Well, some people will celebrate...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

A pity, but I'm not really surprised.
**********************************************
Thursday, September 20, 2007
WASHINGTON NEWS
Bush Holds GOP Support On Iraq
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070920.htm


In what the AP is calling a "demoralizing blow" to Democrats intent on reversing President Bush's war policies, the Senate yesterday "failed to scrape together enough support to guarantee troops more time at home." The 56-44 vote, "four short of reaching the 60 needed to advance -- all but assured that Democrats would be unable to muster the support needed to pass tough anti-war legislation by year's end." The measure would have required that troops spend as much time at home as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Administration officials contended the rules would have made it impossible to continue the Iraq war. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, "was seen as the Democrats' best shot" because of "its pro-military premise," adds the AP. The bill, moreover, did not impose a deadline (hard or soft) for a troop pullout which is why its failure to pass is seen as a highly significant development. As USA Today reports, the vote "suggested that the Senate will be unable to approve any measure in the defense bill that does more than recommend changes in the president's war plan."

Media reports are casting the vote as a win for Bush and evidence that, in what some view as a surprise, he still has the support of the GOP caucus on the Iraq issue. The Washington Post reports the Webb amendment's failure "offered the most vivid evidence yet that the Bush administration still controls Iraq war policy, despite months of congressional debate, the war's persistent unpopularity and a summer-long effort by activists to pressure Republicans." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid said yesterday, "Our Republican colleagues are more interested in protecting our president than our troops." The Los Angeles Times called the vote "another victory for the Bush administration, which lobbied hard against the proposal...and continued to command the allegiance of congressional Republicans in the face of persistent public unhappiness with the war." Just "six Republicans joined 49 Democrats and one independent in voting for the Webb amendment, which also narrowly failed to overcome a filibuster in July when seven GOP lawmakers voted for it." Roll Call refers to a "striking defeat" that "made further bipartisan deals on troop withdrawals from the Iraq War even more remote." Democrats "effectively had a net loss of one vote in the 56-44 tally and did not pick up any new Republican support."


...........

[radioguy]

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid said yesterday, "Our Republican colleagues are more interested in protecting our president than our troops."

The truth is Senator Reid, you are more interested in your political power, than the well being of the United States. You will continue to do anything you can to assure American defeat because that is the only chance you have of keeping you position in the Senate as majority leader.

You are a disgusting piece of liberal excrement Mr. Reid, and the only defeat you will live to see, is your own.

[Linkster]

Fortunately the majority of red-blooded Americans believe that the congress has no power anymore - and that while they overwhelmingly support getting out of Iraq immediately if not sooner - they dont expect it will happen.

Ive only seen maybe 10 congressmen with any balls so far this session - and none of them has any power to do anything so it doesnt matter. The rest are all being paid well by K St and will continue to do so.

Seems to me that all it would take is one or two more little incidents, and there will be a civil war within our country - all of the signs are there - of course that presupposes they can lay down their Ipods that long

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Seems to me that all it would take is one or two more little incidents, and there will be a civil war within our country - all of the signs are there - of course that presupposes they can lay down their Ipods that long

Ain't that the truth.


:thumbsup:

[disrupter]

It is despicable what the neotraitors are doing the troops.

[Frankg]

http://www.dcjunkies.com/images/icons/icon1.gif Well, some people will celebrate...

I sure as hell am celebrating, I celebrating because its good to see that republicans and democrats alike realize that this war , this justified war, is keeping a leash on Al-quada and protecting this country from terrorism , that's right , this war is protecting this country and if the US withdraws from Iraq now than we will surely be attacked again , and even worse than 9/11, ....but I guess that's when ladymod and disrupter will celebrate

schmucks

[Linkster]

Hi Frank and welcome to the board - would you be kind enough to explain your point of view - I was under the impression that AL Qaeda in Iraq didnt exist until a few years ago long after we invaded - and that they are just a small enclave that really only exists because the US is in Iraq?
I also believe that the latest "bin laden" crap tape calls for attacks on Pakistan - not the US?

