How We Won in Iraq
December 28th, 2007 at 12:31am Mark Noonan
Over at Blackfive, in the form of a tribute to the late Captain Travis Patriquin. They have a YouTube video of Cpt. Patriquin’s powerpoint presentation of what strategy we needed to win - and, as it turns out, the strategy we used to win.
Its really quite simple - even the lefties here can understand it. They won’t accept it, nor credit a command structure including President Bush which was clever enough to take a great idea when it came along, but the lefties will understand it.
Captain Patriquin was killed in battle against the enemy, but his ideas live on - and there can be no better tribute to Captain Patriquin and his fallen comrades than a free, prosperous Iraq allied with the United States against terrorism.
UPDATE: Michael Yon’s latest from Iraq - al-Qaeda has lost all credibility in Iraq.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
184 Comments
1. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 12:35 am
so now we have won iraq? So why can’t the troops come home tomorrow if we won?
2. Pain | December 28th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Congrats on your victory in Iraq. Now tell the American people the rest of it. How long will you you need to keep how many troops there? We think you will need at least 50 000 there for five years as a rapid reaction force and it will take until the summer of 2010 to draw down to that point.
I wonder how the regulars at this blog will feel about Hillary increasing the number of troops in Iraq to 75 000 to put down a wave of violence in Kurdistan in say the spring of 2011?
The ultimate question for historians is, after the removal of Saddam Hussein and his execution, and after the departure of the bulk of US forces by 2013 qare the iraqi people actually better off than they were in 2003? That answer is only five years away . . .
3. westmich | December 28th, 2007 at 6:46 am
I know you guys like to use provocative titles to draw readers in, but this is down right disrespectful to our troops. I would expect better from you guys.
4. Retired Spook | December 28th, 2007 at 7:34 am
I see 3 of our resident Lefties have weighed in with their two cents worth. $.06 total - yup, that’s about right — maybe a little on the high side.
5. AAR | December 28th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Retired Spook,
You’re being very generous and overvaluing their comments. They aren’t worth even that much!
AAR
6. AAR | December 28th, 2007 at 8:30 am
liberalT,
We will be Iraq for years, just as we have bases throughout the Middle East and the world.
Even though you Democrats will be working to weaken and destroy America’s military, that will still take time!!!
AAR
7. AAR | December 28th, 2007 at 8:35 am
westmich,
I know you guys like to use provocative titles to draw readers in…
Yep! See how well it works. You Democrats (Liberals) swarm in just like flies to a fresh cow patty!
AAR
8. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Didn’t we already have this discussion?
Again… now that we “won”, let’s get the F out of there and stop wasting millions of dollars and potentially more U.S. Soldier lives.
Woo-hoo… Bush gets his win, now we can all win and get out of this disaster.
9. westmich | December 28th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I’m a liberal? I voted for Bush. I’ve voted for my rep Pete Hoekstra every election since ‘94. If I am not in 100% alignment with those on the furthest right, I’m a liberal?
Thanks
10. Timothy Horrigan | December 28th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Well, we actually did defeat Saddam in just a few weeks. The problem was, we had no plan for what might happen once he was gone. We just sort of assumed that the people of Iraq would spontaneously adopt Bush-style capitalism.
The tragedy of Gulf War II is that Bush II accomplished everything he set out to do: our troops defeated Saddam’s army, Saddam was deposed, Saddam was eventually captured and even executed, and the shell of a Western-style democracy was put in place. However, instead of an oil-fueled economic boom, what we have in Iraq is a civil war which our troops are stuck in the middle of.
But now, a few thousand miles away, just before the US Presidential Primaries, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at a political rally. Like most liberals, I guessed that Pakistani strongman Gen. Musharraf was behind it. But now both Bush and Musharraf have pointed the finger at al-Qaeda and the Taliban… and of course neither Bush or Musharraf have any conceivable reason whatsoever to lie about this tragedy… so now it will be even harder for us to get our troops out of Iraq.
11. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Well… I KNOW how all the Bush-backers on this site love to bring up old quotes from Democrats about the war. Just thought I’d lob this out there…
Dick Cheney 1994:
12. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 9:47 am
“We will be Iraq for years, just as we have bases throughout the Middle East and the world.” - AAR
You say that as if you are proud. You say that as if it is good thing. Would you accept 10s of thousands of Iranian troops in a military base in your neighborhood? Supporting a government which you thought was corrupt? Why do you think it is reasonable to have US troops in someone else’s back yard?
13. navydad | December 28th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Let’s say a Clinton were in orfice pre-invasion.
We would have still invaded Iraq since Slick had always wanted to be a real cowboy under the lights of war.
Madam Albright (more like Whalen & Madame) would have offered Saddam a football carrot while Janet Reno plotted Waco II, The Trilogy, and most important, they would have consulted with Gen. Wes Clark. Who would have brought our troops home the day we claim victory, just like he did in Kosovo…..oops, sorry all, we still have troops in Kosovo…my bad.
Well, at least I know ole Wes would have carpet-bombed the Iraqi’s, like he did with MY homeland. Boy, I sure would have listened to Wes…yes sir.
Sarcasm off..you libs are full of it this morning.
14. Retired Spook | December 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Just thought I’d lob this out there…
Joe, if I had a dollar for every statement by a politician that was later regretted, I’d be a rich man. Did you have a point other than to bash Cheney? Nah, didn’t think so.
The problem was, we had no plan for what might happen once he was gone.
Timothy, can you enlighten us on how you know this? I mean, to say we had “no plan” is pretty definitive. Is it possible that we had a number of plans, none of which worked very well until recently? Is it possible that no one foresaw the extent to which foreign fighters, particularly al Qaeda, would perpetrate violence in an effort to foment civil war? Could you have imagined that, in a country that had no connection to al Qaeda (the Left’s constant assertion) that Iraq would become the main front (al Qaeda’s assertion) in the WOT?
15. AAR | December 28th, 2007 at 10:00 am
liberalT,
You say that as if it is good thing.
Yep. It sure is!
Why do you think it is reasonable to have US troops in someone else’s back yard?
Because it’s next to the bad guy’s back yard!
We will be staying at the invitation of Iraq. It’s to our mutual benefit!
AAR
16. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am
so now we have won iraq? So why can’t the troops come home tomorrow if we won?
Because you’re a moron who should be banned from this website.
I wonder how the regulars at this blog will feel about Hillary increasing the number of troops in Iraq to 75 000 to put down a wave of violence in Kurdistan in say the spring of 2011?
Well, let’s see, Pain-in-the-arse; you and your cow, plainjane, accuse the troops of being in Iraq to steal the oil, so I guess if Hitlery increased the troop levels in Kurdistan, we’d have to accuse her of trying to steal the opium poppies from them. Sure would make her veep, Earbama, who snorted coke and smoked dope, happy. He’d have all the free smack he could handle.
You’re a moron who should be banned from this blog.
I know you guys like to use provocative titles to draw readers in, but this is down right disrespectful to our troops. I would expect better from you guys.
Downright is one word, moron, and what’s disrespectful about the title? Soooo, you voted for Bush and Hoekstra? At least you’re not the moron that libtardT and Pinhead are, but you’re well on your way. Maybe you should be banned too, for your own good.
Would you accept 10s of thousands of Iranian troops in a military base in your neighborhood?
Never gonna happen, libretardTHC, although you, Joey, Timmy, and Pain would like for that to happen, as long as it was on Bush’s watch. You traitors deserve to swing from a noose.
Disclaimer: By opining that the moron trolls “deserve to swing from a noose,” I was in no way, shape or form threatening to carry out any lynching. I am a peace-lovin’, lib-hatin’ redneck who can’t stand to see this blog polluted by a bunch of lemming parrots who can’t think for themselves, and who regurgitate redundant talking points in a woeful effort to appear intelligent.
They are all morons who deserve to be banned from this fine blog. Mark/Matt, this should be your New Year’s resolution. My resolution will be to be nicer to moron parrot lemming trolls. My guess is that I’ll break that resolution quicker than I have any other in the past. I can’t help it–IH8L185!!!
17. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Spook:Did you have a point other than to bash Cheney? Nah, didn’t think so.
I lobbed that out there because there have been several posts of righties saying how much Democrats wanted to invade Iraq as well. Bringing up old quotes from Hillary and Kerry and such. So yes, that was to bash Cheney just as much as all those other posts were to bash Dems.
The point is… just as post #10 stated… great, you did all these things, but nobody in the Bush Administration knew what to do next. As Cheney questioned… “then what are you going to put in its place?”
You are the people saying that we’ve “won”. So let’s end the occupation.
18. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Hey, I just heard on Fox News that a car bomb just went off in Baghdad, killing women and children. You troll pukes can rejoice; there’s still plenty of violence for you to celebrate.
You libgressives make me sick; I hope the next attack on our soil takes all of you out. Maybe we need another attack, to take your feeble minds off of Britney and Paris.
