Phoney Soldiers are Coming! Phoney Soldiers are Coming! Ohhhh Noooo!

[Bill]

The phoney soldiers strike again!

Will their dastardly deeds never end!

Just when we have those pansy iraqis on the run and begging for mercy, all peaceable like, these phoney soldiers want to cut and run.

Article from that well known bastion of librul pinko pansies, the washington post.

12 Captains Betray Their Republican Masters.

When will congress act to wipe out the scourge of phoney soldiers forever?

---

"Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html

[Moby]

So phony soldiers are risking their phony lives while phony patriots make $millions blaming them.

[Cat slave]

This crap is going to keep on going until they start whining about another
draft, at which point I will send my son to Canada or New Zealand.:mad:

[radioguy]

Why do you call them "Phony soldiers" Bill. That is down right disrespectful.

I'm certainly glad that nobody on my side of the political isle would stoop so low as to call Iraq war veterans "Phony".



As for the story itself, it has one major flaw Bill.

These 12 Captains are making assessments about the effectiveness of the troop surge, and describing the current conditions on the ground in Baghdad for both the troops, as well as for the Iraqi civilians. They paint a pretty bleak picture Bill, but there is just one problem...

The last time any one of those 12 Capitan's actually served in Baghdad, was back in 2006. Most of them haven't served in Baghdad for more than 2 years. So could you explain to me Bill, how these veterans can make an assessment of the effectiveness of a troop surge, that not one of them has ever been a part of, or ever seen?

[Independent Harry]

Why do you call them "Phony soldiers" Bill. That is down right disrespectful.

I'm certainly glad that nobody on my side of the political isle would stoop so low as to call Iraq war veterans "Phony".



As for the story itself, it has one major flaw Bill.

These 12 Captains are making assessments about the effectiveness of the troop surge, and describing the current conditions on the ground in Baghdad for both the troops, as well as for the Iraqi civilians. They paint a pretty bleak picture Bill, but there is just one problem...

The last time any one of those 12 Capitan's actually served in Baghdad, was back in 2006. Most of them haven't served in Baghdad for more than 2 years. So could you explain to me Bill, how these veterans can make an assessment of the effectiveness of a troop surge, that not one of them has ever been a part of, or ever seen?

Simple, they are still in contact with the people they served with. And since they have seen the area, been in the war, the have a much better ability to make a conclusion about the success and failure of the war. Remember, anyone in the military that says the war is unwinnable is removed from command. That's why we continually are replacing our generals...lol

[Bill]

Why do you call them "Phony soldiers" Bill. That is down right disrespectful.

The last time any one of those 12 Capitan's actually served in Baghdad, was back in 2006. Most of them haven't served in Baghdad for more than 2 years. So could you explain to me Bill, how these veterans can make an assessment of the effectiveness of a troop surge, that not one of them has ever been a part of, or ever seen?

It took you all of 30 seconds to claim they were phoney soldiers yourself, dude.

Can I call them, or can I call them?

From this time forth, the length of time needed for a winger to call any soldier who complains about a war some kind of "phoney", shall be known as the "Limbaugh Unit", (as opposed to the "drug addled water carrying bloviator unit", which, while accurate, is too long for wingers to follow).

The Limbaugh Unit tests at approximately 30 seconds, as demonstrated by our resident winger-in-cheif.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/h/4/bush_serving_beer.jpg


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/H/D/bush_draft.jpg






.

[Frankg]

Bill

Use your powers to to save face and delete this post before too many people read it !

You are really looking silly here and obviously have no idea what a "phoney soldier" is

While I respect those small group of soldiers opinions I have to say thier wrong, thier words were most likely taken out of context by the liberal media

[radioguy]

Simple, they are still in contact with the people they served with. And since they have seen the area, been in the war, the have a much better ability to make a conclusion about the success and failure of the war. Remember, anyone in the military that says the war is unwinnable is removed from command. That's why we continually are replacing our generals...lol

So I guess that we should take their second hand accounts of the situation, over the accounts of the people who are actually there fighting right now. I guess their hearsay accounts (which by the way, they never mentioned that they were) are also more valid than the stories that are being written by reporters who are actually in Baghdad now.

Does that sum up how you see things Harry?