[Frankg]

Hi Frank and welcome to the board - would you be kind enough to explain your point of view - I was under the impression that AL Qaeda in Iraq didnt exist until a few years ago long after we invaded - and that they are just a small enclave that really only exists because the US is in Iraq?
I also believe that the latest "bin laden" crap tape calls for attacks on Pakistan - not the US?
Al-Quada was in Iraq before the war Linkster, training with the Republican Guard and doing business with Uday and Qusay who as we all know, had close ties to the terrorist group and if the US were to withdraw its troops the following events would occur :

The current Iraqi Parliment would dissolve

Civil war would break out between Sunni and Shiite

Al Quada would be seize the iniative and gradually grow its ranks , crush all opposition and start brainwashing the Iraqi people

Now with a home base from which to operate Al Q would finally be able to establish themselves as a viable military force , army , navy and yes, an air force...Al Quada with an airforce , imagine that, also the standard mix of elite special terrorist forces

Armed to teeth and with Obambi in the white house there would most likely occur a horrific attack that would involve multiple targets within the US

_______

Not only was this war justified , we got there just in time so if for some reason ,the defeato-crats get their way , start building your bomb shelter

[Bill]

So, whattya plan to do to win your war?

I'm for anything that keeps the troops in Iraq.

[Linkster]

I was gonna answer - but Bill beat me to it - although heres a few quick facts for ya Frank
Actually - first a question - prove that Al Qaeda was in Iraq - with references from the CIA docs or other US intellegence base on facts

second - the current parliment was dissolved two weeks ago - guess you didnt get the memo?

third - civil war has been going on between sunni and shia for over 3 years there (not counting the hundreds of years before - just this time) and has resulted in a complete ethnic cleansing in Baghdad to the tune of over a million deaths and 3 million or so refugees

fourth - Al Qaeda doesnt have the ability to fight against the sunnis - let alone Iranian backed shias - if the US left today Al Qaeda would be gone tomorrow - thats just a fact of life

Al Qaeda already has a base to operate from - and has for 20 years - and already has plenty of access to what they need

Finally - I sure hope you really dont walk around thinking about these things like you posted all the time - if so I would recommend a serious consideration of a good psych visit to help you with your paranoia before you go off and kill a bunch of postal workers or something

[Frankg]

So, whattya plan to do to win your war?

I'm for anything that keeps the troops in Iraq.

Me too Bill , I'm glad there's someone here who realizes that the only solution to the war on terror is permanent military bases in Iraq

If we need to pull any US troops out from anywhere lets pull out of Europe

We don't need military bases in Germany and Korea anymore , the only reason they were there in the first place was to protect the French and South Koreans but they hate us now so lets pull out , screw them ,just look at Iran , even the French are now saying we need to go to war ,...but I think we should wait, I think we should take our sweet time and use some lame ass diplomacy and wait for Iran to launch an nuclear attack , with any luck it'll be Paris

[Linkster]

I agree - we could even put a nuclear installation over there - hopefully no one would notice.

Those damned Germans and Koreans can do just fine without our bases - heck while we're at it - we might as well pull out of Nato as well since thats the only reason we're still in Germany - and once we get those 30,000 troops out of Korea we can immediately send them to Iraq - No. Korea would love to have its property back and annexed like it should be


BTW Frank - I like your sig - although I would say that even better would be:
YOU CAN ALWAYS FIGHT TERRORISTS WITH A CRUSADE!

[Frankg]

I was gonna answer - but Bill beat me to it - although heres a few quick facts for ya Frank
Actually - first a question - prove that Al Qaeda was in Iraq - with references from the CIA docs or other US intellegence base on facts



United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

On September 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_8), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), "Phase II" of the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq) was released.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam#_note-21)
According to the report, the CIA assessed in a June 2002 paper titled Iraq and al-Qa'ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship that "Reporting shows that unknown numbers of al-Qa'ida associates fleeing Afghanistan since December have used Iraq-including the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, Baghdad, and other regions-as a safehaven and transit area. We lack positive indications that Baghdad is complicit in this activity, but the persistence of an al-Qa'ida presence and the operatives' silence about any harassment from Iraqi authorities may indicate that Baghdad is acquiescent or finds their presence useful." (page 86)

In the January 2003 CIA paper Iraq Support for Terrorism, the CIA assessed "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi) appears to be overseeing the operations of al-Qa'ida members in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, which includes poisons production, terrorist training, an operational support for terrorist attacks abroad...the al-Qa'ida presence in northeastern Iraq-we estimate about 100 to 200 members and associates in the area-began to increase late last year after the US military campaign began in Afghanistan(page 86)...An influx of al-Qa'ida assistance, operatives, and associates has made Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq-a mountainous no-man's land Baghdad has not controlled since 1991-an increasingly important operational hub for al-Qa'ida.(page 88)"

