More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder

[radioguy]

Over the last two months, we've all witnessed the amazing transformation that's been taking place in Iraq, due to the implementation of the troop surge.

The numbers speak for themselves...

Today in Iraq, particularly in and around Baghdad, violence is down, murders are down, civilian deaths are down, American casualties and troop deaths are down, the number of suicide attacks are down, the number of IED attacks are down, and the number of violent attacks taking place is also down.

It's reached a point, where even liberal news outlets like ABC, CBS and even the Washington Post, are finally coming out and admitting that the troop surge is working and has turned the tables on the Iraq war in America's favor.

Because of these positive developments in Iraq, the majority of the "cut and run" democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, and others, have wisely decided to step down off their soap boxes and keep their "This war is lost" comments to themselves. We witnessed a night back in August, where all three of leading democratic candidates for the white house in 2008, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, not only were forced to change their positions on immediately withdrawing the troops, but wouldn't even commit to withdrawing them before the 2012 elections rolled around. Even public opinion on the war is headed in a positive direction for the first time in two years or more.

As undeniable as the progress in Iraq now is, it just amazes me when I find articles like the one I stumbled upon yesterday titled "Ending the Stalemate on Iraq" that was co-written by democratic congressman, Harold Ford, Jr. The word "Stalemate" in the title, struck me as... well... for lack of a better description, it seemed a little out of place, so I decided to check it out.

After reading the majority of that article (just couldn't bring myself to read it all), I couldn't decide whether Ford was a)really that out of touch with whats been going on, b) has a very serious case of denial afflicting him, or c) is just one of those "full of shit" liberals that knowingly embraces lies to pander to the anti-war, far left "kook fringe" liberals.

After reading the very first paragraph of the article, I immediately checked the date it was published, because I thought that there was no way this could have been written yesterday... But to my surprise, it was.

It said:

"President Bush’s approval rating is in the low 30s. Congress’s is even lower. Voters want a new strategy in Iraq, and they are clearly disgusted at the inability of the President and Congress to agree on one."

New strategy? We just implemented a "New strategy" Mr. Ford, and that strategy is achieving better results than almost anyone had expected it to. I thought to myself, "Where in the hell has this guy been the last few months, living in a cave or something?"

Later I came upon this:

"Republicans are holding out for an illusory victory. Democrat rightly want to force a new direction"

I can assure you Mr. Ford, that the positive results the troop surge has achieved thus far, is no "illusion" sir. And maybe you haven't noticed from that cave you've obviously been staying in, but there are very few democrats around lately (especially the prominent ones), who are displaying a desire to "Force a new direction" in Iraq... At least not publicly.

He later states:

"We need a new strategy now — a strategy that both brings more peace and stability to Iraq and serves as a 21st century national security policy that focuses on containing the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world."

Earth to Mr. Ford... We HAVE a new strategy in place now, that has brought more peace and stability to Iraq, and is showing better results as each week passes.

"This is a pivotal moment for the country. The President’s stay the course approach in Iraq has failed, and an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it."

Huh? Am I in the twilight Zone or something? The president changed course back in January... You know, the troop surge? You have heard of it, haven't you congressman?

I'll bet you also weren't aware that the majority of the American people support General Patraeus's recommendations on how the war should prosceed... Hell, do you even know who General Patraeus is congressman?

I skipped to the last sentence, which stated:

"We need a bipartisan policy that makes us safer and strengthens our ability to bring peace and stability to Iraq."

Wouldn't you agree congressman, that allowing "0" terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, means that our "policies" here at home have kept us "safe"?

Wouldn't you also agree, that the new policy that was fully implemented in Iraq back in June, a policy that has brought the current death rate of American soldiers to a level that hasn't been seen since back in 2003, can legitimately be considered, as making us "Safer" sir?

*

So, is this proof that liberalism is a mental disorder?

I'll let you be the judge... and by the way your honor's, I rest my case.

[Little Red Dog]

the anti-war, far left "kook fringe" liberals.

Small detail: You're referring to 76% of the country. Hardly a "fringe".

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

Ah, yes. Your sincerity SHINES through in your every post.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Small detail: You're referring to 76% of the country. Hardly a "fringe".



Ah, yes. Your sincerity SHINES through in your every post.

LOL, like a neocon light!

:) :D

[UserName]

The surge has nothing to do with the reduced violence, but of course the conservative contingent will not leave any opportunity to pat themselves on the back.

The most recent headline I noticed should give all the credit to the Sunni and Shiite leaders for hammering out an accord to try and get their country back on the rails.

