rather, he was introduced by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner, R-Va., who served as the White House's floor manager on the issue. When he spoke Wednesday, Lieberman was the first Democrat to back the president's position.

Warner heaped praise on the Connecticut Democrat, as did right-wing Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, perhaps the most enthusiastic supporter of the war in the Senate.

Having Lieberman on board is important for the Bush administration and its Republican allies, who like to suggest that there is broad support for the president's failed approach to Iraq. It's no small thing, when criticizing Democrats who express sensible concerns about the war, to be able to say: "Even the man Democrats nominated for vice president in 2000 says the president is right to stay the course."

There is no question that Lieberman's stance undercuts attempts -- hapless as they may be -- by Democrats to send clear signals regarding their concerns about a war that a clear majority of Americans now describe as "a mistake."

So who were the "winners" in Thursday's votes? The Bush administration may have gotten a boost from Lieberman, but so too will Ned Lamont, the businessman who is mounting an increasingly powerful anti-war challenge to the senator in Connecticut's August 8 Democratic primary. Before the Senate votes this week, Lamont urged Lieberman to break with the administration, saying that it was time to "build a Democratic coalition to establish and stick to a plan to end the war."

"‘Stay the course' is not a strategy for any real victory, and it is time that the President and Congress recognize that fact and take the steps needed to ensure true safety and security for the region and for America," the challenger argued.

Lamont, who has begun to garner support not just from the netroots but from prominent Democrats in Connecticut -- such as former state party chair George Jepsen -- is over 40 percent in the polls and rising rapidly. And this week's pro-administration votes by Lieberman will only serve to reinforce Lamont's message that Connecticut needs a senator who "stand up for our progressive democratic values."

Comments (437)

1. It's called "healthy debate", Mr Nichols.

   Read Ari Berman's latest for more info.

   Posted by Mask at 06/22/2006 @ 4:02pm

2. Wearing a GOP cheerleader costume isn't exactly "healthy debate" (egads, the horrible metnal image that brings to mind...pardon while I go pull my brain out and wash it)

   Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 4:04pm

3. (I guess it's true....we Jedis DO get glimpses of the future!) (From Ari Berman's thread)-

   And here's something else...

   Will a "Nation" writer refer to the 21 Dem Senators who voted NO on the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer resolution as "healthy debate participants" or hint that they're cowardly? (I grant it would take John Nichols or David Corn not actually READING fellow writer Ari Berman's article....but that seems to happen from time to time)

   Posted by MASK 06/22/2006 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person

   Posted by Mask at 06/22/2006 @ 4:06pm

4. Johnny Nicols

   Why is it brave and courageoues when a REP breaks ranks and votes against the party line and not when a DEM does it?

   Can someone answer? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

   Posted by CPT at 06/22/2006 @ 4:09pm

5. why does he not just switch parties?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 4:25pm

6. Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.

   The Great Ann Coulter

   Posted by LIBZHATEUSA 06/22/2006 @ 3:32pm

   keep trying. when a retarded child says something that most people would find insulting were it to plop out of a non retarded mouth, i find it impossible to take offense.

   have a nice day little guy. ;)

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 4:29pm

7. It's called "healthy debate", Mr Nichols.

   Posted by MASK 06/22/2006 @ 4:02pm

   One of your worst posts ever, MASK. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Nichols wrote, or his point! Nichols wrote nothing about debate, he addressed how some congressmen voted on some issues.

   Were you drunk when you wrote it? Or perhaps you posted on the wrong thread? Whatever, it makes no sense. I guess you were just in a rush to be first....

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/22/2006 @ 4:36pm

8. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/22/2006 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person

   "Worst Post Ever"---Comic Book Physicist

   Oh, come on, ILP....I've done worse than this.

   My point was...Ari Berman EMBRACED the divided Democratic party view on Iraq (called it "healthy debate" that there was a "pull-out now" resolution AND a "plan on a plan to pull out 'soon'" resolution)....so why not grant Lieberman the same latitude in "healthily debating" the war issue.

   26 Democrats failed to support Kerry-Feingold-Boxer...SIX failed to support Levin-Reid....yet Mr Nichols has to go after Lieberman for not supporting either (barely nodding at Mark Dayton, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Bill Nelson and Ben Nelson)

   Why?....cuz he's got ol' Joe targetted (along with Kos) and Ari Berman's "healthy debate" only goes so far, I guess.

   Posted by Mask at 06/22/2006 @ 4:42pm

9. I congradulate Lieberman on his consistancy and for standing up for what he believes and what is good for America. I congradulate all who voted against the timetable withdraw annoucement. I can and never will understand how annoucing when you are leaving helps anyone except the theif who is waiting for such an annoucement.

   Let Kerry, and the rest of the clowns in his little "I want to run for president and I think this will gt me there group" stage vote after vote all the way to November to highlight how many dems DISAGREE with his cowdardly proposals. Shame on him, being a Vietnam vet and all...he should know better than most what cut and run looks like.. Pandering pieces of shit. His way is a sure guarente for another GOP victory in November.

   Posted by john maasch at 06/22/2006 @ 4:44pm

10. Taken from a previous thread:

    ILP

    I love getting proven right...by the Right AND Left.

    Here's a thread on "The Single Most Important [Media] Policy Debate" and it rapidly degenerated into a thread on the WMDs discovered in Iraq.

    Why, if "media diversity" is SO important...do things like Iraq, the economy, gas prices, etc.....so easily over-shadow it???

    Posted by MASK 06/22/2006 @ 08:43am

    Proved right??? You are a legend in your own mind, MASK!

    WMD have nothing to do with media policy debate. In the category of media policy debate, media consolidation is the most important topic.

    Please try reading the posts before jumping in to comment. I know this means risking that you won't be first, but at least your comments won't be as dumb.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/22/2006 @ 4:44pm

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/22/2006 @ 4:46pm

11. Oh, come on, ILP....I've done worse than this.

    Posted by MASK 06/22/2006 @ 4:42pm

    OK, I'll take your word for it.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/22/2006 @ 4:47pm

12. Shame on him, being a Vietnam vet and all...he should know better than most what cut and run looks like.. Pandering pieces of shit. His way is a sure guarente for another GOP victory in November.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/22/2006 @ 4:44pm

    Looks like you learned nothing from the Viet Nam debacle...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/22/2006 @ 4:49pm

13. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 06/22/2006 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person

    Not sure where I was proven WRONG, ILP?

    The "FCC/media diversity" thing held so little interest for posters, Left and Right, that it degenerated into a "WMDs in Iraq" thread.....similarly, there are NO polls showing it as a "important issue" to the American public.....nor any major Democrats running on a "I'll stop Media Consolidation" as their 4th, 5th, 12th "most important issue".

    As for Mr Nichols....he goes after Lieberman for not supporting Levin-Reid....yet Ari Berman says the 26 Dems who failed to support Kerry-Feingold-Boxer are "just engaging in healthy debate" and it's GREAT that they are.

    So is the definition of "healthy debate participant"...voting for a weak, tepid, ambigious plan over one that has principles and stands for something?....while Joe Lieberman (in Mr Nichols own words) risks his Senate seat, while he could have EASILY gone with that tepid resolution (Levin-Reid), is what....a "coward"?

    Seems good or bad...Lieberman showed some courage (if Mr Nichols is right about Lamont capitalizing on this and Joe knew he could have gone down the easy path of Levin-Reid)....

    while Mr Berman's "healthy debate society" were the cowards.

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2006 @ 4:56pm

14. Lieberman is a patriot and puts his country before politics...something you detestable traitors could take a good lesson from.....I hope he wipes your putup job Lamont by wide margins. I am a hardcore republican but I have donated to his campaign because of his patriotism and his convictions. You see....Real Americans believe your country should come 1st. What a concept for you LIBZ

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 5:30pm

15. MaryBB - re your global warming comments

    Did you actually read the New Republic article you mentioned? They don't debunk the National Review article because they were too busy debunking a WSJ editorial on the same subject.

    You wrote It just seems I keep reading more and more scientific evidence to refute the conclusion that current warming is being caused by humans

    I'm going to guess that you're reading the same tripe from energy-funded "Institutes", re-cycled back and forth through various right-wing journals and blogs. Just because lies and half-truths are repeated and re-printed endlessly does not make them any more valid.

    Posted by Fishbite at 06/22/2006 @ 5:30pm

16. GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING June 21, 2006

    I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

    In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

    If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

    For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey -- where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

    How about these pungent points:

    -- No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time -- undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals -- the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over -- except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

    -- Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

    Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew -- and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

    -- Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people -- especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation -- much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry -- when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

    -- While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

    In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd -- before she was elevated to the cartoon pages -- wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex -- oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy -- to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

    Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.

    The Great Ann Coulter

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 5:35pm

17. Johnny Nicols

    Why is it brave and courageoues when a REP breaks ranks and votes against the party line and not when a DEM does it?

    Can someone answer? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    Posted by CPT 06/22/2006 @ 4:09pm

    Because voting Winger is the craven act of a douchebag.

    Posted by skeletonman at 06/22/2006 @ 5:41pm

18. New star Murtha is worrying Dems

    On NBC's ''Meet the Press'' last Sunday, Rep. John Murtha repeated his call for ''redeploying'' U.S. troops from Iraq with something new -- and disturbing to fellow Democrats. Asked by moderator Tim Russert about sites for redeployment, Murtha replied: ''We can go to Okinawa. . . . We can redeploy there almost instantly.''

    When Russert expressed doubt about ''a timely response'' from Okinawa to meet a Middle East crisis, the 16-term congressman from western Pennsylvania and new national security spokesman for his party stumbled: ''Well, it -- you know, they -- when I say Okinawa, I, I'm saying troops in Okinawa. When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly.''

    In fact, a Pentagon spokesman says it would take ''under a month'' to prepare and send a 4,500-man Marine Expeditionary Force 6,000 nautical miles from Okinawa to Bahrain and then 600 more miles to Baghdad.

    Murtha's Okinawa answer embarrassed Democratic House members who would not dream of criticizing publicly the former back-room pol who became an icon to the party's antiwar base last November by calling for an immediate troop withdrawal. His performance on ''Meet the Press'' reinforced dismay inside the party that Murtha, at age 74, has announced his candidacy for majority leader if the Democrats regain control of the House.

    Murtha proves there are second acts in American politics. I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago. I was reminded of it after Murtha became a candidate for majority leader, not by a Republican hit man but a Democratic former colleague in the House. In a long political career, Murtha has made bitter enemies inside his party who are alarmed by his new stature.

    Murtha got into politics in 1968 as a 36-year-old highly decorated Marine and in 1974 became the first Vietnam War veteran elected to Congress. In 1980, the FBI named him as one of eight members of Congress videotaped being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik.

    The other seven targets took cash and were convicted in federal court. The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence. Murtha testified against the popular Rep. Frank Thompson, which created lifelong enemies in the Democratic cloakroom. The House Ethics Committee exonerated Murtha of misconduct charges by a largely party-line vote, after which the committee's special counsel resigned in protest.

    That salvaged Murtha's political career but limited his public exposure. The current Almanac of American Politics says: ''He speaks for attribution to few national or local reporters, hardly ever appears on television and rarely speaks in the House chamber.'' That reticence has disappeared the last seven months.

    Murtha now wears his heroic combat record like a suit of armor. In recent House debate over the Iraq war resolution, Murtha dominated the Democratic side -- compensating for a lack of articulation with vehemence. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a freshman Republican from Texas, had the temerity to suggest that had Murtha ''prevailed after the bloodbaths in Normandy and in the Pacific . . . we would be here speaking Japanese or German.'' Murtha pounced on Gohmert, asking whether he had been a combat soldier. The Republican had not, and he meekly thanked Murtha for ''all that he has done with the wounded.''

    Murtha disqualifies adversaries who have not tasted combat, which includes the vast majority in the Congress. He repeats the comparison between civilian officials in ''air-conditioned chambers'' and soldiers carrying ''70 pounds every day facing IEDs.'' On ''Meet the Press,'' Murtha referred to presidential adviser Karl Rove ''sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, 'Stay the course!'''

    The transfer of Murtha's tough-guy rhetoric from the back row of the hall of the House of Representatives to national television may not be what Democrats want communicating their side of the Iraq debate. It is why Murtha's candidacy for majority leader is cause for concern among serious Democrats.

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 5:48pm

19. THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS A BEAUTIFULE SIGHT TO BEHOLD

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 5:50pm

20. An unindicted co-conspirator in the 26-year old Abscam investigation? Murtha was videotaped being offered bribes by an Arab shiek? Expressisng interest in further negotiatiions with the shiek?

    You know the LIBZ are so proud of this nitwit

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 5:52pm

21. SKELETON

    Why is it brave and courageoues when a REP breaks ranks and votes against the party line and not when a DEM does it?

    Can someone answer? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    Posted by CPT 06/22/2006 @ 4:09pm

    Because voting Winger is the craven act of a douchebag.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 06/22/2006 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person

    Can't fess up to the hypocrisey either, can you?

    Posted by CPT at 06/22/2006 @ 5:55pm

22. Posted by LIBZHATEUSA 06/22/2006 @ 5:48pm

    At least Reagan admitted when he had Alzheimers!

    Posted by dscott at 06/22/2006 @ 6:00pm

23. Why the focus on Lieberman? The Nelson boys are just as consistently disgraceful. Pryor and Landrieu likewise. And I've never heard of Dayton (and I thought I knew everything).

    Whatever debate that takes place within the Democratic party, I look forward to it. I saw a bumpersticker today that kept my mind whirring for a full hour: "I think, therefore I am a...Democrat!"

    Are they kidding? I don't agree with anything that Republicans currently stand for, but I can give them credit for taking stands, making these stands clear, and working pretty well together for those stands. What on earth does the Democratic Party stand for now? It's just bizarre.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/22/2006 @ 6:04pm

24. LibshateUSA and his "Real American" friends "support" the troops until some of them start talking the real shit. Then we get to see how much "Real Americans" actually hate the troops. They can barely contain themselves, and isn't it pathetic? How many of you out there have had such moments of plain old fashioned pettiness, rancor and sheer viciousness? Libs etc and his pals talk loud, but in the end, it's only Shuck. People applaud and wave flags as Shuck pumps his fat little legs, but in the end, the basic shittiness of the presentation just doesn't hold water. We salute thee, oh Shuck, in passing.

    Posted by JRJunior at 06/22/2006 @ 6:06pm

25. JRJUNIOR and DSCOTT,

    I think your ignore list could use at least one more name. Responses to angry hacks just waste space.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/22/2006 @ 6:10pm

26. Hmmmmm. Can we say Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Streisand....My GOD the list could go on and on and on....So the last thing REAL Americans need is a fucking lecture from a anti-american shit for brains LIBZ. Just like you have abandoned Lieberman only after he was your vice president canidate...you have silly votes to try to abandon the troops....what pathetic pukes

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 6:12pm

27. Point taken, TJ. Wasted space and wasted time.

    Posted by JRJunior at 06/22/2006 @ 6:17pm

28. I now am proud to say that I have yet another incarnation of that "thing", troll, HATEFUCKUSA, whatever, tossed into the "ignore" bin like so-much trash. And now we can actually "see" the blog.

    Of course he'll just change his pants again, once people stop ranting back, and then the ignore list will become one entry longer once again...and so it goes.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/22/2006 @ 6:17pm

29. .........Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.

    The Great Ann Coulter

    Posted by LIBZHATEUSA 06/22/2006 @ 5:35pm |

    You going to post this on every thread everywhere?

    You're a joke!

    Just so you know, every time you do, I print it out and wipe my ass with it.

    :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 06/22/2006 @ 6:56pm

30. How brave and courageous of Joe Lieberman to stand up for what is wrong, to stand up for the wholesale destruction of American honor and influence. The occupation of Iraq has made America less safe. Our national treasure is being squandered, for no purpose. Fascist Bill OReilly said two days ago that he wishes the government of Iraq would be more like that of Saddam Hussein. Gas prices are through the roof, America is less safe, Osama Bin Laden runs free (though Conservatives insist he is in a cave). Al Gore as President would not have done this to America.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 06/22/2006 @ 7:32pm

31. I am so happy you nitwits are still hiding your heads in the sand about WMDs. Yes they were pre-gulf war.....NOT INERT...care to eat dinner next to one of them nitwits??? Anyway...they were leftover after the Russians helped Saddam clean them up before the war and move them to Syria. It will all come out in the open soon enough. And when it does you fools are going to be shown to be even more traitorous than I already knew you were and will the shit ever hit the fan....Better get your travel visas ready

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 7:36pm

32. Libz/B25/AnnieC/Whatever fucking idiotic name you choose to call yourself next time:

    You weren't hugged very often as a child, were you?

    Posted by skeletonman at 06/22/2006 @ 7:42pm

33. "Faux News has become the only news station that has absolutely no credibility left what-so-ever"

    Right....thats why they are number one in ratings...in fact have more viewers that CNN, MSMBC and all the rest COMBINED..In any event...you fools can keep making fun but it will be the REAL americans that will have that last laugh. Thats why what you nitwits say just make me chuckle

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 8:04pm

34. FrankGrits you are right, they have no mission and Bush has no plan. to accuse the dems of having no plan is the height of hypocrisy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 8:40pm

35. There is a plan and it has been stated and is almost completed. Its just not your leftist weakling plans for cutting and running. Hypocrisy thy name is LIBERAL

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 8:46pm

36. The facts speak for themselves. Even your detestable LIB representatives voted DOWN any cutting and running. Sorry folks...you silly nitwits are the fringe and the minority.

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 8:49pm

37. I'm sure any raghead terrorist would love to know our plan and when we will be leaving.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/22/2006 @ 8:52pm

38. FBI arrests 7 in domestic terror probe Ongoing operation includes warehouse raid in Miami area

    MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Seven people were in custody Thursday night after FBI agents and state and local officials carried out anti-terrorism raids in Miami, law enforcement sources told CNN

    The arrests were made in connection with the early stages of a plot to attack Chicago's Sears Tower and the FBI building in Miami, sources told CNN.

    Officials said no weapons or bomb-making materials had been found in the searches so far. The Miami area is under no imminent threat, according to the FBI.

    Law enforcement sources told CNN the seven arrests were made in connection with "suspected domestic terrorist activity," and that documents related to the investigation have been sealed.

    One of the arrests was made before Thursday, officials said.

    The FBI said one search warrant was being executed in a warehouse near a housing project in Liberty City, a predominantly black and low-income area of Miami.

    "We are conducting a number of arrests and searches, and we'll have more about that when the operation is completed, probably tomorrow morning," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN's Larry King in an interview to be broadcast Thursday night.

    "Because it's an ongoing operation, we really can't get into details," Mueller said. "But whenever we undertake an operation like this, we would not do it without the approval of a judge. We've got search warrants and arrest warrants and the like. ...."

    In a statement, the U.S. attorney's office in Miami said federal, state and local agencies had made several arrests Thursday in connection with a domestic "terrorist-related matter."

    Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will hold a news conference Friday regarding the raids.

    IF WE LISTENED TO THE DIMS ON NSA WE WOULD NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS PLOT....JUST LIKE THE CANADIANS WOULD HAVE NOT KNOW ABOUT THIER TERROR PLOTS.....YOU STILL WANT TO TRUST YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY TO THESE FUCKING WEAKLINGS AND NITWITS???????????

    Posted by LibzHateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 9:04pm

39. look, whether we leave or we stay makes absolutely no difference, tactically-speaking. it makes a difference from the point of view of a billionaire oil baron, but not the rest of us.

    i mean, seriously, how does american withdrawal encourage snipers or IED planters? furthermore, what does it encourage them to do? and how would our presence change what either?

    whether we stay or whether we go, the violence will most likely continue. and there is simply no reason why we should have to deal with the costs, or bear the responsibility. we are getting in the way, that's all.

    and there is also the theory (and this isn't that crazy a theory AT ALL), that we're CAUSING the violence.

    finally, why is the bush administration trying to block a serious debate? hmmm.......

    Posted by darladoon at 06/22/2006 @ 9:06pm

40. 7 arrseted in Florida for plotting to destroy the Sears Tower.

    They were planning with what they thought was an Al Qeada (sp?)contact, but turned out to be the good guys. OOPS!

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/22/2006 @ 9:06pm

41. Posted by MASK 06/22/2006 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person

    It's called "healthy debate", Mr Nichols. Read Ari Berman's latest for more info.

    I see no contradiction here. Berman wrote about the need to have a debate "to find the right policy over one that blindly follows the President over a cliff." Lieberman was not interested in having that debate. He prefers to run with the lemmings.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 06/22/2006 @ 9:07pm

42. FBI arrests 7 in domestic terror probe Ongoing operation includes warehouse raid in Miami area

    MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Seven people were in custody Thursday night after FBI agents and state and local officials carried out anti-terrorism raids in Miami, law enforcement sources told CNN

    The arrests were made in connection with the early stages of a plot to attack Chicago's Sears Tower and the FBI building in Miami, sources told CNN.

    Officials said no weapons or bomb-making materials had been found in the searches so far. The Miami area is under no imminent threat, according to the FBI.

    Law enforcement sources told CNN the seven arrests were made in connection with "suspected domestic terrorist activity," and that documents related to the investigation have been sealed.

    One of the arrests was made before Thursday, officials said.

    The FBI said one search warrant was being executed in a warehouse near a housing project in Liberty City, a predominantly black and low-income area of Miami.

    "We are conducting a number of arrests and searches, and we'll have more about that when the operation is completed, probably tomorrow morning," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN's Larry King in an interview to be broadcast Thursday night.

    "Because it's an ongoing operation, we really can't get into details," Mueller said. "But whenever we undertake an operation like this, we would not do it without the approval of a judge. We've got search warrants and arrest warrants and the like. ...."

    In a statement, the U.S. attorney's office in Miami said federal, state and local agencies had made several arrests Thursday in connection with a domestic "terrorist-related matter."

    Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will hold a news conference Friday regarding the raids.

    IF WE LISTENED TO THE DIMS ON NSA WE WOULD NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS PLOT....JUST LIKE THE CANADIANS WOULD HAVE NOT KNOW ABOUT THIER TERROR PLOTS.....YOU STILL WANT TO TRUST YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY TO THESE FUCKING WEAKLINGS AND NITWITS???????????

    Posted by libshateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 9:22pm

43. Frankie FOOL....There is so much wrong with your reasoning that I don't know where to start. First of all, the snipers and IED's planters, as you call them, would have no American troops to murder if we weren't there. No they would just kill Iraqis and then come here to kill us

    Kerry makes a lot of sense but I agree, he should not be the spokesperson. He's damaged goods.