Disclaimer: By stating the above, I was in no way, shape, or form threatening to take out any libgressive pukes.
19. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 10:14 am
ah - so the argument is that it is OK for us to do it but not OK for others to do it because its US and not THEM. Ever heard of the golden rule - due on to others as you would have them due on to you. The logical conclusion of your argument would be that it would be OK for you to kick other people if it benefited you but not OK for them to kick you because after all its you and not them. I suggest that you spend more time actually thinking about the bible which you claim is so important to your morals
20. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Keef/Huck/Jackass (whatever you go by now-a-days):
You need serious mental help.
Have you ever had an original, intelligent thought, or do you just like to be a 5th grader and call everyone names? Just once try to make an actual point.
21. Retired Spook | December 28th, 2007 at 10:25 am
So yes, that was to bash Cheney just as much as all those other posts were to bash Dems.
The problem with that is Cheney’s statement was nearly 14 years ago when he was President of a public corporation, while most of the Dems’ statements that have been quoted here were right before the beginning of the present conflict. I don’t expect you to see the difference, though. It’s hard to see anything through those BDS goggles you’re wearing.
22. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Joe/Josaphine/Josie/Dickweed (whatever you go by nowadays):
You need serious writing lessons, jerk. And, as I’ve stated before, I don’d waste intelligent thoughts on moron pansies such as yourself. It’s a waste of my time. So why don’t you just take your tired ass out and jump in front of a bus? I’m sure noone here, other than jane the cow and libreardTHC, would miss your insignificant presence. Your rhetoric is stale, and plagarized from other morons who’ve posted it before you. Are you capable of independent, intellegent thought? I think not. You’re a parrot, a moron, and you should be banned for your own good. Good-bye, Josie…
23. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Oops, should read “libretardTHC.” Please excuse my lib-like typing skills…
24. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Spook, did I tell you I was swimming in the Atlantic on Christmas Day? Or that I got an elephant tattooed on my left arm, with “GOP” written below it? I was gonna get an elephant pissing on a donkey, but the gal who ran the tattoo parlor was a Democrat, one of those rare nice ones, and I didn’t want to cause any strife. My next tattoo? I will have “1H8L1B5″ tattooed down my left arm, just above a donkey with a Hitlery head on it…
25. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
OK Huck (grammar/spelling nazi).
Why don’t you re-read your post or did that foam around your mouth get in the way?
“don’d”??? What is that?
“noone”??? Do you mean “no one” or were you trying to speak of Mark “Noonan”?
“plagarized”??? I think you mean “plagiarized”
“intellegent”??? You are really slacking. You mean “intelligent”.
Who is the moron? I think you proved it to be you. I’m done with you. On to more intelligent posters on this site.
26. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Joe - (keefer/Huck Fillary) - doesn’t have any point to make. He thinks it is cute to spew insults at everyone. Since he has never made a single substantive point i just ignore him. I suggest you do the same. Really - its like getting angry at a dog that barks at you - its just a dog he will never understand
27. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Spook,
You’re forgetting that in Liberaldom, a war is supposed to exactly according to plan - preferrably a Five Year Plan, or some such totalitarian, we-can-control-all-events-from-the-center bit of idiocy. They make no allowances for the fact that the enemy is made up of people who can think and change and do the unexpected…and, of course, they don’t think that our guys can think and change and do the unexpected.
28. AAR | December 28th, 2007 at 10:51 am
liberalT,
How many years experience do you have in military planning, strategy, war plans, and related areas?
My bet is either ZERO or you were removed from you job for incompetence!!!
Just what would be your reason for stationing Iranian troops in the U.S.? What and who would they be here to protect and defend?
AAR
29. Almiranta | December 28th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Timothy, you make an assertion—”We just sort of assumed that the people of Iraq would spontaneously adopt Bush-style capitalism….” which you obviously accept as fact. It is a canard spread far and wide by Loony Left radio shows, television personalities, and of course blog sites, because they know that people like you will eat it up with a spoon.
But it is silly.
You guys are so dependent on that Crystal Ball that lets you simply KNOW what other people are thinking, you have lost the ability to think or reason. Or, more likely, you never had it, which is what made you such an easy mark for the propagandists of the Left.
We hear this crap all the time from your side—that Bush didn’t REALIZE there were long-standing tribal conflicts that would probably expand into the vacuum left by toppling Sadaam, that he just EXPECTED to see American-style democracy flourish overnight, etc. But you make it up, you make all of it up.
Why? Because your only true focus is on finding, or inventing, things which you can use to support your rabid and irrational hatred of Bush. And we find it tiresome.
Note that not one of the Loony Left posts represented relief that the situation in Iraq is improving. Not one expressed thanks for the impressive work done in Iraq by our troops and their leaders. No one could even be bothered to be glad that things are getting better over there. Not a single radical Lefty could even consider appreciating the advances made.
No, any reference to Iraq which centers on progress is just an excuse to go digging around looking for ANYTHING they think will support their insane loathing of the Right.
It’s creepy. But then we have known for years that what is good for the country is bad for the Left. You guys just prove it, over and over and over yet again, with your sky-is-falling laments over anything less than total and perfect and immediate success, by your denial of progress, and by your gloating over anyting you can redefine as failure–whether it be about Iraq, the economy, or world affairs.
Some of us have started to call you the Pretzels, after years of watching you twist yourselves into bizarre and absurd positions just to be able to make bizarre and absurd claims—claims which represent fact and reality far less than they represent your own twisted pathology.
Me? I am deeply and profoundly grateful that we have people in this country with the wisdom and foresight of Captain Patriquin and the other military and government leaders who have been able to ignore and overcome the yapping ankle-biters determined to distract them from their work. It has been clear that much of the opposition they have had to face has come from within their own country, from politically motivated opponents very willing to accept great damage to our country if it will only advance their political agendas–or, in some instances, their peculiar pathologies.
30. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
…its just a dog he will never understand
It’s just a dog who will never understand? Who are you talking about, libretardTHC?
Oh, did you mean, “He’s just a dog; he will never understand?”
Josie, could you give your fellow parrot lemming some writing lessons? I doubt it, being that you’re just as big a moron as he…
31. Retired Spook | December 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
You guys just prove it, over and over and over yet again, with your sky-is-falling laments over anything less than total and perfect and immediate success….
Ironically, Almiranta, the Left’s desire for perfection doesn’t apply to lift-wing social or economic programs. There it’s only the intent that’s important, not the results.
32. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 11:16 am
How many years experience do you have in military planning, strategy, war plans, and related areas?
==
zero of course. Which is exactly the amount George W Bush has. But then again - I NEVER attempted to do such a thing.
——–
Just what would be your reason for stationing Iranian troops in the U.S.? What and who would they be here to protect and defend?
—
That is exactly my point. Who are we protecting in Iraq when the Iraqi people are quite clear that they don’t want us there. Who are we protecting in Saudi Arabia when the majority of Saudi Arabians oppose the US presence there? Or is it our own interests that we are protecting..
33. navydad | December 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
“due on to others as you would have them due on to you.”
This one sentence says it all….WTF!
It’s George Bernard Shaw, not Robert Shaw…moron.
Sarcasm off, again..LOL!
34. Almiranta | December 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
One thing many of us have noted is the proof, shown by their posts, of the remarkably limited experience of the rabid Left posters.
Those of us who have actually run companies, for example, have had to make decisions and then be responsible for those decisions, knew exactly what Bush meant when he said he was the “decider”. We have lived with the responsbility of being deciders, and we instantly knew that he referred to the immense responsibility of being that person, and what it takes to accept that role.
But the drones, the by-the-hour types who have never had such responsibilities, sneered and snickered at the phrase, tittering like schoolgirls. They still drag it out and strut around with it as if their ridicule reflects on anyone but themselves, highlighting their limited experience.
Anyone who has ever embarked on any effort has learned, probably from Day 1, that no project is completely predictable. So it is clear that the snickerers who jump on candid admissions of being unable to predict every aspect of every development in something as complex and constantly shifting as an entire political and economic reality during a massive upheaval of an entire country have never tried to DO anything themselves. If they were doers instead of watchers (or that particularly odious type that actually runs out to shove sticks through the spokes of those doing the racing, seeming to think that being an impediment to progress is actually an ACCOMPLISHMENT…) they would know from experience that all anyone can do is make the best possible prediction at that particular time, and be ready to accept developments as they occur and try to shift plans to accommodate them.
Now, that’s OK. There is nothing wrong with being a bystander at the race, watching other people do the work. Not everyone can be a leader, or a doer. It IS a little creepy to see the do-nothings take such pride in never contributing, and watching them brag about their ignorance and impotence, but then naught’s as queer as folk.