"Sunnis, Shiites put it in writing to halt violence"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003961294_iraqpeace19.html


Seems that military negotiation has been the deciding factor and not military aggression through the "surge". Nice try though, radioguy.:D

[disrupter]

Now the mousetrap is set, so it will spring load as soon as it is released.

Rightwingers might want to wipe the frothing spittle from around their mouths before calling others mentally 'challenged'.

[kittens]

How can you even trust their reporting? The military routinely lies to us about what is going on in Iraq.

Iraq's Bloody Toll

By Conn Hallinan, Foreign Policy in Focus

The great 19th-century Tory Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli once remarked there were three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is a dictum the Bush administration has taken to heart when it comes to totaling up the carnage in Iraq: If you don't like the numbers, just change them; and when in doubt, look 'em in the eye and lie.

For instance, according to the Department of Defense (DOD), the United States does not track civilian casualties. As former commander General Tommy Franks put it, "We don't do body counts."

But testimony in the recent trial of U.S. Army snipers from the First Battalion of the 501 Infantry regiment indicated the generals indeed do body counts. In a July hearing at Fort Liberty, Iraq, Sgt. Anthony G. Murphy said he and other snipers felt "an underlying tone" of disappointment from their commanders when they didn't rack up big body counts.

"It just kind of felt like, 'What are you guys doing wrong out there?'" he testified. When the snipers started setting traps to lure in unsuspecting Iraqis, the kill ratios went up and the commanders, he said, were pleased.

The choreography the Bush administration does around casualties is aimed at creating a dance of lies and disinformation to cover up one of the worst humanitarian crises to strike the Middle East since the Mongols sacked Baghdad.

That is not an overstatement.

A recent poll by the British agency Opinion Research Business (ORB) found that the war may have killed more than one million people, a toll that surpasses the 800,000 killed in the Rwandan genocide. The ORB used "excess mortality" as its measure, that is, deaths over and above mortality figures from the past.

The Grim Numbers

Trying to figure out the butcher bill in Iraq is an uphill task.

For instance, according to the London-based organization Iraq Body Count, by March of this year, civilian deaths stood at 65,160, although the organization noted that 2007 has seen "the worst violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion." The conservative Brookings Institute's Iraq Index posts slightly higher figures, and the United Nations higher still.

The Iraq Interior Ministry is highly critical of the UN's conclusion that 34,000 Iraqis died in 2006, calling the figures "inaccurate" and "unbalanced," but refuses to release its own figures. And the only sum the Bush administration has ever come up with is when the president commented to the press in December 2005 that the number of Iraqis killed was "30,000, more or less."

The first serious statistical investigation of the war's impact was a survey by Johns Hopkins University published in the British medical magazine, The Lancet. According to the study, from the March 2003 invasion through September 2006, the number of deaths due to the war was 654, 965 Over half of those were women and children. The Johns Hopkins study also used the "excess mortality" methodology, which measures not only deaths from war, but violent crime and disease. It found that 91.8 percent of the excess mortality was due to violence, 31 percent of that inflicted by coalition forces.

President Bush immediately dismissed the study's methodology as "pretty well discredited," and the media either ignored it or accepted the White House's characterization.

In fact, there is virtual unanimity among biostaticians and mortality experts that the methodology used in the Johns Hopkins study is accurate. Following up on an earlier version of the study, Liala Guterman, a senior reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, says she contacted 10 experts in the field about the Lancet article, and "not one of them took issue with the study's methods or conclusions." Indeed, she said, the experts found the conclusions "cautious."

According to John Zogby of Zogby International, one of the world's most respected polling services, "The sampling [in the Lancet survey] is solid, the methodology is as good as it gets." Ronald Waldman, a Columbia University epidemiologist, said the method was "tried and true," and British Defense Ministry science advisor, Sir Roy Anderson, said the survey was "close to the best practice."

Indeed, the Bush administration used exactly the same methodology to determine the number of deaths in Darfur, figures that were used to convince the U.S. Congress to label the current crisis in the Sudan "genocide."

U.S. Casualties

The administration's sleight of hand on deaths and casualties even extends to its own forces. There are, for instance, no hard figures on the number of private U.S. and British contractors wounded or killed, even though private contractors outnumber the number of coalition troops in Iraq.

And when casualty statistics come out in ways the DOD doesn't like, it just changes how they are counted.

On January 29, 2007, the Pentagon listed 47,657 "non-mortal" casualties in Iraq. One day later this number had fallen to 31,493 by the simple device of dropping any casualty that did not require "medical air transport." The DOD also doesn't include vehicle accidents, or soldiers who are taken ill, including those with mental problems.