According to the report "Regarding al-Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq, CIA judged that Baghdad probably had a window into al-Qa'ida activities in Kurdish-controlled Iraq via an individual named Abu Wa'il. Wa'il was identified as an IIS associate by three detainees held by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

The CIA noted that it lacked reporting that would help determine whether Wa'il was 'informing Baghdad of al-Qa'ida associated activities; acting as a liaison between Baghdad, Ansar al-Islam and al-Qa'ida, or is Baghdad's point of contact for assisting Ansar al-Islam or al-Qa'ida.'" (page 89)

The report states "The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that al-Qa'ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in the Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq." (page 89)
Beginning on page 92 of the report, it states:

“According to the CIA, a May 2002 IIS document found by U.S. forces in Iraq indicates that the regime, and the IIS, were concerned that the U.S. would use the presence of Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq to support claims of links between the regime and al-Qa'ida. This document was authenticated.

The IIS Director said that these claims showed the U.S. would continue to fabricate information to prove links between Iraq and Ansar al-Islam, al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. He attached a Christian Science Monitor article from April 2, 2002[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam#_note-22), about Ansar al-Islam to support his concern.

In addition, "detainees that originally reported on AI-IIS links have recanted, and another detainee, in September 2003, was deemed to have insufficient access and level of detail to substantiate his claims."

According to the DIA, detainee information and captured document exploitation indicate that the regime [of Saddam Hussein] was aware of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qa'ida presence in northeastern Iraq, but the groups' presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them.

The DIA stated that information from senior Ansar al-Islam detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam's regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it.

The Intelligence Community did not uncover information suggesting Iraqi regime involvement in the production of poisons or toxins in Kurdish-controlled Iraq prior to the war. Little information has emerged since the war to clarify the extent of the CBW programs conducted by Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish-controlled Iraq.

The DIA reported that the exploitation of the Sargat site revealed the presence of cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide) salts, which seems to confirm suspicions of work on cyanide-based poisons. DIA analysts noted that the findings were not surprising, given Ansar al-Islam's continued efforts to develop chemical weapons capabilities.
”
The report concluded that "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group." (page 110)

second - the current parliment was dissolved two weeks ago - guess you didnt get the memo?
No, actually I didn't but if you could post it that would be great, thanks

third - civil war has been going on between sunni and shia for over 3 years there (not counting the hundreds of years before - just this time) and has resulted in a complete ethnic cleansing in Baghdad to the tune of over a million deaths and 3 million or so refugees
According to who ? You ? Lets ask the Iraqis

Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?
Marie Colvin


DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.
The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.
The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece

fourth - Al Qaeda doesnt have the ability to fight against the sunnis - let alone Iranian backed shias -
Send your thankyou letter to George W Bush , 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

if the US left today Al Qaeda would be gone tomorrow - thats just a fact of life
So then why are they there killing Iraqi's and fighting us now ? You're telling me that Al-Q , all of a sudden cares so much that they would die fighting American forces just to save Iraqi's , who they,themselves kill ?

Facts of life? ....gimme a break

[Bill]

Me too Bill , I'm glad there's someone here who realizes that the only solution to the war on terror is permanent military bases in Iraq

Well, I want permanent military bases in Iraq to get the oil.

The war on terror just doesn't interest me all that much.

But, any port in a storm.

[Americanadian]

I was gonna answer - but Bill beat me to it - although heres a few quick facts for ya Frank
Actually - first a question - prove that Al Qaeda was in Iraq - with references from the CIA docs or other US intellegence base on facts

second - the current parliment was dissolved two weeks ago - guess you didnt get the memo?

third - civil war has been going on between sunni and shia for over 3 years there (not counting the hundreds of years before - just this time) and has resulted in a complete ethnic cleansing in Baghdad to the tune of over a million deaths and 3 million or so refugees

fourth - Al Qaeda doesnt have the ability to fight against the sunnis - let alone Iranian backed shias - if the US left today Al Qaeda would be gone tomorrow - thats just a fact of life

Al Qaeda already has a base to operate from - and has for 20 years - and already has plenty of access to what they need

Finally - I sure hope you really dont walk around thinking about these things like you posted all the time - if so I would recommend a serious consideration of a good psych visit to help you with your paranoia before you go off and kill a bunch of postal workers or something

Ha...ha...ha...