I once commented that in a football game, with a limited number of participants and a rigid set of rules, it was impossible to predict what would happen, yet the rabid Left seemed to think that in a country of several million people, with several tribes and political affiliations, with a complex history of conflicting interests, complicated by the determination of other nations to make this one a battlefield for THEIR OWN interests, Bush and his adminstration should be excoriated for every single event which they did not publicly predict in advance, much less head off.
(Some of you might remember one particular MOE-RON who replied, evidently with complete sincerity, that football games are COMPLETELY predicatable. See what I mean about the truly rabid Left being eager to showcase their ignorance?)
35. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 11:19 am
There it’s only the intent that’s important, not the results.
Spook, results don’t matter to the left; they’re all about intentions and feelings. War on Poverty, anyone? Two America’s?
THEY’RE A BUNCH OF F*CKING PHONIES WHO CAN’T ACCOMPLISH SH*T, BUT WHO WANT TO RUN OUR LIVES!!! THEY WANT YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY, SO THEY CAN GIVE IT TO THE “POOR.” THEY WANT THE POOR TO STAY POOR, AND DEPENDENT ON THEM!!!
And Spook, the trolls who pollute this blog are merely lemming parrots who can’t think or do for themselves, so they ride the barge of liberalism, being towed along by their dear leaders. At least our ship travels under its own power…
36. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 11:20 am
due on to others as you would have them due on to you.”
Bwwaaaahahahaha.
~ Jeremiah
37. Rana Quijotesca | December 28th, 2007 at 11:22 am
A while ago, one of the liberal comments on Blogs for Bush implored Mark and/or Matt to provide a definition for victory in Iraq. Their response was something like “a government and Iraqi people that can defend themselves.” Seeing how that is not the case, we have not won in Iraq according to B4B’s own definition. Either Noonan’s standards have fallen, he is ignorant of this Blog’s (or at least its predecessor’s) definition, or he just found a fun talking point, regardless of what the truth really is.
Does this make me happy? No.
Does this mean that we should high-tail it out of Iraq? No.
I just refuse to shelter myself from the truth.
P.S- I think that it’s funny in AAR’s quest to insult liberals at every turn, he inadvertently related this post and/or this blog to cow excrement. Happy Tails!
38. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 11:28 am
this post and/or this blog to cow excrement.
What can you expect, with all the Liberal kimchee that is spewed out!
As keefer said, they don’t deserve a voice here.
There are plenty of Liberal sites they can go to and spew all the non-sense the want.
A Liberal mind is dangerous. The influence they place will lead this country into disaster.
Just watch and see!
And believe me, I can’t stand them anymore than keefer can. They bring out the beast in me, I just don’t show it. I try to keep it cool.
~ Jeremiah
39. Rana Quijotesca | December 28th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Jeremiah-
I respect you in that you don’t result to ad hominems in quite the same way that Keefer does.
Though, if you read the analogy that AAR used, the flies flock to the cow poop… the flies don’t make the poop poop… the swarm is a symptom.
I don’t think he did it on purpose, I just think that the slip up was amusing.
40. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 11:32 am
P.S.–I think it’s funny how Raina-man tries to hide the fact that she wants us to lose in Iraq so’s she can gloat. What an insult to the men and women in uniform. Raina, you should be ashamed of yourself…but what should one expect from yet another in a long line of BDS-sufferin’ lemming pukes?
41. Sadly, No! » They D&hellip | December 28th, 2007 at 11:38 am
[…] From the always reasonable Mark Noonan: How We Won in Iraq […]
42. Rana Quijotesca | December 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
uh… keefer… not only do I not want us to lose in Iraq, I think that we should stay there until the job is done… To say that we have won in Iraq as a statement of fact is, in this instance, a bit like declaring victory half-way through a chess match.
Keefer, you must live a pathetic life, automatically assuming the worst of your fellow countrymen… how I don’t envy you…
43. westmich | December 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I see, I’m a moron because I misspelled one word. Am I a special case or would you apply that logic to everyone? Or is it just a matter of applying it to certain people whom you’ve decided fit into a certain classification without really knowing much about that person?
I made the statement because while the surge is working, it has only brought the levels of violence down to a point we were at in 2006. There is still much work to be done. There are many lives yet to be lost if we are truly going to have victory or any lasting peace in Iraq. A title like that, in my opinion, is dismissive of the future work and lives. If I misunderstood it then I apologize.
If you don’t want me here, I will go. I do wonder myself why I continue to come back here almost daily. Mostly, I think it’s for the same reason you can’t turn away from a car wreck. Rather than the carnage of twisted metal and bloody bodies, it’s the venom and hateful words thrown back and forth. But maybe somewhere in the back of my mind there is hope that I might read and participate in an actual dialog. Those on the right might find some valid point in the opinion of those on the left and vice versa.
44. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am
doh…
should have been “do on to others as you would have them do on to you” stupid me…
45. navydad | December 28th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Rana, I guess you’d need to put most conservatives in the same boat with Keefer then. Because most of us feel pity and are irritated by the kook lefties that can’t or will not comprehend logic and more often than not, take a contrarian position, especially when it comes to GWB or the Iraq war.
46. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 11:56 am
George W. Bush is the best President ever!
He has taken the war to the Islamic–fascists and they will feel pain.
How long did it take our troops to get to Baghdad? A week? Wow.
Did you guys see them pull down that statue of Saddam? Cool.
Did you guys see President Bush land that plane on the deck of that aircraft carrier? He flew jet fighters in Vietnam you know.
He sure is a good looking man in that flight suit.
47. navydad | December 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
#46 posted by Neoclown, proves my point.
48. JHL | December 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
A liberal mind is dangerous???? You mean a mind that can think for itself? A mind that values skepticsim and doubt? Unlike the resident Jesus psycho whom we should all emulate for his carefully reasoned and considered insight.
BTW, how many hits has your Blog had?
Terrorisim is a tactic. Its goal, obviously is to frighten people and most of the right wing extremists who post here are quaking in their collective boots. You all are scared of everything! You’re scared of ideas. You’re scared of facts. You’re scared of actual reasoned debate. You’re scared of Democrats and the really scary “liberals”. The irony is that the menatlity that should insight the most fear and concern is the one that you all unquestioningly embrace: right wing authoritarianism.
If you can’t refutiate facts, they are dismissed out of hand as a “talking point”. What I am wittnesing here is a form of mass psychosis perpitrated by unthinking and unreasoanble people who continue to reinforce their ideological delusions. This is how people like Jim Jones operated.
We have not “won” anything in Iraq and now the most dangerous place in the world, Pakistan, has been thrown into chaos.
Good night and good luck!
49. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
stupid me…
Yes, I would say so, LiberalT.
It’s … do unto not “on to”.
~ Jeremiah
50. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
how many hits has your Blog had?
JHL
I’ve no idea, and really don’t care, at least it’s not overrun by Liberals, or else I would have to shut it down. Because I don’t put up with you people.
~ Jeremiah
51. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Boy Jeremiah… you really hate free speech, huh?
52. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Boy Jeremiah… you really hate free speech, huh?
Depends on the meaning of “free speech”.
There’s a RIGHT thinking, and WRONG thinking. Know what I mean, dude?
I don’t want to see people’s heads filled with a bunch of impossible ideas, believe them, and then turn the country into a sewage hole. And that’s exactly what you Liberals would like to do.
~ Jeremiah
53. SteaM | December 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
9/11, 19 hijackers got on planes and … well, the rest is history.
Of the 19 hijackers:
15 were from Saudi Arabia
2 from the United Arab Emirates
1 from Egypt
one from Lebanon
Did our presence in the middle east, especially Saudi Arabia, have anything to do with these attacks? I think the answer is yes. Yes it did. And we’ve just made it worse and there’s no end in sight. And many Americans, many of them republicans, are ok with that.
54. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Navydad,
Why do you hate America and why do you hate President Bush?
Don’t you know President Bush needs our support right now?
We are at war with the Islamic-fascists and we must be united.
We must be united and think with one mind!
We must be united and feel with one heart!
We must be united and speak with one voice!
We must be united and fight with one fist!
If the Iraqis don’t like the feel of steel-rain they should have left the Twin Towers alone.
So what do you say Navydad? You’re either with us, or you’re with Saddam and his gang of radical Islamic fascists.
55. JHL | December 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
You liberals? You mean free thinkers. Impossible ideas? You must be refering to your fundementalism and literal interpretation of the Bible. Maybe some of us should start to post on your Blog. You know, to crucify it. So it can die for our sins.
It must be really nice to be able to view the world is such absolute and stark terms. As Neitzche said; “Ignorance is bliss”. But I doubt you are familiar with Neitzche. But hey! Mark Noonan has declared victory in Iraq so all is right with the world. Except in Pakistan. Another shining example of the successes of GWB’s forign policys. I wonder how poorly Condi Rice feels. You know, insisting that Bhutto return to her homeland in order to save it from itself.