    He is a fucking fool and thank GOD the American people saw through his bullshit along with his detestable wife the pickle princess

    Liberman will be joining Rick Santorum in the unemployment line soon. Both will find another place in the Bush lame duck administration ans Ambassador to Timbor or some such thing.

    Dream on

    As for the dems who voted with Levin, that is closer to the party's position. They don't want to inhereit Iraq. It's a loser any way you look at it. The commanders on the ground know they cannot beat this insurgency militarily. They have all said so in one way or another, including Gen. Casey. The Viet Cong would have been an easier enemy to defeat. But we had the good sense to get the hell out of there, albeit, way too late. The same will happen in Iraq as soon as the losers are kicked out of office.

    So blind where can you start to disect this nonsense

    Do you really think the MSM is controlling what happens on the ground in Iraq? Are you really that stupid? Iraq right now is hell on earth. There is no good coming out of that hell. What are you referring to a couple of schoolhouses that we built? The restoration of all that oil being pumped and paying for the war? The four hours of electricty that they have everyday? Iraqi's hate Americans. C'mon. Turn off Rush and Hannity and get some real news. Read Cobra II by Michael Gordon and Gen. Trainor. Think man, think.

    Its obvious the LIBZ do not think at all...they just CUT AND RUN AWAY

    Posted by libshateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 9:25pm

44. 60-39---the only poll that matters right now. This November we will have the most important poll of all---we will see what happens---Anyone willing to make predictions this far out? (obviously just for fun---no one can perdict this far out)Here's mine-----House----218 republicans-----216 democrats (one independent) Senate----53 republicans 46 democrats --1 independent

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/22/2006 @ 9:30pm

45. John Kerry: Shooting blanks once again.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/22/2006 @ 9:35pm

46. Kerry is good at getting purple hearts for getting rice shot all up his ass.....

    Posted by libshateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 9:36pm

47. Hey maybe those older folks in Florida during the 2000 election had it right---Vote Lieberman for President

    Posted by Len Mosse at 06/22/2006 @ 9:37pm

48. If I were to vote for a Democrat....Lieberman or Zell Miller would get my vote.....They are true patriots that do not put thier lust for power above their country....what a concept for the traitorous left

    Posted by libshateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 9:40pm

49. Let's put it in print again...

    John Kerry voted "for" the use of force in Iraq.

    Flip - fucking - flop.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/22/2006 @ 9:42pm

50. Frank - if you smell a rat, I suggest you take out the trash.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/22/2006 @ 9:47pm

51. Yes I agree. Where do you really stand Mr. Frank.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/22/2006 @ 9:58pm

52. "There needs to be a trial and charges brought for war crimes."

    Wonderful LIB campaign slogan for november. I have family in Iraq as well serving in the Marines so stop your fucking belly aching. You act like your the only one making any sacrifice. I would bet there are a hell of lot more conservatives and thier families fighting for this effort than the weakling LIBS. If you dont like it MOVE TO IRAN!!!!!!

    Posted by libshateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 10:04pm

53. Posted by FREIHEIT 06/22/2006 @ 8:52pm | ignore this person

    Whew! Some convoluted reasoning, that. It is a bit like saying Al Capone knew there was unfairness in the tax code so he engaged in creative accounting knowing that when he was caught the Feds would make an example of him and tighten the income tax rules. Me thinks you give the CT Democrat more credit than he deserves.

    Don't look now, but most of america is a lot more conservative than you think.

    Don't look now, but most of America thinks a lot more than you conservatives.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 06/22/2006 @ 10:07pm

54. The above post is the biggest bucket of horseshit I have read in a while. And you wonder with that attitude you LIBZ keep losing BIG

    Posted by libshateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 10:08pm

55. Liebermann stays the course for America, and rejects the left's obsession to punish President Bush and destroy another country. They want to proudly wear their Che T-shirts as innocent Iraqis join the millions of murdered Cambodians and Vietnamese the last time the left had such fun.

    Posted by malanga at 06/22/2006 @ 10:11pm

56. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/22/2006 @ 6:04pm | ignore this person

    As I noted, TJ...Ari Berman calls it "healthy debate"....unless you stray TOO far, then John Nichols creams you (well, Joe Lieberman....the Nelsons, Landrieu, etc get a pass for today).

    Posted by Mask at 06/22/2006 @ 10:20pm

57. FUCK YOU ZERO...WHO STARTED VIETNAM NITWIT???

    Posted by libshateusa at 06/22/2006 @ 10:20pm

58. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/22/2006 @ 6:17pm

    I OFFICIALLY APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE BUT LIBSTHING FOR RESPONDING TO LIBSTHING EVEN ONCE. I REALIZE THE ERROR OF MY WAYS AND BEG FORGIVENESS. THERE ARE SOME WINGNUTS HERE THAT I KIND OF RESPECT, AND ARE FUN TO JOKE AROUND WITH, BUT THIS LIBTHING IS LIKE A BAD CASE OF DYSENTRY - IT JUST SPEWS FOUL LIQUIFIED EXCREMENT CONTINUOUSLY THE MORE YOU FEED IT.

    I URGE EVERYONE HERE, INCLUDING THE MORE INTELLIGENT CONSERVATIVES TO JOIN ME IN CEASING TO ENCOURAGE IT BY PROMPTLY PLACING IT IN IGNORE.

    ITS NOT WORTH ANY HIGH MINDED IDEALS CONCERNING "GIVING EVERYBODY THEIR DUE" - THIS THING IS LIKE AN INFESTATION OF VERMIN. PLEASE IGNORE IT AND MAKE IT STOP. SORRY FOR THE CAPS, BUT IT HAS BECOME LIKE A HIGH PITCHED MIGRAINE INDUCING BUZZ. NOT WORTH IT. PLUG IT.

    THANKS. IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE IT SHUT UP. AT LEAST FOR THOSE OF US OF ALL POLITICAL PERSUASIONS WHO IGNORE IT.

    GOODBYE LIBSOMETHING - CLICK

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2006 @ 10:23pm

59. Here's my ignore list. I wonder how many actual people this represents?

    *bushrules*

    aludra bush man bushrules bushrules* dancall fuclibs FukLibz fukulibz leftofcenter LIBSARENUTS libsarenutty libshateusa libz LibzHateusa libzsuck libzsuk lvliberty1 nationsucks2 plunger Rese traitorlibz WORLDNEWS

    Posted by Fishbite at 06/22/2006 @ 10:29pm

60. Now why does catching a bunch of terrorists justify unwarranted wire taps and the continued breaking of the law by the executive branch?

    Posted by Fishbite at 06/22/2006 @ 10:31pm

61. "There's nothing in the Constitution about abortion, the IRS, nationalized health care, the minimum wage or WW2 either..."

    there's nothing in it about universal suffrage and abolition of slavery either. so what's yer point?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:36pm

62. Posted by LIBSHATEUSA 06/22/2006 @ 10:04pm: "There needs to be a trial and charges brought for war crimes."

    Wonderful LIB campaign slogan for november.

    Its not bad. I prefer "Had Enough?".

    I have family in Iraq as well serving in the Marines so stop your fucking belly aching.

    The rule being that because your Dad is in Iraq, it is wrong to disagree with you? That can be a problem. What if some other second grader has a Dad in Iraq, and he disagrees with you? Is there some kind of tiebreaker rule?

    You act like your the only one making any sacrifice.

    In Hamsterland, to disagree with the current policy is to act like you're the only one making any sacrifice.

    (By the way, when you get to 4th grade, they will teach you the difference between "your" and "you're".)

    I would bet there are a hell of lot more conservatives and thier families fighting for this effort than the weakling LIBS.

    Great. Let's bet. Whoever wins, agrees to stop posting on this blog for 1 year.

    The recent poll of American soldiers in Iraq shows that the overwhelming majority of American troops think we should get out of Iraq over the next 12 months. That is, the overwhelming majority of American troops believe in a more aggressive withdrawal than the Kerry-Fiengold bill that was resoundingly defeated in the Senate today. Certainly, by your definition, this makes the overwhelming majority of US troops in Iraq "weakling LIBS".

    So go away. now.

    Whatever your intention, you are a truly ineffective spokesman for hamsterland. Have you noticed that none of the other conservative posters on this blog need to continuously change their names to avoid the ignore lists?

    Quite an achievement, given the delusional rants of some of your hamster brethren.

    If you dont like it MOVE TO IRAN!!!!!!

    Or change things. So you do like it. Or try to.

    Fool. If you are indeed an adult, your brain is seriously twisted. You claim that the dems will go down in flames for advocating withdrawal from Iraq. And you simultaneously claim that they are putting politics before country. Really. Man, doesn't that just make your head implode?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 06/22/2006 @ 10:36pm

63. And how does that hatred of americans make the Iraqis any different than your average Mahattanite?

    Frei, you fucking slime

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:38pm

64. that post is thuggish, Frei, I am merely replying in kind. you are as dumb as a stick, and pretend you are openminded, you are a farce. begone with you Arschloch

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:46pm

65. where the hell do you get off accusing every Manhattanite of hating america, you git?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:47pm

66. oh yes I'm just kidding too

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:48pm

67. Perhaps our side is being too hard on Joe Lieberman. He is very liberal on many issues. We should have an open tent to let all ideas flow freely

    Posted by ibbledribble at 06/22/2006 @ 10:48pm

68. Frei, an Arsch mit Ohren

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:49pm

69. Joe Lieberman should be turned out and a good person put in his place. If he tries to run independent hopefully he would only disgrace himself further. If Americans havent suffered the threshold of pain as a result of Conservative leadership, then we will get what we deserve indeed - speaking for Republicans.

    But the reason that the Republican party sends out all of their very most brilliant Conservative intellectuals every single day rain or shine - is because they are scared that Americans are waking up - so they will try every trick in the book - such as sending all these professors here to the Nation magazines Great debate boards. I understand most of the Conservatives here are self-made millionaires - as I gather from their posts on the board about taxes.

    Posted by conshame at 06/22/2006 @ 10:50pm

70. I deeply regret any time I have spent taking you seriously. I won't make that mistake again. you are no different than libsuk, you just hide behind "humor" who the hell needs that shit/

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:52pm

71. I think they should reinstitute the draft. Most of those over in Iraq have been serving far too long. For most, it's very easy to distance oneself from this war. Make the sacrifice personal - for everyone. Then let's see if people think the sacrifice is really in America's best interests.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2006 @ 10:53pm

72. that should be Ihre Ohren, Frei, as I am not on intimate terms with you, and soon on no terms at all

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 10:56pm

73. I have always been a fan of Joe Lieberman and do not understand why we woukld turn our backs on him for this issue? Do we not pride ourselves in open minded thought??

    Posted by ibbledribble at 06/22/2006 @ 11:00pm

74. Hman, I don't know how old you are, but take it from me the draft is a terrible idea. imagine Rummy and Bush with MORE soldiers? they tried like hell to draft me during the Vietnam war, but I outsmarted them. this idea that the draft would somehow spread the sacrifice around is nonsense. I know I was there. I saw the pictures of the fallen soldiers in my local paper, they were almost all working class stiffs. the rich and well connected will always find a way to avoid, look at Bush. I have a beautiful sweet son who is 15 years old. I would rather die myself than see him sent to Iraq to die for nothing.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:00pm

75. Ibble, the war is the central issue of american life now. Liebermann like all politicians is responsible to his constituents, many of whom feel that he no longer represents them. they have a right to call for his ouster, and they will have their chance at the election. I think the people who chose him to run against the very people he now supports have every right to feel betrayed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:04pm

76. Up front let me admit that I am a conservative Republican who voted for Lieberman when he ran against Weicker. Thats it. I would no sooner, up until the Iraq War and the latest effort to dump Lieberman by the netroots, have voted for Joe than I would vote for Chris Dodd, Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, etc. HOWEVER, I would like all the Kossites and Lamonters to know that this election season I will be ignoring the Republican line and vote for Mr. Lieberman. I have two sons who I have trained well as Republicans, and they too, will proudly be casting their votes for Lieberman. So you see, folks, this is what we call a "backlash" to all the outside interference in our little Nutmeg State's senatorial election. I mean really, Kos himself creepily staring through a window at Ned Lamont on a couch? Yea, thats not gonna get my attention. So if Joe isn't on the Democratic line come November, I will vote for him as an independent without thinking twice about abandoning the Republican party line.

    See you all in November.

    Posted by Spyamongus at 06/22/2006 @ 11:04pm

77. Americans have to learn, thats why we have George Bush, Americans have to understand what a leader is if we want to lead the world to make the world a better place.

    We are being punished, we have paid with tens of thousands of seriously wounded American soldiers. We have our future threatened, our rights are threatened, competence in government is threatened. Before we lose these things Americans have got to wake up, understand not to worry about dominating the world, just work hard and do good business, it is as simple as that. Conservatives are asking Liberals to define what positive thing is better than the stupidity and evil of George Bush. Work hard and do good business, and we will prosper, we do not have to dominate, trying to dominate is the way down, and we are heading that way - not because of George Bush - Americans are responsible for what happens.

    Posted by conshame at 06/22/2006 @ 11:07pm

78. Joe has done so much for our party I simply do not understand the overthrow because he might have a view different from SOME democrats. I live in Conn and he is still VERY popular here. I will also vote for him and urge all my democrat friends to do the same

    Posted by ibbledribble at 06/22/2006 @ 11:11pm

79. JR and Zero:

    I agree it is time to pull the troops out. And I have kids too, though not near draft age. I wouldn't want them anywhere near this war. However, who in Congress is listening to the majority public who thinks the war is a mistake and wants a near-term or immediate withdrawal? My point on reinstating the draft, wasn't that I am a gung-ho for more soldiers over there. I think even announcing a draft would take away any ambivalence that is out there. It's a hell of lot easier to support this war when you don't have a stake. We see the armchair warriors post here every day. I'd bet good money that even announcing a draft would result in a withdrawal before it was even necessary.

    I don't know, maybe it's a dumb idea. I think I was influenced by a well-written op-ed in the Globe I read this morning.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2006 @ 11:12pm

80. On a lighter note, where are all the wingers who were so gleeful earlier about Rick Santorum's WMD find? Those posts gave me a hearty laugh. I guess after they calmed down, they checked the facts.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2006 @ 11:15pm

81. Zero, I wouldn't bother to take Frei seriously. he thinks he is this witty gadfly, but a person who is never serious cannot be taken seriously himself. your posts have been especially sharp recently.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:16pm

82. Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2006 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person

    I think they should reinstitute the draft. Most of those over in Iraq have been serving far too long. For most, it's very easy to distance oneself from this war. Make the sacrifice personal - for everyone. Then let's see if people think the sacrifice is really in America's best interests.

    Assuming no college deferments, and assuming imposed evenly upon all strata of American society, this is a sure fire prescription for ending the occupation sooner rather than later.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 06/22/2006 @ 11:16pm

83. you're not listening Hman. look hard at the pictures of the dead american soldiers. then put your kids in that picture frame. the draft is far too blunt a tool to fix what we both agree must be fixed.

    all you Conn. folks, here in Ny we have a similar problem, Hillary. I cannot imagine for a minute voting for her given her pro war position.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:22pm

84. It's obvious none of you pro draft folks have not faced a draft during an obscene imperialistic war. it is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:24pm

85. JR:

    "Too blunt a tool." Well put and a good point. You may be correct on that. If my guess on it ending the occupation sooner turned out to be wrong, that's a pretty bad move.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2006 @ 11:28pm

86. It's obvious none of you pro draft folks have faced a draft...

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:28pm

87. I guess my thought is that I know too many people that are pretty ambivalent on the war. Just about all of those have no personal stake in it. Some may not like the war or be strongly in favor, but they are also quick to chuckle at a Cindy Sheehan joke. I just think if more people even had a realization that they or their family could be directly involved, it might cause them to be more scrutinizing about whether the continued occupation is worth it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2006 @ 11:32pm

88. Frei, we are who we are. I have often cautioned against sarcasm here, as well as having been sarcastic, as it is easily mis-understood by people who have a lot invested emotionally in the positions they espouse. this adventure in blogging brings out the best and the worst in me. let's move on. best wishes, Johannes

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:33pm

89. Frei, I am hoping that Hillary will NOT be the dem's pres candidate, as I am well aware what you are referring to.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:36pm

90. Thanks Zero, it's a little late here, the liquor stores are closed, it's still pretty hot outside, a sultry summer night here in NY.

    we all have our moments, and I have learned quite a bit from many of those who post here. I know we won't change the world sitting at the keyboard, although some have.

    I am thinking of Heinrich Heine, who exiled from germany and living in Paris, skewered the regime in germany mercilessly, and who changed some minds.he is still read, though mostly for his poetry, but we know where he stood.

    I read Froomkin and Juan Cole, and I know they are making a difference. I go to anti war marches, just to be counted, and I hope to do my part in exposing the big lie, and I have seen you do the same. my apologies to all for the public spat with Frei.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2006 @ 11:46pm

91. Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2006 @ 11:28pm | ignore this person

    Don't cave so quickly. Your assertion should be explored more fully. One does not have to advocate for the draft, but as you write:

    who in Congress is listening to the majority public who thinks the war is a mistake and wants a near-term or immediate withdrawal? My point on reinstating the draft, wasn't that I am a gung-ho for more soldiers over there. I think even announcing a draft would take away any ambivalence that is out there. It's a hell of lot easier to support this war when you don't have a stake.

    From the halls of congress to the shores of blogospher, every right wing armchair marine is singing the tune "stay the course." They try to dress it up with high-minded ideals that are patently absurd, but precisely because they "don't have a stake" – and equally important, their biggest contributors don't have a stake (other than making money), they rubber stamp Bush's imperialism. How different would it be if the Bush base were endangering the lives of their prodigy? We will never know, of course, but I suspect the invasion would have been a non-starter. I am not ready yet to advocate for reinstating the draft, but I do favor a debate on the subject, preferably in the halls of Congress.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 06/22/2006 @ 11:50pm

92. johannesrolf, that is not ibble. it is annie. see it says ibbledribble not ibbleblibble. ignore her yet again. now she's changing her name twice daily. she's desperate!

    Posted by loveloki at 06/22/2006 @ 11:52pm

93. Thanks Seattle. Maybe even just a debate on it would help and open some eyes.

    Good night all. I'll check the night owl posts in the morning.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2006 @ 11:54pm

94. I thought Ibble's post was strange.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2006 @ 11:54pm

95. Seattle," but I suspect the invasion would have been a non-starter."

    I think that is wishful thinking. the mood in the country after 9/11 was combustible, the fear palpable, I think we would have invaded the Vatican had Bush and Cheney ordered that. my chariot will soon turn into a pumpkin. au reservoir

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 12:00am

96. orwell, your post was very funny, as usual. thanks for the laugh.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/23/2006 @ 12:06am

97. i agree with zero that those who continue to support the worst president in history and his policies need to be held responsible. personally, i go out once in awhile, get drunker than 10 montana milita men and find some republicans to "chat" with. it's like a pressure relief valve. of course they don't enjoy it very much. but i feel better afterward.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/23/2006 @ 12:12am

98. and i actually convinced one of the egregious error of his ways.

    Posted by loveloki at 06/23/2006 @ 12:15am

99. one out of about fifty but still....

    Posted by loveloki at 06/23/2006 @ 12:16am

100. Posted by ZERO 06/23/2006 @ 12:28am | ignore this person

     imagine your spouse walking outside with you and imagine her shot down on the spot by some teenaged prick from another country in camouflage because she didn't respond to orders barely understandable in your language. imagine he shouts "hadji!" at you and his compatriots hurl you to the ground and put their rifles to your head as your spouse gasps and cries out her last minutes alive in pain.

     What concerns me is what we don't know – what we are not being told – about the occupation. After Zarqawi was killed – thanks to an inside informer – we were treated to pictures of his remains. A military doctor went into detail explaining that the wounds on his body and inside his skull were consistent with wounds from a bomb explosion. You saw the bloody pictures. Now, haven't you wondered about the 100,000 dead (per Johns Hopkins University) old men, women and children who happened to be in the wrong place (like in their homes) when our planes went on a bombing sortie in the area. The US press doesn't cover those casualties, the European press does. After looking at Zarqawi's remains, we can picture what the children must have looked like.

     Stay the course!

     Posted by seattlescribe at 06/23/2006 @ 12:52am

101. staying the course on water eventually grinds your ass up in the surf

     staying the course on land eventually grinds your ass up in the surf.

     to avoid getting your ass ground up in the surf requires change.

     change means not staying the course.

     (we... are fucked)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/23/2006 @ 12:53am

102. it's time to place that urgent call to Keanu

     Posted by Will C. at 06/23/2006 @ 12:53am

103. Posted by IBBLEDRIBBLE 06/22/2006 @ 11:11pm

     i dont think the guy is the devil incarnate, but if there is little difference in his voting record to that of republicans, well, like i said, why does he not just switch parties? what about his policy stands appeals to you? seriously, not being combative nor sarcastic here, but what is the basis for your support of joe? for years i voted for and supported a much reviled and ridiculed "conservative" democratic senator in the person of fritz hollings, so seriously explain please.

     i honestly dont fault joe for not voting for the more "radical" proposition for withdrawl within a year (i hate to say it, but cannot support that now either, though i would love to see such a thing happen), but his refusal to back the nebulous "really, seriously, lets set up a set of criteria and really really really try our best to get out of there at some point in the foreseeable future" proposition...raises many suspicions in my head regarding which party he should belong to, what his real motivations are, and his competance...

     nice handle, by the way...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 08:16am

104. I thought Ibble's post was strange.

     Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2006 @ 11:54pm |

     I HATE TO USE CAPSLOCK AND APOLOGIZE TO ALL THOSE WHO ARE UNDERSTANDABLY OFFENDED BY SUCH BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ALL AWARE OF A CERTAIN FACT...

     HMAN - PERHAPS YOU WERE REFERRING TO ME, BUT NOTICE THAT I HAVE SPAWNED AN ADMIRER/HATER (NOT SURE YET) WHO DOES NOT SHARE MY STERLINGLY PERFECT OPINIONS AND VIEWS..

     NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE...

     IBBLEBLIBBLE THAT IS ME

     IBBLEDRIBBLE THAT IS SOMEONE ELSE

     thank you and have a nice day :)

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 08:23am

105. Posted by SKELETONMAN 06/22/2006 @ 7:42pm

     I think it was.

     Repeatedy.

     From behind.