Yes Linkster, Frankg is always that way. What would you expect from an obsequious Neocon trench monkey ? Trust me...it doesn't get any better from here on in. Just the same ol' regurgitated Right Wing stool samples which Frankie loves to peddle over and over again. Reminiscent re-runs of a tv show one despises. The Brady Bunch in Iraq.

[Linkster]

Frank - when you use quoted material for references it might help if you read it as what you posted (from wikipedia which is by far the most authoratative reference in the world) - as it goes completely against your original assertions.

Second - as far as the civil war bit - Im sure if you ask another reporter on the ground what they think they will disagree with her - and recent polls done in Sept not only show that they are completely in a civil war - and that they want the US out of there to the tune of 70% of Iraqis right now

Last - I dont see what sending anything to bush would do - he didnt have anything to do with the sunnis going against Al Qaeda - that fake shiek they paraded around and then got shot - was an actor - thats already been refuted and the real shieks had him killed (they dont like pretenders) - The sunni shieks also would never thank Bush - they would do the same to him - so thanking him for what? Killing almost 4000 of our kids? Killing a million Iraqis?


The Al Qaeda are there to fight US troops - and anyone else that stands in their way of fighting us - of course youre probably one of those paranoids that thinks if we dont fight them there they will follow us here - get over it - they are already here - idiot

[Americanadian]

Me too Bill , I'm glad there's someone here who realizes that the only solution to the war on terror is permanent military bases in Iraq

If we need to pull any US troops out from anywhere lets pull out of Europe

We don't need military bases in Germany and Korea anymore , the only reason they were there in the first place was to protect the French and South Koreans but they hate us now so lets pull out , screw them ,just look at Iran , even the French are now saying we need to go to war ,...but I think we should wait, I think we should take our sweet time and use some lame ass diplomacy and wait for Iran to launch an nuclear attack , with any luck it'll be Paris


LOL....yeah right. "Permanent bases in Iraq" is the "only solution"? Hell, your own right wing cesspool of propaganda, World Net Daily declared last year that Al Qaeda already had nukes planted in the US, thanks to the Mexican border remaining wide open. Yup...if it isn't Clinton's penis the right winged fecal fairies are screaming about, it's the "Terrorists follow-us-home" myth. And according to your own intellectually impotent ilk, the terrorists are already in America. Thanks for coming out though. :D

[Frankg]

Well, I want permanent military bases in Iraq to get the oil.
We didn't invade Iraq to get oil Bill , if we wanted oil we could've invaded Canada , maybe we should have , considering all the back stabbing we continually get from those ingrates

The war on terror just doesn't interest me all that much
But, any port in a storm..

Are you an American citizen ?

If not , thats' understandable , but if you are than I should remind you (because you probably have forgotten) that on Sept 11 , 2001
2,974 Americans died when nineteen terrorists affiliated with Al Quada hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.

Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1WTC and 2WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington County , Virgina near Washingto ,DC .

Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft United Airlines Flight 93 attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County , Pennsylvania In addition to the 19 hijackers,2974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to WTC dust.Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead. The victims were predominantly civilians

[Frankg]

Ha...ha...ha...

Yes Linkster, Frankg is always that way. What would you expect from an obsequious Neocon trench monkey ? Trust me...it doesn't get any better from here on in. Just the same ol' regurgitated Right Wing stool samples which Frankie loves to peddle over and over again. Reminiscent re-runs of a tv show one despises. The Brady Bunch in Iraq.

I see you're still obsessed with pictures of little boys with their mouths open A-CAN ,some things never change

HA - HA


get a life

[Linkster]

We didn't invade Iraq to get oil Bill , if we wanted oil we could've invaded Canada , maybe we should have , considering all the back stabbing we continually get from those ingrates

Are you an American citizen ?

If not , thats' understandable , but if you are than I should remind you (because you probably have forgotten) that on Sept 11 , 2001
2,974 Americans died when nineteen terrorists affiliated with Al Quada hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.

Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1WTC and 2WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and extensive damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington County , Virgina near Washingto ,DC .

Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft United Airlines Flight 93 attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers;that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County , Pennsylvania In addition to the 19 hijackers,2974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks, and the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to WTC dust.Another 24 people are missing and presumed dead. The victims were predominantly civilians

Im glad you posted this - lets see - out of 19 hijackers most were Saudis and NONE were Iraqis - so what the fuck did we invade Iraq for - we should have invaded Saudi Arabia - hell - theyve got some oil too

[Linkster]

I see you're still obsessed with pictures of little boys with their mouths open A-CAN ,some things never change

HA - HA
get a life

Looks like the little kid is giving the finger to Bush - thank goodness theres some good parenting still left in the US

[LadyMod at scam.com]

http://www.dcjunkies.com/images/icons/icon1.gif Well, some people will celebrate...