56. TiredOfYourBullShit | December 28th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“So what do you say Navydad? You’re either with us, or you’re with Saddam and his gang of radical Islamic fascists.”
I’d say you’re a fucking retard…and I’d be right.
57. bagni | December 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
markawon;
nice work on lighting it up in here
all you did was put the single word ‘won’
and the single word ‘iraq’ in the same sentence
ha
btw
i liked what almiaranta said:
(and admittedly i quote him out of complete context)
“I once commented that in a football game, with a limited number of participants and a rigid set of rules, it was impossible to predict what would happen….”
with that said
good leaders
people who have run companies
people with character and competency
when they ‘decide’
they try not to get into situations
or drive strategies
where it’s impossible to predict what will happen
i’ll patiently wait to be insulted now?
58. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Jeremiah,
I’m with you buddy! What America needs is the “think police.”
America would be a utopia if Think Police could round-up all the wrong-thinkers and lock them up, or better yet execute them (just to be on the safe side.)
We should make “mental hygiene” screening mandatory for all preschool children. I bet we could salvage a lot of wrong thinkers if we only we caught them early enough.
Of course some wrong thinkers will probably get through the system and if they do they should be sterilized and or executed because we both know “wrong thinkers breed more wrong thinkers.”
You’re on the right track Jeremiah. Keep up the “good thinking.)
59. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
bagni,
Oh, I don’t know about that - the financial industry got into a jam which was entirely predictable…in fact, as I work in that industry, I predicted it and even sent word up the chain of command that our practices were exposing us to large losses at a future date. While I am High Master of the Blog in this world, in the financial world I am Mindless Cog 179-4A, and so even if my missives were read up in the high reaches of the company, I doubt they were understood - I might have been speaking Chinese, as far as they are concerned because my warnings were based on the knowledge that the purpose of a business is to provide the best product or service it can, while to modern coporate executives it is to provide the highest profit in any given business quarter, next quarter be damned. So, people get into all sorts of things where any reasonable understanding should warn them off…
But, as for Iraq, while we all knew it could prove very difficult, our purpose was not to avoid difficulty, but to court it at every turn…for 60 years we’ve sought the path of least resistence in the middle east, and it resulted in 3,000 Americans dead in one day.
60. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
–
But, as for Iraq, while we all knew it could prove very difficult, our purpose was not to avoid difficulty, but to court it at every turn…for 60 years we’ve sought the path of least resistence in the middle east, and it resulted in 3,000 Americans dead in one day.
–
way to rewrite history Mark.
(1) we all knew it would prove very difficult. Hmm - do i need to provide the links to Cheney talking about how we would be greeted as liberators?
(2) path of least resistance? are you kidding me? We have been caught with our hand in the cookie jar. We have been trying to control the middle east for the last 60 years? Recall the installment of the Shaw of Iran? Recall the dividing up of the middle east by the British and the French. The path of least resistance would have been to stay out.
Mark - you are in complete and total disconnect with the history of the world.
61. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Keep up the “good thinking.
I will, NeoClown.
In the meantime, why don’t you go down to the nearest clinic and see if they can’t give you something that will go to work on that ‘thinking cap’ of your’s … that will steer you in the right direction.
LOL.
~ Jeremiah
62. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
TiredOfYourBullshit,
When you suggest that I am an “Effing Retard” are you implying that I get busy with the ladies and have an IQ of between 60 and 70 points? If so thanks a lot. I’m not one to kiss and tell - but I was quite the ladies man in my younger days.
63. bagni | December 28th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
mark-nancial
agreed…not all corporations have it together
and in the financial world you live in
it’s probably the worst example of good leaders
there aren’t many good leaders in the corporate world
the best companies i am honored to work with
look at the gig as more than highest profit in a quarter (all privately owned)
because like your warnings to the big cheeses
i’ve observed most innovation comes from the bottom up
we also agree….
since aramco (or before)…..
you’re right
the u.s. sought the path of least resistance
where we don’t agree?
the unrealistic outcome dreamt up by rummy and crew in iraq
it was a hallucinatory strategy, poorly executed
and beyond ‘very difficult’
so when you look at it strategically
it’s hard to think we’ve ‘won’
i’ll concede that progress has been made from the sh*tstorm we started
it’ll probably be another 60 yrs before it turns
and i dunno, it might have been done differently?
but…..water under the bridge
and 20/20 hindsight at this point
now..on a lighter note
how come i haven’t been insulted yet?
ha
64. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
how come i haven’t been insulted yet?
Well, the least you could do, is show a little respect, and learn to Capitalize the names of the people you are addressing.
And that’s not insulting you, but merely teaching you not to insult.
~ Jeremiah
65. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Jeremiah,
No more brain candy for me. I want to be sober and clear headed like you from now on.
66. Ricorun | December 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Mark: They make no allowances for the fact that the enemy is made up of people who can think and change and do the unexpected…and, of course, they don’t think that our guys can think and change and do the unexpected.
Wait a minute… didn’t you say in your topic, “Its really quite simple…”?
Obviously, it isn’t simple or someone would have thought of it before Cpt. Patriquin. Then again, maybe it was, because some did — witness for example the way Gen. Petraeus administered Mosul through early 2004. Unfortunately, his approach did not become the norm — until earlier this year.
These days there are those that suggest that poop happens, and because it does anything and everything can be excused if the poop can be kept from really hitting the fan. And if it can, Bush should be applauded for finally having a bout of “cleverness”. Late is certainly better than never, and he gets points for that. But considering everything, I have a hard time concluding Bush was clever. It’s not just because of that one issue, but it serves as a case in point.
One reason that I was originally attracted to this site a couple of years ago now was that it presented a reasonably friendly forum where I could argue that WE NEED MORE TROOPS! It wasn’t all that friendly though. I took a lot of flak for criticizing Rumsfeld and his troop-deficient “austerity plan”, as I call it — and Bush for keeping him on. I was attacked as a “liberal” (((shudder))), presumably because my position was against the party line at the time. Interestingly though, I haven’t changed my opinion a bit. It’s the party line that has changed. Then again, so did the libbie line. Funny how that works.
To be honest though, I was only tentatively supportive of the surge strategy. See, I don’t feel comfortable criticizing or supporting things too heavily if I don’t make a reasonable effort to research what I’m talking about. I did have and do have a great deal of respect for Gen. Petraeus, but I read his counter-insurgency manual. I also read Kagan and Keane’s treatise on the surge that was posted on AEI a year ago (it might still be there, I don’t know). But frankly, it sounded like the numbers they were adding was going to be too little in a situation that was too late. I was wrong. Embedding the troops with Iraqis in forward bases was a tactical master-stroke, and served as a force-multiplier. Whatever else you can say about the surge, they are no longer pushing on balloons, chasing the bad guys around the country. They are actually capturing and killing them. And they aren’t simply moving on, they are staying to secure and reconstruct the areas they clear.
Another thing I criticized was the top-down approach to nation-building. That’s something I read about a lot as well. For those interested, this is a really good resource. It goes through in considerable detail (it’s book length) all of the major nation-building efforts the US has been involved in since WWII. Anyway, I thought it was foolish to try to establish a national government in the midst of a very insecure situation, in the midst of a nearly complete lack any viable local or provincial organs of power — and without a completed constitution. It seemed to me that if you did that you’d end up with a non-representative, dysfunctional central government. I was attacked as a “libbie” for that position, too. But now, lo and behold, “local government” is the new call-to-arms. Yet the central government is still dysfunctional. Go figure.
So now we’re supposed to believe “We’ve won!” Well, pardon me for my skepticism. I don’t believe we’ve won. The security situation is much better than it was a year ago. But there is still little evidence that local organs of power we’ve established (mostly in predominantly Sunni areas) are going to hook up with the central government. True, there have been a few signs that the situation is improving in a few areas. But there is a long way to go.
And there are some places, most notably Kirkuk and Mosul, which could turn into powder kegs. I think we’d be much better off if there wasn’t a brittle, crippled, woefully corrupt central edifice in the first place. But it’s too late for that. And then of course there’s greater Kurdistan which, although they don’t get much attention in the larger political fracas, they haven’t shown much of an inclination to be included in a unified Iraq except in a very loose sense.
So no, we haven’t won.
67. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Rico,
So winning to you is leaving Iraq as a rock-solid democracy, ethnically unified and governmentally decentralized?
I am not even sure we have that here in America.
The seeds for independance and democracy have been planted in Iraq and considering the cooperation, albeit tenuous, is evidence that the majority of Iraqis prefer this path than other than the alternatives.
What I truly don’t understand are the “liberals” who are in strong opposition to this. We are attempting to bring freedom and democracy to a people that have been oppressed for centuries. We are attempting to show them a better way of self governance, wherein avaerage citizens are able to have a strong voice in the direction of their country, wherein woman and girls are able to become educated and play vital roles, etc, etc.