[Little Red Dog]

How could their words be taken out of context by anyone? The column was written by them. The Washington Post simply printed it. It does not appear with any foreword or postscript from TWP. In fact, it is presented as is, in no context at all.

The column goes on to state, in part:

"This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice."

The bolding is mine, meant to draw your attention to language that is not, in the slightest, ambiguous.

It's obvious that you didn't bother to read the column before you posted your comment. More disturbing than the speed with which you formed an opinion on something you clearly knew nothing about, is the obvious contempt you hold for the readers of the column. Apparently you think them incapable of deciding for themselves the intrinsic worth of the writers and the opinions they expressed.

That seems to be a theme among your lot. Maybe that's why America told you "You suck" in 2004.

[Little Red Dog]

So I guess that we should take their second hand accounts of the situation, over the accounts of the people who are actually there fighting right now. I guess their hearsay accounts (which by the way, they never mentioned that they were) are also more valid than the stories that are being written by reporters who are actually in Baghdad now.

Does that sum up how you see things Harry?

So even though you admit that they never said their opinion was based on "hearsay" (which means they could be basing their opinion on first-hand reports), you jump to the conclusion that their opinion is not valid.

Since all of YOUR opinions are based on second-hand reports (reports given by someone other than you), I guess we can now dismiss your opinions henceforth as not valid either.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

While I respect those small group of soldiers opinions I have to say thier wrong, thier words were most likely taken out of context by the liberal media

There's the whole conversation....


Rush Limbaugh Phony Soldiers Statement Sept 25 MacBeth


http://youtube.com/watch?v=GmWPSjNXsXI


.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Hey, there's an auction!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/bid-by-friday-t.html

Bid by Friday to get senators' letter condemning Limbaugh; money goes to charity


The controversy that started when conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said the words "phony soldiers" (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/will-limbaughs-.html) and continued with a war of words between Limbaugh and some Senate Democrats (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/phony-soldiers-.html)appears to be about to generate some money for charity that provides scholarships to the children of U.S. military personnel and law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

The deadline is Friday to get in on the eBay auction (http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=rush-letter-for-charity) of a letter signed by 41 senators that condemns Limbaugh's words. It's been put up for bid by Limbaugh and his bosses at Clear Channel Communications, who the senators addressed in the letter. You can see a copy of it here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/rushlimbaughsmearletter.pdf).

The bidding, which opened at $45,000, is up to $45,600.50 as of this minute. The money will go to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation (http://www.mc-lef.org/).

[radioguy]

It took you all of 30 seconds to claim they were phoney soldiers yourself, dude.

Can I call them, or can I call them?

From this time forth, the length of time needed for a winger to call any soldier who complains about a war some kind of "phoney", shall be known as the "Limbaugh Unit", (as opposed to the "drug addled water carrying bloviator unit", which, while accurate, is too long for wingers to follow).

The Limbaugh Unit tests at approximately 30 seconds, as demonstrated by our resident winger-in-cheif.

Hey Bill, could you please point out where it was in my post that I called those 12 veterans "Phony soldiers"? I can't seem to find any such passage, nor anything that even implies such a thing.

All I did Bill, was read the entire story and point out what should have been obvious to you and anyone who read the article. The fact is, none of those soldiers have any first hand knowledge of the effect that the troop surge is having in Iraq, yet they make assessments as if they were first hand? Nowhere in that article do they site any sources for their information. In fact, they make it perfectly clear that their opinions of the current situation are based on their deployment in Iraq.

Could you explain for me please Bill, how those soldiers could state in the absolute manner that they did, what the situation on the ground in Iraq is since the June 2007 troop surge was put into full effect, when the last time any one of them was deployed in Iraq was back in 2006?

I'll be waiting for your answer.

You disappoint me Bill... I really though you were a cut above the typical liberal on the internet, and wouldn't stoop to making false accusations against me, just because I posted something you either overlooked, or hoped I wouldn't notice.

I guess Linkster is last chance I have of finding a liberal here, who puts honesty ahead of their political beliefs.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I guess Linkster is last chance I have of finding a liberal here, who puts honesty ahead of their political beliefs.



LOL, don't hold your breath Muffin. You aren't going to find a liberal selling out to a Neocon. Not in this lifetime.



:lmao2:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

FUCK OFF BITCH!

There... I used normal sized font to tell that $@#$ off.

Saved you the effort.