     Posted by drhammer at 06/23/2006 @ 08:34am

106. Zero----------it's called "DEFEAT"; it's what happens when your terrible, lunatic left continues to; not support the troops or the war; thinks that if you just leave the jihadist alone they will make nice; buries or dismisses anyone who will publicly disagrees with them; overrides all the good news coming from Iraq and only focuses on the bad; and then commits to a policy of 'cut and run" which would make the Middle East a much more unstable and dangerous place. Zero----Good news is that for the time being you and your defeatist philosophy have been defeated.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/23/2006 @ 08:49am

107. Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/23/2006 @ 08:49am

     not support the troops? you appear to possess some form of intelligence, len...so what is it about "oppose the war, not the troops" that you dont get? is that too difficult a concept for you? i would think not. its pretty cut and dried, buy. read closely and use grey matter, here, ok...

     it is perfectly possible and logically consistant to support the troops and be opposed to the war

     ok? got it? so cut out the moronic absolutist flawed idiological framing or i will conclude you are in fact too mentally deficient to waste the time to read or respond to...you are better than that and capable of superior cognition, len...i think...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 08:55am

108. "which would make the Middle East a much more unstable and dangerous place"

     this has already happened. look at Israel. instead of negotiations with an honest peace broker, like Carter or Clinton, the violence unleashed by both Israel and Hams has been increasing.

     when an illadvised war is lost, defeat must be squarely looked in the eye. in Vietnam, we settled for a deal we could have had years earlier at far less cost in lives and treasure. and so it is in Iraq. to continue this blunder of astronomical proportion is insane.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 08:57am

109. Frei, postscript. the Tory fringe spends most of its time accusing me and others of hating america. when I saw you, whom I like, I dunno why, do the same I snapped.sorry.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 09:01am

110. it is perfectly possible and logically consistant to support the troops and be opposed to the war

     I absolutely agree ----however, there are some, on the left who look on our soldiers as nothing but murders (Zero in one of his post talked about some teenage prick when referring to our men amd women in uniform)---this is the attitude I was talking about.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/23/2006 @ 09:07am

111. I thought this was kind of ironic....

     "Iraq is now going to either balkanize or produce a new strongman.

     Posted by ZERO 06/22/2006 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person"

     Didn't we go into the "Balkans" to stop a "strongman" in 1999???

     Posted by Mask at 06/23/2006 @ 09:19am

112. Posted by LEN MOSSE 06/23/2006 @ 09:07am |

     ok - as i already knew, you understand the concept. i just read zero's post.

     perhaps he does hate our troops. i dont think so, but i may be wrong. undoubtedly there are some opponants of the war who DO hate the military, the troops. i dont agree with them, and would hate to see a repeat of the vietnam era reaction to returning troops, but as of now i have seen precious little of this sentiment, of these type of actions (i actually think that even in the most "liberal" areas of the country, such attitudes/reactions would quite likely result in a violent drubbing by the relatives of some currently or recently serving in the fiasco of a war. although i dont necessarily approve of this reaction, niether do i agree with the sentiment of the would be drubbing recipient)

     on the other hand, support for the vast majority of decent service men and women should niether overlook nor condone the actions of the few who are in fact sadistic monsters. it is only logical that within the confines of any predefined population there will inevitably drift or arise sadistic abominations of human beings, the military being no less prone to this phenomenon than any other institution or segment of the population. having been a member of the armed forces of our imperium, i have personally known such individuals and also know darn well that the possibility of recieving training and the opportunity to legally kill in the name of one's own country DOES INDEED draw at least a few individuals who love the thought of wielding such destructive and manly power. it would seem to run contrary to commen sense and human nature if it were otherwise, would it not?

     from my own personal experience, as well as the most basic reasoning, i find it quite likely that the US military does indeed include among its ranks more than a couple violent, gun toting teenage pricks, and i dont see how this observation in any way can be interpreted by a rational adult as "not supporting the troops"...unless the definition of "supporting the troops" is something like...

     "never ever say anything less than flattering about any of our nation's service people no matter what kind of atrocity they commit, always piously blather something extremely flattering about each and every one of them with a look of holy reverence in one's eyes regardless of what they have done because anything else is treason."

     bullshit...thats what fascists do, len.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 09:35am

113. Posted by MASK 06/23/2006 @ 09:19am

     yes

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 09:36am

114. what i do see a lot of is hyperbolic reaction by pro war mindless closet fascist flag wavers who slur anti war people as "troop haters"

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 09:38am

115. "I think the draft is an excellant idea or at least some kind of national service"

     I am against this, even national service, which smacks of forced labor. many countries have national service including germany, and it seems to work well.but to institute a draft to end the war?

     I believe there are better ways to end the war. at the polling booth for instance. if all war supporters were to be trashed in the next elections, the war would more likely be over by the elections after that.

     I think there are many problems with the "military culture" as there are with the "police culture". I speak as someone who was raised in both. Frank, you may not like this, but please don't construe it as hating the troops, or the cops.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 09:49am

116. The new government of Iraq is a new adversary for America, not an ally, Conservatives are going to forget how that new adversary was created. Conservatives told us it was necessary to give Chemical Weapons to Saddam Hussein to kill people with, they said it was for national security.

     Now Conservatives are supporting the government of Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq, a leader who makes statements in public that Donald Rumsfeld doesnt like. Americans are being sent to their deaths to promote a Salvadoran Option in Iraq - US Soldiers training militias who are going to fight them. Conservatives are making up their strategy as they go along and dont know what they are doing.

     Prime Minister Maliki told the Arab press - for all terrorists to hear - that Americans slaughter innocent Iraqis every single day, he is the guy Americans are being asked to be violently on behalf of.

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 09:58am

117. On a "New Draft/Conscription Requirement" question...

     lotta problems/question would arise,no?

     1. If there's a war going on (even a "popular" one), what happens if all the "non-military/national service" positions get filled, but conscientious objectors/pacifists don't want to fight?

     2. What happens when all the "non-military/national service" positions (especially in war-time) are given to the those with connections? (i.e., for those who like this "scandal", imagine a future "Dubya" who gets into the "Highway Reconstruction Service", while poor, un-connected guys have to go fight in Kreplachistan in 2025)

     3. If an excemption is made for pregnant females/nursing mothers, why can't a male sue for gender discrimination for men not getting that excemption?

     4. How do you pay for all the new military/non-military camps you're going to need (after 20 years of base closings)?

     Posted by Mask at 06/23/2006 @ 10:02am

118. Joeseph Lieberman is a murderer of American Soldiers. He is an acolyte in the Satanic Cult led by George Bush, that sacrifices thousands of American Soldiers on their Satanic Altar - which they call the Liberation of Iraq. Tens of thousands of Americans have been seriously hurt because of George Bushs lies.

     Iraq is a great bonfire of freshly minted $100 US Bills, Iraq is a devils playground where war profiteers are the only winners. Conservatives make America less safe.

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 10:17am

119. nice imagery, Con. you have the beginning of a poem.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:23am

120. George Bush fills in for a day at the recruiting office:

     Bush: So anyway I want your 19 year old son to go and DIE in Iraq.

     Parent: Why do you want my son to go and die in Iraq?

     Bush: Well, I dont have anything against your son. I guess - you see - I'm in the oil business.

     Parent: Really? The oil business? Oh, God bless you sir, what a great country. Are you?

     Bush: Oh yes, very much so, in fact my family - the Bush family - is invested in oil to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. And the arms trade.

     Parent: Youre in the arms trade? Oh well good for you. God bless you sir, really, that is wonderful.

     Bush: Oh yes, and you know what, my business partners in the Bin Laden family - as well as the Bush family - stand to make a whole bunch of money - but the only way we can really really make the big bucks in this business - is if we send Americans to go over and start killing people, make a country way worse off, and de-stabilize the planet. And we have to kill some Americans.

     Parent: So you want my 19 year old son to go and DIE in Iraq, or get his limbs blown off, and get PTSD?

     Bush: Well, I'm not going to send either of my 2 daughters to get their lovely legs blown off - I cant say that I would recommend it to any of my friends - but youre a common miserable American - not one of us upper crust hard working folk. Why I worked at Harken - it was hard work. Your 19 year old son probably is just a regular not very special American that we can kill.

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 10:28am

121. I'd like to thank all the brave men who fought in vain.

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 10:32am

122. lib, you're posts are so insulting as not to be taken seriously. take the insults out and we'll talk.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:37am

123. "The liberal haters seem to get more vitriolic each week."

     this describes you to a T, lib. hahahahaha

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:39am

124. The US public has been vacillating between bringing the troops home ASAP or 'til the occupation is stable, that will never happen, of course. (‘Stay the course', is itself a misnomer as there is no 'course', nor has anyone 'stayed'-- the slogan should read either -- 'continue rotating the ever changing IUD maze' or how about the truth "continue believing the lies") I think once the public can see through all the BS this hsuB admin is putting out, perhaps US citizens will have a chance to make a real decision based on the truth. Speaking out of both sides of its mouth or being two faced about killing and maiming mass amounts of people demand being more human-- not less. Unfortunately what we have now is ignorance-- the hsuB admin is ignorant of and ignore, the reality that is war. This occupation is based on lies and I've never met a liar that has stopped lying. And that is what the hsuB admin is-- a lie.

     =========================

     "Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

     _____________Keep Troops___Bring Home__Unsure

     6/14-19/06________50___________45_________5

     4/7-16/06_________48___________48_________4

     3/8-12/06_________44___________50_________6

     2/1-5/06__________50___________46_________4

     1/4-8/06__________48___________48_________4

     12/7-11/05________49___________46_________5

     10/6-10/05________47___________48_________5

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 10:39am

125. lib, you are sitting in front of a keyboard and have no right to call anyone a coward.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:40am

126. i also am against the idea of a draft and think it is not needed. a professional service is not inherently a bad idea, although negative possibilities are indeed possible in such a state of affairs.

     if our government would pursue foriegn policy in a competant and rational manner, a highly motivated, all volunteer, well compensated, professional military is far preferable to a conscripted force, and too, far more effective.

     the contention that a conscript force might dicourage such stupidity and wickedness as the current iraq debacle is, however not without merit. truly, as we saw in the vietnam fiasco, being forced to serve in a poorly thought out war in which many not serving profit greatly and many of the most powerless and poorest suffer greatly results in protest, even violent reaction and resistance to such stupid policy decisions, which is, in the long run not such a bad thing at all, and undeniably an obstacle to those wickedly self serving and educated beyond their morality and/or intelligence types who inevitably advocate foolish and bloody foriegn adventures. obversely, an all volunteer, quasi mercenary type military insulates many segments of the population from the disasterous potential of the same, and encourages the not completely ingenuine contention that "well, nobody forced them to serve, you know...", thereby further insulating the general population from the negative consequences of such foolishness.

     i would argue, however, that our current military is not quite as "all volunteer" in fact as it is in law...there are 2 points i would like to make concerning this contention of mine...

     1. when a patriotic, fine, upstanding youth, often possessed of more than a smidgion of blessed naivete and yet to acquire a hard shell of realistic cynicism, joins the military of the united states of america, i have to beleive (as i did once in my youth) they do so ASSUMING that although they may very well indeed be called upon to shed blood for their country and in fact make the ultimate sacrifice, their TRUSTED leaders would NEVER send them off to a misguided, stupid, fiasco of a war which our country need not fight (possibly profitting greatly themselves in the process). this applies doubly to those members of the guard and reserve, whose desire to serve their country is tempered by their desire to remain in and a part of their communities unless mobilization is absolutely and unavoidably necessary. therefore the involvement of our country in a foolish and cynically entered upon war, in which those who sacrifice the least profit the most, is in my opinion an abominable betrayal to the brave and patriotic schmuks who naively assumed their leaders to be possessed of at least as high a virtue as themselves and greater wisdom to boot...HA HA HA! a bitter pill to swallow is reality, is it not?

     2. from which socioeconomic classes do the majority of our recruits come? verily, our military is composed of representatives of every socioeconomic class, but a disproportionate number are enticed into service from those folks who are least likely to be able to afford a good education, who, as a result of their families' lack of means, will find it most difficult to build a secure economic future for themselves and their families. this trend is nothing new, but in an all volunteer force, is it not ironic that as government increasingly abandons policies that once aimed at keeping educational costs down, providing affordable housing, and mitigating the cost of health care, it also proceeds to irresponsibly involve us in bloody, questionable, military adventures? is it not suspiciously ironic that increasingly, the only realistic recourse for those of our youth born into relative poverty (as well as increasing numbers of the middle class), to escape the same and better themselves economically is to join the military? is there nothing ironic about how those of the haliburton stock holder class who will profit most from these wars will also serve least, that in order for these "nepotism benefitting awol going politically connected military service deferring" types to profit from their military industrial stock holdings that they must assure a steady stream of "volunteers" into the military, and that the best way to do this is to dry up any other type of non-military social programs, thereby ensuring a steady stream of volunteers, thereby ensuring their own self aggrandizement?

     you know, rome was once a democracy. her military strength was built upon the citizen soldier, the sturdy small farmer whose patriotism and doughtiness was called upon in times of crisis, who held a stake in his political and national identity. but as rome grew (as a result of her success), and as wealth flowed into the rebublic for the same reason, the wealthy and powerful grew more wealthy and powerful, and the sturdy schmuks suffered increasingly, as the very wealth and power they made possible through their sacrifice and bravery, went to their wealthy rulers, who used it then to buy out and out compete the citizen farmer/soldiers, who then drifted into the city, becoming a dangerous economic burden on the wealthy who had created this situation. eventually the only way to raise a motivated army was to promise financial reward in the form of land and other incentives and the once civic minded and patriotic soldiers of rome became, in time, more loyal to those who paid them than to their country itself. as their once legitimat democratic republic became ever more a farce, they became more cynical, less concerned about civic well being, more concerned with emulating their overlords and looking out for nothing but big number 1.

     regardless, except in times of legitimate massive national emergency, i still oppose a draft. i propose we wake up and hold our pathetic excuses for leaders accountable, as well as see our own decadence and irresponsibility for what it is...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 10:43am

127. I respect the fact that you value the people who died for my own freedom here in America.

     Why dont you also respect the people who were sent to die in vain on missions that made America less safe?

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 10:45am

128. No Conservative has ever, one single time, paid respects to those who died in vain. They pay respect all the time to those who died for my own freedom - and I appreciate that.

     Why will not one single Conservative ever acknowledge the sacrifices of those who died in vain on a pack of lies? I respect all veterans - those who died for freedom - and those who died in vain too.

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 10:46am

129. I tell you what, Conservatives: just say it.

     "I acknowledge and give thanks for the sacrifices made by US Soldiers on fools missions that were a pack of lies and made America less safe"

     See? You cant do it Conservatives. Not one single Conservative will ever thank the soldiers who died for no good reason. Not once, ever.

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 10:48am

130. Frei, I believe you and to try to bridge any bad feelings, Sie können mich duzen. and likewise I imagine.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:49am

131. So I tell you what, you Conservatives have already praised those who died for my own freedom, I am going to praise the other troops who died, you Conservatives really should not have a problem with my acknowledging the sacrifices of those troops. I am very thankful, and appreciative, for the veterans who have suffered death and injury for no good reason.

     Posted by conshame at 06/23/2006 @ 10:51am

132. Ibble good post, and fie on he who usurped your handle, I for one was fooled.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 10:54am

133. Why does this sound so familiar? The hsuB admin is most likely already feeling a burning sensation:

     Chronic Lying from Sue

     How Can You Help? Behavior Description This child is often caught up in 'distorting the truth'. Do not let lying become a habit.

     Why?

     The child who exagerates, tells lies or distorts the truth does so for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they feel that they are not liked (for reasons often unknown) and will tell lies to make the listener like him/her more. They have learned that some forms of distoring the truth get them some attention; this sometimes compensates for their feelings of inadequacies. Sometimes the child will lie to avoid being reprimanded or to avoid consequences that they believe will happen with a truth. Some children lie to get others into trouble, these children are often in trouble themselves. Sponsored Links Stop LyingLearn How To Quickly And Easily Stop Lyingwww.YourBadHabits.com Child Behavior ProblemsPut an end to all the defiance and arguments without losing your coolGood-Child-Guide.com Are You a Slacker Mom?A fun test to find out what type of parenting style fits you.www.AreYouASlackerMom.com Children often lie to avoid tasks, a child will say that their homework is done in order to do something more pleasurable. Children don't like to get caught when misbehaving and will often lie or stretch the truth.

     We must remember though, chronic or habitual liars rarely feel good about themselves. Look for patterns in the child's lying, does the lying only occur at specific times or in specific situations? Try and determine what the child's needs are that makes him/her want to lie.

     Interventions

     Always model 'telling the truth', avoid 'little white lies. Teach your child through role playing, the value of telling the truth. This will take time and some patience. Role play the potential devestating consequences of lying. Do not accept excuses for lying, lying is not acceptable. Children should understand the hurtful consequences of lying and whenever possible, they should apologize for lying. Logical consequences need to be in place for the child who lies. No matter what, children need to know that lying is never acceptable and will not be tolerated. Children often lie to keep their parents or teacher happy, they need to know that you value the truth much more than a small act of misbehavior. Children need to be part of the solution and or consequences. Ask them what they are prepared to give or do as a result of the lie. Remind the child that you're upset with what he/she did. Reinforce that it's not the child but what he/she did that upset you and let him/her know that you are disappointed. You know the saying - bring them up before you bring them down. For instance: "It is so unlike you to lie about your homework, you're so good at getting things done and staying on top of things." Praise the truth! Catch them telling the truth at a time when you know they would like to sugar coat a situation. Avoid lectures and quick irrational decisions. E.g., if you lie again, you'll be grounded for a year!" Never forget that ALL children need to know you care about them and that they can contribute in a positive way. It took the child a long time to become a master of distorting the truth, exagerating, lying chronically, be consistent, patient and understand that change will take time.

     http://specialed.about.com/cs/behaviordisorders/a/liar.htm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 11:01am

134. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/23/2006 @ 10:54am

     thanks JR. regarding the handle i am simultaneously flattered and disturbed to find i have a doppleganger...lol - it claims to be a conservative democrat lieberman supporter from connecticut...maybe it will post its home address soon...

     have a nice day :)

     i ignored the libsux thing - i dont mind an excrement spewing mule sexing conservative troll, but this one is is even too rude and vacuous for me. worse, its posts are approaching resian lengths...i implore you to ignore it - like a spoiled child, attention only encourages it, and negative attention all the more.

     furthermore i implore whoever is in charge here to consider that which i have never seen done yet and never before advocated - banning it. regardless, a similar end can be achieved if all the posters here just ignore each and every incarnation as it appears...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 11:03am

135. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/23/2006 @ 10:56am

     i may be wrong, but i think he was talking to that libhateusa thing or whatever it calls itself, LL.

     how are you doing these days, by the way, noble foe?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 11:05am

136. lib, I don't suppose you're Audie Murphy. I don't think you earned the right to call others cowards with your service. of the many who served, it wasn't Grenada was it, there are some who are no doubt cowards. I will not judge you, I wasn;t there, but don't you judge others, check your religion on that one.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 11:08am

137. for you youngsters out there, the late Audie Murphy was the most decorated american soldier of WW2, who later became a movie star.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 11:09am

138. well, i don't support the troops. just so you all know.....

     UNLESS the troops staged a full-blown mutiny. and fast.

     Posted by darladoon at 06/23/2006 @ 11:23am

139. I just absolutely love the 'cut and run' phrase. It reminds me so much of 'healthy forests' that means cutting down more trees, and 'clean skies' that means more pollution.

     Ok, let them have their way. I'm no liberal by a long shot, and even(gasps) voted for Uncle Ronnie. However, if I'm faced with 'cutting and running' from a horrible mistake, or 'staying the course' and continuing to make the same damn mistake, I'll cut and run.

     It's now a full blown civil war in Iraq, and the best that the administration can hope for is to sacrifice more American lives in order to turn the country over to a 'stable' government that is very closely aligned with Iran, who seized our embassy and kidnapped our people, and is also now building nukes and buying missiles from North Korea. Some victory. . .and that's the best case scenario.

     Posted by marckeith at 06/23/2006 @ 11:26am

140. Frei, this is not an easy question. for instance, german soldiers died for what they believed in, their country. but they were mistaken. what they died for was something else entirely.

     and so it is in Iraq, or Vietnam for that matter. for blame we cannot look to the soldiers. check the Nuremberg tribunals for your answer.

     incidentally the Us and Japan were in a virtual state of war for four months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. I'm not saying that it was thus justified, but it is more understandable when looking at the context and also trying to see their point of view. always a useful strategy, I think.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 11:28am

141. Darla, that has happened only once in recent history, Russia in WW1.

     Frei, it's useful to ask these questions, but you will have to take a stand with answers yourself some time.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 11:30am

142. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2006 @ 11:01am

     LOL...does this mean we'll see Dubya starring in "The Ringer - part 2?"

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 11:33am

143. Posted by MARCKEITH 06/23/2006 @ 11:26am

     Kind of like pissing on your shoe and reveling in the warm toasty feet.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 11:34am

144. got to love the american righ wing: even as rome burns all around them, they are still right, and everyone else is wrong, no matter what.

     Pretty much sums it up.

     Posted by mrking at 06/23/2006 @ 11:39am

145. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/23/2006 @ 11:33am

     Maybe more like a reality show titled-- "It's Hard Work". Or is that entitled? Showing behind the scene vacation debates and the resolutions..., how they make all the shit up as they go. Should have a 20-30% viewership...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 11:49am

146. Relativism implies there is never a good reason for a soldier to die because there is really no right or wrong. (For instance, Chomsky teaches that Pearl Harbor can be viewed as justified because at the time the US was designing weapons that could reach and destroy Japanese cities.)

     So, in general, how can there be a difference between soldiers who died for something and those who died for no good reason? And how can you apparently so easily separate the two?

     The problem with this argument is that it has a significant hidden premise, namely that relativism is true. However, there's no actual reason to believe that relativism is true; things like genocide really are morally abhorrent.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/23/2006 @ 12:05pm

147. Quote of the Day:

     "Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear -- not absence of fear."