I sure as hell am celebrating, I celebrating because its good to see that republicans and democrats alike realize that this war , this justified war, is keeping a leash on Al-quada and protecting this country from terrorism , that's right , this war is protecting this country and if the US withdraws from Iraq now than we will surely be attacked again , and even worse than 9/11, ....but I guess that's when ladymod and disrupter will celebrate

schmucks

I see you finally crawled out from under your rock and found us here.

Take your potshots at me while you can Cupcake, scam.com will be back up Monday night and faster than before. Then I'll be back in my sandbox.

LM

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Looks like the little kid is giving the finger to Bush - thank goodness theres some good parenting still left in the US

Frankie is pretty much one of the dumbest of the dumb even for a Neocon.

You'll soon figure that out, but I thought I'd give you advance notice.


LM

[Bill]

We didn't invade Iraq to get oil Bill , if we wanted oil we could've invaded Canada , maybe we should have , considering all the back stabbing we continually get from those ingrates


I didn't say nuthin about why we invaded. I said I'm willing to keep troops in Iraq for the next 50 years to get the oil.

Shanksville is right down the road from me. The disputes about the memorial are on my local news all the time.

I'm just not as scared of the muslims as you are.

A non-industrial state can't go to war with an industrial nation. The best it can do is stage raids.

Thye raid us again, kill a few thousand civvies, say - and we attack back, and kill a million and displace 5mil and destroy one of their countries.

We can keep that rate of attrition up forever. They can't really hurt us.

[Americanadian]

I see you're still obsessed with pictures of little boys with their mouths open A-CAN ,some things never change

HA - HA


get a life

LOL...keep scrubbing those loos Frankie. Still haven't mustered up enough courage to visit Iraq eh? That's too bad really. I'm sure your cranium would look nice on some terrorist mantle in Baghdad somewhere with camel shit fertilizer nourishing a geranium. Yup...quite fitting indeed.

[Americanadian]

Looks like the little kid is giving the finger to Bush - thank goodness theres some good parenting still left in the US

And I'm sure he would run intellectual circles around Frank. The expression "shit for brains" was created for people like Frankie. The more he posts/talks one would almost mistaken it for prophecy being fulfilled.

[moonman]

Frankg, just one question. Can you name one thing that Bush has got right in Iraq? From the Mission Accomplished speech wherein he announced, "Major military operations in Iraq are over" to Dick Cheney's statement after the death of al Zaqwari, "the insurgency is in its final throes."

I don't mean opinion. I'm just asking for one thing, one indisputable fact that Bush or Cheney have been right about concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom. Just one.

[radioguy]

And I'm sure he would run intellectual circles around Frank. The expression "shit for brains" was created for people like Frankie. The more he posts/talks one would almost mistaken it for prophecy being fulfilled.

This coming from a blatant anti-Semite and his racist pal TheCenturion. At least guys like Frank speak from the heart and support America, rather than spending their time attacking America, it's government and it's military.

Patriotism still has meaning for some, and I salute guys like Frank that still possess such sentiments.

[moonman]

This coming from a blatant anti-Semite and his racist pal TheCenturion. At least guys like Frank speak from the heart and support America, rather than spending their time attacking America, it's government and it's military.

Patriotism still has meaning for some, and I salute guys like Frank that still possess such sentiments.

I'm wondering, in your view, are only Bush/Cheney supporters patriotic? Can one love America and denounce the policies of Bush/Cheney?

FYI, the semites are mostly Arabs not Jews.

[radioguy]

I'm wondering, in your view, are only Bush/Cheney supporters patriotic? Can one love America and denounce the policies of Bush/Cheney?

FYI, the semites are mostly Arabs not Jews.

Sure they can. Many on the right side of the political fence strongly denounced the president's immigration policy, but still supported the troops and were (and are) patriotic.

Can you show me some examples of people that were against the war, that display anything even resembling patriotism? Being against the war is fine, but it should have ended the minute we entered Baghdad. Once we were in Baghdad, we were at war and that was that. We were then committed to removing Saddam and staying in Iraq until the country had both a stable government and the security forces to protect that government and it's people.