:lmao2:

[radioguy]

LOL, don't hold your breath Muffin. You aren't going to find a liberal selling out to a Neocon. Not in this lifetime.



:lmao2:

Thank you Lady mod.

Your words are solid gold, because they have just made my point. To you, honesty is a "Sell out" and you just made it clear that because I am a conservative, being honest is traitorous, and therefor not an option.

You have just stated with absolute clarity, that your political allegiance will allways be more important to you and those of you on the liberal left, than being honest is.

Again, thank you.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Thank you Lady mod.

Your words are solid gold, because they have just made my point. To you, honesty is a "Sell out" and you just made it clear that because I am a conservative, being honest is traitorous, and therefor not an option.

You have just stated with absolute clarity, that your political allegiance will allways be more important to you and those of you on the liberal left, than being honest is.

Again, thank you.


:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

[Little Red Dog]

...The fact is, none of those soldiers have any first hand knowledge of the effect that the troop surge is having in Iraq, yet they make assessments as if they were first hand? Nowhere in that article do they site any sources for their information. In fact, they make it perfectly clear that their opinions of the current situation are based on their deployment in Iraq.

Could you explain for me please Bill, how those soldiers could state in the absolute manner that they did, what the situation on the ground in Iraq is since the June 2007 troop surge was put into full effect, when the last time any one of them was deployed in Iraq was back in 2006?

....

The fact is, radioguy, that unlike the writers of this article, YOU have NO first hand knowledge of the situation in Iraq. Not in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007.

But that has not stopped YOU from having an opinion on the situation in Iraq.

So what gives you the right to cast aspersions on the validity of their opinions? What gives you the right to decide that their opinion is less valid than yours?

Let's see: They, who have served on the ground in the hellhole of Iraq. And you, who pontificate and judge them from the comfort and safety of an Internet forum.

Who, in fact, has more "right" to express an opinion on the situation in Iraq?

"Support the troops" indeed! You seem to forget that they have the right to have an opinion. A right that they have earned, more than most, by their service. And you would clearly prefer that they do not exercise their right - which they have earned - for the simple reason that they disagree with you.

If the situation were reversed, you would no doubt be at the forefront of the slavering right wing mob, baying for feckless liberal blood. Your signature line is irony itself. There has never been a hack more partisan than you show yourself to be.

[Frankg]

How could their words be taken out of context by anyone? The column was written by them. The Washington Post simply printed it. It does not appear with any foreword or postscript from TWP. In fact, it is presented as is, in no context at all.

The column goes on to state, in part:

"This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice."

The bolding is mine, meant to draw your attention to language that is not, in the slightest, ambiguous.

It's obvious that you didn't bother to read the column before you posted your comment. More disturbing than the speed with which you formed an opinion on something you clearly knew nothing about, is the obvious contempt you hold for the readers of the column. Apparently you think them incapable of deciding for themselves the intrinsic worth of the writers and the opinions they expressed.

That seems to be a theme among your lot. Maybe that's why America told you "You suck" in 2004.
Hey!!

Cut me some fuckin slack here for christ's sake !!!

There's a lot a long words that I have to look up in my dickshonary and I'm not exactly the brightest bulb in box , but I do shower every day unlike you smelly europeans

[Little Red Dog]

Sorry, frankg; I forgot you're a neo-con. I didn't mean to make your head hurt by forcing your three brain cells to collide.

I just had some crazy idea about rational discour...


Oh never mind...

[Frankg]

There's the whole conversation....


Rush Limbaugh Phony Soldiers Statement Sept 25 MacBeth


http://youtube.com/watch?v=GmWPSjNXsXI


.

Anyone can call Rush Limbaugh and claim they're a soldier Ladymod

....btw, did I ever mention that I was a general and single handedly killed 22 VC with only one arm when I was in Vietnam?

true story

[Frankg]

Sorry, frankg; I forgot you're a neo-con. I didn't mean to make your head hurt by forcing your three brain cells to collide.

I just had some crazy idea about rational discour...


Oh never mind...
Pinhead

Anyone knows the human brane is made up of literally hundreds of cells

[radioguy]

The fact is, radioguy, that unlike the writers of this article, YOU have NO first hand knowledge of the situation in Iraq. Not in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007.

But that has not stopped YOU from having an opinion on the situation in Iraq.