I use to think that is what liberals stood for. Evidently I am wrong.
68. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
The following is something you wont hear in the MSM, most likely. Recently the left celebrated the UK’s withdrawal and Austrailias election of a more skeptical PM. Well, it appears that Brown now has chosen to redouble their efforts and Austrailia may not be to far behind.
Why wont the liberals support fighting the good fight.
Gordon Brown has vowed to “step up” efforts to defeat terrorism in Pakistan in the wake of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7163327.stm
69. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
neocon,
I thought Republicans were against “Nation-Building”.
70. Retired Spook | December 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
wherein average citizens are able to have a strong voice in the direction of their country, wherein woman and girls are able to become educated and play vital roles, etc, etc. I use to think that is what liberals stood for. Evidently I am wrong.
Well, neocon, you’ve got it half right. Liberals generally do believe in women being educated and playing vital roles — IF THEY’RE LIBERAL WOMEN. If they’re conservative women (or conservative blacks, gays, etc.), then screw ‘em.
As for average citizens having a sa in the direction of their country, Liberals don’t believe the average citizen is smart enough to come in out of the rain, let alone have a say in the direction of their country.
71. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Joe,
Can you answer my question?
Not all Republicans oppose nation building but evidently all Liberals oppose supporting our global neighbors in need.
72. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
neocon, did you have a question?
Was that a question with the Gordon Brown comment? If so, they are going to redouble efforts to oust terrorists in Pakistan. They withdrew from Iraq.
73. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
First you say this:
We are attempting to bring freedom and democracy to a people that have been oppressed for centuries. We are attempting to show them a better way of self governance, wherein avaerage citizens are able to have a strong voice in the direction of their country, wherein woman and girls are able to become educated and play vital roles, etc, etc.
Then you say this:
Not all Republicans oppose nation building but evidently all Liberals oppose supporting our global neighbors in need.
So are we to believe that you are one of those Republicans that DOES believe in nation-building?? Because there were an awful lot of Republicans that were blasting Clinton over trying to do some nation-building. Hope you weren’t one of them… wouldn’t want you to show hypocracy.
74. GOP4ME | December 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I know this is off topic but it so clearly indicates how unhinged the left has become.
The full report can be found here.
75. GOP4ME | December 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Shoot I am having trouble with the link thing. Report is here.
http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html
76. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
If you call dropping bombs from 10,000 feet nation building, then I guess Clinton was nation building, although quite miserably. Of course, most of what he did was half-assed.
My question was why do liberals oppose Americas efforts to bring independence, freedom and democracy to oppressed people?
I didn’t think I actually had to restate that. Learning challenged?
77. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Again with the personal attacks. Geesh.
No… not “Learning challenged”. Your posts are so full of hatred and assumptions, they are impossible to read.
To answer the question (that apparently was buried in your drivel), nobody opposes that. What we DO oppose is trying to bring that to them by force. We oppose bombing people and saying you must accept this way of living. If they want it and move towards it, then great. If they can’t take the initiative when we opened the door for them, then there isn’t much else we can do. Why lose more soldiers and waste more money?
Since you asked a asinine question, here is one for you…
Why do Republicans hate spending money on Americans and enjoy spending so much on Iraqis?
78. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
neocon–
My question was why do liberals oppose Americas efforts to bring independence, freedom and democracy to oppressed people?
–
well to start with this is manifestly NOT what we are doing in Iraq. Independent? Hmm hard to be independent when your plan is to have a military base in Iraq - essentially forever.
Secondly - if you were really concerned with democracy (real democracy not just on paper democracy) you would listen to the majority of Iraqis who want the US out of Iraq and not spend your time thinking of reasons why we can ignore that fact.
Finally - one has to wonder at the almost obscenely stupid plan of invading a country, killing 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of people, creating millions of refugees and destroying any infrastructure the country had. That was the best way to bring independence and democracy to the middle east? If you were so concerned with independence and democracy in the middle east why continue to support and arm the most brutally non democratic regimes in the middle east.
It just doesn’t add up. You know the right words but the actions that have been taken just don’t match up with the rhetoric…
79. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Spook was right. You are a sensitive little boy aren’t you?
That was poking fun at you.
We ARE NOT FORCING THEM, they have freely elected their own government and are taking a painfully long time in coordinating their government. If anything, we should force them to speed things up.
Bush has spent more on entitlement programs for deserving Americans throughout his Presidency than Clinton did.
Now, do you care to live in reality or do you prefer the sensitive little alternate liberal universe?
80. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
We ARE NOT FORCING THEM, they have freely elected their own government
How many PM’s have they gone thru since those “free elections”?
That was poking fun at you.
I’m not taking anything personally since you know nothing about me. I just find it odd that people like you, Keef, Spook, AAR, etc can do nothing but call people morons and such.
81. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
libT,
We still have military bases throughout the world where we battled for the plight of the average person. Why would Iraq be any different. Unless you support complete isolationism.
The vast majority of EVERYONE wants to get out of Iraq. We will leave when the Iraqi government is capable of securing their country and asks us to leave. You know, the elected members of the Iraqi government, those guys. And they have asked us to stay on.
And finally, your assertion of the number of dead is just a flat out f*&%cking lie.
Do you just cut and past your verbal diarhea? Because every post of yours is the same thing. It’s tedious and quite boring.
82. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Joe,
You really are a sensitive little idiot. How’s that?
Seriously, it’s hard to have respect for people as stupid and dishonest as you and libT.
BTW there libbie. Tell me how you fell about your Dem candidates and their refusal to set a withdrawal date for the troops?
83. Robert in BA | December 28th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Enough with calling the Left “libtards” and “losers”.
Us Dirty F’n Hippies” are part of the Left, and we always seem to be right WAT+Y ahead of the curve.
When Right-wing chuckleheads were saying the war is not about oil back in 2003, us DFHs were there to remind you it really was about oil.
Lo and behold, Alan Greenspan (noted conservative) comes out in 2006 and says the war definitely was about oil.
When, in 2003, the DFHs said it wouldn’t be a short-term war and we’d have military bases in Iraq for years to come, we were assured military bases were not part of the plan.
We were also way ahead of the curve on Vietnam too, as i’m sure you remember.
So to people like Noonan, who can’t help themselves being wrong about, oh, EVERYTHING–there’s a lesson to be learned:
Listen to the Dirty F***ing Hippies. They are always right.
I’m not bragging. I’m just stating fact.
84. Ricorun | December 28th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
neocon: So winning to you is leaving Iraq as a rock-solid democracy, ethnically unified and governmentally decentralized?
Actually, I’d say the ideal case would be a rock-solid democracy, ethnically unified and governmentally centralized (as opposed to decentralized), although some level of federalism would work too.
What’s your vision? By the way, if you’re interested in the official B4B definition of “victory”, here it is.
You say, “The seeds for independance and democracy have been planted in Iraq and considering the cooperation, albeit tenuous, is evidence that the majority of Iraqis prefer this path than other than the alternatives.” I’d say the cooperation part remains very tenuous at this point. That’s the bit stumbling block. I’m not saying it can’t happen, I’m just saying that there are still real problems in that regard. The rifts between the three main groups (Shia, Sunni, and Kurd) are the most obvious, but there remain rifts among them as well.
Speaking of women (and inter-ethic rifts), were you aware of this in Basra: “In the past six months scores of women have been killed for not veiling their hair, wearing makeup or for acting inappropriately, according to an Iraqi police official.” In your opinion, would these atrocities be grounds for re-invading Basra? I honestly have no idea how you’ll answer that question, if indeed you do.
Personally, I think Basra, along with Kirkuk and Mosul, are going to be bellweathers (albeit each in different ways) of the success of the notion of a viable Iraq.
85. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I’ve said it before… I am against immediate withdrawal of all troops. I am FOR starting to pull them back and be out by end of next year.
They are not setting a date, but they are all for starting to draw down.
How do you feel about your favorite candidate being such a flip-flopper? He was for abortion rights, he was against it. He was for gay rights, now he is against it. He was proud to not be a Reagan-Republican (1994), now he wants to be Reagan. He supported Democratic candidates in 1994, now he doesn’t like Democrats. This guy is a clown.
86. Ricorun | December 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Apparently I screwed up the link in my last comment. Here it is:
http://www.miamiherald.com/519/story/347527.html
87. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
neocon
are you seriously contending that if we didn’t invade nations all over the world that would constitute isolationism? I don’t think you understand what isolationism is. There is a difference between behaving in a rational way with other nations and isolationism. Isolationism would be refusing to talk with other nations, refusing to trade with them, refusing to take part in important world affairs. Neglecting to invade other countries and keep large military bases all over the world does not constitute isolationism.
It is not my assertion that there are 10s to 100s of thousands dead in Iraq. It is the assertion of the Iraqi health ministry, the UN, and other international agencies. You are correct that nobody knows the absolute number but EVERY estimate is on this order.