     – Mark Twain

     Funny how repubs can only react in terms of 'fight or flight'. If one has no perspective, how will one be able to acknowledge that there are other substantial options? Duh, you don't, because to one caught in the unknown-- there is only fear.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 12:21pm

148. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2006 @ 12:21am

     great quote!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 12:24pm

149. Posted by FREIHEIT 06/23/2006 @ 12:19am

     Follow up: if something is permitted to happen, then someone has determined that it is not morally abhorrent, no? Nazis? Pol Pot? Stalin? Saddam? OBL? These guys have determined that killing is in their best interests. Trying to bring morality into this sphere is spitting into the wind.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/23/2006 @ 12:48pm

150. we need something simple to answer to cut and run.

     cut and run? or stop poking sticks at millions of wolverines for no good fucking reason? (no racist sentiment intended.) stop hitting the hornets nest? when you're in a hole, stop digging? hmmmm....

     Posted by loveloki at 06/23/2006 @ 1:19pm

151. The Justice Department must not have got the memo...the Miami "Terroist Cell" story wasn't supposed to come out until late October. What are they thinking! Now we have to go find another suspicious group to call terrorist right before the election! Idiots!

     (What happened to fighting the terrorist over there so we don't have to fight them here? Technically, these so called "terrorist" shouldn't even exist!)

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 1:24pm

152. Since a couple of them were Haitians, then this is CLEAR that Haiti needs a regime change...another one. Kick the tires and light the fires boys...Haiti is going DOWN!

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 1:26pm

153. Gonzales said that "the convergence of globalization and technology has created a new brand of terrorism. Today terrorist threats come from smaller more loosely defined cells not affiliated with al-Qaida but who are inspired by a violent jihadist message, and left unchecked these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaida."

     But are they more dangerous than Timothy McVeigh?!?!

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 1:27pm

154. 'stop fanning the fire', 'turn it around', 'getting perspective', 'allowing responsibility', 'transition to autonomy', ''focussing on priorities', 'strategic deployment', ... need more?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 1:31pm

155. "Residents living near the warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their group. Rose said they tried to recruit her younger brother and nephew for a karate class."

     Great, Kung-Fu Muslims! They've mutated from car bombers to Bruce Lee!! Now we must ban all Kung-Fu films, clearly they are being used as training and recruitment materials!!

     Thank you Alberto!! What would we do without you!

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 1:31pm

156. sorry this was meant for:

     Posted by LOVELOKI 06/23/2006 @ 1:19pm

     'stop fanning the fire', 'turn it around', 'getting perspective', 'allowing responsibility', 'transition to autonomy', ''focussing on priorities', 'strategic deployment', ... need more?

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2006 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 1:34pm

157. Benjamin Williams, 17, said the group sometimes had young children with them. At times, he added, the men "would cover their faces. Sometimes they would wear things on their heads, like turbans."

     Oh gosh, this is worse than I feared. They aren't just Black Muslim Kung-Fu masters...they are...Black Muslim Kung-FU NINJAS!! HO. LY. SHIT.

     Citizens be on your highest guard...Ninjas are among us. Not only are we going to have to take out Haiti (again) we are not going to have to take out all of Asia, because we know that ninjas came from over there somewhere...so Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand...watch your step.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 1:41pm

158. "not" should be "now" in that last one. BEWARE!

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 1:42pm

159. those are all great hsubfools, some are a little complex in language though. we need something every third grader can understand. that's what seems to work.

     Posted by loveloki at 06/23/2006 @ 1:44pm

160. Something that seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle here, folks.....

     Politically....Next to NOBODY in Washington is supporting "withdrawal", "strategic withdrawal", "re-deployment" or cutting&running....

     THIRTEEN Senators voted for Kerry-Feingold-Boxer...39 (including the previous 13) voted for Reed-Levin, which Mr Nichols himself called "a vaguely-worded proposal... that urged the Bush administration to start THINKING about an exit strategy."

     Despite the "massive negative polls", etc.....hardly anybody in power is on the same page as the anti-war movement or the liberal bloggers.

     Mr Nichols wrote this attack on Lieberman....but BOTH Nelsons, Landrieu, Pryor, etc. are still out there and either not up for re-election or going to have easy times being re-elected.

     So....even if the opponents of withdrawal WANT to call those supporting it "cut & runners"....nobody doing it.

     Posted by Mask at 06/23/2006 @ 1:45pm

161. very funny bluetexan. :)

     Posted by loveloki at 06/23/2006 @ 1:45pm

162. I sent money to Ned Lamont's campaign - and I'm from NY. It's time to lay waste the lies of the so-called War supporters (so-called because this is not a war, it's clearly an occupation), their cry of Defeat the Terrorists (whom they never define) - their lack of caring for the mostly brown and white-underclass soldiers dying and suffering grevious wounds in this occupation, their lack of ANY sacrifice for the war effort (certainly not their OWN children - or their money), their lack of ANY strategy to not only stabilize Iraq, but to do so without a fundamentalism Islamic state in place, their lack of any concern of the thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded by our weapons (in their so-called liberation), their lack of any acknowledgment that the Shiites and Sunies both despise us and wish us gone, their lack of any acknowledgment that this president is a supreme failure and possible war criminal and that the United States is now the imperialist killer the far left always accused us of being, and finally, their complete lack of any suggestion as to when this will all end and how... They can't sell leadership so they sell lies and accusations, but the game, I think, is coming to an end...

     Posted by jabelson at 06/23/2006 @ 1:56pm

163. Posted by BLUETEXAN: Gonzales said that "the convergence of globalization and technology has created a new brand of terrorism. Today terrorist threats come from smaller more loosely defined cells not affiliated with al-Qaida but who are inspired by a violent jihadist message, and left unchecked these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaida."

     But are they more dangerous than Timothy McVeigh?!?!

     Oh jeez. I guess these guys justify alllll the domestic surveillence, Constitutional violations, lawless behavior, torture, ect. Hell, these guys may qualify for torture.

     Now the administration can point to this and target anyone they want with any techniques they want, like nuns (ala Iran/Conta), peace activists, Democrats, gays, whoever.

     They can scoot em off to Gitmo for a few years.

     Posted by mrking at 06/23/2006 @ 2:11pm

164. Posted by MRKING 06/23/2006 @ 2:11pm

     Shall we start placing wagers on how long these guys will go without a trial? Will George Duh be in retirement, clearing brush down on the ranch before these guys get a "fair" trial? Or will they be quietly released in December 2008?

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 2:23pm

165. so much for fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. the new slogan should be: stop fighting them over there so we can fight them over here.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 2:44pm

166. Posted by LOVELOKI 06/23/2006 @ 1:44pm

     'stay and die', 'die for lies', ... Ooops, it's about leaving. 'Live and learn', 'the best way to win', 'win with a plan', 'winning for our future', 'plan to win', 'win for the world',... simple enough?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 2:49pm

167. how about: we lost. let's split

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 3:15pm

168. Citizens be on your highest guard...Ninjas are among us. Not only are we going to have to take out Haiti (again) we are not going to have to take out all of Asia, because we know that ninjas came from over there somewhere...so Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand...watch your step.

     Posted by BLUETEXAN 06/23/2006 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

     LOL Just be glad they weren't PIRATES, as well! http://www.ninjapirate.com/battle.html

     Posted by cliffy at 06/23/2006 @ 3:21pm

169. Haiiii-arrrrrr!

     Posted by mrking at 06/23/2006 @ 3:24pm

170. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/23/2006 @ 3:15pm

     I don't know if 3rd graders will rally around that, developmentally speaking, they're fairly adverse to losing. So it'll need to be more: 'WE WIN, YEA!, lets leave".

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 3:43pm

171. Muslim Ninja Pirates of the Carribean coming to a Homeland Security Video Conference near you!!

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 3:44pm

172. If Dubya does a news conference wearing a Gi & black belt and quoting Sun Tzu...I will be convinced the end is near.

     (Wingers....is it too late to get a ticket for "The Rapture?")

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 3:44pm

173. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2006 @ 3:43pm

     First they need to hand out "everybody's a winner" trophies, then we can leave.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 3:45pm

174. Posted by BLUETEXAN 06/23/2006 @ 3:45pm

     Think it through-- maybe ribbons would be safer, but then again hsuB does does deserve to be hit with all those trophies whenever he steps out of the WH...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 3:54pm

175. Oh ok, one ' does' will do it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 3:56pm

176. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/23/2006 @ 3:54pm

     That's the least Bush deserves.

     One can only imagine how miserable Bush's life will be post-Presidency. Being a young president has its downfalls...living a long time to see your mistakes play out for decades. I predict Bush will become an alcholic again. Besides, you can't be a real brush clearin' cowboy without a bottle of JD by your side.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 3:57pm

177. here is my scenario for Bush after he leaves office. no one takes his calls anymore. the only one who will still play golf with him is O J Simpson. cue dialogue.

     O J.:" I'm still going to find the killer of Nicole and that friend of hers". Bush:" yes, and I'm going to find those WMD any day now."

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 4:15pm

178. I predict hsuB loses it way before he steps out of office. Or rather everyone, 90% of the US citizenry, comes to recognize that he never really had it... So then what?

     I just saw an Akira Kurosawa movie, Kagemusha, Shadow Warrior. Lots of parallels. I predict that hsuB's two last years as a fake pres, play out just like in the movie's last two years. He gets over confident, falls off the horse (or is that the wagon?), is exposed, shunned and lives to witness the destruction of the GOP.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 4:26pm

179. First and foremost, to briefly touch the relativism thing. Yes, there is disagreement as to what's morally justified and not justified, but that isn't a reason why there isn't a right answer; it's not like disagreement about evolution suddenly means it's not true. The argument from disagreement fails, and I haven't heard any other one advanced, so it's unclear what basis there is to say that there aren't any objective moral truths.

     Second, what's the basis for claiming that we're losing in Iraq. Presumably, that would mean that we're not making substantial progress against the insurgency...which is incorrect. As I mentioned elsewhere, recent al Qaeda documents recovered in Iraq say exactly the opposite; al Qaeda is concerned about our considerable successes against the insurgency, to the point that they're recommending alternative strategies like pulling us into a war with Iran. So...particularly if we're being successful, why should we leave and turn Iraq into complete chaos (far more so than now) rather than clean up the mess we've made?

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/23/2006 @ 4:33pm

180. so let me get this straight. we're succeeding because Al Qaeda says so? hahhahahahaha

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 4:36pm

181. "turn Iraq into complete chaos (far more so than now) rather than clean up the mess we've made?"

     that has already happened as the second part of that sentence states. it's not like cleaning up in the kitchen.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 4:38pm

182. "if we're being successful"

     that's a mighty big IF. where are the metrics for that success? even the misadministration clams up on that one.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2006 @ 4:40pm

183. Presumably, that would mean that we're not making substantial progress against the insurgency...which is incorrect. As I mentioned elsewhere, recent al Qaeda documents recovered in Iraq say exactly the opposite; al Qaeda is concerned about our considerable successes against the insurgency, to the point that they're recommending alternative strategies like pulling us into a war with Iran. So...particularly if we're being successful, why should we leave and turn Iraq into complete chaos (far more so than now) rather than clean up the mess we've made?

     Posted by THRAWN 06/23/2006 @ 4:33pm

     So by your logic, we really are loosing the war in Iraq. You state that since we found a document stating that "hey guys, we're loosing to the Americans" means we are actually winning the war. So if an al qaeda person picks up a U.S. newspaper and reads an article about why we are loosing the war (or reads about government officials saying the same...see recent stories about the officials in Iraq report more dire situations), should they then conclude..."hey guys, this piece of paper says the U.S. is loosing the war, so let's keep up the good work!"

     Who cares what a piece of paper says...look at reality!!

     Besides, if you fully believe we have recovered such a document, then you have far to much trust in what is being reported by the WH.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 4:41pm

184. so let me get this straight. we're succeeding because Al Qaeda says so? hahhahahahaha

     That is amazing, isn't it?

     Posted by mrking at 06/23/2006 @ 4:50pm

185. That is amazing, isn't it?

     (no edit feature, what a disapointment)

     Posted by mrking at 06/23/2006 @ 4:56pm

186. Posted by THRAWN 06/23/2006 @ 4:33pm

     You turn words very nicely. We could simplify things by defining success as a reduction in violence. I would be curious if the Iraqi government is tracking Iraqi deaths since we have not be interested in doing the work. But we also need to consider that even as the government has been more visible, sectarian violence seems not to have improved. What role are we going to play in what seems poised to be a full-blown civil war? We are going to free a country from a dictator and then show 'em what freedom is by forming a government that cannot address the most basic, visceral problems among its people? I just don't understand what our role is there anymore.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/23/2006 @ 4:57pm

187. Since some want to pay attention to what others think about the Iraqi insurgency, how about:

     Iraq's National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie said regardless of who is backing the insurgency, Iraq has to be able to stand on its own, Cowan reports.

     "We need to avoid what I call dependency syndrome. We need to wean ourselves off this dependency," al-Rubaie says.

     At the same time, General Casey is juiced to start a new war against Iran. How much more "Bring 'em on" bullshit do we have to endure from these knuckledraggers.

     Yeehaw!!! [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/23/2006 @ 5:08pm

188. We only win in Iraq (with our war on terrorist) if we can leave Iraq. Iraq only wins if we leave Iraq. Al Qaeda will only lose in Iraq if Iraq stands on it's own because Al Qaeda will lose it's platform to fight there. Al Qaeda will be given every opportunity to win only if we stay there.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 5:19pm

189. Posted by THRAWN 06/23/2006 @ 4:33pm

     Of course, we can only read these captured documents because three years after the "end of major activities" we still don't have electricity in the majority of the nation - or Baghdad for that matter!

     Ahh..the smell of success! Funny, it DOES kinda smell like horsehit... Or is that damn mule-humping Neal Horsley in here again?

     ALL

     Too good, the interview on the Alan Colmes Show:

     In the course of the interview (regarding mainly his anti-abortion crusade), however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex.

     At first, Horsley laughed and said, "Just because it's printed in the media, people jump to believe it."

     "Is it true?" Colmes asked.

     "Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I..."

     AC: "You had sex with animals?"

     NH: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

     AC: "I'm not so sure that that is so."

     NH: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"

     AC: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"

     NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."

     Colmes said he thought there were a lot of people in the audience who grew up on farms, are living on farms now, raising kids on farms and "and I don't think they are dating Elsie right now. You know what I'm saying?"

     Horsley said, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."

     In addition to Horsley, Colmes has recently interviewed Randall Terry another radical anti-abortionist and anti-gay activist. In the middle of an otherwise serious interview, Terry began joking - apropos of nothing - that he and Colmes were ex-lovers.

     Another extremist interviewed by Colmes not too long ago was Rev. Fred Phelps who stated on the show that he thought the death penalty should be given for those who engage in "sodomy." When Colmes asked Phelps if he had ever engaged in gay sex, Phelps blustered but never said no. ************************************************************************ *** so per this guy, every male "down south" fucks mules, chickens, or who/what ever is handy.... Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 5:22pm

190. Oooops....

     Should read "...Of course, we can only read these captured documents in the daylightbecause..."

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 5:24pm

191. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/23/2006 @ 5:22pm

     That's hillarious. First off, let's distinguish between being raised on a farm and being from the South. There are plenty of farms up North too. So not all males down South, nay...MOST males down South don't get cozy with animals.

     I find that this furhter supports my theory that...Germans love David Hasselhof (old David Spade joke).

     No, what I was going to say is...when you encounter a foaming at the mouth homophibic nut, you just might be dealing with someone that cannot come to terms with their own sexuality. They are gay (because you are born that way) but are so jealous of other people that have accepted their sexuality, that they just lash out and become these anti-gay crusaders. Same for anti-abortion wackos, I think it would be interesting to see the percentage of them that have had an abortion or would have one in the future. I heard an interview yesterday with a pro-choice advocate that said a surprising amount of people that get abortion are self-proclaimed evangelicals.

     The moral of the story is...there are usually some deep-seeded issues for those folks running around with extreme anti-gay and anti-abortion rants. You really begin to feel sorry for these people, they need counseling in a really serious way.

     Posted by BlueTexan at 06/23/2006 @ 5:56pm

192. Blue

     Amen....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 6:19pm

193. WOW, hsoB is surging up on the polls. Must be say and doing all the right things now! He's up 3 points w/Pew, 5 w/Fox, even CCN has him up by a whole point! From the low 30's to the mid to high 30's. And then there's CBS, ok, well never mind... I guess he hasn't traveled far enough and gotten enough other countries' leaders to change our 'unpatriotic' minds yet.

     PollingReport.com

     PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls See also: Complete trend Survey

     _______Dates_____Approve__Disapprove_Unsure_Difference

     Pew___6/14-19/06__36_______54________10________-18

     CNN___6/14-15/06__37_______53________10________-16

     FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV

     _______6/13-14/06__40_______52_________8________-12

     NBC/Wall Street Journal

     _______6/9-12/06___37_______58__________5_______-21

     CBS___6/10-11/06___33_______60__________7_______-27

     USA Today/Gallup

     _______6/9-11/06___38_______56__________6_______-18

     AP-Ipsos_6/5-7/06___35_______63_________2________-28

     Cook/RT Strategies RV

     __________6/1-4/06__37_______57_________6________-20

     USA Today/Gallup

     __________6/1-4/06__36_______57_________6________-21

     Quinnipiac RV

     _________5/23-30/06__35_____58__________7________-23

     Pew___4/27 - 5/22/06__33_____56_________11________-23

     Diageo/Hotline RV

     ________5/18-21/06____37_____61__________3_______-24

     FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV

     ________5/16-18/06____35_____56__________8_______-21

     CBS_____5/16-17/06____35____60___________5______-25

     CNN_____5/16-17/06____36____57___________7______-21

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 6:26pm

194. BTW, did Iran just test a nuclear weapon?

     http://irsc.ut.ac.ir/newsview.php?eventid=1956

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 6:35pm

195. Americans sent for death and serious injury in Iraq by George Bush have been sent there for no good reason, their sacrifice has been in vain, George Bush is a murderer of American troops - Joe Lieberman too.

     Posted by LiberalPride at 06/23/2006 @ 7:21pm

196. NOw this might be a little too self-revealing, but I have to confess that I automatically assign "personhood" to any object of my affection and certainly to all objects of fantasy. For me, this is safe since, coincidentally, all such objects are humans and as such usually come built-in with the status of person.

     While we can see that conservatives usually have broader definitions of "personhood" because their fantasies and affections are far more wide ranging than ours--I'm thinking here of the link between Cheney's lust for all major energy corporations and the assigning of corporations with person status by conservatives, this becomes even more problematic in the case posted by Left of Center. What are we to make of the good Mr. Horsley's liaisons with farm animals? Well, first we have to consider that he gave these fine creatures their due respect. I can't believe he would have engaged in anything as ugly as rape or even more subtle forms of mental or emotional cruelty. As an honorable man, we have to assume that he viewed his lovers the way most of us view ours: as equals, as persons.

     But here's something we have not had to rationalize: as a good conservative we also have to assume that he isn't some flaky, pansy vegetarian like yours truly.

     So the question is: what is the penalty for cannibalism?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/23/2006 @ 9:29pm

197. I always knew it:

     FROM: St. Petersburg ‘Times': Best Newspaper in America

     Rove, Satan plot GOP fall campaign strategy White House adviser, Prince of Darkness resume longtime collaboration.

     Compiled from Times wires Published June 23, 2006

     http://www.wonkette.com/politics/karl-rove/st-petersburg-times-bes t-newspaper-in-america-182902.php

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2006 @ 9:49pm

198. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/23/2006 @ 3:44pm

     dont worry. sin all you want. kill, steal, fornicate, and right before you die accept jesus as your personal savior. see how this stuff and republican party were made for each other?

     check it out, its all explained nicely here...

     landover [landoverbaptist.org]

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2006 @ 10:44pm

199. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/23/2006 @ 10:44pm

     Yee-haw. Road trip....gonna head on down to the revivial tent. Want me to pick up a "What Would Jesus Do" thong while I'm there?

     (friggin site is classic.....)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/23/2006 @ 11:18pm

200. We are going to free a country from a dictator and then show 'em what freedom is by forming a government that cannot address the most basic, visceral problems among its people? I just don't understand what our role is there anymore.

     Posted by 06/23/2006 @ 4:57pm

     this the the delema creasted by entrusting the task of building a government to those who would at the very same time work to shrink that govenment down to a size wher it can be dragged into the bathroom and drown in the tub

     Posted by Will C. at 06/23/2006 @ 11:56pm

201. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/23/2006 @ 4:57pm

     Posted by Will C. at 06/23/2006 @ 11:57pm

202. you can't trust those to build that only have a talent for destroying

     unless a pile of smoking rubble is the thing you wish to build...

     then hamster conservatives are the finest there is

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 12:01am

203. I swear, as soon as I jump into a really active thread, it just fades to black.

     Hi, Will.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/24/2006 @ 12:02am

204. TJ...

     Been pretty active on the KVH thread

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/24/2006 @ 12:06am

205. alternative energy, global warming, popualtion control and...well, there's always the mule sex.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/24/2006 @ 12:07am

206. Geez, if only we had really intelligent guys in the WH, all they'd be doing is leaking info about how they're tracking terrorists via all kinds of ways so that the terrorist would think not to do almost anything and trap themselves into a box. But no, we have dumbasses that are trapping their own country into a cardboard box. Eventually we'll have to start examining TP before we use it to make sure there's no spying chips on it. The hsuB admin will do anything to gather intel even if it is backwards and the longest way of going about it...

     White House becoming more secretive after leaks

     By Bill Sammon, The Examiner

     Jun 23, 2006 5:45 PM (6 hrs ago)

     "Administration officials tried to convince the New York Times and Los Angeles Times not to publish the stories about the financial tracking program, but to no avail. That angered Vice President Dick Cheney.

     "What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Cheney said Friday in Chicago. "That offends me."

     Chertoff said "these unauthorized disclosures are tremendously harmful" because they allow Internet-savvy terrorists to change their tactics."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 12:21am

207. hi TJ

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 12:25am

208. Now I'm caught up on Katrina's thread. Just not to my liking. Kind of dull actually. We all want to think we're smart. I'd like it better if we all wanted to think we're creative.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/24/2006 @ 12:40am

209. I'm about to be creative with my dreams...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 12:44am

210. sweet dreams hsubfools

     Posted by loveloki at 06/24/2006 @ 12:52am

211. you didn't vote for mondale

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 12:58am

212. and we think kim jong il is crazy

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 12:59am

213. if ol kim jong calls it a preemptive strike does he get to drop a nuke on us?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 01:00am

214. free and clear?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 01:01am

215. no harm no foul?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 01:01am

216. So by your logic, we really are loosing the war in Iraq. You state that since we found a document stating that "hey guys, we're loosing to the Americans" means we are actually winning the war. So if an al qaeda person picks up a U.S. newspaper and reads an article about why we are loosing the war (or reads about government officials saying the same...see recent stories about the officials in Iraq report more dire situations), should they then conclude..."hey guys, this piece of paper says the U.S. is loosing the war, so let's keep up the good work!"