That is correct. I don't have first hand knowledge of what is going on there. I have to rely on official military and government reports, along with published articles written by people that are there, that do have first hand knowledge of the situation... Unfortunately, those 12 veterans that wrote that story, are not there now, and don't have first hand knowledge of the current situation in Iraq... And that was my point.

I'm am not disputing their accounts of what went down when they were deployed their, nor am I condemning their opinions. They are American war veterans, and entitled to express their opinions. I totally respect their right to call em as they see em, whether I agree with them or not. I was just pointing out that they were making assessments of the current situation in Iraq, as well as the future of Iraq, based on how it was before the new strategy was put into place.

You know as well as I do, that the effectiveness of the troop surge has come as a shock to nearly everyone. Based on the situation in Iraq at the beginning of the year, I didn't think that anything short of launching nuclear weapons, could turn that situation around. If those soldiers would have published that article a year ago, their words would have not only been applicable, but their opinions would have likely been embraced by many in the military, as well as a large percentage of the American people.

[UserName]

....btw, did I ever mention that I was a general and single handedly killed 22 VC with only one arm when I was in Vietnam?

true story

Did those VC have only one arm between them all, or did they have just one arm each?:confused:
Just seems like a lot of one-armed VC to me.

[Little Red Dog]

That is correct. I don't have first hand knowledge of what is going on there. I have to rely on official military and government reports, along with published articles written by people that are there, that do have first hand knowledge of the situation... Unfortunately, those 12 veterans that wrote that story, are not there now, and don't have first hand knowledge of the current situation in Iraq... And that was my point...

Please don't try to be disingenous. It doesn't suit you.

The ONLY published articles you rely on (as you have so AMPLY demonstrated in your postings) are the ones that support your established beliefs.

You called into question the ability of these men to make a call based on their personal, in-country experience. You couldn't just let them have an opinion - you had to immediately find some way to discredit it. Purely because you don't agree with them.

I don't call that respectful in the least. In fact, I find it disrespectful and offensive.

There have already been published articles, written by "people who are there" that challenge the alleged "effectiveness" of the troop surge. However, I notice you don't use them to adopt a more thoughtful, measured stance.

I might view your position as less offensive and partisan if you had.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Anyone can call Rush Limbaugh and claim they're a soldier Ladymod

....btw, did I ever mention that I was a general and single handedly killed 22 VC with only one arm when I was in Vietnam?

true story


I would have thought, had you listened to the program that you have felt vindicated because it was word for word exactly how Limbaugh said it. You can't mistake the meaning.

Apparently, you didn't bother to listen to it.

Foolish boy.


.

[Moby]

The ONLY published articles you rely on (as you have so AMPLY demonstrated in your postings) are the ones that support your established beliefs.
Don't forget that many of those sources wrote articles and white papers that probably cost the lives of 1,000s of US soldiers because they all said that Iraq would be a cake walk.

Yet not only does he keep reading them but he keeps spreading the written words. How anti-American can a human being get?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Don't forget that many of those sources wrote articles and white papers that probably cost the lives of 1,000s of US soldiers because they all said that Iraq would be a cake walk.

Yet not only does he keep reading them but he keeps spreading the written words. How anti-American can a human being get?

And since 90 innocent lives were lost for every American soldier who died, that's another 342,000 lives those papers cost.

No wonder they are so proud of them?


Lady Mod

[Moby]

And since 90 innocent lives were lost for every American soldier who died, that's another 342,000 lives those papers cost.

No wonder they are so proud of them?


Lady Mod
That's probably 90 Muslims for every 1 Christian. Think about how proud Jerry Falwell would be.

[radioguy]

The ONLY published articles you rely on (as you have so AMPLY demonstrated in your postings) are the ones that support your established beliefs.

Could you please give me an example of a report or article that has come out in the last few weeks by someone who is on the ground there, that contradicts my belief that the surge is working? Make sure if you find one, that it isn't just baseless opinion with no facts to support it. Those are a dime a dozen. All you have to do is pick up the NY Times to get those.

You called into question the ability of these men to make a call based on their personal, in-country experience. You couldn't just let them have an opinion - you had to immediately find some way to discredit it. Purely because you don't agree with them.

I don't call that respectful in the least. In fact, I find it disrespectful and offensive.