What started as opposition to the war, has turned into hatred for the United States and it's military forces, plain and simple. The left has turned on it's own country in a time of war, and I believe that will come back to haunt them come election time.

[moonman]

Sure they can. Many on the right side of the political fence strongly denounced the president's immigration policy, but still supported the troops and were (and are) patriotic.

Can you show me some examples of people that were against the war, that display anything even resembling patriotism? Being against the war is fine, but it should have ended the minute we entered Baghdad. Once we were in Baghdad, we were at war and that was that. We were then committed to removing Saddam and staying in Iraq until the country had both a stable government and the security forces to protect that government and it's people.

What started as opposition to the war, has turned into hatred for the United States and it's military forces, plain and simple. The left has turned on it's own country in a time of war, and I believe that will come back to haunt them come election time.

radioguy, you post like a Hannity clone depicting a few whack jobs speaking for liberals. Google "Support Our Troops" and you will get 7,670,000 hits. The fact you are suggesting none of those are predominately liberal or left leaning orgs proves yer just a Hannity clone posting right wing whacko talking points.

Let's chat about Support Our troops. Ever heard of Joe Biden and his passion and advocacy for getting IED resistant Humvees on the gorund in Iraq and the Bush/Cheney refusal to equip our our troops.

How 'bout all the guys shipped to Afghanistan without flak jackets? Is that supporting our troops? I might have been hustled but I doubt it. I gave a troop the 40 bucks in my pocket while we were chatting at a carwash. He was home on leave from Afghanistan and shared that among the things he was doing was buying his own bullets and his own flak jacket.

It took half a dozen attempts over the 15 or so minutes we chatted but he finally accepted the money. Fuck you you right wing fascist freak of humanity.

[Linkster]

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
T Jefferson

Remember that 70 % of this country is anti-war right now - be very afraid

[moonman]

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
T Jefferson

Remember that 70 % of this country is anti-war right now - be very afraid

No my friend, this is not a time for fear. It is time to act.

[Linkster]

. I gave a troop the 40 bucks in my pocket while we were chatting at a carwash. He was home on leave from Afghanistan and shared that among the things he was doing was buying his own bullets and his own flak jacket.

It took half a dozen attempts over the 15 or so minutes we chatted but he finally accepted the money. Fuck you you right wing fascist freak of humanity.

The problem is that most of these right wingnuts not only have never even bothered to serve in our armed services, but their idea of "support" is putting a ribbon on their car, defacing the American flag by wearing it on their clothes, or jumping on anyone expressing their opinion that differs with theirs as unpatriotic - which based on what I remember from civics class - is about the most un-American thing you can do to another citizen - but then when you are building a fascist government you can follow exactly what every other one has done - and they obviously have convinced the right wing so far :thumbsup:

[radioguy]

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
T Jefferson

Remember that 70 % of this country is anti-war right now - be very afraid

That is irrelevant. That same 70% supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, along with the senate and the congress. America made a commitment and is obligated to honor it, no matter how brain washed the public has become thanks to the main stream media's anti-war reporting.

Here's something for you to ponder. My home page on IE gives the latest headlines from the Associated Press. This entire year, the top headline every day was about how many American troops had died that day. That is until about 3 weeks or so back.

Have you noticed that the daily "Dead soldiers" body count by the main stream media has all but disappeared?

Do you know why it has vanished? It's not because they have changed priorities, but because there are so few American soldiers dying in the war in Iraq lately.

Now, do you know why that is? Could it be, because the SURGE IS WORKING and all those figures about the decline in attacks and deaths that General Patreaus testified to in front of congress, is true?

What are your thoughts on that Linkster?

[Linkster]

Actually - the reason it has disappeared is a change in policy by the right wing run media - they are trying to hide the fact that deaths are actually higher this year than last -
Sept 2006 - 70 deaths
Sept 2005 - 48 deaths

This Sept(20th) so far is 55 - so on average we are above last year and the year before that


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_current.htm

I should add that this will be the deadliest Sept on record if we keep at this as so far 2004 held the record at 81 - but the rate we are at this Sept puts it at a little higher than that -

[moonman]

That is irrelevant. That same 70% supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, along with the senate and the congress. America made a commitment and is obligated to honor it, no matter how brain washed the public has become thanks to the main stream media's anti-war reporting.