     Um, no, those aren't the least bit analogous. It's not "well, we found this piece of paper saying we're winning, so it must be so." What's most important is the source of that information. First and foremost, no one has challenged the authenticity of the document itself; it was found around the time of the Zarqawi bombing, when our forces found significant amounts of data in Al Qaeda storehouses. In other words, this document is an effective representation of what Al Qaeda believes. This is important not only because they have a reasonably good ability to assess their own strategic position (as any successful terrorist group would have to), but also because they have a vested interest in convincing their followers and would-be followers that they're winning. A document by them that says flat-out that they and those they support are losing in Iraq is extremely significant evidence, for the same reason that historians give a great deal of credibility to a claim by somebody's enemy that the person possessed X good quality. They say that in spite of a vested interest otherwise, just as al Qaeda did for US forces in Iraq. That's real evidence in a way that an assertion from a newspaper isn't.

     Just in case you still don't believe the document is real, here's some sources for it:

     http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html

     http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s04-woiq.html

     http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060615/D8I8JAC80.html

     http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-15-raid-blueprint_x.htm

     Here's a particulary nice excerpt from the document:

     In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general.

     Maybe it's just me, but an evaluation by al Qaeda that the situation is bleak seems fairly significant.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2006 @ 02:29am

217. That only establishes that al-Qaida in Iraq thinks the situation is weak. It doesn't establish that the much larger Sunni insurgency thinks so. Certainly there was a spike in activity (kidnapping, bombs, IEDs) after Zarqawi's capture. With the Shi'ites having had a change to organize, we are now looking at a civil war alongside an insurgency. I don't think you can pin your arguments that the situation is improving on one assessment.

     Posted by brunowe at 06/24/2006 @ 02:42am

218. why would anyone believe any selective release of documents by this administration.

     for all we know the other documents found at the site all said the al qaida was kicking butt and recruiting was up a thousand percent

     these hamster boys have a wayy of seeing the things they want to see

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 02:53am

219. Posted by THRAWN 06/23/2006 @ 4:33pm | ignore this person

     As I mentioned elsewhere, recent al Qaeda documents recovered in Iraq say exactly the opposite; al Qaeda is concerned about our considerable successes against the insurgency,

     Al Qaeda in Iraq is only a small part of the insurgency. The militias dwarf its size. Obfuscation is the hallmark of this administration's public pronouncements. Misleading people is the intended effect. Thrawn reflects their success.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 06/24/2006 @ 03:06am

220. BTW, back to the original point of this thread....

     Anybody here risk their next house payment on a bet that Lamont beats Lieberman?....next paycheck?....milk money?

     Posted by Mask at 06/24/2006 @ 07:17am

221. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 06/23/2006 @ 11:18pm

     yeah - i love the picture of the guy on the reader mail section...wonder which wingnut who posts here that one might be? har har!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 07:59am

222. ok - here comes the part where i stick my foot in my mouth, thank gawd i have maintained some degree of anonymity here, and get accused of being an anti-semite, despite the fact that technically speaking, non jewish arabs are semites as well...

     it seems to me that niether iraq nor the united states has benefitted very much from this whole iraq misadventure. quite the opposite. one country has benefitted greatly, however, in a very indirect way. by offering ourselves up as the primary target for hatred by fanatical medievalist jihadists and the arab/islamic world in general, as a result of our actions (one justification offered by the idiots in charge has been an effort to draw all the jihadist terrorists into iraq instead of elswhere, by the way), which country usually suffers from the bloodiest jihadist violence? hint - its not the USA.

     unfortunately our ruling junta has over identified the connection of national interests between the US and isreal, aipac'ers and fundyvangelists alike. has mr. lieberman also?

     i beleive firmly in the right of isreal to exist and pray for it to exist in peace with its neighbors, but i dont believe its in the interest of the united states of america to offer ourselves up as a target for jihadist violence and hatred in order to take the heat off isreal. i am a citizen of the united states, after all, and although buzillions of my tax dollars go to israel, i dont think serving as a human shield for the isrealis is in our best interest. even if i were jewish, israel is not my country...

     ok - call me an anti-semite. yep, i'm posting it...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 08:25am

223. " i dont believe its in the interest of the united states of america to offer ourselves up as a target for jihadist violence and hatred in order to take the heat off israel."

     Ibble, you are absolutely right to feel this way. the question is whether this is actually so. I believe not. The US did not , in my opinion, invade Iraq because of Israel. Saddam and Israel were not in conflict recently. that Saddam sent scud missiles into Israel was 15 years ago.

     Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself, as it has proven in at least four wars. that said, it is true that the muslim world resents the US for its unquestioning support of Israel's failed policy in the West Bank, and rightly so.

     Israel is split, very much like the US, between the war "party" and the peace "party", I designate these knowing that this crosses political party lines. so while I may agree with your conclusion, I do not agree with your premise. neat trick, huh?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/24/2006 @ 09:09am

224. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/24/2006 @ 09:09am

     thanks jr...

     i do wonder sometimes, however, if many of our leaders, economic, political, religious, and cultural, jewish and non-jewish, do over assume the connectedness of Us/israel interest. then when one questions such, one is often visciously and suspiciously slurred as an antisemite.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 09:14am

225. and in terms of leiberman, just as in the not so distant past, a politician of irish/catholic persuasion representing a large population of irish catholics, may have been partial to the ira, might mr. lieberman be overly partial to the interests if the state of isreal, to the detriment of his own patria? not that i am comparing the state of isreal to the ira in any way but to show an analogy in terms of ethnicity of politician vis a vis foriegn policy issue.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 09:18am

226. Jesus: I see you killed alot of people.

     Hitler: Guess so.

     Jesus: But, you did say forgive me Jesus right before you died - bottom line - and you were a Protestant. I find you innocent. Next case, Michael.

     Archangel Michael: The court calls Big Dick Cheney.

     Jesus: Were you honest, peaceful, and charitable?

     Cheney: Yes, sir, I was.

     Jesus: DONT Bullshhit me. You were not. Now, did you worship me?

     Cheney: Yes, sir, I worshipped you.

     Jesus: DO I HAVE 'THE AMERICAN PEOPLE' TATTOOED ON MY FOREHEAD?

     Cheney: No, your forehead says 'The supreme ultimate Truth".

     Jesus: I thought so. Now, you were not exactly what I would call a regular church goer. But I will forgive you. I see here that you did say Forgive me Jesus right before you died - good.

     Cheney: So am I innocent?

     Jesus: Um, if I could finish what I was saying before you interrupted. Your inadequate worship is not going to be cause for me to send you to Hell. HOWEVER, you raised a lesbian daughter.

     Angels: GASP!

     Jesus: You raised a lesbian daughter. I'd like to know what your excuse would be.

     Cheney: Well, it isnt my fault. SHE WAS BORN GAY. I didnt make her gay. SHE WAS BORN THAT WAY.

     Jesus: BLASPHEMY!!!! FUCCKING DICK! BLASPHEMY - against the Holy Ghost, no less. GOD DAMMNIT! Angels!!! Angels!!!

     Archangel Michael: Yes, sir?

     Jesus: GET THIS SINNER THE FUCCK OUTTA MY FACE. THROW HIM OVER THERE, IN THE FIRE.

     Archangel Michael: Yes, sir!

     Cheney: NO FAIR! I DEMAND HABEUS CORPUS!

     Posted by conshame at 06/24/2006 @ 09:40am

227. I grew up on a cattle farm in North Carolina, and I never even considered fucking any farm animals. My eye was always on this really cute girl named Becky down the road. Now, making the beast with 2 backs with her? That's the extent of my beastiality.

     Posted by jorcheim at 06/24/2006 @ 10:09am

228. I find this subject and the snickering posts repellent

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/24/2006 @ 10:11am

229. Johann

     Wouldn't have thought you so easily offended. My broaching the topic some ways back (vis-a-vis, the details of a southern legislator defending bestiality, on a site listing that and other right-wing political miscreants) was, while perhaps repellent, a means to point out the penultimate in hypocrisy from the "holier-than-thou" squad.

     To actually read the interview transcript of him defending having relations with a mule...well, I would argue some snickering is expected if not warranted. No doubt he was one of the indignant over Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman."

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/24/2006 @ 10:52am

230. I find this subject and the snickering posts repellent

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/24/2006 @ 10:11am

     the mule sex is repellent. the snickering is a sign its time for a new blog posting...

     have a nice day :)

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 10:56am

231. mules do have built in birth control

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 11:26am

232. Posted by WILL C. 06/24/2006 @ 11:26am

     frikkin hybrids!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 11:42am

233. on no

     you didn't did you

     by calling them hybrids mules will never get any from any hamster conservative ever again.

     (and to compensate the hamsters will go out and buy the biggest horses they can get their hands on)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 11:51am

234. Posted by WILL C. 06/24/2006 @ 11:51am

     clydesdales...

     hey - this is the lieberman sux thread!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 11:57am

235. don't give them any ideas

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 11:58am

236. about lieberman that is

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 11:58am

237. there'll be a line

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 11:59am

238. Get some ZzzzZZzzZz and this is what I come back too! Not that any of it isn't true, but then backing hsuB will make your position associated with the butt of jokes, in a manner of speaking. And stating that al Gaeda determines any of our intel choices really can't be argued because it hasn't been a consideration for over 3 years. My best analysis's is that it's only used by the hsuB admin as purely propaganda to up poll numbers and to manipulate an obese and addicted Congress. But hey, ultimately what it comes down to is the kind of voting machines used in the Lieberman ballot... I guess that applies to the rest too, huh?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 1:21pm

239. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2006 @ 12:21am

     Yes....don't question us. We are only doing things in your best interest. Go to sleep and when you get up you will remember none of this. And remember to put the subliminal training CD before you go to sleep. Remember...happy thoughts are better than reality.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/24/2006 @ 1:53pm

240. LOC,

     Must be what's happened. People are asleep or sleep walking. Sometimes I witness this happening in myself too. Confrontation is best after a cup of coffee and a planner to prioritize ones activities and who does that anymore? Isn't it about getting into a grove or is it a rut a safe, protected, reinforced, re-recurrent rut-- and safety is what we're told is important above all else. Has its own complimentary color even, must be true, especially when fashion rules. Best to cover it up. Go back to bed and just repeat what one did the day before, conservation of emotional energy is vogue.

     I suppose the big question then is how to build up individual courage? Mastering fear? Then attach reality.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 2:16pm

241. Then 'attack' reality...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 2:18pm

242. Need another cup of coffee.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 2:18pm

243. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2006 @ 2:16pm

     You can't master fear

     all you can do is eliminate flight

     the entire hamster battle plan is based around the idea that if they can attack us for long enough we will give up, cower or run away.

     that carried them through the eighties and nineties but was only effective when they were able to maintain the illusion that they really are what they say they are.

     the last five years have demonstrated they are not.

     and I can smell payback in the breeze

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 2:30pm

244. Fun reading on a lazy Saturady. I think Lieberman has been one with the hsuB admin for a long long time:

     WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ ON THE BATTLEFRONT AND THE HOMEFRONT

     Senator Joe Lieberman The Brookings Institution April 26, 2004

     .............................................

     Thanks to the brilliance and bravery of American and allied forces, we won that war. But the final test of war is the quality of the peace that follows. Today we are clearly engaged in a new war in Iraq. From the day of Saddam's fall, the Iraqi people's hopes for a better life and the Coalition force's lives have been attacked by an evil alliance of remnants of Saddam's regime who refuse to accept defeat and of fanatical foreign and Iraqi terrorists who are part of the same jihadist movement that mercilessly attacked us on September 11, 2001.

     I repeat, the outcome of this new war in Iraq will have enormous consequences for the people of Iraq, America and the world. If our enemies prevail and America retreats, Iraqis will face chaos, or a dictatorship, or both. The Iraqi domino could fall backwards as easily as it could fall forwards, and topple hopes for democracy throughout the Middle East. The region would be profoundly destabilized, which would gravely endanger American security, and the fanatical Islamic terrorists will be emboldened to take more aggressive actions against people in America, Europe and the Islamic world. The safety of our children's future would be greatly endangered.

     .........................

     Cheney and Lieberman Meet

     Thursday, December 21, 2000

     VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT CHENEY: Good morning.

     Well, I'm delighted to be here this morning and have an opportunity to pay a courtesy call and pay my respects to Senator Joe Lieberman. We've been able to work together in the past. I think back to the days of the Gulf War when Joe was a new member of the Senate and one of the strong supporters of the policies that we pursued then.

     And the campaign this year, of course, was very hard-fought on both sides, ended in a way I don't think either one of us expected, but I enjoyed and am proud to have been his competitor and delighted to be here this morning to have a few minutes to talk with him and share some thoughts and ideas on areas that we may be able to work together on in the future, and to wish he and Hadassah the very best for the holidays.

     SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you. Thanks, Dick.

     It was my pleasure to welcome Secretary Cheney. We have worked together in the past. We were opponents this year but certainly on my part, and I know both of us, very respectful opponents of one another. The conversation was a very warm and cordial conversation.

     I appreciate Dick Cheney's offer to come and visit this morning.

     We talked about areas in which we can work together. I think we both agree that we have some opportunities for bipartisan agreements that can create the kind of results that people in this country expect of us, and that we should, together, take every opportunity we can to achieve those results.

     So I wish you a good holiday. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, all the best.

     I've had the pleasure, actually, of working with Lynne Cheney on some stuff, too, and maybe we can even find ways for that to continue.

     http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showtransition2001.php?fileid=cheney_lieb erman12-21

     ...............................................

     Published on Thursday, December 13, 2001 in the San Jose Mercury News Lynne Cheney-Joe Lieberman Group Puts Out a Blacklist by Roberto J. Gonzalez

     AN aggressive attack on freedom has been launched upon America's college campuses. Its perpetrators seek the elimination of ideas and activities that place Sept. 11 in historical context, or critique the so-called war on terrorism. The offensive, spearheaded by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a Washington-based group, threatens free speech, democratic debate and the integrity of higher education. In an incendiary report, ``Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,'' the American Council claims that ``colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response'' to Sept. 11. It also asserts that ``when a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries.''

     The report documents 117 campus incidents as ``evidence'' of anti-Americanism. More than 40 professors are named, including the president of Wesleyan University, who suggested in an open letter that ``disparities and injustices'' in American society and the world can lead to hatred and violence.

     Other examples abound. A Yale professor is criticized for saying, ``It is from the desperate, angry and bereaved that these suicide pilots came.'' A professor emeritus from the University of Oregon is listed for recommending that ``we need to understand the reasons behind the terrifying hatred directed against the U.S. and find ways to act that will not foment more hatred for generations to come.''

     Dozens more comments, taken out of context and culled from secondary sources, are presented as examples of an unpatriotic academy.

     The American Council of Trustees and Alumni was founded in 1995 by Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Its Website claims that it contributed $3.4 billion to colleges and universities last year, making it ``the largest private source of support for higher education.'' Cheney is cited several times in the report, and is reportedly a close associate of its authors, Jerry Martin and Anne Neal.

     Although the council's stated objectives include the protection of academic freedom, the report resembles a blacklist. In a chilling use of doublespeak, it affirms the right of professors to speak out, yet condemns those who have attempted to give context to Sept. 11, encourage critical thinking, or share knowledge about other cultures. Faculty are accused of being ``short on patriotism'' for attempting to give students the analytical tools they need to become informed citizens.

     Many of those blacklisted are top scholars in their fields, and it appears that the report represents a kind of academic terrorism designed to strike fear into other academics by making examples of respected professors.

     ..............................

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 3:56pm

245. Posted by WILL C. 06/24/2006 @ 2:30pm

     Isn't being master of time and space-- have mastering fear as a prerequisite?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 3:59pm

246. ...has..?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 4:08pm

247. So it comes down to 'fight or freeze'?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 4:10pm

248. no it comes down to fight or flight. It's what's hard wired into us.

     and it's ok to be afraid

     but rather than run...

     attack

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 4:20pm

249. you might find that you advisary isn't as brave as his bluster let's on.

     and if it is...

     attack

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 4:21pm

250. It'll be interesting to see how the winguts/apologists weasel around this:

     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/

     Seems pretty clear that the Iraqi's expect us to get out of their country. Doubtful that we will, though.

     But it is NOT about the oil.

     Posted by skeletonman at 06/24/2006 @ 5:21pm

251. I found a solution to that which I fear-- it entails projecting into ‘it' the rise of intense enjoyment that comes after doing something scary like flying a plane or jumping out of one or being on stage...etc. Then I realize that it'll be fun, life's acknowledgement of another event to be remembered; a touchstone. Then the pre-euphoria euphoria, a momentum, kicks in and I just have to go for it. Can't miss out on the fun.

     As for an adversary, I find getting to know them better before attacking, if it is even necessary at that point, is always helpful as having little respect for an enemy usually makes me sloppy, over confident, thus open to a strike or bind. Assessment of an adversary is usually a major part of an attack for me. I've found most of my adversaries usually do themselves in, I just have to see where they're heading and either move out of the way at the last minute and they hit a brick wall or I give'em just enough rope, you know they are usually their own worst enemy-- it's the exposure that gets to them. Or I find after an assessment that I am the one that has erred or misinterpreted their intentions. Sometimes people make a sloppy presentation and the presentation is viewed as a representation that isn't that at all. That's, I think, language's limitation.

     The question for me then becomes-- does the hsuB admin view Iraq as an ally or a foe per Iraq's presentation for peace and does the hsuB admin have the balls to move beyond what they see as a representation against their interests... Of course notice I did not say US interests!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 5:51pm

252. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2006 @ 3:56pm

     I just have this weird mental picture of the Cheney - Lieberman meeting where Dick extends his hand onto Lieberman's shoulder and rasps "Joe - I am your father.[*wheeze, wheeze*]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/24/2006 @ 6:32pm

253. Yep, knowing how to spin the Gore/Lieberman campaign plans ahead of time at every step, may have not just been a mole in the CIA/NSA via hsuB's daddy, but a mole a lot closer to home... And in addition to Chaney/Lieberman's close friendship, that Gore won't help Lieberman's re-election campaign at all, and speculation of Lieberman being up for Rum's job if not re-elected-- does tend to point one in that direction-- he's Chaney's son, (by another biological donor of course)!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 6:58pm

254. Posted by CONSHAME 06/24/2006 @ 09:40am

     I find consahmes last post repellent. You are the fastest ignore I have had since Plunger...even Reese took a while but you are repugnant and I am ashamed for you. ignore list forever.

     Posted by john maasch at 06/24/2006 @ 7:26pm

255. well maasch

     hitler didn't have a lesbain daughter

     based on the froth and foam that eminates from you evangelics on a regular basis

     conshame's revelation sounds plausable to me

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 8:05pm

256. I took everyone on my ignore list off. I rarely get to read everything anyway no matter how stupid it is. There are advantages to being buzy-- which is now. Later.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 8:06pm

257. Posted by WILL C. 06/24/2006 @ 8:05pm

     I would have framed conshame's dialogue a little more nuanced myself, but I have the affliction of being raised very catholic and thus would be slightly guilty to place profanity coming out of any of the quaternary-- though I sense they do curse a lot considering the situation around the planet...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 8:14pm

258. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2006 @ 8:14pm

     Remember

     god invented fucking...

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 8:27pm

259. :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 8:27pm

260. and thank god god did

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 8:29pm

261. Posted by WILL C. 06/24/2006 @ 8:27pm

     Again, the limitations of language. Fucking by any other name, would it smell as sweet? If you fuck in the woods and no one hears it-- did it really happen? If it had no name, no label, wouldn't we still do it? Sure to all, but talking about it sure isn't doing it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 8:39pm

262. Sure to all, but talking about it sure isn't doing it.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2006 @ 8:39pm

     but that's true for everything. And if you don't talk about it then you are left to your own imagination as to the cool ways and places to do it.

     again as with everything

     Posted by Will C. at 06/24/2006 @ 8:50pm

263. so bill gates dies one day. sure, the first part of his life was filled with sleazy, sharkish business deals, foisting onto the public shoddy, overpriced product, cynical monopolizing, and cheezing out of permanant temporay microsoft employees ("who moved my cheese?"). but then he set up this huge charity fund which ended up helping out a LOT of folks around the world.

     so god cant decide what to do with the guy. ends up the moral balance sheet on his life is completely even. never happened before.

     so god offers bill a choice. heaven or hell. his choice...

     "well gee sir, or m'am, i dont know what to say" says bill, "i guess i'll take heaven, of course....but..."

     "but what bill? come on, spit it out guy. what?" replies god.

     "well, i've always been a hard nosed business type, and i always liked to check out all angles before i decide something big, and i was wondering if...well...if maybe i could take a look around both places first, before giving you my decision. i mean, i'm like 99% sure its heaven, but...i mean...u know..."

     god thinks about it a bit, then says "sure bill. why not?"

     so bill goes up to heaven and its really really nice. puffy and fluffy, and peaceful. happy shiny ex people, playing harps and checkers, milk and honey, you know...NICE.

     next he goes down to hell, convinced its all a waste of time, since heaven is sooooo nice, like permanant christmas in july without having to buy anything.

     to bill's astonishment, however, theres a big giant kick ass party going on down in hell! hot chicks, guiltless orgies, all the food and booze and drugs you can suck down, awesome music!

     so he returns to god and says, "well god, i've seen both, and - dont get me wrong, heaven is a very nice place - but i gotta say, i think i like hell better. i hope you dont take offense, and really appreciate the opportunity you gave me to decide, but i have to choose hell..."

     "no problem bill. really. have a good time."

     so bill goes back down to hell, but as soon as he gets there all the music stops and the drugs and booze melts into hot magma and the sexy naked chicks morph into hideous sadistic demons who throw him onto a rack and immediately start torturing him horribly. finally satan himself shows up and bill screams to him,

     "hey! whats the deal?! where are all the hot chicks and the party and all the fun stuff?!?!?!"

     old scratch chuckles ironically and replies, "oh sorry bill. that was just 'hell - the demo version"

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 9:07pm

264. Posted by WILL C. 06/24/2006 @ 8:50pm

     No, not everything is the same. Fucking, when it's like exercise to me, I can talk about it like the best places to play golf or running form. Then there's that something else like fucking, but not. Although a picture is worth a thousand words-- the spiritual union experience has no other comparison, it is truly beyond words. Words can only point at it-- like fascinated little kids pointing at dogs mating. As in Zen, as it is in Art, sometimes an individual experience described, finds few insightful observers to the riddle-- when the presentation negates the representation and the painted tree is created by not painting the tree.