Their opinions about what they witnessed in Iraq and the direction they saw things going when they were there, I had no problem with at all. When they took their assessments of what they had witnessed 1, 2 and 3 years ago, and equated it to the situation on the ground today, that's when the article crossed the line from being credible, to being dishonest. If they would have qualified their opinions by stating that they based their beliefs on what they witnessed back in 2005 and 2006, before the new strategy was implemented, I wouldn't be debating this issue with you now... But they didn't, and thats what made the article deceptive and brought into question their motives as well as their credibility.

Just for the record, I found their omissions to be both disrespectful and offensive.

There have already been published articles, written by "people who are there" that challenge the alleged "effectiveness" of the troop surge. However, I notice you don't use them to adopt a more thoughtful, measured stance.

I'm not here to offer a measured stance. I am here to express my beliefs and opinions. Irregardless, what I pointed out about that article is fact, not an opinion, and I'm not sure exactly what it is you are arguing here?

It almost seems as though you want me to give them a pass because they are veterans or something. It's like you expect me to just ignore the fact that they applied their past experiences, to todays situation in Iraq, in an apparent attempt by them, or the Washington Post, to lead readers to a false conclusion about the effectiveness of the troop surge.

Sorry, but right is right, and wrong is wrong.

[Bill]

Hey Bill, could you please point out where it was in my post that I called those 12 veterans "Phony soldiers"?

You immediately attacked their legitimacy as sources of information, even tho you have no way of knowing what information they might have access to. You attacked their right to speak, to have an opinion, to which they are vastly more qualified than anyone here.

You are saying they are liars.

That's a "phoney soldiers" attack, taking the tactic and it's metaphor from limbaugh.

You aren't even aware you're doing it.

[Bill]

Bill Use your powers to to save face and delete this post before too many people read it !

You are really looking silly here and obviously have no idea what a "phoney soldier" is

While I respect those small group of soldiers opinions I have to say thier wrong, thier words were most likely taken out of context by the liberal media

Thanks for your kind concern, Frank, but I'm not too worried about looking silly.

The joke I'm making is that wingers will immediately attack the soldiers writing such an article. No doubt some winger radiohead is speaking an attack against these captains into their microphone even as I type these words. And the bloggers are spreading these guys home addresses.

The predictable winger response to any soldier who objects is the "phoney soldiers" tactic.

I happen to know a captain in the national guard, an old drinking buddy - he tells me that mid-level officers all thru the military feel much the same way as the authors of this article. Career mid-level officers tend to be fairly well educated, and much more aware of complex military issues than the short-timer enlisteds.

He's the same guy who wanted me to join a militia back in the day. We used to shoot together, pistol practice. He gave me one of my favorite rifles.

[radioguy]

The joke I'm making is that wingers will immediately attack the soldiers writing such an article.

I think you need to read my posts a little more carefully. What I pointed out about this article Bill was fact, not partisan opinion.


I'm am not disputing their accounts of what went down when they were deployed there, nor am I condemning their opinions. They are American war veterans, and entitled to express their opinions. I totally respect their right to call em as they see em, whether I agree with them or not.


Their opinions about what they witnessed in Iraq and the direction they saw things going when they were there, I had no problem with at all. When they took their assessments of what they had witnessed 1, 2 and 3 years ago, and equated it to the situation on the ground today, that's when the article crossed the line from being credible, to being dishonest. If they would have qualified their opinions by stating that they based their beliefs on what they witnessed back in 2005 and 2006, before the new strategy was implemented, I wouldn't be debating this issue with you now... But they didn't, and thats what made the article deceptive and brought into question their motives as well as their credibility.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I think you need to read my posts a little more carefully. What I pointed out about this article Bill was fact, not partisan opinion.


LOL, fact according to RadioGuy? Oh Bill, you better fall down on your knees and thank your lucky stars that such an encyclopedia of knowledge has graced your boards.


:lmao2:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

That's probably 90 Muslims for every 1 Christian. Think about how proud Jerry Falwell would be.


I'm sure that whatever corner of hell that man is in, it warms his heart that his fellow rightwingers will soon be joining him.

[Little Red Dog]

Could you please give me an example of a report or article that has come out in the last few weeks by someone who is on the ground there, that contradicts my belief that the surge is working? Make sure if you find one, that it isn't just baseless opinion with no facts to support it. Those are a dime a dozen. All you have to do is pick up the NY Times to get those. ...