Other Consequences

No one has systematically collected information on the number of Iraqis wounded by the war, although a ratio of two or three to one wounded to killedin excess of one million people -- is considered a good rule-of-thumb figure.

Besides the deaths and injuries, the war had unleashed, according to the Financial Times, "The worst refugee crisis in the Middle East since the mass exodus of Palestinians that was part of the violent birth of the state of Israel in 1948." According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 2.2 million Iraqis have fled their country, mostly to Jordan and Syria, and another 2 million have been turned into internal refugees. If one adds to that the ORB figures for deaths, it means at least 20 percent of Iraqi's pre-war population of 26 million has been killed, wounded, exiled, or displaced.

The White House has simply ignored the refugee crisis.

In 2006, the United States budgeted $3 million for refugees, although according to Amman-based researcher Noah Merrill, none of the relief organizations, including the UN, has seen any of that money. And if they had, Merrill points out, it would come to a grand total of $3.50 per person. "Jordan is an expensive country, " he says, "and $3.50 will not help anyone -- not even for a day."

Half of Iraq's population are children, nearly 20 percent of them under the age of five. Some 25 percent are malnourished and 10 percent suffer from acute malnutrition. According to a UNICEF study, 70 percent of Iraqi's children suffer from traumatic stress syndrome.

Food rationing, a system on which five million Iraqis rely to stay alive, is breaking down, and according to Patrick Cockburn of The Independent, two million can no longer be fed because of security concerns. Unemployment is at 68 percent. Once the most industrial country in the Arab world, Iraq is devolving into an oil-rich, agrarian backwater. Some 75 percent of the country's doctors and pharmacists have fled, bringing its medical system -- at one time the best in the Arab world -- to the point of collapse.

And finally, like a biblical plague, cholera is working itself down the country's river system, from the Kurdish north to Basra in the south. Over 7,000 cases have been confirmed in northern Iraq, according to the World Health Organization.

In 1258 the Mongol generals Hulagu and Guo Kan besieged and took the city of Baghdad. They murdered its inhabitants, burned its libraries, and ravished its lands. The Bush administration has done the same, but hidden it behind a smoke screen of lies and voodoo statistics.

For the average Iraqi, there is little difference between the Mongols and the United States. Both have laid waste to their country.


http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee143/monstersamba/iraq.jpg

[disrupter]

Understand that to the right wing's mind Creation has been 'proved' & Evolution is a fraudulent doctrine.

This is the right wings 'special' definition of 'proof'.
If something is painted inside my eyeballs it is true, not withstanding the entire Universe that is beyond my eyeballs contrasting it.

Might want to stand back in case it blows up.
Mad people running around blindly can be hazardous especially when they are armed with weapons.

[Bill]

Radiguy, you're funny.

Your rhetoric couldn't get more rabid if it was coming out of the foaming mouth of a bat.

[moonman]

Has this self-proclaimed 'radioguy' ever posted an original thought on this board?

The idea that liberalism is a mental disorder is advocated by hate jock Michael Savage.

[radioguy]

Has this self-proclaimed 'radioguy' ever posted an original thought on this board?

The idea that liberalism is a mental disorder is advocated by hate jock Michael Savage.

Those are my original thoughts MM, but unlike most of you on the left, I use facts to form my opinions, not baseless political bullshit.

Those are my observation of an article I came across last night. An article written by a democratic congressman, who seems to have ignored some of the development that have occurred in Iraq over the last few months. I outlined some of those developments, so you could easily compare the reality of what's going on there now, to the picture Ford paints in his article.

For example, Ford says that the presidents "stay the course" strategy isn't working, that we need a new strategy now, and that we need a plan that "strengthens our ability to bring peace and stability to Iraq".

Those three statements are falsehoods, deceptions, or just flat out lies depending on how you choose to classify them. First off, the president has not "Stayed the course", or there wouldn't be any troop surge in Iraq. I'd also like to add, that the strategy the president implemented, according to the press that is over there and the published statistics, has been extremely effective so far. Secondly, we don't need a new strategy right now, because the one currently being used is yielding positive results. And finally third, the current plan has already brought an unbelievable amount of peace and stability in Iraq, especially in and around Baghdad.

It puzzles me how nearly every liberal on this board, can pretend that the troop surge hasn't changed the situation over there, when every single indicator and statistic proves otherwise.

And by the way, I'm not a fan of Michael Savage. I listened to his show a few times last year, and that was more than enough for me. I used the title of his book, because it has become a popular an often used phrase in conservative circles, that seems to on occasion, be the only reasonable explanation for the kooky shit liberals sometimes do.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Has this self-proclaimed 'radioguy' ever posted an original thought on this board?

The idea that liberalism is a mental disorder is advocated by hate jock Michael Savage.