     Ok, back to work. What was the topic? Ha, what else can one say about Lieberman. No wonder.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 9:42pm

265. Ok, back to work. What was the topic? Ha, what else can one say about Lieberman. No wonder.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2006 @ 9:42p

     good point. i cant possibly think of anything else to say about the man whatsoever...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2006 @ 10:18pm

266. Lieberman's summary of the "pull out now" option seems pretty apt. As far as the current situation, very little response has been made. The only real challenge to my argument has been that al Qaeda either wasn't concerned with the insurgency or wasn't capable of evaluating the insurgency's capabilities. However, neither of these makes any sense. They were concerned with the insurgency, and referred to them explicitly in the document. There's no good reason to believe that they wouldn't be familiar with the insurgency's capabilities, given the skill they've demonstrated in the past with forces a continent away. Moreover, they have every incentive to claim that they're winning, or at the very least to not claim they're losing. For them to say outright that they are losing and that the Great Satan is winning is a very significant admission, and a strong indication that our campaign against the insurgency is being successful. Since they saw the situation as generally bleak, it also stands to reason that the civil war is not occurring on a large scale in the way that many speculated it might, and certainly not on the scale that it would if we left. Al Qaeda has every interest in seeing us lose, and the admission that that's not happening should call into question the unfounded comparisons to Vietnam.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2006 @ 11:16pm

267. Posted by THRAWN 06/24/2006 @ 11:16pm

     We were in Vietnam for 5 years before it escalated and we've been in Iraq 3 and lost more soldiers than we did in Vietnam in that period of time and our soldiers are supposed to be better equiped and trained than then. If al Qaeda says they're losing but we're consistently having more of our guys get maimed and killed, the only thing that makes sense is that they're working for the hsuB admin and thus yes, they and we are losing against the Iraq civil war.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/24/2006 @ 11:55pm

268. First, there are numerous other ways of accounting for comparisons to Vietnam. For one thing, we didn't have massive amounts of people in Vietnam for the first couple years, so it's not shocking that fewer people were dying. We also weren't fully committed to Vietnam during the first few years, so our troops weren't the sole force responsible for holding on to Saigon. The mere fact that you can compare numbers between the two wars doesn't mean that those comparisons are actually meaningful.

     Second, it's unclear what your argument against my source is. Is your argument actually that al Qaeda is working for the Bush administration? It looks that way, but I'm sure that can't be it, because that doesn't make any sense. You've given no reason to discredit the source I've offered, and nothing to put against it except speculation about Vietnam. Comparisons to Vietnam have yet to be substantiated by any real argument; no reason has been given why the escalating losses we suffered in Vietnam are at all likely to occur here, especially in the face of reliable evidence taken from a source who can probably be depended on to know what they're talking about.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2006 @ 01:37am

269. No, not everything is the same.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/24/2006 @ 9:42pm

     I never said everything is the same. but like any activity talking about a thing isn't doing it.

     but talking about a thing... is learning about it

     that is constant with all things

     but than doing a thing is also learning about it

     another constant with all things

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 01:48am

270. Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 01:37am

     you source presents the same detached, lucid and thorough analysis that I would expect from any field grade or general officer in our own miltary.

     it's quite the opposite of the propaganda the administration presents about al qaida as being a bunch of commmon thugs and killers.

     the individual that wrote that memo was a professional. Either he is exibiting the training that members of al quada received during the reagan administration while they were still part of the mujahadeen or it was written by a officer in our or an allied army.

     neither possibilty is very settling.

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 02:03am

271. Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 01:37am

     T,

     As you say all a little irrelevant but so is a comparison with the Vietnam War. Here are some of the distinguishing characteristics of the two conflicts:

     1. Vietnam occurred in the context of the Cold War alignments.

     The Vietnam War (also known as the Resistance War Against America in Vietnam) was a conflict in which the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and its allies fought against the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) and its allies. North Vietnam's allies included the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

     South Vietnam's allies included the United States and South Korea.

     Which countries are militarily or politically aligned with the anti-Coalition Iraq Insurgency?

     Not the Gulf States. All with various degrees of reluctance or enthusiasm have in some way supported the US led effort.

     In a clever move Bush has got Pakistan, at least nominally, onside and given them something to do in his "war on terror". They have been the US's greatest ally along the Afghan border. If Bin laden is to be captured the Pakistanis are the most likely to get him.

     Iran doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. No doubt happy to see the Sunnis out of power and the Shia in government but perhaps a little but not over concerned to have US troops across the border.

     That leaves Syria, which is too scared to do more than allow a few terrorists sneak over its border but also recognises the new Government in Iraq.

     Within Iraq the Kurds and the Shia (apart from AL Sadr's followers) have generally supported the US in its counter insurgency efforts and in its help to form a new government.

     That's the first and overwhelming difference from Vietnam.

     2. It was Primarily a war of re-unification against the French that the US should have kept out of. The Geneva Accords 1954 meant the 17th Parallel to be a temporary demarcation line until elections could be held with a view to a unified Vietnam.

     The situation in Iraq is that the UN recognises the new Iraq Government as valid. There is no other ready-made government that could assume power, as the North was able to in Vietnam. And the war removed a nationally hated and despised autocrat and his Government. from controlling the lives of Iraqis.

     The insurgency at this point consists of a mixture of the disaffected and religious extremists, with no valid claim to national majority support. The present government does have that support.

     3.It spread into Cambodia and Laos.

     That this spreading of the conflict has not happened in Iraq is a further indication of the lack of any real support, for the insurgents, from surrounding or any other nations.

     One could say then that the "Vietnam Quagmire" mantra is based on nothing more than an attempt to fool the voting public..

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 05:58am

272. iraq quagmire/vietnam quagmire

     differences - lots and lots of specifics and generalities.

     similarities - unnecessary, expensive, bloody, counterinsurgency that ended up being a lot more difficult and grim than those who sold them both to the american public envisioned. both based on jingoistic lies and faulty grand strategic vision, both benefitting wealthy stockholders of military/industrial industries while being fought and bled by schmuk nation, both fraining resources from productive endeavors and rechannelling same to bloody mess. both fostering a bitter divide amongst american people, both hurting american image and prestige abroad, legitimizing forign claims of america being reckless, arrogant cowboy empire, hypocritically touting democracy and human rights while committing atrocities and torture just like any other bully of history, waging war not for self defense nor high minded ideals, but for economic interest (oil flow, here, protection of potential capitalist markets in vietnam).

     again, differences - lots and lots of generalities and specifics. i dont mean to minimalize all these differences, by the way. there are just too many of them. history NEVER repeats itself, but often it sure does resemble itself.

     interesting observation...we now know that in the vietnam conflict, the enemy was desperate prior to the tet offensive, and in fact, the tet offensive nearly wiped them out, militarily.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 08:36am

273. Good news for all true patriots !

     Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania announced yesterday that still more evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been unearthed in Iraq. The Honorable Rick Santorum said that organic traces found on arrow heads in the National Museum in Baghdad and carbon dated to the period of the wars between Persia and Athens bear traces of what appears to be hemlock. A spokesman for the Honorable Rick said that while it has certainly been degraded by the more than two and a half millenia that have transpired since the weapons were first believed to have been stockpiled in the sixth century B.C. by Xerxes son of Darius I and King of Persia ( now Iraq ), the poison could still potentially be dangerous if ingested in sufficiently large quantities.

     According to anonymous sources close to the White House this could be a major factor in the 2006 elections trumping all other issues except for gay marriage in the minds of many voters.

     Posted by Red Neckerson at 06/25/2006 @ 09:11am

274. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 08:36am

     IB,

     Nice little stew you've concocted. No a wonder you blokes confuse yourselves. I take it you do the cooking at home?

     The "quagmire" that the US got itself into in Vietnam had to do with the inevitability of the ultimate outcome. It was in essence caught up in the death throes of Indo-China's colonial enslavement.

     In Iraq the "inevitability" is far more likely to be that the process initiated by the US will prevail. It may not be a love for democracy per se that moves that process along but the inevitability, once a society is opened up to the wider world, of being exposed to and imbibing many liberalising influences.

     (Look at Vietnam today. Powering along the "capitalist" industrialisation path and hand in glove with the US, as it does so).

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 09:23am

275. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 08:36am

     IB,

     Heard GW address the Australian Parliament a few years ago. One of his punch lines was; "nations that trade with each other don't go to war together". Which most took to mean "don't fight one another in a war" (at least not during trading hours).

     You libs could do worse than embracing such a brilliantly conceived peace initiative.

     (Bet George does the cooking at home too).

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 09:36am

276. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 01:48am

     Language is about consensis and there are things one will never concede because the words have not been made up to express what was experienced. In other words, language does not create reality. Reality is experience and learned without language or consensus. One uses language to herd.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 10:10am

277. Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 01:37am

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 05:58am

     First, in 1965 we had increased to 185000 US soldiers in Vietnam and KIA 1864 total in the 5 years up to 1966. Did we have merc's there and not counted in the death toll? Did they have kevlar vests with ceramic plates in Vietnam? It's true that our numbers in Vietnam jumped to 385300 the following year and KIA rose to 5008+ just in that one year. And then it gets bloody to hell worse. True, the region gets into it with especially the USSR and China contributing to the mess.

     The point is for Iraq not to get to that. DoD understands it'll just get worse and have plans to withdraw troops, while hsuB is posing just the opposite and saying we're winning. Some would say that that's his job. But it's just more BS to hide what's on the ground happening in Iraq. Not unlike the lead up to the worst part of Vietnam.

     Seeing only one side does no one any help especially when our soldiers are paying the price.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 11:01am

278. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 10:10am

     consensus

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 11:04am

279. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 09:36am

     War on drugs? And I guess we need to figure out how to create a trade with terrorists?

     Makes sense to me...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 11:31am

280. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 02:03am

     Exactly.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 11:54am

281. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 09:23am

     concocted nothing. read some history. perhaps iraq will be just fine eventually, but i still dont think it was worth a large chunk of my fucking tax money and running the treasury deeper into the red than dealing with the threat of terrorism was already going to in the aftermath of 9/11.

     inevitability of ultimate outcome? what the hell kind of sophistic poppycock is that? how bout "overobvious generalization of perspective"? that sounds better to me and means next to nothing as well.

     mess with me in terms of historical theory and i'll cook you up like a rack of shrimp on the barbee, crocodile dunfreakindee...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 12:32pm

282. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 12:32am

     inevitability of ultimate outcome?

     Means everyone dies.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 1:11pm

283. inevitability of ultimate outcome?

     Means everyone dies.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 1:11pm

     that, at least makes sense...

     man, let a half wit conservative, regardless of national origin, get enough edumugoshdarncation to support stupid preconcieved idiotlogical notions, teach 'em a few 3 dollar words and POW, "inevitability of ultimate outcome".

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 1:16pm

284. dont get me wrong - for the sake of the decent iraqis as much as us and the world, i hope things work out there, and i think they will, eventually...

     but if i go into surgery to have an appendix removed and wake up with not only a bad appendix removed (afghanistan), but find out that some fool doctor also sliced out my still functional gall bladder (iraq) for some reason, then expected me to pay for that too, what the hell? and what if the unnecessesary gall bladder operation cost like 10 times the appendix operation? and then the gall bladder operation results in hideous infection and constant need for future attention? why the hell di they cut out my gall bladder when it was my freakin appendix that was the problem? sure, i DEFINATELY want the negative effects of the gall bladder surgery to go away, but if i see that stupid, arrogant, incompetant surgeon that decided to cut out my gall bladder, i'm gonna want to rip his balls off and shove them down his throat, choking him.

     impeach, try by law, punish!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 1:30pm

285. "inevitability of ultimate outcome".

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 1:16pm

     it's always easier to say that after the outcome occurs.

     as history is actually unfolding, things are never quite as clear.

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:34pm

286. for example

     we weren't greated with flowers and sweet meats

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:35pm

287. we weren't able to reduce troop leavel by that june

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:36pm

288. iraqi oil revenues haven't really paid for shit

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:37pm

289. it cost way more than 1.5 billion dollars

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:37pm

290. the term "slam dunk" doensn't actually apply well to intel

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:38pm

291. how quaint it seems now that these thing were presented as inevitable ultimate outcomes

     what a bunch of rubes

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:40pm

292. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 1:34pm

     hindsight (not really 20/20, but a hell of a lot more accurate than forsight, or fog of war present)

     asimov's fictional dream of "phychohistory" from the foundation series, predicated upon the study of buzillions of social systems throughout a vast, inhabited galaxy, although not inconcievable in such an imagined reality, is completely inconcievable in our own real reality. even in the fictional series they screwed up...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 1:42pm

293. did i forget to mention that democracy was supposed to sweep through the middle east

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:43pm

294. one can approach policy possibilities by listening to ALL AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE sources, not just the minority that agree with preheld idiotlogical notions. and make a supreme concious effort to SEE THINGS AS THEY REALLY ARE, not as one wants them to be (in order to enact some lame brained scheme like "project for a new american century"). and then to go back and blame the freakin cia for their own hard headed stupidity!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 1:46pm

295. even in the fictional series they screwed up...

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 1:42pm

     He never foresaw the horse

     Statistical probability in human interaction parallels nicely with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

     We know something is going to happen...

     we just can't be certain of when and where

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:47pm

296. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 1:47pm

     yeah - i'll have to go back and read that. one of my first pimply faced forays into the realm of speculative fiction. its been years...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 1:49pm

297. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 1:46pm

     the CIA did get it right. but then the right got the CIA.

     I am anitwar. but if we must wage warliberalism expects them to be short violent and over...

     we a solid plan for securing the peace so that we doen;t have to go back and refight the war.

     conservatives always want to drag out their wars to and undetermined point in the future.

     using the example of the drug war, had a hamster been president in 1941 we would have still been fighting the germans in the early nineteen seventies

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:54pm

298. correction...with a solid plan

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:55pm

299. i guess that answers the question... what sane person is pro war?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 1:56pm

300. Yep, nsuB lied us into war and then expects loyalty via his continued lying! And we're unpatriotic! See, another similarity to Vietnam.

     As long as people believe words create reality, the hsuB admin is going to continue it's lies and at least 20-30% of the US citizens will always fall for it.

     The question then becomes, can the 20-30% subjugate the other 70-80%? Not for long.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 1:58pm

301. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 1:58pm

     the crazy texan president with the bean counter secretary of defense is the ultimat parallel between Iraq and vietnam.

     It's the "shit in" component that precedes the inevitable ultimate outcome of "shit out"

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 2:01pm

302. Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 2:01pm

303. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 1:54pm

     i hate this war in so many ways, will. and ultimately we MAY have to leave the decent iraqis at the mercy of the stupid medievalist islamicists (except those we cram onto the last helicopters as the jihadists rush jihading through the streets toward our evacuating embassy), but one thing i hate the most is the way those rat bastard neocons (obverse democratic fascists) put us into a position where we're most likely damned if we do damned if we dont. and beyond all the blood spilled - oh all the money that could have been used so much more wisely, and productively! yet another bail of hay piled onto the back of our already overloaded camel, the economy! wait til the costs of global warming start coming in. wait til the chinese no longer need us as their prime consumers. the back's got to break sooner or later, and these hundreds of buzillions burned up in an oily desert could have had a real, positive impact...

     but stupid, arrogant idiotlogues and their dreams of glory...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 2:05pm

304. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 2:01pm

     Although I do recall an expreiment where one ate food through their anus and shit out their mouth. Oh, never mind. An inevitable ultimate outcome of mass media...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 2:08pm

305. Posted by RED NECKERSON 06/25/2006 @ 09:11am

     heehee...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 2:10pm

306. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 2:08pm

     inevitable outcome of mass media is the obverse of what you described - eating shit...intellectual scat...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 2:13pm

307. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 2:05pm

     Ironic is it not that the neocons got into power partially via the evengeliks and instead of a piece heaven on earth they help sustain a swath of hell!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 2:18pm

308. All right, so some people have tried to make parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. However, no one has ever given a reason why the Iraq situation is going to escalate. Not a single one. No one has made a single real argument to discount the al Qaeda source in any way. That's a real problem for those advocating a pull-out, because it makes the decision really clear. We can either stay there until Iraq becomes relatively stable (which is happening), or we leave now and make the country both a civil war zone and a perfect haven for terrorists (who can get new recruits due to the lack of governing authority there and to their new evidence that the Great Satan's military can be beaten and forced to withdraw).

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2006 @ 2:19pm

309. All right, so some people have tried to make parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. However, no one has ever given a reason why the Iraq situation is going to escalate. Not a single one.

     Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 2:19pm

     What's your point thrawn? Vietnam escalated because an American president decided to escalate it. But even knowing that, the Iraq conflict is escalating. The number of insurgent attack is steadily increasing. Increasing is synonymous with escalating

     and if you really want to know why the insurgent attacks are escalating, why don't you get your sorry ass over to baghdad and ask a few of them

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 2:31pm

310. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 2:13pm

     Yes, I was being self deprecating-- mixing up an episode of South Park with science...which was the point, er, not connoting a proposition derived from another proposition by denying it and then negating the predicate per the scene in itself not really being the point, but an element of the point. Er, maybe...(ha)

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 2:31pm

311. No one has made a single real argument to discount the al Qaeda source in any way.

     Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 2:19pm

     Not that it's going to mean anything to you but your source is questionable becuse it was released by the bush administration...

     that same group that brought us that one hit wonder "the niger documnets" and the dance it inspired "the slam dunk"

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 2:34pm

312. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 2:18pm

     stupid evil fundyvangelists! the only difference between our fundyvangelists and their jihadists is that ours are richer and more hypocritical. both working for armageddon. bastards.

     Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 2:19pm

     i dont completely disagree with you...but

     1. is it stabalizing? i mean, who says? who says who says? can we trust anything that comes out of our itiotologized and denuded "intelligence" establishment now? is it? i hope so, but seeing is believing, not the opposite, unless one is idiotologizedly deluded.

     2. not to defend saddam (shit, how many time will i have to say that to ward off charges that i was a fan of a brutal evil dictator?!), but there were no evil al quaida jihadists in iraq before we went in and the only jihadists we have shown to be operating in strength the country were a group known as ansar al islam whose camps were in the KURDISH controlled zone where saddam, implacable evil enemy of evil radical islamic fundamentalism, could not go as a result of un limitations, to CRUSH THEM, AS HE WOULD HAVE IF NOT FOR AFOREMENTIONED RULES

     so thousands of dead later, buzillions of dollars and a sullied international reputation, and here we are...gee, so worth it...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 2:34pm

313. these boys have cried wolf so many times...

     even the wolves are starting to snicker

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 2:35pm

314. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 2:31pm

     huh? i liked the episode with the spermy sea monkeys.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 2:36pm

315. Although I do recall an expreiment where one ate food through their anus and shit out their mouth. Oh, never mind. An inevitable ultimate outcome of mass media...

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 2:08pm

     huh? i liked the episode with the spermy sea monkeys.

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 2:36pm

     My favorite was the one where the communications dish kept unfloding out of cartmans butt while he was vigoruously denying the aliens gave him the anal probe.

     I laughed myself off the couch

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 2:47pm

316. Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 2:19pm

     http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/world/middleeast/23military.html?_r=1& oref=slogin

     Iran Aiding Shiite Attacks Inside Iraq, General Says

     By MICHAEL R. GORDON Published: June 23, 2006

     http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/05/31/insurgent_attacks_i n_iraq_at_highest_level_in_2_years/

     Insurgent attacks in Iraq at highest level in 2 years

     By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 31, 2006

     WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon reported yesterday that the frequency of insurgent attacks against troops and civilians is at its highest level since American commanders began tracking such figures two years ago, an ominous sign that, despite three years of combat, the US-led coalition forces haven't significantly weakened the Iraq insurgency.

     http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

     http://icasualties.org/oif/

     http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

     Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

     WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 2:52pm

317. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 2:47pm

     I don't watch SP a lot-- have they done an episode on Iraq yet?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 3:05pm

318. i don't know

     I've been working to much to get much TV time in.

     Bloggings more fun

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 3:12pm

319. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 3:05pm

     Not a full moon over there lads?

     Your main concern seems to be that you don't like W spending your tax dollars on his world changing adventures. What tax? Bet you blokes are on the dole or at least, one way or another, don't pay any tax.

     Notice one of the nodding trio at least knows his langauge is inadequate to express himself. The inevitable conclusion one comes to is that he is not on his lonesome.

     Notice Willie that you post in small bites. Very interesting. Hard to keep your mind on the job? Wonder why?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 3:34pm

320. Not a full moon over there lads?

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 3:34pm

     Why are you asking us?

     look up

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 3:36pm

321. Your main concern seems to be that you don't like W spending your tax dollars on his world changing adventures. What tax? Bet you blokes are on the dole or at least, one way or another, don't pay any tax.

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 3:34pm

     really... how much are you willing to wager

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 3:38pm

322. Notice Willie that you post in small bites. Very interesting. Hard to keep your mind on the job? Wonder why?

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 3:34pm

     I live in a sound bite culture

     but... you didn't know that did you?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 3:39pm

323. "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon. "

     Here is the dems campaign slogan,... The GOPers don't even have to go to work for November!!and the reubs reponse will be..."Time to put ol' Murtha on the porch of retirement before he starts to droole on his shirt....". He's gone...bannan pie...over the rainbow.....and so will any politician who gets behind this guy...next speaker or majority leader????????????Sure, you bet.

     READ HIS STATEMENT AGAIN AND TELL US, ANYONE , AGAIN HOW THE DEMS ARE GOING TO WIN IN NOVEMBER...ANY NOVEMBER..

     This is the defining speech for the cut and run crowd..BLAME AMERICA FIRST? Not the democratic Party.

     If you are a vet or an active service member you goota think about the Murtha sysdrome becoming an adverb.

     Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2006 @ 3:40pm

324. Lieberman is NOT, I repeat NOT ACTING AS A US SENATOR. His loyalty is obviously in Tel-Aviv, nowhere else, not in CT, not even in the US. He's pretty much just like his other warmongering buddy, Lantos: outright agent of Israel, not giving a flying frog about US interests.