The elected government of Iraq has asked us to stay there because they have no choice. They cannot even secure their own country and their government could very well fall to pieces without the 100 k US troops there.
If i repeat myself it is because it is an important point which you never address. You just spew insults and ignore it..
88. Diana Powe | December 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Almiranta today:
Then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000 on camera with Vice-President Al Gore:
President George W. Bush on television on March 6, 2003:
I think the American people would have appreciated “the decider” deciding to be honest and upfront about what the plan really was instead of waiting until the wheels on the “being greeted as liberators” plan fell off. The same “plan”, that is now, despite the glaring complexities of the situation highlighted so effectively by Ricorun, being declared unequivocally as “victory” today.
89. js | December 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
There are some real non-thinkers posting here.
We still have troops in Germany, and that war ended in 45.
90. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
right - js- and you consider that a good thing?
91. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
LibT,
You don’t undertand much of anything. Don’t ever address me again. Bye.
Rico,
No, of course we should not re-invade Basra. What has happened there, though I have not read of any account, is typical in the strict Muslim culture, unfortunately. Those cultural tendencies will take years, maybe decades, to overcome. To think that they would suddenly disappear is ignorant.
Joe,
Romney is the most qualified executive in the bunch. He’s an accomplished businessman with real world experience. That is what I like. In regards to flip flopping; who hasn’t? And if Romney’s a clown, then he is a much more successful and accomplished clown then you’ll ever be.
92. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Rico,
I just clicked on your link. Pretty weak. One mans account of slain women, do you buy it?
I thought you were the one that exhausted sources to get to the truth?
93. Ricorun | December 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
neocon: I just clicked on your link. Pretty weak. One mans account of slain women, do you buy it? I thought you were the one that exhausted sources to get to the truth?
The fact is, I cited one example of numerous reports from several periodicals which, as far as I can tell, are independent of each other. Do I have to cite them all? But no, I did not take one person’s word for it.
94. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
nice neocon. Lets summarize your responses:
(1) insults
(2) insistence that any evidence that doesn’t support your world view comes from biased sources or otherwise cannot be trusted
(3) simply ignoring substantive points
and finally after you have been completely and utterly spanked
(4) the “i won’t talk to you response”
so in summary you have the intellect and skill of a 2nd grader. Congratulations
95. Robert in BA | December 28th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
neocon,
Do you know how Romney was successful in business?
He bought businesses on the cheap. Laid off the workers, dismantled the companies, and then sold off the pieces for profit.
Sounds like he has a plan for the USA.
96. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Keep it cool, Jeremiah; I’ve got your back. You’re a good Christian, while I’ve got some improvement to make before the big guy upstairs invites me in. My disdain for these lemmings is real, and it’s warranted. They don’t need to come here, and wouldn’t come here if they had nothing to rag the administration about.
Keefer, you must live a pathetic life, automatically assuming the worst of your fellow countrymen… how I don’t envy you…
Yeah, Rainy, my pathetic ass just returned from four pathetic days in Ft. Lauderdale, which were preceded by five pathetic days on a Royal Caribbean cruise, where I had a pathetic time. Not.
As for assuming the worst of my fellow countrymen, well, there’s only about 13-20 percent of you that I assume the worst of, so I guess I love the other 80-87 percent. I don’t have enough love to spread it to you morons, so you’ll have to love each other. Hell, you all sound alike; it must be love. And I’m elated that you don’t envy me; if you did, I’d be doing something wrong. Now excuse me, whilst I go make corrections to some of your fellow kooks posts. I’ve seen some real doozies in some of libretardTHC’s posts, enough to keep me in stitches for hours. Typos and occasional misspellings are one thing–you so-called educated libs just can’t write. You must’ve studied under Casspurr, our resident moderate “teacher…”
97. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
If you don’t want me here, I will go.
Buh-bye. We have enough parrot lemming trolls here; we don’t need so-called fellow Republicans who are in lock-step with the left on Iraq. Begone…
98. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
A liberal mind is dangerous???? You mean a mind that can think for itself?
Oxymoron alert! Oxymoron alert!
JHL, don’t use “liberal mind” and “a mind that can think for itself” in the same paragraph…
99. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
How do you feel about your favorite candidate being such a flip-flopper? He was for abortion rights, he was against it. He was for gay rights, now he is against it. He was proud to not be a Reagan-Republican (1994), now he wants to be Reagan. He supported Democratic candidates in 1994, now he doesn’t like Democrats. This guy is a clown.
Must be that Massachussetts water, Josie–look what it’s done to you, and your hero, Spitball Kerry…
100. eric | December 28th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Robert,
Unsubstantiated statements of fact are meaningless. I know very little about Mr. Romney’s business background, but I do know how to conduct research.
According to Wikipedia,
“[Romney] invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino’s, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority.”
Which one of these companies did Mr. Romney dismantle and sell the pieces of for profit?
101. salvage | December 28th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Iraq has been won?
Someone should tell the insurgents that, they still seem to be, y’know, fighting?
Usually when a war has been won one side or the other stops fighting.
102. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Recall the installment of the Shaw of Iran?
Would that be Robert Shaw? George Bernard Shaw?
Oh, you meant “shah?” Gee, who knew?
nice neocon. Lets summarize your responses:
Look, neocon, liberetardTHC likes you; he called you “nice neocon.” Or did he mean “nice, neocon?” And the plural of let is lets, inappropriately used in this context. Maybe “let’s” would work better.
(3) simply ignoring substantive points
and finally after you have been completely and utterly spanked
What a f*ckin’ hoot, libretardTHC. You’ve yet to post a point with any substance, only parroted b/s from your peers. And you have this thing about spanking men–could it be you’re a little light in the loafers?
103. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
eric,
Robert is much like libT. Dishonest and full of half truths.
They can only see issues through the liberal prism that their masters indoctrinated them in. libT’s dishonest account of Iraqi deaths and blaming America for them, and her assertion that we will have bases in Iraq indefinitely, are prime examples. Not only can she not predict that, but she completely ignores the fact that we still have bases in the Balkans, Europe, Japan, etc. Also, the far majority of Iraqis that have been killed, have been killed by AQ, and not only does she admit that fact, but she will in turn blame America for their actions.
The sheer stupidity of libT is mind boggling.
104. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Huck,
Parroting talking points and claming victory is the liberal Bible. Can I say liberal and Bible in the same sentence? What about seperation of church and liberals?
105. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
>…and not only does she admit that fact, but she will in turn blame America for their actions.<
Should’ve been NOT admit that.
106. Diana Powe | December 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Why do I have this memory of delegates to the 2004 Republican Convention chanting “Flip-flop! Flip-flop!” in reference to Senator John Kerry. My, how our attitudes do seem to become flexible in changing circumstances. Flip-flops seemed rather vital to the GOP faithful three years ago. Now, not so much.
107. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
how come i haven’t been insulted yet?
Well, bag lady, it would probably be a waste of one’s time to insult you. You type like a retard, so who knows if you’d even understand that you’re being insulted?
Thanks, eric–I was just going to request proof from ol’ Roberta, but I can see she made her accusations up. Well done…
108. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Flip-flops seemed rather vital to the GOP faithful three years ago. Now, not so much.
Dana, maybe, just maybe, someone who changes a long-held position to another is much less a flip-flopper than someone who “voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.” And speaking of flip-flops, just watch ol’ Hitlery and how she panders to whomever she’s in front of. This cow is the master of flip-flop, even better than ol’ Spitball Kerry. And you want her to be Cow-in-Chief???
109. eric | December 28th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
My favorite is when Mrs. Clinton turns on a phony southern accent. Pure comedy.
110. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
my favorite bit about neocon is that he literally has never posted one substantive point. Not infrequently, not uncommonly, literally never . He just runs spell check and comments on the grammar of blog comments. Blog comments! Then he calls people “retards” , gay, and so forth.
Keefer - go get another beer and drink your sad self into oblivion yet again. Everyone knows you are a complete and utter moron who only spends his time calling people retarded and gay on a political blog. Most pathetic person of the year for 2007 - Keefer!
111. Diana Powe | December 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Huck,
I’m happy to hear you enjoyed your Christmas vacation. It sounds like you had a very good time.
However, you are projecting when you imply that I want Senator Clinton to be elected President next year. The candidate I truly wanted, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, made it clear early on that he was not a candidate. In the meantime, I’m looking over the field as are so many Republicans as they survey their possible candidates.
112. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Peace Without Conquest (Viet-Nam speech by Lyndon B. Johnson April 7th 1965.
Just replace Viet-Nam with Iraq, and communism with terrorism and you have a perfectly good Iraq speech.
Tonight Americans and Iraqis are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change.
This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the deserts of Iraq.
Iraq is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 4000 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Iraq’s steaming soil.