Yes he has.

Fuck Off Bitch!


That was his original thought. Or else he's horny. UGH! :talktothehand:

[Americanadian]

Those are my original thoughts MM, but unlike most of you on the left, I use facts to form my opinions, not baseless political bullshit.



:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

What's really funny is that he believes his own rhetoric.

[Jesse Hemingway]

Over the last two months, we've all witnessed the amazing transformation that's been taking place in Iraq, due to the implementation of the troop surge.

The numbers speak for themselves...

Today in Iraq, particularly in and around Baghdad, violence is down, murders are down, civilian deaths are down, American casualties and troop deaths are down, the number of suicide attacks are down, the number of IED attacks are down, and the number of violent attacks taking place is also down.

It's reached a point, where even liberal news outlets like ABC, CBS and even the Washington Post, are finally coming out and admitting that the troop surge is working and has turned the tables on the Iraq war in America's favor.

Because of these positive developments in Iraq, the majority of the "cut and run" democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, and others, have wisely decided to step down off their soap boxes and keep their "This war is lost" comments to themselves. We witnessed a night back in August, where all three of leading democratic candidates for the white house in 2008, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, not only were forced to change their positions on immediately withdrawing the troops, but wouldn't even commit to withdrawing them before the 2012 elections rolled around. Even public opinion on the war is headed in a positive direction for the first time in two years or more.

As undeniable as the progress in Iraq now is, it just amazes me when I find articles like the one I stumbled upon yesterday titled "Ending the Stalemate on Iraq" that was co-written by democratic congressman, Harold Ford, Jr. The word "Stalemate" in the title, struck me as... well... for lack of a better description, it seemed a little out of place, so I decided to check it out.

After reading the majority of that article (just couldn't bring myself to read it all), I couldn't decide whether Ford was a)really that out of touch with whats been going on, b) has a very serious case of denial afflicting him, or c) is just one of those "full of shit" liberals that knowingly embraces lies to pander to the anti-war, far left "kook fringe" liberals.

After reading the very first paragraph of the article, I immediately checked the date it was published, because I thought that there was no way this could have been written yesterday... But to my surprise, it was.

It said:

"President Bush’s approval rating is in the low 30s. Congress’s is even lower. Voters want a new strategy in Iraq, and they are clearly disgusted at the inability of the President and Congress to agree on one."

New strategy? We just implemented a "New strategy" Mr. Ford, and that strategy is achieving better results than almost anyone had expected it to. I thought to myself, "Where in the hell has this guy been the last few months, living in a cave or something?"

Later I came upon this:

"Republicans are holding out for an illusory victory. Democrat rightly want to force a new direction"

I can assure you Mr. Ford, that the positive results the troop surge has achieved thus far, is no "illusion" sir. And maybe you haven't noticed from that cave you've obviously been staying in, but there are very few democrats around lately (especially the prominent ones), who are displaying a desire to "Force a new direction" in Iraq... At least not publicly.

He later states:

"We need a new strategy now — a strategy that both brings more peace and stability to Iraq and serves as a 21st century national security policy that focuses on containing the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world."

Earth to Mr. Ford... We HAVE a new strategy in place now, that has brought more peace and stability to Iraq, and is showing better results as each week passes.

"This is a pivotal moment for the country. The President’s stay the course approach in Iraq has failed, and an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it."

Huh? Am I in the twilight Zone or something? The president changed course back in January... You know, the troop surge? You have heard of it, haven't you congressman?

I'll bet you also weren't aware that the majority of the American people support General Patraeus's recommendations on how the war should prosceed... Hell, do you even know who General Patraeus is congressman?

I skipped to the last sentence, which stated:

"We need a bipartisan policy that makes us safer and strengthens our ability to bring peace and stability to Iraq."

Wouldn't you agree congressman, that allowing "0" terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, means that our "policies" here at home have kept us "safe"?

Wouldn't you also agree, that the new policy that was fully implemented in Iraq back in June, a policy that has brought the current death rate of American soldiers to a level that hasn't been seen since back in 2003, can legitimately be considered, as making us "Safer" sir?

*

So, is this proof that liberalism is a mental disorder?

I'll let you be the judge... and by the way your honor's, I rest my case.

bush is a f$KKKING failure that still has not changed Radioguy :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Congressman Pete Stark is the man!!!

[disrupter]

Original thought is pretty rare for NeoConartists,

But wordsmithing new packaging for the same old tired ideas they have proven quite adept at.

When you have a bit of time. Parse exactly what a lot of sloganeering really means. More often than not the NeoConjob is pure lies & deceptions, designed to rip off the average American.