     Why is that many other Jewish-Americans can be great Americans (ie Feingold etc) and these handful of foreign interests-driven people can supress their voices? It's not about anti-Semitism, it's only about militant pro-Israel, anti-US forces like Lieberman in the US Senate. Yes, it's clearly anti-US - the famous Mearsheimer-Walt paper accurately describes the damage this Israel Lobby done and still causes to the USA as well as to the world: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

     Short version at LBR: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

     Posted by szlevi at 06/25/2006 @ 3:46pm

325. If you are a vet or an active service member you gotta think about the MAASCH & alike paid trolling sysdrome becoming an adverb.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2006 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person

     Fixed it for you...

     Posted by szlevi at 06/25/2006 @ 3:47pm

326. "Lieberman is NOT, I repeat NOT ACTING AS A US SENATOR."...I AGREE, HE IS ACTING OUT OF PRINCIPLE AND HONEST CONVICTIONS..NOT POLITICS..

     ""Why is that many other Jewish-Americans can be great Americans (ie Feingold etc) "...run russ run...

     "trolling sysdrome becoming an adverb"...."trolling syndrome" is what I meant..like Murtha and independant thinkers like slezzylevi..

     No, I fixed it for me...

     Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2006 @ 3:51pm

327. I can't think of a better combination for winning than a ticket with Feingold and Murtha.....for the Gopers...

     Run, Russ, Run..better yet, get the movie mogal, ALGORE, in there somewhere and they will make it a clean sweep..

     Posted by john maasch at 06/25/2006 @ 3:53pm

328. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 3:34pm

     Batting pretty low. Can't win on the facts NO DOUBT.

     I'm a single parent with two jobs and pay plenty of taxes. And I don't mind if the money is buying a better life for our country, not a worse off nation and putting my kids into debt before they can even finish college.

     hsuB is the worst US president in history.

     And BTW I never bought a language; don't own it and it doesn't own me. Language, apparently like you, has 'its' limitations. It's never limitrd my experience.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 4:00pm

329. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 3:36pm

     Willie,

     Having the coldest and cloudiest late autumn and winter I can remember over here, (probably all the warming is over your way, maybe as a harbinger of what the evangelicals have in store for you after you take your last sound bite) so can't check but you may find, if you munch on another sound bite that there is a little bit of difference between southern and northern hemispheres. Think that, given the topography of the earth, it is inevitable.

     Anyway twas just a guess, but then you wouldn't want us thinking you blokes only get let out at the weekends would you?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 4:03pm

330. Ha, see, nor-- limited...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 4:05pm

331. ""Lieberman is NOT, I repeat NOT ACTING AS A US SENATOR."...I AGREE, HE IS ACTING OUT OF PRINCIPLE AND HONEST CONVICTIONS..NOT POLITICS..

     ""Why is that many other Jewish-Americans can be great Americans (ie Feingold etc) "...run russ run...

     "trolling sysdrome becoming an adverb"...."trolling syndrome" is what I meant..like Murtha and independant thinkers like slezzylevi..

     No, I fixed it for me...

     Posted by JOHN MAA"

     MAA-who?

     Oh, that stupid little troll, paid by AIPAC?

     Sheesh, he doesn't matter, he's just another pathetic mouthpiece...

     Posted by szlevi at 06/25/2006 @ 4:07pm

332. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2006 @ 3:53bm

     Keep trying. You're pushing fairly well. I hear Metamucil(sp?) works well, gently, if you're over 40...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 4:11pm

333. "I AGREE, HE IS ACTING OUT OF PRINCIPLE AND HONEST CONVICTIONS.."

     _____

     This is hilarious. :D Yeah, he's acting 'out of' (sic!) "principle" - the principle of Israel, instead of the United States. Convictions? Like what: Israel must be secured by the US, in Israel-only cases Israeli blood should not be spilled because we have his constituency, the US blood to spill?

     Pathetic. You won't get your next paycheck from AIPAC Maa-whatever if you can;'t come up with some useful trolling...

     Posted by szlevi at 06/25/2006 @ 4:11pm

334. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 4:00pm

     H,

     I do feel for you. Is there any other way you could convey those experiences to us so that our lives may be enriched. Have you considered sign language, smoke signals or art?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 4:12pm

335. if you munch on another sound bite that there is a little bit of difference between southern and northern hemispheres.

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 4:03pm

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     the hemispheres don't reverse the phazes of the moon...

     like they do the seasons

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 4:25pm

336. Why bother making predictions of which political trend will win in a controlled contest. Either way, the working class majority loses. Build the labor party. Fuck the republicans. Fuck the democrats. Death to the empire.

     Posted by JRJunior at 06/25/2006 @ 4:27pm

337. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 4:12pm

     See this is a perfect example of both you and your language's limitations-- I explain very clearly and still you don't get it. An apropos phrase comes to mind: "casting pearls to swine". Why bother with the things you can only experience and are wordless, if you don't even get the ones that are-- OH DUH. Two more words you can understand, maybe?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 4:39pm

338. i really doubt it hsubfools. giving it way too much credit.

     on the dole? wow, that was a real tough insult to come up with. must have really had to search your brain? for that one.

     do not justify yourselves or your incomes to the worthless little twit.

     Posted by loveloki at 06/25/2006 @ 4:48pm

339. Posted by LOVELOKI 06/25/2006 @ 4:48pm

     I was hoping he'd really bet me that I don't pay any taxes

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 4:50pm

340. that 12 year old coward would never pay up

     Posted by loveloki at 06/25/2006 @ 4:57pm

341. isn't it amazing how adult hamster conseratives can mimic 12 year olds?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 5:08pm

342. it is amazing will.

     do u think they learn it in the right-wing don't think tanks?

     or is it yet another of the lovely republican psychological traits that loc and redbird have been bringing to light?

     Posted by loveloki at 06/25/2006 @ 5:19pm

343. where did it go, btw?

     must be snacking on it's scab collection...

     Posted by loveloki at 06/25/2006 @ 5:21pm

344. i really doubt it hsubfools. giving it way too much credit.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 06/25/2006 @ 4:48pm

     Uh, what, me?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 5:21pm

345. Did I say they were 'real' pearls? I wasn't talking about the pretty underwater kind... OH, OH DUH-- him?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 5:23pm

346. no, not u, hsubfools

     yes, it, u were giving it too much credit--attributing comprehensive abilities that just are not there.

     Posted by loveloki at 06/25/2006 @ 5:28pm

347. Posted by LOVELOKI 06/25/2006 @ 5:19pm

     i think that their personal evolution simply stops in the sixth grade

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 5:28pm

348. hmmm....the arrested development of a whole political class. maybe someone can find a cure for them.

     Posted by loveloki at 06/25/2006 @ 5:30pm

349. must be snacking on it's scab collection...

     Posted by LOVELOKI 06/25/2006 @ 5:21pm

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     You're learning the craft rather nicely.

     I'd elaborate more but it would be unwise to teach our hamster brethren anything

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 5:37pm

350. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 5:08pm

     I guess that's why when they take time off from 'myspace' trolling for underage kids, they're so angry and frustrated here. I really worry when they're not on here blogging excrement; it could be worse...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 5:39pm

351. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 5:39pm

     Absolutely

     it's our civic duty to blog with the hamsters...

     if only to keep americas kids safe from evangelic perversion

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 5:42pm

352. it'll be hell on the mules though

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 5:42pm

353. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 5:42pm

     Well, at least I didn't say it!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/25/2006 @ 5:52pm

354. admit it... you were thinking it

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 5:57pm

355. So, amid all the...substantive argumentation going on above, I wanted to respond to the only real response against my evidence so far. I've dealt with the "it's bad evidence because the Bush administration released it" assertion, and would just like to add as a sidenote that it wasn't the Bush Administration that recently released it, it was the Iraqi government. Might it be convenient for them to find something saying they're winning? Maybe. However, no one (as far as I know) has found any good reason to believe that the evidence isn't authentic.

     The actual response, though, came in the form of counter-evidence. There are at least three problems with the counter-evidence, though. First, it doesn't necessarily contradict my evidence; the fact that the frequency of attacks has increased doesn't mean that the magnitude has increased or that the strength of the insurgency itself has increased. That increase is equally compatible with increased desperation; at the very least, there's no necessary contradiction. Second, even if it does contradict my evidence, my evidence outweighs it. A document from al Qaeda is a significantly more reliable source than any particular newspaper would be, for all the reasons that I've given numerous times before.

     The fact that Iran is helping the Shia is very interesting, and actually provides support for arguments that I'd made previously. To the extent that there is a Shia-Sunni clash within Iraq, that clash would likely draw supporters from Sunni and Shia factions in other countries, so that countries ruled by a particular faction would likely come to the aid of their faction in Iraq. In other words, a civil war in Iraq would have massive repurcussions throughout the entire Middle East, and that's not something we can afford to have. The only way a pull-out could be justifiable at this point is if full-blown civil war is inevitable, and there's no clear reason to believe that it is. This isn't Vietnam (as previous posters have helped to make clear); it's winnable, and the consequences of not winning would be absolutely disastrous.

     Posted by Thrawn at 06/25/2006 @ 6:15pm

356. "as found any good reason to believe that the evidence isn't authentic."

     Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 6:15pm

     It can be authentically wrong too. If someone says the sky is gray and they're severely color blind, what they're saying is authentic, but also not necessarily correct. And the Iraq occupation is more equivalent to Vietnam than not, as all the signposts indicate. And thus the DoD plans to withdraw troops asap. Especially as we get closer to November... Is it a ploy forced just for votes or an authentic standing down?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 6:27pm

357. Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 6:15pm

     the Iraqi government didn't bomb zarqawi.

     and it was US troops in their first

     remember... they standing there when he died.

     sorry bubba, ol gee dubya's finger prints are all over that memo

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 6:30pm

358. correction... they were standing there

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 6:36pm

359. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 4:25pm

     It's just a matter of perspective.

     "Why is the Moon in the Northern Hemisphere upside down from how it looks here in the Southern Hemisphere?:

     The Moon orbits near the equator of the Earth. In the southern hemisphere, we're standing on the opposite side of the globe from the "northerners", so we are "upside down" from each other! So we see the Moon from a completely different vantage point (ie "upside down"!). In fact, we in the southern hemisphere view most of the stars quite differently than from the northern hemisphere."

     Perhaps the "upside down" posture of you lads is what I mistook for madness.

     ps. Even you Leftie Yanks have got a sensitivity about money as a status symbol. It's a matter of great pride with many of our Lefties that they've never done an honest days work in their lives. Then again we are able to afford pretty good life time dole benefits.

     Ah for the American/Protestant work ethic.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 6:44pm

360. This isn't Vietnam (as previous posters have helped to make clear); it's winnable, and the consequences of not winning would be absolutely disastrous.

     Posted by THRAWN 06/25/2006 @ 6:15pm

     lots said that about vietnam too. we will see...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 6:54pm

361. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 6:44pm

     where do you get your stupid talking points from, croc? how old are you?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/25/2006 @ 6:58pm

362. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 6:44pm

     So because it appears upside down does that mean all the cheese falls out and it isn't full down there like it is up here?

     or because it appears upside down is it "lluf" and I confused you with our northern hemisphere spelling

     and then of course you realize that since we are gravitationally bound to a sphere, we all stand pointing out away from the earths core which means that you have to be on the exact opposite side of this planet to see the bottom of another persons feet (truly inverted).

     and then only if we had the technology to allow for that

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 7:00pm

363. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 7:00pm

     And that's why he likes-- 'hsuB'? Because it's the only thing I spelled like he can read it-- my bad.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 7:06pm

364. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 7:06pm

     The hamsters must really be skittering if they had to go down under for help...

     and all they found was this guy

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 7:11pm

365. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 7:11pm

     Yep. I hear the pay is pretty good. No wonder he's not on the dole or did he say he's on it for a lifetime? In any case at least he's not trolling on 'myspac'e and tricking kids to go down under!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 7:17pm

366. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 7:17pm

     well played

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 7:25pm

367. Anyone see Face the Nation this morning? Lugar and Boxer. One with answers and sober thinking. The other with finger pointing and stammering.

     Democrats just need to shut the hell up about everything and begin the walk to the graveyard. I'm waiting with a shovel. Epitaph required.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/25/2006 @ 7:28pm

368. i just saw the exchange. What is it about boxers performance that concerns you?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 7:50pm

369. Ha Ha Ha Ha

     You're learning the craft rather nicely.

     I'd elaborate more but it would be unwise to teach our hamster brethren anything

     Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person

     say no more, will. i understand and thank u.

     :)

     Posted by loveloki at 06/25/2006 @ 7:51pm

370. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 7:00pm

     Willie,

     Love your literalist approach. You'd make a good fundamentalist. Notice you are having a little trouble with the idiom so will type much more slowly from now on just for you.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 8:13pm

371. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 8:13pm

     yeah that's true

     I am a fundamentalist when we are discussing the fundamental physical laws of the universe.

     you betcha

     and don't type to slow...

     we may never hear from you again

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 8:22pm

372. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 5:57pm

     No sense lying....I'd just make an ass of myself (nyuk, nyuk)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 06/25/2006 @ 8:48pm

373. Posted by WILL C.

     Gracias. Or is it-- ta mate.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 9:19pm

374. Oops.

     Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 7:25pm

     Gracias. Or is it-- ta mate.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 9:19pm

375. Wrong hemisphere!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 9:21pm

376. "Language is about consensis and there are things one will never concede because the words have not been made up to express what was experienced. In other words, language does not create reality. Reality is experience and learned without language or consensus. One uses language to herd."

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 10:10am

     H,

     What is "reality"? Let us think of a paranoid schizophrenic's take on his observations. What sort of "reality" is that? Or think of how many are afflicted by other personality disorders observing an event, say during a manic episode of bi-polar disorder. What is the significance of that "reality"? We can go all the way down the scale and find that even one's powers of observation may be flawed. What of those snapshots of "reality"? (not even thinking of religious trances)

     I would suggest that the use of definitive language is the only method available to us to get anywhere near the "true" facts of any event by analysing eye witness accounts via the tool of language.

     As far as an analysis of those "facts" goes we have formal logic as a method of determining whether or not we are being conned through biased manipulation of the facts.

     Without language and logic (the ultimate language) we may as well give up trying to understand so called reality.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 9:26pm

377. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 7:50pm

     When faced with questions about Iraq, Boxer said that the Democrats were "in sync" with the generals and that the only ones out of step were Congressional Republicans. While the Democrats lean toward a rational approach in Iraq, they can't actually define what it is. And they are not "in sync" with the generals who want a number of different benchmarks for "success" before troops are withdrawn. Not that this interests me. What I'm more interested in is a sign of actual mental activity among those would not be GOPers.

     Worse was Boxer's response to the North Korea issue. Schieffer asked her to respond to the suggestion that we pre-emptively take out whatever missle Kim might have erected, his personal symbol of Korean sexual prowess aimed at the bathing beauties of California's beaches. Babs said that all options should be on the table and then went on again to blame the Republicans. Turning the microphone over to Lugar, he responded that pre-emptive action should not be an option, that talks had worked well 12 years ago when he participated on behalf of the Clinton administration and that unilateral talks were needed now. He was saddened by the fact that the current administration had not put forth any effort to keep the channels of communication open to N. Korea to stave off any insane actions on their part.

     Then as the segment was about to end and go to commercial, Boxer had to blurt in that she thought talks would be good, too.

     All in all, it was the performance of a clueless, bumbling, uninformed person who is regarded as one of the leading voices among Senate Democrats and by this website as one of the more consistently liberal members of Congress. She was awful and if saying that a pre-emptive strike against N. Korea should be "on the table" is liberal, then I don't know what the fuck is going on anymore.

     Talk talk talk talk. It's bad enough that it's all Democrats do. It's worse when they can't even do it well. No Democrat will be getting my vote in 2006, even if they threaten pre-emptive action against my ballot.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/25/2006 @ 9:54pm

378. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 6:58pm

     "where do you get your stupid talking points from, croc? how old are you?"

     Sorry IB missed your subtle but earnest questions:

     1. From reading your contributions.

     2. Would you believe six? (seven next birthday, or should that be eight?).

     Having a well paid sickie, in the workers paradise, today so have time for some of the more fair dinkum stuff.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 10:00pm

379. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 6:58pm

     "where do you get your stupid talking points from, croc? how old are you?"

     Sorry IB missed your subtle but earnest questions:

     1. From reading your contributions.

     2. Would you believe six? (seven next birthday, or should that be eight?).

     Having a well paid sickie, in the workers paradise, today so have time for some of the more fair dinkum stuff.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 10:00pm

380. Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 9:26pm

     You missed the point entirely. There are separate realities. Science acknowledged that a while back. When you try to move one into the other it becomes the other and not that which was separate and singular. True one can use various methods like mathematics to get closer to it, but again it's changed to fit the method. That which is limited to our five senses and which reach consensus btw, are ok with language because we shaped it that way. I'm speaking of that which transcends most of our senses but is just as real.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/25/2006 @ 10:05pm

381. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/25/2006 @ 9:54pm

     remember something. When things were going well for the hamsters those two would have been on for half the show. As it stands now they only asked them two questions and then rapidly moved on.

     I wasn't very happy with her callin for an attack on north koreas missle test. The preemption game is bullshit. The liberal agenda is to provide for the common defense... not the common offense. Preemption makes us the aggressor

     but as to the first question she was correct. after all the pommeling the democrats have taken about time tables for withdraw, here the president is planing a time table for withdraw after saying that time tables were unacceptable.

     the insurgents can wait out the hint of a time table as easily as they can wait out the actual thing. But then they are going ot wait us out no matter what we do. They live there.

     a better line of attack would have been to illustrate how this is just another hamster lie. And how we can't trust a liar. And how we doubly can't trust a bumbbling incompetent liar.

     but for some reason they don't want to say lie.

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 10:10pm

382. I see the hyenas are out in full force tonight. One point before going to bed----the difference in the time table proposed by democrats in the Senate and what General Casey is talking about is that the General is making the decision based on what is needed to fullfill his mission, not politicians in Washington who are only concerned with winning elections in November. President Bush has wanted troops out of Iraq on a faster basis from the very beginning----circumstances dealing with the insurgency has kept that from happening. When the Iraqi forces can stand up, we can stand down. We will need to keep a military force near by so that if the Iraqi government needs help we can step in. In 1974 we had the opportunity to go back in to Vietnam and save South Vietnam---We chose not to---I have always felt that are lack of action was a mistake---I hope we do not repeat the same mistake.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 06/25/2006 @ 11:45pm

383. len

     why do you want to force our children to eat their own shit?

     is it your scat fetish?

     Posted by Will C. at 06/25/2006 @ 11:47pm

384. "Reality is experience and learned without language or consensus. One uses language to herd."

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/25/2006 @ 10:10am

     H,

     Give us an example of your language-less or unspoken Reality.

     As far as science goes it advances through the language used by its practioners. Not sure what you are driving at but most of us use language to communicate. If you cannot do that with your concept of Reality what was the point of raising the issue in the first place?

     Maybe you should go back to the source of that quote and see if he/she can fill you in on the details.

     1.57pm Monday here lovely sunny winters day. First in many weeks. Not a bad day for a sickie. Think I might head down to the golf course to check out the form of a few of the local chicks and get their take on reality.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2006 @ 11:59pm

385. LA Times: At Least 50,000 Iraqis Killed Since Invasion...

     LA Times | Louise Roug and Doug Smith | Posted June 25, 2006 10:17 AM

     At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies -- a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

     Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.

     The toll, which is mostly of civilians but probably also includes some security forces and insurgents, is daunting: Proportionately, it is equivalent to 570,000 Americans being killed nationwide in the last three years.

     In the same period, at least 2,520 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.

     Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks.

     and history:

     http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/casualty.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2006 @ 12:38am

386. what was the point of raising the issue in the first place?

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/25/2006 @ 11:59pm

     Why do you keep asking?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2006 @ 12:56am

387. Must be a down under thing. Wait until you're up on top and maybe it'll make more sense.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/26/2006 @ 01:19am

388. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/25/2006 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person

     Here is the dems campaign slogan,... The GOPers don't even have to go to work for November!!and the reubs reponse will be..."Time to put ol' Murtha on the porch of retirement before he starts to droole on his shirt....". He's gone...bannan pie...over the rainbow.....and so will any politician who gets behind this guy...next speaker or majority leader????????????Sure, you bet.

     General maps out cutbacks of U.S. troops By Michael R. Gordon The New York Times

     "A combat brigade would be kept on alert in Kuwait or elsewhere in case American commanders needed to augment their forces to deal with a crisis. Another brigade would be kept on a lesser state of alert elsewhere in the world. As a result of these arrangements, the plan to bring the combat force down to 12 active brigades in Iraq is being called 12-1-1."

     It looks like the administration is preparing to adopt Murtha's plan. What's this about drooling on his shirt?

     Posted by seattlescribe at 06/26/2006 @ 01:49am

389. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/25/2006 @ 12:32am

     See the problem you were having with "inevitability of ultimate outcome". Seems there are a few amateur philosophers on this site. Thought you may have known enough history to accept that this was more than an undefined statement or slogan.

     I notice that Willie came up with the brilliant observation that Vietnam is (now) history. He got that one right. The "inevitability " (WRT the outcome of the Vietnam War) is, I suggest, defined by and in the context of the historical crumbling and dismantling of the British and European colonial empires in Asia, The Middle East, South East Asia and Africa. By the time the Vietnam conflict was joined this process was observably unstoppable. Due partly to the activities of the colonised and also because of a new attitude from some of the colonisers. The French and the Americans were slow learners.

     That process of de-colonisation is what was inevitable. That was observable then and is still attested to by history.

     The "ultimate outcome" was in response to your opinion on the Tet offensive. As a philosopher you seem to have a bit of trouble with the mother tongue. Let me help you with a synonym for ultimate:

     Eventual (adj) : expected to follow in the indefinite future from causes already operating;

     Think H, was trying to get to the same point that you made. Maybe he is trying to say something different but is having great trouble articulating his view. Think he is worried about sloganeering but perhaps he's gone all religious and is thinking about ineffability. Who knows?

     No one could accuse your mob of sophistry. Your problem is one of false premises.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/26/2006 @ 05:20am

390. That process of de-colonisation is what was inevitable. That was observable then and is still attested to by history.

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/26/2006 @ 05:20am

     vietnam ceased being a colony before we arrived.

     hmm... this is facinating, please explain how the process of decolonization (which had ended by that time in vietnam) would lead to the "inevitability of ultimate outcome" of US involvement in the vietnam conflict and also how it would favor one side winning at all much less a north vietnamese victory over the south.

     which by your observation (after the fact) was inevitable

     Posted by Will C. at 06/26/2006 @ 09:01am

391. and take as much space as you need

     Posted by Will C. at 06/26/2006 @ 09:01am

392. No one has made a single real argument to discount the al Qaeda source in any way. That's a real problem for those advocating a pull-out, because it makes the decision really clear. We can either stay there until Iraq becomes relatively stable (which is happening),

     That is simply not true. If you'll check out the Brookings Institute's Iraq , you'll see that US fatalities keep going up and down within the same range (with the exception of a couple of spikes in mid- and late-2004). June has been a relatively good month but you'd have to go back to Nov 2005 for a fatality number that exceeded what we had in May and April. Iraqi police and military fatalities are lower than in mid-2005 but higher than they were at the beginning of that year. Likewise, kidnappings are at their highest. This represents the evolution of the war from pure counterinsurgency to a Lebanon-style situation, hardly an example of progress. Neither are the estimated numbers of insurgents decreasing. Further, the amount of insurgent attacks in a given month may be lower than in the last few months of 2005 but it was higher than the prior months of that year.

     Even Maliki sees withdrawal as an essential part of any peace agreement. The idea that he's floated to the Sunnis involves amnesty and withdrawal of coalition forces. Also, the previously quiet city of Basra is now seeing an increase in violence. Finally, there is nothing in the document that indicates that the use of "the resistance" means the insurgency as a whole as opposed to al-Qaida in Iraq.

     Posted by brunowe at 06/26/2006 @ 09:19am

393. The Bush surprise visit also indicates the extent of Iraq's "sovereignty". There is no truly sovereign country where a President would just go without some prior notice and then essentially summon the titular head of government on incredibly short notice.

     Posted by brunowe at 06/26/2006 @ 09:36am

394. Here's the link on the Basra issue. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1096222.ece

     Posted by brunowe at 06/26/2006 @ 09:39am

395. Posted by WILL C. 06/25/2006 @ 10:10pm

     Sorry for the delayed response.

     I think that the Democrats, in their unswerving attempt to seem moderate, are still mistaken on Iraq. The majority of them voted for setting a timetable to pull them out. Here's an idea: vote for pulling them out. It's like they're setting meetings at which they will decide when the next meeting will be, and, of course, at that meeting, we will set the whole calendar of meetings. They're so afraid of the "cut and run" label that they are unwilling to do what they believe is right, choosing instead a political option.

     This is just one example of why they are destined to remain a minority party. Political positions are nothing without a strong rational framework to support them. I watched some of Feingold on Meet the Press yesterday. All in all an excellent performance. But he, too, is willing to hedge and appear weak in the process. Asked again about pushing for censure but not for impeachment, he muddled and fuddled about not wanting to disrupt the country with an impeachment proceeding. Fine. At least it would be fine if it weren't so easy for the same man to declare that Bush's actions have been worse than either those of Nixon or Clinton. Just far too much restraint when restraint is unwarranted and harmful to the longterm progress of this country. And he's safe--impeachment would go nowhere, but at least he could have taken a stand on it.

     And he's the best they've got.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/26/2006 @ 09:41am

396. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/26/2006 @ 09:41am | ignore this person

     Feingold has to walk a "Fein" line. Appeal to the left base and Deaniacs, to win the nomination in 2008...but not go TOO nutty and have stuff on tape that can be used against him in a general election.

     Posted by Mask at 06/26/2006 @ 10:25am

397. "vietnam ceased being a colony before we arrived."

     er, not exactly. we took the place of the french, in fact after the war ended we asked the Japanese not to surrender there, asked them to stay until the french could come back and assert their colonial rule. the south vietnamese gov't, which we and the french supported could definitely be seen as a puppet gov't, since it was propped up by US money and eventually US soldiers.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 11:58am

398. Posted by WILL C. 06/26/2006 @ 09:01am

     Willie,

     First let me deal with your (mis)understanding of what I wrote and expressed in your own words as follows:

     "hmm... this is fascinating, please explain how the process of decolonization (which had ended by that time in vietnam) would lead to the "inevitability of ultimate outcome" of US involvement in the vietnam conflict and also how it would favor one side winning at all much less a north vietnamese victory over the south..which by your observation (after the fact) was inevitable "

     Your lack of reading comprehension point by point:

     1. "please explain how the process of decolonization ............ would lead to the "inevitability of ultimate outcome" of US involvement." (your words)

     What I said was that the US was on an "inevitable" hiding to nothing (i.e. defeat) because of the powerful de-colonising forces in play. The US in its ignorance (?) apparently missed the reality that the real driver was Vietnamese nationalistic and de-colonising sentiment and morphed it into a communist threat to the whole region (Domino Theory) This is what I wrote :

     "The "inevitability " (WRT the outcome of the Vietnam War) is, I suggest, defined by and in the context of the historical crumbling and dismantling of the British and European colonial empires in Asia, The Middle East, South East Asia and Africa. By the time the Vietnam conflict was joined this process was observably unstoppable. Due partly to the activities of the colonised and also because of a new attitude from some of the colonisers. The French and the Americans were slow learners.

     That process of de-colonisation is what was inevitable. That was observable then" (at that time but apparently not to the US) "and is still attested to by history."

     A. Nothing to do with "US involvement" as you imagine but this:

     "The "inevitability " (WRT the outcome of the Vietnam War)" and this "That process of de-colonisation is what was inevitable."

     B. "which by your observation (after the fact) was inevitable " (your words)

     No. Which were observable not after the fact of the Vietnam war but in the period from 1945 to 1954 I wrote: "By the time the Vietnam conflict was joined this process was observably unstoppable" And in hindsight history attests it to us: "and is still attested to by history."

     (Shit Willie is English your first language?)

     OK now let's get to the guts of the main driver for the North's design on South Vietnam.

     Here followeth a short history of Vietnam courtesy of google.

     HANOI

     Hanoi, Vietnam's capital, lies on the banks of the Red River, some 100 kilometres from its mouth. Human settlements at the place date back as far as the 3rd century B.C.

     In 1010 Hanoi, at that time known by the name of Thang Long, became capital of the first Vietnamese dynasty independent from the Chinese. The city received its present name, Hanoi, only in 1831. However, at that time not Hanoi but Hué was the capital of the Vietnamese empire.

     In 1882 Hanoi was conquered by a French expedition. In 1883 France forced the then uncolonialized North of the Vietnamese empire to accept the status of a French protectorate. The French administratively divided the country into the colony Cochin China (in the South) and the protectorates Annam (central Vietnam) and Tonkin (North Vietnam). Hanoi became the capital of the protectorate Tonkin.

     The French abandoned Hanoi after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu and the division of Vietnam into two separate states according to the Geneva Treaty signed on July 20, 1954.

     HUE

     Hué in central Vietnam was the capital of the Nguyen Dynasty that ruled Vietnam from 1802 to 1945. However, the sovereignty of Vietnam during the Nguyen dynasty was restricted for almost 100 years. First, the French conquered Saigon in 1859 and in 1862 set up their colony Cochin China in the South of Vietnam; then, in 1883 a French fleet appeared at the Hué coast and forced the Vietnamese emperor Hiep Hoa to accept French overlordship for all of Vietnam.

     Thereafter, the French administratively divided the country into the colony Cochin China (in the South) and the protectorates Annam (central Vietnam) and Tonkin (North Vietnam).

     This little history lesson tells us that the French colonised all of one country, viz Vietnam. And it was divided into North and South Vietnam according to the Geneva Accord in 1954.

     Now what does the Geneva Accord provide for? Here is a header and summary from a copy of the document:

     AGREEMENT ON THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN VIET-NAM, JULY 20, 1954

     (The Genera Agreements theoretically ended the war between French Union forces and the Vietminh in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. These states were to become fully independent countries, with the last-named partitioned near the 17th parallel into two states pending reunification through "free elections" to be held by July 20, 1956. The United States and Vietnam are not signatories to these agreements.)

     Willie this means that there was a recognition by those who framed that document that the de-colonisation of Vietnam was still a work in progress.

     It should be axiomatic, in light of its colonial history that that process would only be complete when the country was restored to its pre-colonial status as a geographically unified country. Thus the Vietnam war had powerful de-colonising or nationalitic forces driving it.

     Eisenhower in setting up an anti-communist government in the South, via SEATO, cut across the intention of the Accord and so began America's fateful involvement in Vietnam.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/26/2006 @ 12:16pm

399. so began America's fateful involvement in Vietnam.

     one could date american involvement to the embargo against Japan. it was the japanese conquest of Indochina that hardened the US attitude to Japan's expansion. also see my above post about the end of the war in the pacific.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 1:10pm

400. BTW, 466 posts later....

     Still....anybody want to bet against Lieberman being re-elected in the fall?

     House payment?....weekly paycheck?....milk money?...some change in the car ashtray?

     Posted by Mask at 06/26/2006 @ 3:27pm

401. When the Iraqi forces can stand up, we can stand down. We will need to keep a military force near by so that if the Iraqi government needs help we can step in.

     hahahahahahahahah

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 4:17pm

402. we can step in.

     you put your right foot in, you get it blown up, you do the Iraqi hokey pokey, that's what it's all about.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 4:45pm

403. y HSUBFOOLS 06/26/2006 @ 12:38am

     At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies -- a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

     Note that most of those fatalities are of civilians inflicted by the terrorists or Saddamites. I guess the operative logic here is that the more they kill, the more the left feels we need to cut and run. That's for sure the way the terrorists see it, so I'm sure they're gratified that you see it their way. Perhaps they'll dedicate their next few beheadings to you, BUSHFOOLS.

     Ah, the left. The terrorist's best friend.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2006 @ 5:21pm

404. the US air attacks had absolutely NOTHING to do with Iraqi casualties, I swear.

     the more Iraqi casualties, the better it's going there according to the Tories.

     the invasion of Iraq has soured much of the world on the US. Bush the terrorists best friend. Ponti? just a mouth piece.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 5:34pm

405. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/26/2006 @ 5:34pm

     the US air attacks had absolutely NOTHING to do with Iraqi casualties, I swear.

     Nice straw man, there Hans.

     the more Iraqi casualties, the better it's going there according to the Tories.

     Still living in the 18th century, I see. Or perhaps you think you're in England?

     the invasion of Iraq has soured much of the world on the US.

     Oh boo hoo. The French and Germans will have to find someone else to sell their arms too, and the UN will have to find another source of bribes. Don't worry, they will be fine.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2006 @ 5:58pm

406. You know, Hans, the stategy of the terrorists is based on their belief that the West is decadent, cowardly, and self-loathing. When I read you and BUSHFOOLS, it's obvious that they have a point. The more innocent civilians they kill, the more gutless and cowardly you on the left become. You gotta respect the terrorists, they've got you folks figured to a tee.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2006 @ 6:01pm

407. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the fall elections. The voters have a clear choice: the war on terror, or the war on Bush. Should be interesting.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2006 @ 6:02pm

408. Here's hoping we see Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller frog-marched out of the NYT building on a perp walk for violating the Espionage Act. God that would be sweet.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2006 @ 6:10pm

409. The more innocent civilians the marines kill, the more proud and bloodthirsty you on the right become.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 6:17pm

410. Ponti, you are sooo brave, sitting at your keyboard, accusing others of cowardice.hahahahahahahahahah

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 6:18pm

411. FrankGrits you are right, they have no mission and Bush has no plan. Posted by JOHANNESROLF

     The attachment is al-Qaida's latest assessment before his death (oh no, he died!) The Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Safe House Document

     http://www.blogsofwar.com/2006/06/15/ the-abu-musab-al-zarqawis-safe-hous e-document/

     In the case of this guy, JOHANNESROLF, you would have to believe this latest terrorist assessment just happened with no planned effort and execution. Otherwise, you have to make believe that it is a phony document. Anything to discredit the President of the United States!

     Posted by koza44 at 06/26/2006 @ 6:24pm

412. "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not " is hypocrisy.

     Actions via voting profiles:

     Oct 2002 House 296 for 133 against Senate 77 for 23 against "Redeploy" May 2005 House 300 against 128 for "Redeploy" June 2006 Senate 86 against 13 for

     "The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 Thursday afternoon to allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. today with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure."

     JOHANNESROLF might be an expert in hypocrisy, but demonstrates the same lack of courage of our democratic friends in Congress. They say one thing, but when it takes courage to vote for it their actions speak louder than their words.

     In the case of this guy, JOHANNESROLF, I don't see him hammering the cowardice of democrats, period (just republicans)! They are either afraid to fight or they are afraid of election results!

     Posted by koza44 at 06/26/2006 @ 6:25pm

413. it is the brain dead Tories that are accusing others of cowardice, from behind the safety of their keyboard.hahahahahahahah

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 6:28pm

414. so now it's up to Al Qaeda to judge the success or failure in Iraq? hahahahahahaha

     it is widely understood that Al Qaeda has a very small footprint in Iraq. why their assessment should be especially meaningful is not clear.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 6:31pm

415. ok, dudes. anyone who calls anyone a coward is ignored.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 6:48pm

416. In the case of this guy, JOHANNESROLF,

     In the case of this guy, JOHANNESROLF

     you are repeating yourself, Kozy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 7:18pm

417. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/26/2006 @ 6:48pm

     Interesting how the gutless, yellow-bellied leftists like Hans are all for civility, except when they're calling Republicans every name in the book. These folks can dish it out, but they can't take. Little sissy boys and girls, all of them.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2006 @ 7:57pm

418. hey Ponti, having some unresolved masculinity issues?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 7:59pm

419. Posted by KOZA44 06/26/2006 @ 6:25pm

     As an outside observer, is it not possible that Democrats and Republicans do have a view on this issue and vote according to their conscience. I refuse to believe that they are all political opportunists. What it does seem to indicate is that many Democrats believe they made the right choice when they voted for the war and are still hopeful that Iraq will be a success story sometime in the future.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/26/2006 @ 8:04pm

420. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/26/2006 @ 7:59pm

     hey Ponti, having some unresolved masculinity issues?

     Nope, just telling it like it is, brother.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/26/2006 @ 8:18pm

421. when someone calls others sissy, they are either a. five years old or b. arrested development.

     do you have anything adult to say? Ponti

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 9:00pm

422. "I refuse to believe that they are all political opportunists."

     why not, they're politicians. the problem now in washington is that it's not so easy to tell which way the wind is blowing. the Tories can't shake the suspicion that Bush is leading them over the cliff. the dems are afraid to be caught on the wrong side of the war issue, again.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/26/2006 @ 9:39pm

423. What it does seem to indicate is that many Democrats believe they made the right choice when they voted for the war and are still hopeful that Iraq will be a success story sometime in the future.

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/26/2006 @ 8:04pm

     You're adorable. Easier to think that a principled stand against the threat of Saddam is still working itself out than it is to think that a political stand against a perception of weakness on the part of one's party has left these weak thinking souls without the courage to say, "I was wrong."? Mistakes are acceptable. Three years of them requires the type of forgiveness that only our most holy of rollers are permitted to dole out.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/26/2006 @ 10:02pm

424. Posted by LRJONES4 06/26/2006 @ 12:16am

     Interesting

     But that was a very long winded explanation of nothing. Vietnam was no longer a colony. The United States did not enter the Vietnam conflict to recolonize it but rather to defend against another inevitable ultimate outcome...

     The domino theory (whaaaaaaaa :)

     (Pssst... that one never really panned out either)

     and your brief history did nothing to answer the question of how it was inevitable that the US would become involved in the Vietnam conflict do to anything related to decolonization (and remember neither north or south Vietnam were colonies at that point) or how the forces of decolonization made it inevitable that any side in the conflict would win much less the north.

     Posted by Will C. at 06/26/2006 @ 11:08pm

425. and like I said before... take all the space you need

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/26/2006 @ 11:08pm

426. And he's the best they've got.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/26/2006 @ 09:41am

     i feel the same frustration you do. I wish they would stand up and beat on the table tops while denouncing the republicans.

     but this crowd isnlt going to do that. It is a shame. but we can do what liberals are doing up in conneticutt to leiberman.

     we can change the players on the team. But it's going to take awhile. Figure it''s going to take as long to get out of this mess as it took to get in it. and that's about twenty five years. Which means I'll be an old man when it happens.

     but that's ok. I'll leave a better world for the young folks

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/26/2006 @ 11:15pm

427. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/26/2006 @ 10:02pm

     TJ,

     They're your politicians so I suppose it's your problem. Share some of your cynicism about them generally but if, as is claimed, US voters want out of Iraq, wouldn't it be more opportunistic of the Democrat pollies to get on that bandwagon?

     The idea that the GOP can exploit that as a weakness, surely can only be effective if the polls are "lying". If what you say about your reps is true then, maybe some of your pollies have other reasons, apart from a good conscience, to support the Bush line.

     (I wasn't using conscience in the moral sense and perhaps meant something more like being true to a previously arrived at rational conviction. Of course I don't expect your pollies to measure up to my own "adorable" moral rectitude :-) Like your bit about mistakes but am prepared to bet that your forgiveness is selective).

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/26/2006 @ 11:22pm

428. Posted by WILL C. 06/26/2006 @ 11:08pm

     Willie.

     Slow down,and make a genuine attempt to understand what was written. I did not say the US went to colonise. It was more like they blundered in to a situtation where, right around the world, the idea and practice of colonialism was in the process being swept away by a whirlwind of change.

     I did not suggest that the US was doing anything more or less than trying, as it saw it, to stop the spread of communism. JR has a point when he suggests it was a proxy colonising (if I undertand him aright) so if you want to improve your understanding check with him. In the mean time I am quite willing to take an interest of concern in your education. That will require memorisation of plenty of facts and more importantly lots of instruction in the art of clear thinking plus plenty of effort from you to get beyond small soundbites.

     Perhaps the short history of Vietnam was too long for your attention span and analytical skills but you did say to make it a long response. Did I assume too much?

     If you are really nice and stop talking about poos I'll give you a hand with the Domino Theory, once you get used to the idea of thinking.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/26/2006 @ 11:47pm

429. LR,

     The situation, as stupid as it is, is certainly more complex than either of us has written. I'm just as certain that your pollies (I like that word) are perfect blends of craven and sincere as ours are. And by perfect I mean "icky." It's something for which I have no explanation: that the Democrats, loaded with opportunities to seize control of the public debate on issue after issue, seem to choose moments at which the public is not listening; meanwhile, everyone here is gearing up for one big thing this week--the debate about changing our constitution to eliminating the "desecration" of our flag, meaning that folks walking on the flag will get arrested while women wearing it to cover their breasts at a country music concert will still get lucky. Anyway, factor in the intimidation and dumbing down of the American television news by both our Administration and the corporate ownership of the stations, the growing number of people who get their "news" only from biased sites such as this or rightwing sources rather than from more traditional news outlets, and increasing numbers of electronic distractions that make reality seem less and less real and your looking at a recipe for rightwing control of the story through its monopolies in both the government and corporate spheres.

     And my forgiveness is even more selective than you might imagine. 2006 is the year marking the end of my forgiveness. I'm so unforgiving that I'm working against candidates in your land who fail to support my views. I'm so unforgiving that I offered huge sums to the refs at the World Cup to overlook every foul committed in the second half except the last one called--all because Italy has started to make more sense than Australia in foreign affairs.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/26/2006 @ 11:51pm

430. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/26/2006 @ 6:17pm

     The more innocent civilians the marines kill, the more proud and bloodthirsty you on the right become.

     Er, uh, Hans. Marines don't kill civilians unless it's an accident. The terrorists, i.e., the people we are fighting, kill innocent civilians by policy.

     P.S. We (Americans) are rooting for the Marines.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/27/2006 @ 12:26am

431. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/27/2006 @ 12:26am

     This would explain the murder charges, I guess. A new felony in the military penal code: Accidental Murder.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/27/2006 @ 12:33am

432. Perhaps the short history of Vietnam was too long for your attention span

     Posted by LRJONES4 06/26/2006 @ 11:47pm

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     You're kidding right. I'm going to try this again. Let me be clear up front. I don't want a short history of Vietnam. I don't care who ancient kings were. I don't care about UN resolutions.

     I want to know how it was an ultimate inevitable outcome that...

     1. The US would get involved in the Vietnam conflict because of anything to do with colonization.

     2. Vietnams colonial past assured a winner in the conflict.

     3. That winner would be the north.

     If you can't answer these questions that's ok. I knew you couldn't. Your hypothesis of ultimate inevitable outcomes is bullshit.

     Just like the domino theory was

     Posted by Will C. at 06/27/2006 @ 12:49am

433. But if you want to take another crack at it... take all the space you need

     Posted by Will C. at 06/27/2006 @ 12:49am

434. :)

     Posted by Will C. at 06/27/2006 @ 12:49am

435. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/26/2006 @ 11:51pm

     As you no doubt know "true" Aussies couldn't give a stuff about soccer, don't know what your anti-discrimination laws are like, but true blue dinky di's refer to it as wog ball. I notice our PM aka Bush's Man of Steel, was publically devastated by the loss though he was in Indonesia at the time and probably also calls it wog ball at home. Apparently a bit brighter than your Dems and no doubt already has a printout of how many votes that "devastation" will earn him at the next election. He is a master at winning the marginal electorates with his "all things to all men" approach.

     So it's hard to say whether or not you did your dough with those crooked refs. Our PM who also wins votes by handing out money to all sorts of unworthy causes would reimburse you, if you felt it was a bad investment, on the proviso that you let George know that the Man of Steel is also very philanthropic. He loves Americans anyway. Votes or no votes.

     The real "footy" here is Australian Rules which is more popular by far than Rugby or Soccer. The ball is oval shaped like in Gridiron but the rules are unique to Aus. A few of our long kickers have got employed in the States (don't know what you call them over there) when their reflexes get too slow, due to ageing, for Aussie Rules Football.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/27/2006 @ 01:16am

436. Never understood the difference between Aussie Rules Football and Rugby...probably because I can't determine if rules exist in either sport. The only thing I know is that Americans like the two guys who stand under the "goal posts" and gesture as if they are robbing a liquor store when the kick is good. Kickers in American Football are called kickers or placekickers, since they kick the ball when it is motionless.

     Would your PM's funding system be lax enough to provide compensation for money spent against his country's World Cup team?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/27/2006 @ 08:48am

437. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/26/2006 @ 6:01bm

     Just now got back to this thread. Scanned too many purely neocon marching order fallacies to respond to, no doubt. Life's too short to waste the time. The disadvantages of having 2 jobs-advantage, is that I can afford to do so--with few delusions, unlike you. Leave it to say, you're wrong, again. But you 'are' consistent!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2006 @ 09:54am