Why must we take this painful road?
Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?
We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.
This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace.
We wish this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.
The world as it is in Iraq is not a serene or peaceful place.
And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.
The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy.
Over this war-and all Iraq-is another reality: the deepening shadow of Terrorism and Al Qaida which is helping the forces of violence in almost every continent. The contest in Iraq is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.
Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in Iraq?
We are there because we have a promise to keep. To dishonour that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.
We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Iraq to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America’s word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, even wide war.
We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a minute that retreat from Iraq would bring an end to the conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Iraq-as we did in Europe-in the words of the Bible: “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further.”
113. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I don’t recall calling anyone gay or a retard. But in the alternate liberal universe, it must be so.
Diana,
For someone as nuanced as you are, I am sure you can discern the difference of flipping on some issues moreso than others.
Kerry was just blantantly dishonest and would flip flop on the same issue in the same day, if not the same hour. Romney at least puts some time in between his policy shifts and does acknowledge it and attempts to answer as to why.
114. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I was talking about keefer
115. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Russ Feingold?
Oh my……..
116. JHL | December 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
This is what we’ve got at B4V. A plethora of delusional syncopants. We have some who sling verbal excrement much like angry apes or humans in prison. We have others who lack the very basis of intellectual capacity to debate based upon facts. We have some like Jerry the Jesus Freak who claim that answers to all questions, no matter the subject, end in “Jesus”. And then we have Mark Noonan. The grand Ayatollah of the right wing biosphere. The all knowing, all seeing Shah of absolute truth. The grand master who informs his employer that their business is bad for business. That Iraq has been “won” for purely American interests. That he and he alone is the purveyor of what is and what isn’t when it comes to politics and the world situation.
I say that he gets with his sister the Marxist and move towards the center. After all, the Greeks proved that the best fulcrum operates from a center of balance. Not extreme poistions on either end.
But that would mean Mark giving up his narcissisim. And his self-loathing which would be a real tradjedy. Not!!
117. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Salvage,
Nope, not always - the Germans kept fighting for nearly two years after they were decisively beaten in WWII. The Japanese for more than three years. The Confederates should have surrendered in July of 1863, but the war went on until April of 1865. Only rarely do people quit fighting when they should; the prime example of getting out while the getting is good was Germany in WWI - and even then, they got out three months later than they should have.
118. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
What’s a syncopant?
And could you reference for me where Mark claimed that he is the purveyor of all things political?
I must’ve missed that.
119. eric | December 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
syncopants? Where can I purchase a pair?
120. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
JHL,
Will you please pay attention - I am not “grand Ayatollah of the right wing biosphere”, but High Master of the Blogosphere. Geesh!
121. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Psycho + republican elephant = Sycophant
122. Robert in BA | December 28th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
The Bain Way: Collect Millions in Fees Then Shutter the Shop. “From
1984 until 1999, Romney led Bain Capital, a Boston-based private equity
group that earned jaw-dropping profits through leveraged buyouts, debt
hedge funds, offshore tax havens and other financial strategies. In some
cases, Romney’s team closed U.S. factories, causing hundreds of layoffs, or
pocketed huge fees shortly before companies collapsed.” [Los Angeles Times,
12/16/07]
123. Robert in BA | December 28th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Bain Reaped $100 Million While Hundreds Lost Jobs and Ampad Went
Bankrupt. In 1992, Bain Capital invested $5 million towards the purchase of
American Pad & Paper (Ampad) from Mead Corp., which, at the time, was only
$11.3 million in debt with sales of $106.7 million. Over the next 8 years,
under Bain management Ampad had gone public, made several acquisitions, and
made over $100 million in payouts to Bain and to its investors. By 1999,
two American plants were closed, 385 Ampad workers were laid off, the
company was $392 million in debt, sales were slipping, and, the next year,
its creditors forced Ampad into bankruptcy. [Securities and Exchange
Commission Filings, Boston Globe, 6/26/07]
124. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I know, I know, I know. Using psycho and republican in the same sentence is redundant.
125. Robert in BA | December 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
And just for good measure:
According to a Los Angeles Times investigation of Romney’s tenure at
Bain Capital, Mitt “utilized shell companies in two offshore tax havens to
help eligible investors avoid paying U.S. taxes.” Romney steered clients
toward tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, helping “attract
billions of additional investment dollars to Romney’s former company, Bain
Capital, and thus boosted profits for Romney and his partners.” Not only
was Romney “listed as a general partner and personally invested in BCIP
Associates III Cayman, a private equity fund that is registered at a post
office box on Grand Cayman Island,” he “still retains an investment in the
Cayman fund through a trust.” That investment earned Romney “more than $1
million last year in dividends, interest and capital gains.” [Los Angeles
Times, 12/17/07]
126. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Diana,
Between 2000 and 2003 a certain event called 9/11 happened - I was against nation building, too…but now I see it as a necessity. And, also, we saw what we needed to do in Iraq - we didn’t think it would take this long, but you can never be sure about such things…and it hasn’t been helped along by leftwingers in the United States screaming for withdrawal ever five minutes…
127. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
wait - so explain this again. How does 9/11 mean we have to invade Iraq?
128. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Does libT remind anyone else of the child in the back seat asking if we are there yet every five minutes? Or is it just me?
129. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
LiberalT,
I’ve explained that, to you, many times.
In order that I shan’t ever have to explain it again, I assign you to read “The World Crisis”, “War Through the Ages”, “A Military History of the Western World” and “Carnage and Culture”. Once you’ve got through all that, you’ll understand instantly why liberating Iraq was a logical successor to 9/11.
130. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
sigh- oh Mark how sad you are. Cannot even explain your own reasoning - needing to hide behind other books. Explain it if its so simple
131. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Cannot even explain your own reasoning - libT
I’ve explained that, to you, many times. - Mark
Yup, it’s the child in the back seat.
132. Almiranta | December 28th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
The buzz-buzz-buzzing of the Usual Suspects, the Ranty Rhodes wannabes who think that hurling insults and attacking Bush somehow indicates intelligence or perception of something, is becoming quite the staple of this blog.
You people have no idea how absolutely silly and bizarre you sound, with your whining and your moaning and your bitching and your screeching about things that, often, do not even exist outside the fever swamp mentality of the truly rabid Left.
Take ol’ liberalT, for example. This poster boy for the Lemming Left whines “..- do i need to provide the links to Cheney talking about how we would be greeted as liberators?”
???????????????????????
How many times would he have to be corrected on this before it would sink in? Obviously, more than the hundreds that have been tried. Duh, T, we WERE greeted at liberators, you silly silly mouthbreathing boy. Even the Agenda Media had to show those clips, as they were so prominent.
As I said, you (plural ‘you’ meaning all the Lemming Lefties who post here) are desperately dependent on fallacies and fantasies for your pathetic positions. The only reason to wade through the wacko output that seems to pass as intellectual political discourse from the rabid Left is to see just how far out on a limb you will go to try to make a point–even when the limb broke off months ago and the point is pointless. It’s like reading a list of posts screaming (liberalT) “LOOK HOW DUMB I AM!!!!” and a response from Joe screaming “NO, NO, I’M A LOT DUMBER !!!!!” and so on.
If you could please stop pushing your sad little lies, which were never believable in the first place and which have been debunked so often over the years, you might not look so absolutely pathetic. No one ever said Iraq would be easy, or a “cakewalk” or any of the other silly stupid lies you invent to try to prove a pointless point. No one ever said there was surprise in the White House to learn of sectarian strife which could explode into violence—on the contrary, those of us who listen to real news instead of Airhead America heard plenty of discussion on possible problems after the restraining influence of absolute tyranny was removed and the various factions were freer to indulge their various grievances.
You just sound stupid, is all. Mean as junkyard dogs, totally hooked on the buzz you evidently get from wallowing in mindless hatred, and dumb as boxes of hair.
Rana sometimes skirts rational thought, and Rico actually bumps into it every now and then. Diana, for all her rabid Socialist leanings and passion for all that is Left, sounds pretty smart till she gets too wound up in Lefty doublespeak and starts rattling off verbatim from the Lenin Book of Political Arguments. But most of you just regurgitate the same old junk, over and over again, which of course creates the very unwholesome image of you ingesting what you have regurgitated so you can bring it up again and again, and you just sound—–silly.
And no, Mark and the rest of us are not required to indulge your egotistical demand for attention by responding to your every demand. When you prove to us, over and over again, that you are either incapable of processing information which is not stamped with the Socialist Seal of Approval or that you simply don’t care, there is no reason to keep trying to educate the determinedly ineducable.
133. Tractatus | December 28th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Awww, poor little Almiranta is angry again because she can’t take being so wrong. I guess somebody struck a nerve with her. Keep trying to project your deficiencies onto everybody else, though, Almiranta–we do find it very amusing.
there is no reason to keep trying to educate the determinedly ineducable.