Sorry, not biting. This is your perpetual whine to any poster who disagrees with you. I won't do your work for you. If you cared enough about America, you'd do the work yourself. You'd be looking for all the information available, and soaking up all the versions available.

However, you don't. You don't care about knowing the truth about Iraq. You just want to be right, and it's all black and white for you.

And the fact is that Iraq isn't black and white. It's a war. Wars are never black and white. Wars are a myriad shadings of grey. Of course there are parts of Iraq that are more peaceful than others. And there are parts where people are afraid to leave their homes.

These 12 soldiers saw another side of Iraq than the one Geo the Lesser would have us believe exclusively exists. To paraphrase, there are no happy Iraquis dancing in the streets the whole livelong day.

And they omitted nothing. The dates of their tours were there in the resource for you to read - which you obviously did, since that is the kernel of your argument. If anyone is trying to be deceptive here, it is you.

You could have just adressed the content of the column, rather than attack the posters. You chose not to do so. Which is par for the Rove-trained-faithful like yourself. It's pathetic that you think this kind of discourse passes for opinion. And it is even more pathetic that for all your alleged "support for the troops" you would attack 12 of them who have verifiably served.

While slavishly supporting the propaganda of a draft dodger.

As for the rest of your post - dude, you bore me. You never have a position that isn't dictated by some right-wing pundit. Maybe they have lower standards for posting over at scam, but the posters here generally are better read and better informed.

I suggest you raise your bar, or quit making a fool of yourself. Or you could go back to scam where they apparently tolerate your increasingly desperate ramblings.

[radioguy]

If you cared enough about America, you'd do the work yourself. You'd be looking for all the information available, and soaking up all the versions available.

The fact is, there are no stories or reports that indicate the surge isn't working.

Now I know this is going to be painful for you to hear, but every single media story and official report coming out of Iraq in the last few weeks, indicates the troop surge is kicking some major terrorist ass over there.

And by the way, if you assert that there are stories and/or reports that show that the surge is not working, it's your job to back up your assertions, not mine.

[asroc]

Radioguy, tell it to your fellow Republicans:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=29053

Have you not noticed yet that it's the liberals that are always ahead of the curve when we predict what happens with this war, you guys always get it completely wrong.

[Little Red Dog]

The fact is, there are no stories or reports that indicate the surge isn't working.

Actually, the thread began with the column from the soldiers opining that the efficacy of the surge is overplayed. You assert that the surge is not overplayed and that these soldiers have no valid opinion. In fact, you're the one making assertions here.

Instead of trying to twist the thread to serve your agenda, I suggest you take your own advice: it's your job to back up your assertions.

And as a theoretical matter of policy: if the surge has worked, then our job is done. We can leave. The troops can come home. What do you want to bet me that your comtemptible excuse for a leader is going to find some new reason for staying?

By the way, that's a sucker bet. And I'm on the upside.

[radioguy]

Radioguy, tell it to your fellow Republicans:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=29053

Have you not noticed yet that it's the liberals that are always ahead of the curve when we predict what happens with this war, you guys always get it completely wrong.

You're joking right?

A public opinion poll doesn't prove the surge isn't working.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

You're joking right?

A public opinion poll doesn't prove the surge isn't working.


It doesn't prove that the majority of Americans agree with Bush's Veto of SCHIP either but that didn't stop you from trying to promote it as if it did.


• 52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

• 55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.

Taken together, the results show that while Bush may be losing the political battle with Democrats, he may be doing better on policy.

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-15-poll-schip_N.htm?csp=34#results)


:taunt: :taunt: :taunt:

[radioguy]

Why in the fuck, do you again attempt to derail a thread with that completely off-topic comment?

The fucking thread that is discussing that issue, is the same fucking thread you quoted me from! And it wasn't this one!!!!


GET THE FUCK OFF MY BACK YOU USLESS BITTER OLD BITCH!
GET THE FUCK OFF MY BACK YOU USLESS BITTER OLD BITCH!
GET THE FUCK OFF MY BACK YOU USLESS BITTER OLD BITCH!

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Why in the fuck, do you again attempt to derail a thread with that completely off-topic comment?

The fucking thread that is discussing that issue, is the same fucking thread you quoted me from! And it wasn't this one!!!!