Oh one minute radioguy is among the throng of fascist whacko's who demean liberals for not respecting the opinions of the people. Now he calls them brainwashed for disagreeing with him.

These fascist loons have no honor and are absent integrity.

[TheCenturion]

Actually - the reason it has disappeared is a change in policy by the right wing run media - they are trying to hide the fact that deaths are actually higher this year than last -
Sept 2006 - 70 deaths
Sept 2005 - 48 deaths

This Sept(20th) so far is 55 - so on average we are above last year and the year before that


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_current.htm

I should add that this will be the deadliest Sept on record if we keep at this as so far 2004 held the record at 81 - but the rate we are at this Sept puts it at a little higher than that -

http://www.bartcop.com/death-time-off.jpg

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Sure they can. Many on the right side of the political fence strongly denounced the president's immigration policy, but still supported the troops and were (and are) patriotic.

Can you show me some examples of people that were against the war, that display anything even resembling patriotism? Being against the war is fine, but it should have ended the minute we entered Baghdad. Once we were in Baghdad, we were at war and that was that. We were then committed to removing Saddam and staying in Iraq until the country had both a stable government and the security forces to protect that government and it's people.

You are confused. Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a president when he is wrong.

You can support the troops without agreeing or supporting a war. And I have yet to see anyone who doesn't support the troops by wanting them to have the best protective gear, the best weapons AND enough time home with their families to decompress after they have already served their tour of duty.

I have seen the Right here and on the forum I moderate show their lack of support for the troops by backing a President who wants longer tours, exhausted troops, has never done anything to ensure they have what they need to be effective in the field, cuts care given to them when they come home wounded until some "liberal" newspaper points it out that it's being done, and has yet to attend even one funeral of our fallen heros.

So tell me, when did supporting THAT kind of behavior become the "Patriotic" thing to do? Because I'm confused. Truly. That is not my definition of patriotic.

Go stick you head back into the toilet, you are more useful that way.

LM



Barbara Ehrenreich:
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

David Hume:
The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy.

Emma Goldman:
Patriotism ... is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

George Washington:
I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward.

Henry Steele Commager:
Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.



Hermann Goering:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Rabbi Sherwin Wine:
There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.

Theodore Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)



People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads, and the boss drives.
-Theodore Roosevelt

[TheCenturion]

You are confused. Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a president when he is wrong.

You can support the troops without agreeing or supporting a war. And I have yet to see anyone who doesn't support the troops by wanting them to have the best protective gear, the best weapons AND enough time home with their families to decompress after they have already served their tour of duty.

I have seen the Right here and on the forum I moderate show their lack of support for the troops by backing a President who wants longer tours, exhausted troops, has never done anything to ensure they have what they need to be effective in the field, cuts care given to them when they come home wounded until some "liberal" newspaper points it out that it's being done, and has yet to attend even one funeral of our fallen heros.

So tell me, when did supporting THAT kind of behavior become the "Patriotic" thing to do? Because I'm confused. Truly. That is not my definition of patriotic.

Go stick you head back into the toilet, you are more useful that way.

LM



Barbara Ehrenreich:
No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

David Hume:
The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy.

Emma Goldman:
Patriotism ... is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

George Washington:
I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward.

Henry Steele Commager:
Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.



Hermann Goering:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Rabbi Sherwin Wine:
There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.

Theodore Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)



People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads, and the boss drives.
-Theodore Roosevelt

He's not confused. None of these right-wing thugs are "confused" anymore than the fascists in Italy and Germany were "confused"

When a goon sticks a gun in your back and demands you hand over your wallet or take him down to your ATM to withdraw cash, he's not "confused".

And neither are these murdering right-wing war-mongering criminals "confused".

What you're observing is not confusion. It's not even brain-washed ignorance, although, that's a central component.

What you're interpreting as "confused" is simply evilness, corruption, raw arrogance and the most twisted and degenerate form of vile hypocrisy there can be.

Do you ever notice how these cretins stick their heads up out of their holes just long enough to spew patently inane, delusional and stupid pro-war drivel?

And then they surface somewhere else when there BS is repeatedly demolished.

This is because they have no defensible point or message. All they have are lies, nastiness, invective and "liberal" bashing. There's no substance, no facts, no consciousness behind any of it. It's all just right-wing partisan pollution that they disseminate into the environment like an overflowing cesspool full of raw sewage.

These bastards are simply the scum of The Earth.

End of story.