I know–I gave up trying to educate you a while ago. Trying to shove knowledge into that skull of yours is a thankless endeavor as well as a Sisyphean task, so now, I just stick with mockery and pointing out your projection and overblown paranoia. Do you have there in your hand a list, Almiranta?
PS: You forgot to tell the story of how you were a hippie before The Clenis made you a wingnut. Changing up your rant boilerplate, are you?
134. Almiranta | December 28th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Many people, that is to say people of conscience and integrity, find themselves evolving from one moral position to another as they learn more about the facts involved.
Abortion is a perfect example. Many people have been sucked in by the glib but meaningless phrase “pro-choice”. What’s not to like about freedom and the ability to CHOOSE? It was a brilliant construct, that phrase, and it has been very effective. A lot of very bright, very earnest, and very ethical people bought into it.
Until………………..
Until further thought and further pondering and further information brought to the surface the true meaning of this so-called “choice”—that it is a lie, that it really denies choice to each and every life ended in its name, that it is a disguise for murder and an excuse for the most abject and total selfishness imaginable.
“Flip-flopping” would be to be for abortion, then against it, then for it, then against it.
I remember hearing a woman speak, a nurse who had assisted at many partial-birth abortions because although she did not agree with the decisions of the women carrying the unfortunate children she thought they had the right to “choose” how to “control their own bodies”. Then in one “procedure” the partially born infant, with only its head in the birth canal, grabbed her finger and held on for dear life as it writhed in agony, while its skull was being pierced and its brains sucked out.
She ran from the room, threw up, quit her job, and became an pro-life advocate.
Flip-flopper? Or a woman who saw the error of her ways and had the courage to admit it?
Call the evolution of moral certitude “flipping” if you are the kind of person who finds such evolution distasteful, but please don’t mischaracterize it as “flip-flopping”.
Mitt Romney, at one point in his life, accepted the myth that abortion is really just an exercise of freedom of choice, and a personal decision. He later gave it more thought, looked into the facts of abortion more closely, and realized that he had dodged the issue by buying into the “pro-CHOICE” evasion of the brutal reality of the act.
He said it loud and clear: I WAS WRONG. And since that day he has not wavered. You know, moving from the wrong side of an issue to the right side is not a bad thing.
There was a time when many people who had been in favor of slavery, or at least in favor of keeping slavery legal even though they themselves would never consider owning a slave, came to similar moral crossroads in their lives, where they had to evaluate their positions. When those people changed those positions, and decided that slavery is just plain wrong for everyone and came out against it, that was a moral victory for each and every one of them, and to be admired.
How odd that Liberals (not all Democrats, mind you, but rabid Liberals…) can, with evidently straight faces, condemn men and women who have the moral courage to evaluate their own positions and to admit being wrong when they decide they have been.
I admire them. I admire and look up to people who have the moral courage to admit to being wrong and to take steps necessary to correct their errors.
I don’t particularly admire people who pretend to such ethical conversions, for the sake of political gain. I don’t find anything to admire in those who take on a position to earn votes, when it is only expediency that drives them and not an inner need to be morally correct.
But when I see examples of people who have made sincere changes in their philosophies out of the desire to do the right thing, I think it shameful to try to spin that moral evolution into something negative to be used against them.
And I think it very telling to see just who finds it objectionable for a person to find truth after being wrong, to admit to being wrong, and to try to correct his mistakes. These seem to be many of the people here who are also telling us we should listen to their views on all sorts of issues, and agree with them.
I find it much more palatable to be as far on the opposite side of any issue as possible from such people. I find them creepy.
135. Almiranta | December 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Diana, you can assert all you like that “..the wheels on the “being greeted as liberators” plan fell off. ..” but that doesn’t make it so.
Your typical reliance on the old Crystal Ball of the radical Left is showing. But you don’t know why anything has happened; you (plural ‘you’ rabid Lefties..) just look at what happens, select the parts you want to acknowledge, view them through a series of Lefty filters and prisms, make up ‘reasons’ for why people have done what they have done, and then spout your inventions as fact.
As the old (and true) cliche goes, no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. Perhaps if you would set aside your little Leftist Library and turn off Airhead America and study up a little on modern warfare, you would learn that the motives for attacks and invasions are very fluid, changing according to events as they unfold.
It is simple-minded to think that anything as complex as the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent events there were ever presented as simple, were ever in fact simple, and should have been simple. But you do yourself and your fellow travellers a disservice when you insist on pretending that any part of the matter was ever simple, or that you have some special access to the secret hearts and minds of those making decisions to allow you to know their TRUE motives.
Too silly for words.
You claim that “the decider” was not honest with the American people—and your fellow travellers have made claim after claim to supprt this allegation. Yet the facts do not support your claims, not yours and not theirs.
You used to quote lots of “facts”, clearly cut and pasted from a Lefty source book but at least making an effort to appear scholarly and erudite. But lately you have just been sounding like a slightly more intelligent liberalT, and just spouting tired old Lib mantras.
136. neocon | December 28th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Almiranta,
I really enjoy reading your posts. I don’t have the patience or the time to construct such eloquent rebuttals, but I find in your posts nearly everything I wanted to say.
Keep up the good fight.
137. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
that is just perfect. Apparently I am immature, naive, and stupid because i give detailed , reasoned, and well backed opinions. Further - people who call people “retards”, gay, idiots, say that I am wrong but refuse to give reasons as to why are apparently brilliant and understand the world.
You should check out the rest of the internet which disagrees with you quite soundly.
http://www.sadlyno.com/index.php?s=mark+noonan
is a collection of my favorites. Exposing these sacks of crap for what they really are
138. Canadian Observer | December 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Almiranta
Why oh why, do you feel compelled to be so sanctimoniously arrogant in your long-winded empty rants?
Do you not have the capacity to express a thought, opinion or conclusion without coming across as a nose-in-the air, unmitigated snobbish twit?
Would it really hurt for you to show just a wee bit of humility?
139. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Almiranta,
Perhaps the “pro-choice” verbiage relates to a woman ability to choose between having her abortion performed by a doctor in a sanitary medical environment or illegally by a quack. You can outlaw abortions but you will never stop young women from seeking an end to their unwanted pregnancies.
140. The Real Sporer | December 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
jhl,
Do you intend to decry the intellectual infirmity of others by advancing a scree of ad hominem?
If not, are you afflicted with some intense form of the typical liberal self-loathing that requires public intellectual self-flagellation?
Name calling is not argument.
141. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Almiranta,
You are correct. The invasion of Iraq was not simple. On 9/11 we were attacked by Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and President Bush invaded Iraq.
There are only two possible reasons President Bush would have invaded the wrong country. Either the president doesn’t know the difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, or the president thought the American people wouldn’t know the difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
So which is it? Is the president dishonest or ignorant?
142. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Keefer - go get another beer and drink your sad self into oblivion yet again. Everyone knows you are a complete and utter moron who only spends his time calling people retarded and gay on a political blog. Most pathetic person of the year for 2007 - Keefer!
Now, now, libretardTHC, you, in an earlier post, told one of your sorry-assed compatriots that you never paid mind to my insulting posts. And here you go, responding to my insulting posts. Does this make you a flip-flopper? Or just a liar, like most libs? Or are you a retarded gay lib?
As for your “go get another beer” comment, I’ll have to politely decline. I have a sobriety date of 07/03/2007.
Also, as for the fact that you’re a f*ckin’ moron, God has granted me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change…
143. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
On 9/11 we were attacked by Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and President Bush invaded Iraq.
NeoDumbass, this is redundant–the Saudi Arabians who attacked us on 9/11 were members of Al-Qaeda, whose leader was hanging out with Mullah Omar, in Afghanistan. We took out the Taliban in Afghanistan, as the Saudi government
had no hand in the attacks.
However, given your totally moronic logic, when Terry and Timmy blew up the Murrow Bldg in OKC, should Slicky Blue Dress have attacked America?
NeoDickweed, you are such a moron, a parrot lemming. Go jump in front of a bus, a**hat…
144. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Russ Feingold? The orator who repeats words, and is a complete and udder(sic) horse’s arse? Wow, Diana, I suspected you were a loon, but I never realised how far to the left you were. Now I know. It all makes sense to me now…
145. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
JHL, my pants are in sync, but not with yours. Moron.
Tractatertot, you couldn’t educate a third-grader, you dimwit. Almiranta runs circles around your sorry ass regularly, with little or no effort. Maybe you and CO should hook up; you’re both blithering morons.
Mark, please relieve us from this misery–the lemmings are taking over this blog. Why do you allow these redundant fools to use this blog as a forum for their lunacy? We’ve been reading the same crap from them for over four years now, and we’ve lost a lot of good, intelligent people because of them.
God, grant me the serenity…
146. Canadian Observer | December 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
We took out the Taliban in Afghanistan, as the Saudi governmen