GET THE FUCK OFF MY BACK YOU USLESS BITTER OLD BITCH!
GET THE FUCK OFF MY BACK YOU USLESS BITTER OLD BITCH!
GET THE FUCK OFF MY BACK YOU USLESS BITTER OLD BITCH!


You really don't like it when someone points out your own hypocrisy do you Muffin?

How can I be bitter? You are too entertaining for that. And you are the one that just took the thread off track. Ian's poll is every bit as useful for "proof" as any you ever posted. Probably moreso, he's a lot smarter than you are.

Get over yourself before you hurt something vital.


Sheesh!

Lady Mod

[asroc]

You're joking right?

A public opinion poll doesn't prove the surge isn't working.

You're right, it's working so well that Turkey has gotten in on the act and decided to mount a surge in Iraq of their own.

[radioguy]

You're right, it's working so well that Turkey has gotten in on the act and decided to mount a surge in Iraq of their own.

Come on Ian... Enough with the false arguments.

Is it really that tough for you and others on the left to admit was is so clearly obvious... That so far, the troop surge is not only working, but working better than nearly anyone expected it would?

You and the others were never shy about pointing out how you believed the strategy under Rumsfeld was not yielding any positive results, and you all cited the numbers and figures as your proof. How come those very same statistics, that are compiled by the same people as they were before, are now being cast aside and treated as irrelevant by the left now?

You know Ian, nobody is claiming that the war is won, or that the situation couldn't fall apart in the coming weeks or months. The fact is, none of us know how this thing is going to end up being. But as long as OUR strategy in Iraq is producing such positive results, you would think that every American, no matter what their political beliefs happen to be, could show a little pride in the country and acknowledge the outstanding results that our military is currently achieving over there.

Remember, we're Americans first.... Liberals and conservatives second.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Ya, come on Ian. Admit it. You're right and the "Right" is wrong. What's so hard about that?

;)

Turkish Bid to Pursue Kurds Poses Quandary for Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/middleeast/19kurds.html?ref=middleeast)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/19/world/19kurds.600.jpg

At a protest on Thursday in Erbil, marchers carried signs that swore allegiance to Kurds, wherever they might be in the region. “Kurdistan is one and all Kurds are pesh merga,” said one sign, a reference to Kurdish fighters.



BAGHDAD, Oct. 18 — Turkey’s decision to allow the dispatch of troops over Iraq’s border in pursuit of Kurdish guerrillas throws into relief a troubling quandary for Iraq’s leaders.

[Little Red Dog]

...The fact is, none of us know how this thing is going to end up being. But as long as OUR strategy in Iraq is producing such positive results, you would think that every American, no matter what their political beliefs happen to be, could show a little pride in the country and acknowledge the outstanding results that our military is currently achieving over there.

The only people who are going to save Iraq are the Iraquis. The current government has shown no inclination to do so. Sure, American troops can make a difference to Iraqui violence - at a price. As soon as we leave, whether it's 1 month or 10 years from now, the violence resumes. We will have accomplished NOTHING. Look at the HISTORY of the region.

Why you continue to believe this collossal f*ckup is worth sacrificing more and more American lives is beyond me. You seem to forget - this swamp of death and destruction was created by American lack of planning, mismanagement, and just plain arrogance. OUR "strategy in Iraq" is what brought us to this point and continues to hold us, and the Iraqui people captive. To say, "Look, we are trying to clean up the mess we made, aren't we wonderful!" is pathetically delusional.

What are we supposed to be proud of? That good men and women, both American and Iraqui, are being wantonly sacrificed so that Blackwater, Haliburton, and the rest of Bush and Cheney's cronies can get even richer? That our soldiers are being thrown into the maw of this mismanaged debacle, to emerge broken, shattered, and left to find their own way through an overwhelmed VA system? That their families are being destroyed by long deployments, with divorce, depression, bankruptcy and suicide at an all-time high among the armed forces?

Or are we supposed to be proud that al Quaeda recruiting, fueled by a red-hot hatred of America is at an all-time high in the region? That Afghanistan is being sucked back into a vortex of opium production and drug running that finances terrorist cells and activities? That bin Laden continues to be alive and well, and broadcasts his "Address to the World" roughly every three months - without any fear of ever being brought to justice?

You must really hate America if you think this is worth being proud of. And you must really hate Americans since you believe that we should sacrifice more and more of them on the altar of this errant bullshit.

...Remember, we're Americans first.... Liberals and conservatives second.


Delusional sanctimonious hypocrisy. Look at your posts. You spend more time railing against "the other" (translation: anyone who disagrees with you) and claiming victim status than anyone on this board. "We" for you is only you and the rest of the 24% of sheep who need to live in fawning obeisance to the pile of steaming caca you call "leader".

76% of the country has more sense.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Bidding on senators' letter about Limbaugh's 'phony soldiers' comment tops $2.1M (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/bidding-on-sena.html)


http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZV iewItem?loc=interstitialskip

Winning bid: US $2,100,100.00

Ended: Oct-19-07 10:00:00 PDT
Shipping costs: Free
Standard Flat Rate Shipping Service
Service to United States
(more services)
Ships to: Worldwide
Item location: Los Angeles, CA, United States
History: 213 bids
Winning bidder: bettyc588( 93)

--------------------------------------------------------
With less than 5 1/2 hours to go before it's over, the eBay bidding has topped $2.1 million for the original copy of a letter signed by 41 senators who condemned conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh for using the words "phony soldiers."

We've reported several times about what Limbaugh said and the reaction to it. If you're not up to speed on what happened, you could start with this post (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/bid-by-friday-t.html) and click through the links. They'll take you back through the story as it developed.

It's Limbaugh who is auctioning the letter -- which he says is a "smear" because he believes Democrats deliberately mischaracterized what he said about some critics of the Iraq War.

Money from the auction will go to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation (http://www.mc-lef.org/).

There's a pdf copy of the letter here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/rushlimbaughsmearletter.pdf)

Update at 10:45 a.m. ET: Go here to see our post (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/xxx-xx-xx-xx.html)about what is building into the latest war of words over words about the war. Democratic Rep. Pete Stark has alleged that President Bush "just likes to blow things up -- in Iraq, in the United States and in Congress."

Update at 1:10 p.m. ET: Going once ... going twice ... sold! $2,100,100 it is. The winning bidder is "bettyc588."

[Smurf-Herder]

Bidding on senators' letter about Limbaugh's 'phony soldiers' comment tops $2.1M (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/bidding-on-sena.html)


http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Harry-Reid-Rush-Limbaugh-Smear-Letter_W0QQitemZ260170172469QQcategoryZ4105QQcmdZV iewItem?loc=interstitialskip

Winning bid: US $2,100,100.00

Ended: Oct-19-07 10:00:00 PDT
Shipping costs: Free
Standard Flat Rate Shipping Service
Service to United States
(more services)
Ships to: Worldwide
Item location: Los Angeles, CA, United States
History: 213 bids
Winning bidder: bettyc588( 93)

--------------------------------------------------------
With less than 5 1/2 hours to go before it's over, the eBay bidding has topped $2.1 million for the original copy of a letter signed by 41 senators who condemned conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh for using the words "phony soldiers."

We've reported several times about what Limbaugh said and the reaction to it. If you're not up to speed on what happened, you could start with this post (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/bid-by-friday-t.html) and click through the links. They'll take you back through the story as it developed.

It's Limbaugh who is auctioning the letter -- which he says is a "smear" because he believes Democrats deliberately mischaracterized what he said about some critics of the Iraq War.

Money from the auction will go to the Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation (http://www.mc-lef.org/).

There's a pdf copy of the letter here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/rushlimbaughsmearletter.pdf)

Update at 10:45 a.m. ET: Go here to see our post (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/xxx-xx-xx-xx.html)about what is building into the latest war of words over words about the war. Democratic Rep. Pete Stark has alleged that President Bush "just likes to blow things up -- in Iraq, in the United States and in Congress."

Update at 1:10 p.m. ET: Going once ... going twice ... sold! $2,100,100 it is. The winning bidder is "bettyc588."

That's an historic document.

Congress trying to censor free speech in an official letter.

All based on an obvious smear campaign, to anyone who knows anything about it.

[Jesse Hemingway]

That's an historic document.

Congress trying to censor free speech in an official letter.

All based on an obvious smear campaign, to anyone who knows anything about it.
Hail Congressman PETE STARK keep telling the truth the wacked out r-wingers look like the idiots they are cheers to Congressman PETE STARK:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: