How dare you!

This woman LOST A SON and has a MOTHER IN THE HOSPITAL! And you have the unmitigated GALL to CRITICIZE her?

CHICKENHAWK!!! Why aren't YOU and the BUSH DAUGHTERS serving in Iraq, HUH?!?

Guess what life sucks, get a helmet.

Moonbat Lefty should have accused you of trying to "censor" Mother Sheehan, and claimed that you were part of a new McCarthyism.

A friend of mine once wondered why people dislike Michael Moore so much. Afterall, he just "raises questions." It never occurred to him that he doesn't actually "raise questions" so much as make goofball accusations and disguise them as questions to deflect criticism.

"Hey, don't attack me, I'm just asking questions."

Right on, Ace.

"If the mothers of people killed by drunk drivers were allowed to set policy...."

The sad thing is, they more or less *are*. Maybe not to the extremes you suggest, but groups like MADD are given enormous deference by politicians.

Re: Moonbat Lefty

Damn, I should really label my parody posts better.

Actually, I was just reproducing the gist of comments I've gotten. The left, for all of its glamorizing of free speech, has developed a number of interesting ways to shut down discussion on topics related to the war:

1. - It's wrong to bring Sept. 11 into discussions about the war. That day had absolutely nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq.

2. - The moral authority of liberal mothers who have lost sons in Iraq is absolute and we should never question or criticize them, even when their rhetoric is completely off-the-wall.

3. - You haven't served in the military? Well, then, you can't support the war!

4. - Seriously. September 11 is completely irrelevant. Plus, it was Bush's fault!

That was a good rant Ace. I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, it made sense so it doesn't fit the narrative of this issue in the mainstream press. Sorry.

BUT CINDY IS A MOM AND CHIMPY MCHITLER STOLE HER SON!!! ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF WHY WE FIGHT FOR ZIONISTS AND OIL YOU CHICKENHAWK NEOCONS!!!!

Did you ever leave a room after responding to someone with some thing lame and later thought up the perfect response? And you just seethed at the lost opportunity until it ate and ate away at your very soul and you started molesting animals or something?

Yeah, me either. But I saw it on Seinfeld once when George just can't get on with life until he tells this fellow the Jerk Store called.

Cindy Sheehan is suffering from Lost Cheapshot syndrome. She had her chance to berate the President and she blew it and it's fucking killing her.

Bravo, this sums it up nicely i believe. I hate when i try to make sense to people like this and i dont sound half as articulate

The trouble with parodies of lefties is that it's hard to define what's too insane to be real.

The signature that slublog left, "moonbat lefty", should have been a clue though.

The trouble with parodies of lefties is that it's hard to define what's too insane to be real.

All too true. Just visit Democratic Underground for some fun.

She had her chance to berate the President and she blew it and it's fucking killing her.

Sponge, that's pretty amazing- I never thought of that, but you're dead on.

If you put that on a bumper sticker, just that and nothing else, you could make... well, I would buy one.

spongeworthy,

Excellent analogy.

Steven,

Don't you mean "new and improved McCarthyism?

Totally off-topic, but I figure it's "Open Comments Friday" here at Ace O' Spades.

An interesting post at AS.com (not written by Andrew) about how the media protect sources.

A taste...

Quick story. In the mid 1980s I went to a fancy Fifth Av. party for Senator Ted Kennedy. There were journalists there and lots of other bigwigs. The only time I'd seen Kennedy before was at a campaign stop in 1979 when he'd been seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. He might have won, but I realized at the party that it would have been a terrible thing because he was the drunkest human being I had ever encountered in my life...

It's an interesting question, though. How often do the media make such deals in the name of 'access?'

Maureen Dowd wrote of Sheehan in The New York Times that "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

According to this statement, Saddam Hussein's moral authority is absolute.

Ace. My man.

This is brilliant, blistering, and spot-on. Entries like this are the reason I keep lurking here. (Well, that plus Megan's lesbian innuendos)

At least you are a right winger who can take criticism as opposed to so many other blogs that merely parrot r.w. talking points.

And seeing as the persons most hurt by this war are the families of those sent, why should they not be given deference.

Seems to me, Matt, the persons most hurt by this war are the people who actually do the dying. And they're volunteers. We owe their families many things, of course, but military decision-making isn't one of them.

Madmatt,

I agree.

The people most hurt by this war are the ones fighting it.

Soldiers overwhelmingly support George W Bush. We should give their opinions deference and continue with this war in Iraq.

God, do I love turning their silly (il)logic against them.

Cindy has become a bore. Now that people know what she's about she's become a real asset to the right, and they can collectively tune her out like NYers do about the traffic noise.

Maureen Dowd wrote of Sheehan in The New York Times that "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

I love Coulter's response to this:

It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

Coulter is hot.

72HGB is right. How many of the MSM are really crying that she had to go home? She was cutting into their Hamptons vacation time. It'd be one thing if she were camped out in Cape Cod, but Crawford?

Nice try jackass, but you are wrong and will be shown up by the massing of support for Cindy and other mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends of those who also believe that their loved ones were lost in a war for profit and power. You wish it wasn't true and you give a sprited defense of the Chimp-in Chief but the truth cannot be stopped.

I don't really think that Sheehan has any special "moral authority" because her son died in the war. I don't really judge people on their "authority". Where does "authority" come from, anyway?

Too often, people judge the message by the messager. If someone we judge to be crazy or stupid says something that's true, it doesn't become false just because of who said it. By the same token, if someone in a position of authority says something stupid or false, their authority doesn't make it right or true.

The media have latched onto Sheehan because they like drama and conflict -- not because they are trying to undermine Bush or the war. They need personalities to sell their papers and their ad time. If they were out to get Bush or stop the war, they would have asked a lot more difficult questions before we got into this mess in the first place.

Sheehan should be judged like anyone else: on the basis of what she's saying. I don't think anyone has a monopoly on "truth" about the war against Iraq, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions that deserve to be addressed.

Sheehan on Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

Hmmm... impressive scholarship. WHAT???

Wow, Ace, you sure spent a lot of time telling us Cindy Sheehan isn't worth our time.

The more furiously you try to pretend you're ignoring her, the more obvious your panic and insecurity becomes. You right-wingers have made "We're on the side of those who serve!" a default response to questions you can't handle, so now people like Ms. Sheehan are a threat to your whole fragile world-view. Not because of HER actions, but because of YOURS.

Your attacks on Sheehan are so cowardly and babyish as to make her chums look saner and smarter no matter what they say. If she becomes a threat to your policies, it will be your fault.

Ace is right that we don't let the people who suffer most set policy, e.g., mothers of drunk-driving victims don't write drunk driving laws.

There's an even more extreme example of victims not being allowed to set policy, though, and one that I believe is especially relevant to the parents of fallen soldiers:

If we let abused wifes set dometic-violence law, then wife-beaters would walk free and cops would be punished.

Cindy Sheehan's biggest crime is that she put a face on the war. The coffins have been hidden by law. The MSM have not shown the carnage in Iraq. As long as the war was sanitary, people didn't think about it. She lifted the edge of the curtain and people began to see some actual personal suffering. For a war of choice, identifying with suffering is not a good thing.

"If someone we judge to be crazy or stupid says something that's true, it doesn't become false just because of who said it"

Exception to the rule: Cedarford

Raging Bee wrote:
If she becomes a threat to your policies, it will be your fault.

The Craftsman Madonna is going to threaten Ace's policies? Ace is a major player in foreign policy now, who knew? Ace, next time you see him, tell that Rove I want my damned-dirty-Jew-oil-money check already.

Ed,

Anyone who ever believed any war could be "sanitary" is a drooling moron. It is the nature of battles that they are messy.

Exactly, that's why trying to not let Americans see the costs only worked for awhile. Actually, longer than I thought it would.

Ah, Raging Bee has provided another example of how those on the left attempt to stifle dissent:

5. - You guys should really shut up about (insert issue here), because the more you talk about it, the more you admit how important the issue really is.

Thank you, Raging Bee. You have performed a public service.

I bet Ed had his lunch money taken from him a lot while growing up. Either that or he stood by watching others get theirs taken away.

"that's why trying to not let Americans see the costs only worked for awhile"

We've seen the costs, Ed. Remember the embedded media? Remember the funeral footage we see every night? Remember all the stories coming out of Walter Reed? If you don't know what the cost of war is because you didn't see the picture of a flag draped coffin you must be deaf, dumb, and blind.

Careful children, you're beginning to foam at the mouth again.

Neither foreign policy or tactical military decisions can be made on emotion. The real world is not an Oprah episode. Troop commanders don't like seeing their men chewed up, but that doesn't mean that they can choose not to commit them to battle if there is danger involved. Soldiers are given orders, and they have to follow them, regardless of personal reservations. Our leaders have to make difficult decisions sometimes, even when there could be a significant human cost. Emotions can't outweigh other factors or the whole process gets paralyzed. Governing with the heart instead of the head is a pretty damn short path to disaster.

Cindy Sheehan's loss doesn't make her opinions of the war, the president, or her own son's heroism any less idiotic and loathsome. Likewise, my contempt for her opinions doesn't make it any less legal for her to express them or to spread them as widely as possible. What infuriates me is the MSM's implicit assumption that her opinions are infinitely more valid, and deserve a thousand times as much air time, as the opinions of those parents who believe their sons and daughters died in a worthwhile cause.

Watching Cindy Sheehan grapple with her loss, with the "help" of people like Michael Moore, Lynne Stewart, and David Duke, is sad and ugly. Given a choice, I'd just look away. But the media aren't giving us a choice, and that's a story worth examining.

"Exactly, that's why trying to not let Americans see the costs only worked for awhile."

Funny, that's how I feel about the refusal to show anyone actually dieing on 9/11. The videos of people jumping to their deaths so they don't burn. Wouldn't want people fired up and angry about being attacked or anything.

I think most Americans realized this (Iraq) would be a long and bloody war. And accepted that as a necessity of the post 9/11 world.

Careful children, you're beginning to foam at the mouth again.

We have not yet begun to foam.

Wait until after 5 p.m. or so, when the drinking starts.

Foam-O-Rama.

Pilgrim X:

Are you a real moonbat or is that just Slublog doing another parody?

there you guys go again. sheehan really isn't the story. the story is the ever changing reasons for the war and an administration that refuses to own its mistakes, even as it continues to make them.

sheehan is merely the vehicle that's delivering a long overdue accountability moment.

you attack sheehan personally because you can't defend the mistakes and even refuse to admit that they are indefensible. grow up.

No Dman, I kicked the s**t out of the bullies who pushed around kids I know and at 6'2" and 235, I still do. It's my passion.

Ever notice how the Left, who pride themselves on being so much smarter than the Right, always start ad hominem attacks when they can't offer an intelligent argument.

Pilgrim X (above) starts right out of the gate with:
Nice try jackass, ... a spirited defense of the Chimp-in Chief....

As I recall, this is Ace's blog. He put forth a well-worded, well-thought argument. The left come in here and start calling names -- as usual.

Cognitive Dissonance at work.

Here's the thing.

No one cares about Cindy. The story is not about her. She is merely a symbol for how people feel about the war. Bashing her is like bashing Rosa Parks (not to equate the issues, but the involvement of the symbol). Rosa Parks was a symbol for people to think about how THEY felt about racism.

Cindy Sheehan is a similar symbol. You don't have to agree to with her war strategy to agree with her that her son was lied to.

That's what you guys don't get. Shooting the messenger isn't going to work here. Even if it turns out she is a robot designed by Michael Moore, it isn't going to change the fact that there is a growing movement of people willing to call BS on this war, and willing to call GWB a liar. That is what you need to deal with, not Cindy Sheehan.

Pilgrim X:

Are you a real moonbat or is that just Slublog doing another parody?

See, Slub, that's the problem with trying to do moonbat parodies. Essentially, it's a thankless task. I would have accused you of being Raging Bee, but after you rebutted him that would have raised grave questions about your sanity.

Of course, the fact that you can channel the moonbat mindset so convincingly raises a few questions itself...

Wow Ed we share the same passion. Too bad your small world picture does not match your big world picture.

Sounds like Ed might be the bully involved in his fantasies. Passionate fantasies. Mmmm.

"I'm bigger than you, so I'm gonna beat you up for doing things I don't like such as beating people up that are smaller than you."

Internet warrior.

Anybody who thinks there's not going to be mistakes in war as well as carnage is a drooler also. What is unfortunate is a political climate where nobody can cede one inch in the name of candor and honesty because their opponents will completely rip them apart for it.

So whine on about owning their mistakes, but take your own share of responsibility for it. No one's going to hand you the cudgel.

"Bashing" Cindy by reporting her own words? "Smearing" Cindy be reporting her own affliations and backers? "Shooting the messager" by questioning her insane illogic that Bush "stole" her grown adlut son who voluntarily re-enlisted in 2003? Are we "dodging her questions" by not addressing her theory that the Jews planned 9-11?

What planet am I on? These leftists have lost it, they can't even spout their own shitty propagda correctly.

Ed stated above:

Cindy Sheehan's biggest crime is that she put a face on the war. The coffins have been hidden by law. The MSM have not shown the carnage in Iraq. As long as the war was sanitary, people didn't think about it.

What world are you living in? The media have done nothing but broadcast anti-war propaganda. As I recall, twice Dan Rather felt it necessary to read the names of all the men/women killed in the war "as a tribute". When our soldiers were killed, burned, and strung from a bridge, the pictures were gladly plastered everywhere. There are tons of pictures of those soldiers who were injured/maimed in the war. Every day we here about the soldiers who are killed via car bombs or other IEDs.

That statement just shows how delusional you Lefties are. The fact is those on the Right know the heavy costs of war. But, we believe in the fight. You guys on the Left can't get that simple fact thru your heads. So, you claim media bias.

Listen very carefully: We know people are dying.

I am glad you are so concerned about American soldiers. You must do a lot of volunteering at the local VA. Or, perhaps you are concered about the innocent Iraqis. That is admirable. You must have done a lot of work to stop their suffering under Saddam. You know, what with the mass graves, torture, rape rooms...I am sure that someone of your superior conscience could not sleep at night knowing the living hell the average Iraqi faced.

St. Cindy is not just the new Rosa Parks. She is also the new Baby Jesus and MLK.

See, Slub, that's the problem with trying to do moonbat parodies. Essentially, it's a thankless task. I would have accused you of being Raging Bee, but after you rebutted him that would have raised grave questions about your sanity. Of course, the fact that you can channel the moonbat mindset so convincingly raises a few questions itself...

I didn't write any parody comments after the first. Honest. Ace must have gotten linked from Kos or DU.

As for channeling the left...to paraphrase "As Good as it Gets:"

I begin with a conservative, then remove reason and accountability.

"Troop commanders don't like seeing their men chewed up, but that doesn't mean that they can choose not to commit them to battle if there is danger involved. Soldiers are given orders, and they have to follow them, regardless of personal reservations."

But they like to know it's for the right thing. That's what's misssing from the Iraq War. There appears to be no fixed noble cause. And that's what Cindy wants to know from The Idiot: What was the noble cause that her son died for?

=

We finally have some honesty, courtesy of Seattle Slough.

For the left as a collective, Sheehan and her grief are not the issue, instead it is the anti-war coalition's cynical, opportunistic usage of her that is the issue. She must be portrayed as the spark that will light their powderkeg. She must be seen as the first hand on the doors of the Bastille, the first shot fired into the Winter Palace.

THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

*rolleyes*

Ed, you seem to believe that people cannot make rational decisions about foreign policy unless they first are exposed to graphic images of dead bodies. I take it, then, that you disagree with the MSM's refusal to show ads containing graphic images of partial birth abortions? Just askin'.

"Given a choice, I'd just look away. But the media aren't giving us a choice, and that's a story worth examining."

What, the media broke into your homes and disabled the channel-selectors and "OFF" buttons on your remotes? And...let me guess...you couldn't call the cops because your TVs were on and you couldn't look away or even think for yourselves?

There's people DYING over there, and you feebs can't even pretend to function as adults. You're a disgrace to your country.

"Exactly, that's why trying to not let Americans see the costs only worked for awhile."

Funny, that's how I feel about the refusal to show anyone actually dieing on 9/11. The videos of people jumping to their deaths so they don't burn. Wouldn't want people fired up and angry about being attacked or anything.

I think most Americans realized this (Iraq) would be a long and bloody war. And accepted that as a necessity of the post 9/11 world.

Posted by John at August 19, 2005 02:53 PM

Thanks, John, for posting this.

refuses to own its mistakes

This is a popular claim from the left. We (those who believe the war is justified) often make the mistake of trying to analyze what that means by asking questions like "which mistakes, in particular, are not being properly accounted for"?

But the answers invariably become "the war was just wrong".

If we disagree on that fundamental point, there's no mistake to own up to.

There's people DYING over there, and you feebs can't even pretend to function as adults. You're a disgrace to your country.

I can't speak for the rest of the people here, Raging Bee, but personally I'm just this guy. "The media aren't giving us a choice" is accurate to the extent that they're covering a couple dozen superannuated hippies in Crawford to the exclusion of more significant stories--Able Danger, for one. Air America ripping off the poor, for another.

As for being a disgrace to my country--well, I certainly can't stand shoulder to shoulder with David Duke and Lynne Stewart. They're the real heroes.

"What, the media broke into your homes and yada yada yada"

the quantity of trolls seems to be increasing but the quality is falling fast.

utron: two wrongs don't make a right, and one extreme's stupidity does not justify that of another.

And which "media" are you referring to? Salon, the Economist, and WaPo all cover plenty of other issues - but you have to look past the front page to find it. Do some extra work for a change, and quit crying about how you can't just sit back and be given what you want.

Yo, BrewFan, don't be dissin' my trollery 'til you can show something better of your own!

I take it, then, that you disagree with the MSM's refusal to show ads containing graphic images of partial birth abortions? Just askin'.

That's a money question. But why stop at partial birth abortion? In the name of informed decision making, shouldn't we also see images of all aborted babies?

Raging Bee said:

There's people DYING over there, and you feebs can't even pretend to function as adults. You're a disgrace to your country.

The plaintive, hyperventilating is a typical example of Liberal argument.

Fact: No one has killed more Iraqis than Saddam

Bee: I admire a person with such strong convictions. Please direct me to a posting on your blog or elsewhere we you expressed this concerned whilst Saddam was in power.

Most conservatives are somewhat torn on the Sheehan issue. Sad for her loss, but her 'moral authority' is not enhanced by it.

We're also torn because we know that Sheehan the Moonbat Martyr is a disastrous face for the anti-war movement. Democrats have been marginalized on national defense because the electorate considers them pointlessly emotional and intellectually unserious. Sheehan confirms that assessment, as do her supporters.

Warden: Please direct me to postings/comments from Adminstraton officials concerning the killing of Iraqis by Sadam Pre-1991. Specifically the gassing of the Kurds. Remember now. Comments made before the first Gulf war. I can show you a picture of Rummy shaking the man's hand. Remember Saint Ronny Reagan lifting the embargo on trading weapons with Sadam in the 80's. Oh what glorious times.

Do some extra work for a change, and quit crying about how you can't just sit back and be given what you want.

Did you lift this quote during the Welfare Reform debate?

"Yo, BrewFan, don't be dissin' my trollery 'til you can show something better of your own!"

As Johnny Coldcuts would say, "When I want to show you something better I'll write it on my baloney and stick it in your ear".

Well thats not *exactly* how he might phrase it but I'm at work right now.

Henk,

Why in the world direct that demand at me? I made no assertion that has anything whatsover to do with whatever point you're trying to make.

I'm not your monkey. Do your own research.

If Sheehan doesn't start a hunger strike by 5pm tomorrow...I'm out 20 bucks.

Though I'd still have a chance at winning the entire pot is she commits suicide on live TV.

St. Cindy is not just the new Rosa Parks. She is also the new Baby Jesus and MLK.

LOL!!!....

Now, where'd Ed go with his whole let the American people see the true cost of war routine. I'm still waiting for him to answer whether he feels the same about showing graphic images of aborted babies.

I'm at work too, BrewFan, so I'm going to have to cut this scintillating exchange of ideas short.

However: since you ask, Raging Bee, I read all the sources you mention, along with a number of others. I've got a lot of respect for Kaus over at Salon. I also--occasionally--tune in to the evening news, and I read the local paper daily. If I were limited to the information I'm spoonfed from those sources, I'd probably see the world pretty much the way you do.

Mistakes to be owned:
First and probably the greatest mistake happened before the war even started. NO PLAN for after the war. These guys all believed thier own hype about flowers and parades. Before we entered WWII we were making plans for rebuilding Germany and Japan.
Second big mistake: Not enough troups to control the koas after the war. Remember Rumsfeld: "Free people will.." What a load.
Big mistake #3: Disbanding the Iraqi Army. This one will go down as one of the biggest Military blunders in History. Cutting lose 400,000 armed and trained men. I wonder who's making all those bombs?
Mistake #4: Cutting Iraqis out of rebuilding contracts. Not giving them a stake in rebuilding thier own country was one of the stupidest things ever concieved.
And who concieved but the briliant minds of Mistake #5: A bunch of untrained Republican operatives to Administer the rebuilding. They asked one of these buy what his favorite jobs was before coming to Iraq. His answer: "Driving an ice cream truck. That my friends says it all.
Lefties out there. The next time one of these wingnuts asks what mistakes. Heres the short list.

There's people DYING over there, and you feebs can't even pretend to function as adults. You're a disgrace to your country.

Oh BOO-HOO. People die every fucking day. Get over yourself. Suffering is part of the human condition. One's political poisition does not make it any more or less noble. Dealing with it and moving forward is what makes a person an adult, not carping on it and wishing it wasn't so.

We tried being nice, we gave them money, tried to understand them, we even helped them against their other enemies, and they still slaughtered us by the thousands. Not for any sin of ours, but because we live in a nation goverened by a philosophy different from theirs.
So now its payback time.
Its our duty to help as many of them become martyrs as possible. They're not going to negotiate with us, they won't reason with us, or understand us. They give us two options, accept their way of life, or die.
Frankly I'm too enamoured of bacon to give it up for their stinking moon god. So its option 3 for me: kill them first. You don't like it, go get your new wardrobe.

Great come back Warden.

"Bee: I admire a person with such strong convictions. Please direct me to a posting on your blog or elsewhere we you expressed this concerned whilst Saddam was in power."

Didn't you make this comment? I was just wondering if you could back up your BS.
Apparently not!

Before we entered WWII we were making plans for rebuilding Germany and Japan.

Uh, I kind of doubt this. I'm no military historian, but I'm pretty sure that we had no idea we were going to win.

But they like to know it's for the right thing. That's what's misssing from the Iraq War. There appears to be no fixed noble cause. And that's what Cindy wants to know from The Idiot: What was the noble cause that her son died for?

Try telling most Iraq combat veterans they fought and bled for "no fixed noble cause" and count the seconds before you get punched in the eye. Building schools, providing food and medicine to people who were starved for fun, and trying to keep a country from reverting to a medieval terrorist basket-case are pretty damn noble causes if you ask any reasonable person. Despite of the revisionist history we keep getting force-fed by the media, WMDs were one of several reasons put forth for taking Hussein out. You want to fight terrorist organizations, you start by removing their sponsors.

The problem with you short list Henk is:

1. Each item is a lie or an exaggeration or some incidents taken out of context.

2. Nobody on your side of the aisle has ever, besides spouting these Alan Colmes talking points, offered meaningful alternatives. Its been over two years; where are the alternatives? Oh wait, I know what 'they' are; send more troops! Yeah, that'll do it!

Ed: "Exactly, that's why trying to not let Americans see the costs only worked for awhile. Actually, longer than I thought it would."

Are you on drugs? Go back and listen to Bush's speeches post 9-11 - nobody ever said this was going to be short or sanitary. Quite the contrary.

Anyone with a few neurons firing (this excludes the left) realized it would be a protracted process lasting a generation or more.

Fighting a war is a tough job. I don't blame soldiers for needing to believe that they are fighting for a good cause. But that doesn't make it true. Many of them believe they are, and many believe it is futile and wrong. People have different experiences and process those experiences differently. Therefore I agree that it's best not to rely on emotional arguments for or against the war.

But it was sold to us on an emotional basis right from the start. We were encouraged to see the war on Iraq as needed to protect us from the fearsome threat of Islamic terrorism. There was never much rational basis for the war, and all the reasons given have proven to be wrong so far.

I don't see any rational basis for believing we are any safer, either. Terrorism comes from hatred, and more people hate the US right now than ever before.

Geeezus....did Google just shitcan another round of employees?

Somebody bolt the doors before they start handing out pamphlets.

Henk,

No, as a matter of fact I did not post that statement. Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suite. Are you lazy, stupid or both?

"Terrorism comes from hatred"

See, this is where you are wrong. Dead wrong if you'll excuse the pun. Terrorism comes from cold political calculation by people seeking power over other people. Nothing we do has or will turn people into terrorists. Ideology will turn people into terrorists.

I don't see any rational basis for believing we are any safer, either. Terrorism comes from hatred, and more people hate the US right now than ever before.

How many times has the United States been attacked since September 11?

How many times has the United States been attacked since the beginning of the war in Iraq?

Like it or not, the so-called "flypaper" strategy works. It's drawing terrorists away from us and into the war in Iraq, where they fight against soldiers, not civilians. So spare me the "oh, we're not safe" argument.

Sheehan's mom suffered a stroke yesterday.

I question the timing of this stroke.

I don't see any rational basis for believing we are any safer, either.

Color me quite unimpressed. Rationality obviously isn't your strong suit.

Henk - Sure, mistakes were made, and are continuing to be made. (You can add lack of armor protection, failure to get the Turks to let us invade with the 4th ID form the north.) Some of your points are debatable, but, whatever. ALL wars are full of mistakes. Just look at the first year of WW2 - the faulty torpedo issue as just one example - and tens of thousands of Americans died as a result.

The point is war, and the subsequent "nation building," is incredibly complex. The occupation of Germany was one big freakin fiasco. Japan went well, but we had sole control, and had to freakin NUKE them to get to that point. No one can forsee all possibilities and outcomes. And the fact that you have an enemy with a will of his own, who will act and adapt in unpredictable ways, increases that exponentially. Your "mistakes were made" argument is essentially arguing against all wars, ever. Which is called pacifism. Which we do not need right now.

From a historical perspective, these wars have gone off very smoothly.

...more people hate the US right now than ever before.

I don't think "hate" means what you think it does. The word you're looking for is fear. And that's a good thing.

Remember my old saying - "Better that a wise enemy should fear you, than that foolish "friends" should praise."

Henk wrote:
I can show you a picture of Rummy shaking the man's hand. Remember Saint Ronny Reagan lifting the embargo on trading weapons with Sadam in the 80's. Oh what glorious times.

I can show you a better picture than that.

Here is an American President (not just a lackey, mind you) sitting down for a friendly chat with a foreign leader who by that time had killed over 10 million people.

At the meeting shown, this President was basically negotiating how to divide up the world with a future enemy. Before that, he was sending supplies to this same enemy, paid for with hard-earned U.S. taxpayer dollars!

Here's the even stranger part: that very same foreign enemy leader was initially aligned against our allies!

Maybe you're right. It's stupid of us to do things like that. We should probably be more like the Europeans.

I think that we should all take military advice by a guy who can't even figure out who posted what.

Didn't you make this comment? I was just wondering if you could back up your BS.
Apparently not!

Posted by Henk at August 19, 2005 04:31 PM

Oh, you mean this comment?

Bee: I admire a person with such strong convictions. Please direct me to a posting on your blog or elsewhere we you expressed this concerned whilst Saddam was in power.

Posted by at August 19, 2005 04:09 PM

Here's a hint, General Patton. There's a line right below the post that shows the reader who made the post. I've put it in bold for you to help you out.

Sue, you are on freakin' fire.

Nice one Sue. Can't wait to read the response. lol.

Not only does this bitch have no inherent moral highground as a result of her son's death, her recent words and actions have made it impossible for me to even feel sorry for her. Just because her kid died, no one wants to call a spade a spade here, namely, that St. Cindy's just another mindless, self-aggrandizing media whore spewing boring, predictable, dishonest, lefty pablum.

At this point, I'm ready to go ahead and question her patriotism. Neither her nor her kid are more important than the country as a whole. Like most moonbats, this woman seems utterly oblivious of the fact that her words and actions -- and the words and actions of others like her, including the MSM -- embolden the enemy, who in turn kill more of our troops. Nice going.

Fuck her, I'm glad it hurts.

First: it's not that her opinions on the war have superior status or validity based on her loss. Her right to ask the question, though -- 'what exactly did my son die for' -- is (I think) unassailable. I'd sure like to hear the answer from GWB himself in something more than simple assertions and platitudes.

Second: your point applies generally to those in the military, or with military backgrounds. You all seem to assume that their opinions carry some extra weight. Not so -- you've made the point well.

Fuck her, I'm glad it hurts.

She's a moonbat, but she has every right to express her grief and her opinion. And I do feel terribly sad taht she lost her son. She's wrong, and a moral cretin, but fuck you 12".

Hate and fear are pretty closely linked, in my experience.

I suppose the idea that hate causes terrorism is threatening to people who are afraid to consider how our country's own behavior may have contributed to the rise of Islamic terror. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying we deserved to get attacked, or that trying to make everyone love us is going to make the world a safe place.

But these are complicated issues, and it's simplistic to say that our actions have nothing to do with the hatred that leads to terrorism.

Here's my bottom line: how does killing people in the Middle East make us safer?

Fear is not going to save us. We are talking about people who are willing to blow themselves up to kill us.

We can't kill everyone who hates us -- or who has an ideology we disagree with.

So at some point we are going to have to figure out some way to co-exist with those who are hostile to us.

"St. Cindy is not just the new Rosa Parks. She is also the new Baby Jesus and MLK."

No, she isn't well spoken enough to be MLK.
And she isn't fictional enough to be Baby Jesus.

Oh, and to the guy who says we haven't been attacked since 9/11:

1. I think our soldiers would beg to differ. They are us, and they get attacked every day.

2. al Qaeda does not strike often. Prior to 9/11 we were "safe" for 8 years.

Andy,

So what does she expect to hear NOW that she didn't hear the PREVIOUS time he talked with her?

Does she think her recent "celebrity moonbat" status will change his answers?

Here's my bottom line: how does killing people in the Middle East make us safer?

Well, if you kill the right people...

Jon says: "So at some point we are going to have to figure out some way to co-exist with those who are hostile to us. "

Jon

Feel free to go visit the head choppers for a "sit down" and let us know how you make out. I'll even pay for your plane ticket (one way).

Terrorism comes from hatred, and more people hate the US right now than ever before.

I suppose the idea that hate causes terrorism is threatening to people who are afraid to consider how our country's own behavior may have contributed to the rise of Islamic terror.

And another thing...I'm extremely tired of the argument that President Bush's policies are somehow directly responsible for terrorism.

In order to believe that, you guys have to ignore all of this:

November 4, 1979 Teran, Iran
U.S. Embassy Taken Over

1982 – 1991 Lebanon
18 Americans Kidnapped

April 18, 1983 Beirut, Lebanon
Truck Bombing of U.S. Embassy

October 23, 1983 Beirut, Lebanon
Truck Bombing of U.S. Marine Barracks

December 12, 1983 Kuwait City, Kuwait
U.S. Embassy Annex Attacked

September 20, 1984 Beirut, Lebanon
U.S. Embassy Compound Attacked

April 12, 1985 Madrid, Spain
Restaurant Bombing

June 13, 1985 Beirut, Lebanon/Algiers, Algeria TWA Flight 847 Hijacked

August 8, 1985 Frankfurt, Germany
Rhein-Main Airbase Bombing

October 7, 1985 Port Said, Egypt
Achille Lauro is Hijacked

November 23, 1985 Valeta, Malta
Egyptair Flight 648 Hijacked

December 27, 1985 Rome, Italy and Vienna, Austria
Grenades and Guns are used to Massacre Passengers at Rome and Vienna Airport

April 02, 1986 Athens, Greece
TWA Flight 840 Bombed

April 05, 1986 West Berlin
La Belle Disco in Berlin Bombed

December 21, 1988 Lockerbie, Scotland
Pan Am Flight 103 Bombing

January 25, 1993 Langley, Virginia
CIA Employees in Langley, VA are Shot

February 26, 1993 New York, New York
1993 World Trade Center in New York Bombed

November 13, 1995 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
U.S. Military Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is Bombed

June 25, 1996 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are Bombed

August 07, 1998 Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are Bombed

October 12, 2000 Aden, Yemen
USS Cole Bombed

September 11, 2001 New York City, Washington, D.C.
World Trade Center is Destroyed and the Pentagon is Attacked

Looks to me as though we were less safe when terror was being appeased or ignored.

How do we know who to kill? How do we kill them without killing innocent people? How do we prevent the relatives of those we kill from trying to get revenge on us?

The cycle of violence is never going to end. I'm not saying I have any easy answers, but we are just making things worse with the current policies.

This gets so old. You'd think every knucklehead accusing America of "arming Saddam" would notice they're running around with Kalashinikovs and RPGs.

You'd be wrong.

So, for you Henk, data collected by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, transfers of conventional arms to Iraq, 1970 - 1990. You'll note the top 3 aren't the US.

You will have to look a little lower, as they are 11th in the list.

Below Brazil.

"We are talking about people who are willing to blow themselves up to kill us."

"So at some point we are going to have to figure out some way to co-exist with those who are hostile to us. "

Absolutely brilliant. If this is what you really believe, there is only one - ONLY one - solution for you.

Welcome to dar al-Islam, Jon.

As for me, I will certainly support efforts to kill those who hate me, and are trying to kill me. Unapologetically.

"2. al Qaeda does not strike often. Prior to 9/11 we were "safe" for 8 years. "

wrong, moonbat. Ever hear of the USS Cole? 2000? The African Embassies? 1996?

Slu - it goes back beyond that (for the USA) to the time of Jefferson and the Barbary pirates episode.

This "war" has been on a slow boil for at least 200 years.

Nobody ever suggested that all this is Bush's fault. We have been fucking around with the Arab states for as long as they've existed. The Western powers CREATED the Arab states, and we have treated them like pawns in our little power games ever since.

This is an historical fact that is well known by every single person in the Middle East.

1996=1998 and I defer to Slublog :)

> How do we know who to kill?

The guys with IEDs and large head chopping knives are a good start.

> How do we kill them without killing innocent people?

Develop better aim.

> How do we prevent the relatives of those we kill from trying to get revenge on us?

The traditional (tested for millenia) approach would be to whack them too.

Jon,

You are sorely lacking in accurate information. Unless you enjoy being a troll I'd suggest you start commenting on different topics. There's a James Bond thread a few posts down.

>Nobody ever suggested that all this is Bush's fault.

The subject of this thread did.

200 years? It's been going on at least ever since I kicked all that Janissary ass at Vienna in 1683.

Well, fuck you back Rocketeer. I too am sorry about what happened to her son. I come from a military family and have two buddies in Iraq right now, and I think that lying about the progress of efforts and our reasons for being there in the first place, and also inviting the left's biggest losers to share in her grief-a-thon, is bullshit that helps the enemy. Cindy has the right to think and feel whatever she wants; she doesn't have the right to endanger others by providing propoganda for the terrorists, and her words and actions are inappropriate and indecent.

So, yeah ... fuck her. If her son were alive to see what a spectacle his mother has made of his brave and noble sacrifice it would kill him all over again.

1. I think our soldiers would beg to differ. They are us, and they get attacked every day.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my question well. How many terrorist acts have been committed against civilians who can't fight back since September 11?

I asked nothing about soldiers being attacked in a war zone.

2. al Qaeda does not strike often. Prior to 9/11 we were "safe" for 8 years.

Yeah, right:

January 25, 1993 Langley, Virginia
CIA Employees in Langley, VA are Shot

February 26, 1993 New York, New York
1993 World Trade Center in New York Bombed

November 13, 1995 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
U.S. Military Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is Bombed

June 25, 1996 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are Bombed

August 07, 1998 Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are Bombed

October 12, 2000 Aden, Yemen
USS Cole Bombed

Very nice.

Okay, how about we try to set an outer limit, and work backward from there to see if we can reach a conclusion as to how this all ends.

Why don't we just nuke every country but America, and then round up all the Americans who object? That way we could have a perfect little radioactive world and be safe forever.

If anyone disagrees with this policy, please tell me what you'd do differently, and why.

Tony:

We're talking politics here. Her status (plus a surprising political misstep by the White House) has put her in a position to demand, with real legitimacy, a public reply to her question. Exactly what noble cause did her son die for?

All of us -- not just Cindy Sheehan -- deserve a direct answer to that question and the opportunity to have it debated. You can't honestly pretend this issue has been treated openly by the administration. We've been treated to over 20 rationales for the war in the last couple of years, and hear nothing these days but vagaries about staying the course until the mission is complete.

If you guys didn't know in your hearts that the open discussion of exactly this issue -- what is the mission here? which part is sufficiently 'noble' to merit the deaths of 1,864+ American soldiers? how is success defined? -- you would't react anywhere near so vehemently! Because, like Sheehan's stance, your outcry ('bitch', 'moonbat',...) is all politics and has nothing to do with principles.

People die everyday boo-hoo?
One of the more brilliant comments I've read here.
So does this imply that the death of American troops is unimportant as long as it serves RW purposes? Guess that's why you don't serve your selves or send your own children. Nothing like a little war to keep the compitition on the job market down or dangerous minorites off the street.
And oh the poster that stated ann C was hot, do you know why there are no childhood pictures on the my life part of her site? She was Andrew then.

I'm not a troll. A troll has no interest in dialogue. I'm actually trying to communicate here.

If I'm lacking in information or rationality, I wish someone would please help me out.

Or, I suppose we could all just keep hanging out with people who already agree with us and say dumb things about the people who don't.

Jon,

Sounds good to me! Which 'camp' would you prefer? And, because you're such a good sport Lindy gets to be your guard. Woof!

Or, I suppose we could all just keep hanging out with people who already agree with us and say dumb things about the people who don't.

No, there are already plenty of sites where that is the status quo.

Re: Jon's statements above

I don't blame soldiers for needing to believe that they are fighting for a good cause. But that doesn't make it true.

Consider this Message to Cindy Sheehan regarding the merit of the fight.

Also, factually, I thought we went to war because Saddam ignored 14 UN resolutions.

I think all would agree that mistakes were made. However, I think it entirely disengenous to assert that somehow the Democrats would have done it better. It is easy to say. In fact, I tired of the whole "we would have done it better" mantra the Left bleats out. That is far too easy to say with the benefit of time and hindsight. Fighting a war half a world away is incredibly complex and fluid.

I am reminded of some quotes from T. Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." (1894)

AndyS:

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

10 People Who Have Same Moral Authority As St. Cindy:

10: Palistinians (all of them)
9: Moses (a Jew!)
8: Karl Marx
7: Baby Jesus
6: Mohammad
5: Handsome and sexy Che
4: Ghandi
3: Abused prisoners at Gitmo
2: MLK
1: Rosa Parks

Dear "moonbat" Andy,

I don't want to die some terrorist bombing sacrificing my life on the altar of political correctness - maybe you do.

The way to prevent this in the future is the nail the SOB's. Clearly you prefer to simply wish these deranged loons away. That won't work of course since they see your position as one of "weakness" (its a cultural thing touchy-feely leftists won't understand) and an invitiation to increase attacks. The Arab world respects "strength" and sneers at "weakness".

Iraq, for better or worse, appears to have become a "honey pot" for terrorists. This is a good development. Concentrated enemies are better than diffused ones.

This is an historical fact that is well known by every single person in the Middle East.

The United States had no part of that, the mandates were created by the League of Nations and administered by the French and the Brits. It was a sloppy mess, but not something we made.

I don't give a damn for the Democrats. Criticizing Bush and his neo-con advisors is not a vote of confidence for the Democrats. Their foreign policy in the past 60 years has not been much different from the Republicans'.

I'm honestly not about placing blame, here. I'm just trying to figure out how to make the world safer. It's an incredibly complicated task and it will take generations.

But I don't think we get there by invading countries that have nothing to do with global terrorism (until we get there). And either way, if we're going to try to fight and kill our way to peace, we'd better do it in an intelligent, well-thought-out way.

"I tired of the whole "we would have done it better" mantra the Left bleats out. "

They had a chance to "do it better" and we got the Able Danger fiasco and 3,000 dead for believing them.

"Nobody ever suggested that all this is Bush's fault. We have been fucking around with the Arab states for as long as they've existed. The Western powers CREATED the Arab states, and we have treated them like pawns in our little power games ever since.

This is an historical fact that is well known by every single person in the Middle East."

Every single person, heh? Half of the Middle East is illiterate, and know nothing beyond what state-run news outlets tell them, i.e. charming little nuggets about how Jews drink the blood of Arab children. The West didn't install murderous tyrants like Assad in Syria or the Taliban in Afghanistan. The West didn't create madrassas where violence and homicide are preached like it's a divine duty. The West didn't tinker with a subset of Islam until it became a twisted death-cult that uses the Koran as a fig leaf for slaughter.
Yes, US policy in the Middle East was far from flawless, and yes, we've tolerated or ignored some pretty despicable people in the past. That doesn't negate the what we're trying to do now. Christ, I went to a Motley Crue concert in high school, that shouldn't be held against me now.

But I don't think we get there by invading countries that have nothing to do with global terrorism (until we get there).

BBC News: Palestians Get Saddam Funds
Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.

Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

Nothing negates anything. The whole thing is a huge, complicated mess. That's why it's so dangerous to adopt simple-minded strategies like trying to kill everyone who doesn't like us.

The US has been involved in the Middle East for decades, especially in Saudi Arabia, which is where much of the hatred comes from. Again, I'm not saying that terrorism is our fault, but it would be ridiculous to say that our actions have never contributed to it. Al Qaida didn't just randomly pick NY and DC to attack.

Ack. That headline link should read: Palestinians Get Saddam Funds.

"But I don't think we get there by invading countries that have nothing to do with global terrorism (until we get there)."

Now hold on there a minute, Jon. There was al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war started, internationally prominent terrorists were killed in Iraq even during the invasion, and for years Saddam had been paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who blew up innocent women and children in Isreal. Please tell me again how Iraq had "nothing to do with global terrorism" before we showed up?

But I don't think we get there by invading countries that have nothing to do with global terrorism (until we get there).

Nothing to do with global terrorism?

NOTHING to dowith global terrorism?

Jon, I guess I have to take you at your word that your just trying to "figure things out." But - and pardon my rudeness, it's just the way I was raised - you'll never figure a damn thing out if you intend to remain as willfully ignorant as this comment indicates you are.

And more, from the Council on Foreign Relations:

What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?

Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

* Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
* Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
* Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
* Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.

Grrr...sorry about the lack of link. I'm typing too fast.

CFR Publications: Iraqi Ties to Terrorism.

That's why it's so dangerous to adopt simple-minded strategies like trying to kill everyone who doesn't like us.

Is that what you think is going on in the world? Really??
Who is being simple-minded, now?

Yeah, if we were more nuancy and complex I guess we'd be disrupting terror cells in the US and deporting people...oh wait, we are doing that.

Well then I guess we'd be getting assistance from the international community to disrupt cells abroad..oh, hold up, we're doing that too.

Maybe we should try to encourage the growth of democratic regimes...whoopsie!

Perhaps if we could appeal to countries like Libya and Turkey and Egypt and Saudi and Pakistan to take a harder line against their radical extremist elements....oh dear.

Pax Americana's gonna get you
Gonna hit you right in the face
Better get yourself together darlin'
We're improving the human race!

Supporting Hamas and other Palestinian groups involved in terror is not a good thing, obviously, but it was never a stated reason for the invasion of Iraq. Most of the Arab countries have ties to the PLO, but we have only chosen to invade Iraq.

There is no denying that the Arab states are opposed to Israel, for both good and questionable reasons. Our uncritical support of Israel has always been a rallying cry for mullahs who preach hatred of the US.

The ties to Al-Qaida are controversial. It's hard to sort out fact from fiction. Even Bush admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but he still wants to channel the fear of terrorism into support for the war against Iraq.

The strategy is not "killing everyone who doesn't like us". It's killing the people who declared war on the rest of humanity a dozen years ago. Al-Qaeda and it's blood-soaked supporters care little about how the Middle East was drawn up a century ago except as propaganda and excuse-making. To them, this is more about oppression and fear and killing than it is historical injustice to Arabs. You don't make peace with stateless psychopaths whose primary battle tactic is to slaughter innocent people like beef cattle. You either kill them, or bunker yourself and pray for divine intervention.

But of course, if all these measures should fail, we do reserve the option to launch Operation Sheet of Smoking Glass.

That's why it's so dangerous to adopt simple-minded strategies like trying to kill everyone who doesn't like us.

Well, Jon, if you think "simple-minded " KILL policy is all we have, then your view isn't very - how should I say it? - nuanced. We're doing plenty besides, including providing humaitarian aid (Iraq, Afghanistan, Sumatra and other tsunami-devastated countries), supporting other incipient democratic movements in other countries (Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), etc.

The fact that your focus is exclusively on the unsavory but absolutely necessary "killing" part of this war says more about you and your worldview than about the administration's actually quite varied approach to this conflict.

The moonbats would be so happy if I were in elected office. They'd actually have something to protest then.

Our uncritical support of Israel has always been a rallying cry for mullahs who preach hatred of the US.

AHHHH. NOW I see.

We're scratching hard enough to begin to get at your inner Cedarford.

Supporting Hamas and other Palestinian groups involved in terror is not a good thing, obviously, but it was never a stated reason for the invasion of Iraq. Most of the Arab countries have ties to the PLO, but we have only chosen to invade Iraq.

Right. But I was responding to your other post.

But I don't think we get there by invading countries that have nothing to do with global terrorism (until we get there).

The articles linked are clear and convincing evidence that Iraq was intimately involved in the sponsorship of global terrorism.

Now, to your other point. One of the stated reasons for the invasion of Iraq was:

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;"

It wasn't only Israelis being killed in those suicide bombing attacks.

Tony:

I'm not interested in political correctness, either. The touchy-feely stuff you mention may in fact describe some "moonbats", but not me. So save the silliness and deal with the issue.

In purely practical terms, the whole adventure in Iraq was a stupid idea, and badly executed by the leadership in addition. We're now pointlessly embroiled in the Middle East, losing more than a soldier a day. Nobody will say exactly what the "mission" is -- only that we need to keep at it until it is completed. Nobody says, either, exactly what will constitute the completion of the mission. It seems pretty clear that the end product will be...

* an Islamic republic allied with Iran, which may well lapse into full-sclae "failed state" status
* a breeding and training ground for terrorists where there was none before
* 2,000+ soldiers dead and half a trillion dollars spent
* a deeper and more vicious reserve of anti-American sentiment than ever existed before

... with no visible benefit to us at all.

Rather than specific answers from the Administration as to why we are dong this and when we can stop, we get only vagaries and pablum.

Unfortunately, our politics aren't real practical -- they tend to turn on emotional anchors. You guys used and continue to use 9/11 way beyond its actual significance. If Cindy Sheehan can leverage her right to ask 'Why?' in a way that demands an answer and exposes the Administration's unwillingness to give us one -- great!

As for your 'honeypot' theory -- you can't have thought that through. A terrorist, by definition, is one who employs violence against noncombatant targets for political motives. Why exactly would somebody committed to that strategy go to Iraq to take on heavily-armed US Marines, rather than come directly here where soft target abound? It just doesn't make any sense.

Jon (btw, you spell your name wrong) - Killing everyone isn't the policy. Among the several, clearly-and-repeatedly-stated-before-the-invasion rationales for attacking Iraq was to form a democracy in the Middle East. The long term strategic goal being to plant the seed of democracy, and give the repressed Muslim populations a political voice and some say in their future. The hope is that this will moderate them and turn them away from violence, because we all know it's not poverty that's driving the terrorists - it's ideology. And a pretty good percentage of the population over there is so frustrated with the Arab dictators that they buy into the Jihadist theology.

If this doesn't work, then we probably will have to kill them all. They'll get nukes sooner or later.

Two things:

1. Soldiers are volunteers in this country. In this case, they've volunteered to risk getting killed. If they do, well, we as a country should suck it up and remember that they did volunteer. In essence, no one speaks for the dead. They took a risk and they died. We all do, however, have the right to protest. If that means questioning the war, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that the right can scream that the left is against the troops. But it does mean that the left has a legitimate complaint that we are wasting national resources, in this case our lives. Troops are a tool of foreign policy. Thats it. Stop crying about dead soldiers, stop defending the honor of the dead, and start facing up to the costs of this war.

2.

"It's actually quite a questionable proposition that anyone with a heavy emotional response to a policy issue should have undue influence on that policy. "

This might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We have a president who was by all accounts a target in repeated terrorist attacks. We have an entire country that is shitting their pants and buying ductape. If you truly believe that statement and want to be consistent in your beliefs and actions, you need to stop voting.

Oh yeah. Slublog, regarding your comment that:

"Also, factually, I thought we went to war because Saddam ignored 14 UN resolutions."

If you need a refresher, check out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2948068.stm

The 14 resolutions were setting up the groundwork. They were the trigger, not the reason. Thats like telling my druggie kid he has to go to rehab if he isn't in bed at ten. He doesn't have to go to rehab becuase he missed curfew, rather because he's a druggie. Don't try to confuse the issue.

Yeah, I know that "kill everyone" thing was an overstatement. I'm really not too fond of this whole blog-response form of communication. I think it encourages people to just shoot off-the-cuff remarks back and forth.

I think that the Bush administration has done some things well. It makes sense to go after the money and to work with other countries the way we have.

But the invasion of Iraq was a really bad idea, and it was executed really badly. It works against much of the good stuff Bush has tried to do, because it alienates potential allies and infuriates those who already hate us. Besides that, we have put so many resources into Iraq.

These debates remind me of the old lite beer ads. People just seem to choose sides and shout at each other. I don't want to be on any side. I just want a government that tells us, honestly, what it plans to do and then listens to what the American people think about that.

That is how democracy is supposed to work. It's not the most efficient form of government for fighting wars, but it's the form we've got, and the thing we are supposedly fighting to protect.

I don't understand all the "what are we trying to accomplish" rhetoric. It was said ad nauseum
-WMDs (oops, but better safe than sorry)
-support for terrorism
-remove an evil bastard
-establish democracy in the M.E.

How can anyone not get that? What's so hard about it?

Jon you said:

But I don't think we get there by invading countries that have nothing to do with global terrorism (until we get there).

You were proven wrong so you argued.

Supporting Hamas and other Palestinian groups involved in terror is not a good thing, obviously, but it was never a stated reason for the invasion of Iraq.

This is what's called moving the goalposts, and it shows you to be a dishonest, piece of shit trolling asshole.

Your assertion was WRONG. But you won't even take a moment to acknowlege it. Nope, you're just on to the next talking point, repeating more falsehoods and generalizations.

Fuck you, pal. You don't want an honest discussion. You just want to repeat lies often and frequently enough in hopes that they'll stick.

"Nobody ever suggested that all this is Bush's fault."

Umm, isn't that exactly what Ms. Sheehan is saying? In fact, according to a transcript I just read on NRO, Sheehan doesn't even blame the person who actually killed Casey for his death, just Bush.

If Cindy Sheehan can leverage her right to ask 'Why?' in a way that demands an answer and exposes the Administration's unwillingness to give us one -- great!

Not liking the answer is not the same as not getting an answer.

Do these trolls come here just long enough to be challenged on their assertions, then rotate out?

As soon as someone puts one of them to the test, they're gone.

Oh, well. I'm gone too. Maybe I'll stop in later to see how long this thread gets.

Happy weekend.

The PLO is not "global terrorism". We are talking about a tiny piece of land. Hamas has never threatened the US directly.

I don't care who wins the argument. Discussion is supposed to be a give and take proposition. Maybe I just came to the wrong place. Or maybe actual discussion of important issues is just not something that happens on the Internet.

For an example of my argument that the Administration fails to provide any clear idea of exactly what the mission is, when it will end, or why it is necessary, here's Cheney yesterday:

“In this difficult and necessary cause we have lost some of our finest Americans. That loss is irreplaceable, and no one can take away the sorrow that has come to the families of the fallen,” Cheney told a convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in Springfield, Missouri.

“Every man and woman who fights and sacrifices in this war is serving a just and noble cause,” Cheney said. “This nation will always be grateful to them, and we will honor their sacrifice by completing our mission.”

Cheney reiterated Bush’s stay-the course message, saying “perseverance” was a part of the U.S. military’s history since the nation’s founding.

“Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror, and victory there is critical to the future security of the U.S. and other free nations,” Cheney said.

Not a single practical comment on the mess in Iraq -- just the usual assertions ('a critical front', 'a difficult and necessary cause') and platitudes ('honor their sacrifice').

I say again -- what you guys fear in Cindy, and we 'moonbats' applaud, is the fact that (though her opinion is irrelevant) she DOES have a real right to an answer.

The PLO is not "global terrorism". We are talking about a tiny piece of land. Hamas has never threatened the US directly.

The PLO and Hamas have killed American citiz...oh, forget it. I'm not going to keep repeating the same points. I have to go cook dinner.

I'll be back later.

And John:

Let's look through your list of justifications:

-WMDs
-support for terrorism
-remove an evil bastard
-establish democracy in the M.E.

Whether we agreed or not, 1, 2 and 3 are done and in the past. 4 is hopeless.

So -- please somebody say exactly what 'noble cause' we're invoved in, exactly what 'mission' we need to 'complete', and what the criteria are for success!

Slublog,

I'm sorry, but I just can't let your ridiculous commentary fly. It is true that terrorists are heading for Iraq TO BOMB OUR TROOPS. We got attacked this morning in Jordan. We are creating a terrorist training ground. Even if we don't get attached this has already served to cleave Europe off from us as they've been attacked and our ex-pat businesses and our allies overseas will be reaping the benefits of some wonderfully trained terrorists for years to come. The next time a major US city gets attacked, I want to hear you get up in front of everyone and explain that Iraq was good because it served as "flypaper" for terrorists and we haven't been attacked. I doubt that one would fly to well in London or Madrid right now.

Is there not a difference between Al Qaida and Hamas? I think the Bush administration rhetoric has tended to suggest that all terrorism is the same, which isn't true, and not a good basis for making an intelligent effort to reduce the threat of terrorism.

I would still love to see someone explain to me how we can ever win the "war on terrorism". Killing people just creates more hatred and more terrorism.

Dave in Texas:

None of us is getting the answer in the first place. "It's a noble cause"is merely an assertion... "we must complete the mission" is literally an absurdity.

All of the crap about "nailing the terrorists" that appears on message boards like this one appears nowhere in the Administration's justifications -- not because they're "touchy-feely", but because it just doesn't stand up to reasonable examination.

I'm amazed that you Republicans -- traditionally the isolationist, anti-foreign entanglement, anti-nation building wing of our political spectrum -- I'm amazed YOU aren't more vociferous in demanding to know what "winning" means and exactly how we'll achieve it. Instead, you lash out violently at people who might cause that question to be asked openly, because you know at some level that the answer just doesn't work in this case.

Killing people just creates more hatred and more terrorism.

It mostly makes them dead, which which tends to diminish their operational effectiveness.

None of us is getting the answer in the first place.

...that you agree with. Not the same as not getting an answer Andy.

As I've said before, we can't kill everyone who hates us, and trying will only make more people hate us. So where and how does the cycle end?

I have never seen an honest attempt to grapple with this question from anyone who supports Bush's "war on terror".

Andy S., No4 is far from hopeless. It's happening right now in front of us, with the drafting of the constitution. It happened in January, with the elections. It's happening because the Iraqis are volunteering for the armed forces faster than they can train them, and are fighting and winning against the Jihadis. And it's happening because those Jihadis can do nothing more than kill and cause mayhem. The days of them taking Mosul and Fallujah are over.

For our "noble cause," see my posts above. trying to answer Jon's questions... which he keeps asking...

And, as others have asked, what is your alternative strategy for tackling Islamic terrorism?

Also, Dave in Texas:

Unfortunately, it tends to enhance the unit cohesion and fighting spirit of those who are left alive!

Also, unfortunately, modern forms of killing tend to involve a certain number of non-combatants -- which engenders even more hatred of us and weakens our moral position as well.

Smart bombs aren't smart enough to make your argument make any sense, Dave!

AndyS the noble cause is self preservation.
There's no "exit strategy" there is only victory. Vicotry is when they are all dead, or abandon their Islamofascist ideology. However long, however much blood and treasure it takes. Because that's what the guys who slammed planes into the WTC are willing to spend to end our way of life and impose theirs on us.

"As I've said before, we can't kill everyone who hates us, and trying will only make more people hate us. So where and how does the cycle end?

I have never seen an honest attempt to grapple with this question from anyone who supports Bush's "war on terror".'

Jon, have you ever thought it through? What were your conclusions?

Here are mine: It will end in one of two ways. Either democracy will take root in the M.E. and moderate the people there, and terrorism will sputter out and die over the years. Or they'll keep upping the ante until we get really pissed off and exterminate them.

Any other options I've missed?

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
  
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

John:

The items you cite do not add up to an argument that we will "establish democracy in the M.E.", which is the only premise you've given for the ongoing war in Iraq.

First of all, lets see whether a Constitution emerges and whether it actually addresses the big issues or just kicks them down the road a little bit.

Everything else you mention is just vague assertion. And even if everything you say is absolutely true, all you've argued for is the creation of a police state.

If the Iraq that results somehow achieves stability, it'll be an Islamic republic tied to Iran. And that's the best case!

By the way, don't take our silence as evidence that we're 'afraid' of this discussion or that you've 'beat' us in this debate. There's a good reason for my silence.

I've got a shepherd's pie in the oven.

Mmm...shepherd's pie...

Iblis:

There are over a billion Muslims! Killing them all is unlikely. Persuading them that they shouldn't attack us by attacking and killing some of them is also not likely to be effective.

Let's be practical about this...

Slublog -- Iblis hopes you have an actual shepherd in the oven instead!

Iraq was not an "Islamafascist" regime before the war. In fact, bin Laden's followers, the true Wahabist Islamafascists, saw Saddam Hussein has an enemy because he was, more or less, a secular leader. There is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attack on 9-11. You all must know this. Why do you keep acting like they had something to do with it? It's just robotic and idiotic.

" "

Okay, again what do you folks want to do about the problem?

Slublog -- Iblis hopes you have an actual shepherd in the oven instead!

Nope, just beef, onions, corn, green beans and mashed potatoes.

Notice AndyS didn't read/won't respond to the Den Beste link he was given to answer his question. This is because he really doesn't want an answer to his question. In Andy's world, reality bites.

I've thought about it a lot, but I'm not going to claim I have any easy answers.

I really hope that democracy does take root in the Mid-East, but I'm concerned that it won't, for a number of reasons....

I'm not convinced Bush and his crowd really want democracy in the Mid-East, because democracy means that the will of the people prevails, and the will of the people is not pro-US.

Even if Bush really wants true democracy, I don't know that it can be achieved, and I don't know that he's going about it in a productive way. Even if his intentions are good, I'm afraid that all our attempts to push Iraq in a certain direction will meet resistance. Democracy is something that has to rise up from the grassroots.

I think we have to cooperate with other nations as much as possible. War is not the best way to fight terrorism. It's a blunt instrument. We need more carefully targeted efforts. We need to treat this as more of an intelligence and international crime problem. War only works when you know who and where the enemy is.

I think we also have to reconsider our support of repressive dictators like the Saudi regime. There is tremendous poverty in SA, despite all the oil revenues from the US and elsewhere. I'm not saying poverty is the sole cause of terrorism, but it does make it easier for terrorists and mullahs to recruit foot soldiers. People who have something to live for generally do not choose to blow themselves up.

We have to reconsider our policies toward countries like Israel, too. Our foreign policies should reflect our commitments to democracy and human rights. That would help our credibility a lot.

As I said, I don't think there are any easy answers. But questioning the current tactics doesn't mean I'm saying we can't or shouldn't do anything. I know there are some dangerous people out there who mean to do us harm. I'm not totally opposed to the use of force, but it has to be done better, and for better reasons. These things are not black and white. I had my doubts about Afghanistan but those were nothing compared with the disaster in Iraq.

"will of the people is not pro-US"

Given the chance, out of 100 Iraqi's, how many would emigrate to the U.S. if given the chance?

"As I've said before, we can't kill everyone who hates us, and trying will only make more people hate us. So where and how does the cycle end?

Goddammit, no one is talking about killing EVERYONE. And enough with this "the whole world hates us " crap. The Middle East has millions of people, many of whom are not radical kill-crazies and many of whom see the US as a symbol of freedom and the one ray of hope in their autocratic dark holes. The people who primarily hate us are: homicidal Islamo-crazies who hate anyone that doesn't think exactly like they do and who kill women and homosexuals for sport; greedy, despotic dictators who cynically feed them a steady diet of anti-US bullshit and keep their own countrymen in perpetual squalor so they can continue to live lifestyles that would make Caligula wince; smarmy, elitist intelligencia in Europe who have lived under our protection for 60 years. I can live with that. Even if the whole world DID disagree with us, that doesn't mean they're right.

What is it about Cindy Sheehan which makes the Right hyper-ventilate? We all remember when the Right dragged Clinton to impeachment because of his affair with Monica. During this process, it emerged that the leaders of the Republican Party -- Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, Strom Thurmond, Henry Hyde -- all had long-standing affairs (and in the case of Burton and Thurmond, children from those affairs). Did the Republicans apologize for blatant hypocrisy in dragging Clinton down? Of course not -- they continued to slime Clinton, then Gore, then Kerry, etc. When faced with absolute proof that their actions were bankrupt, they deflected attention by attacking the attackers. Iraq is of the same piece: the premises which led us to war are demonstrably false, the post-invasion planning was non-existent, the country is a mess, we have created a new terrorist hot zone, and the violence gets steadily worse. Do the Republicans show true leadership -- admit mistakes and search for a just solution? Of course not: they slime Cindy Sheehan instead.

It is a difficult question.

The democracy thing might not work. But I think the signs are pointing in a positive direction. Look at Lebanon, look at what King Abdullah said about democracy in Saudi Arabia today, look at the January elections in Iraq.

I think we are cooperating with other countries, and are using our intelligence and police assests to stop terrorism. I don't think that's enough, though. That's attcking the symptoms, and not the "root cause." (I can't believe I just typed that...)

I really fear what will happen if moderation doesn't take hold. It's a real possibility we'll get nuked. Then I think you'll see a genocide, which will be bad, to say the least..

and trying will only make more people hate us. So where and how does the cycle end?

When you convince them they can't attack you without suffering the consequences (or kill them), and the states and people who supply them that it's in their best interests not to.

There are over a billion Muslims.

A billion Muslims are not interested in killing you. A much smaller number I'm sure.

We have to reconsider our policies toward countries like Israel

Funny how we always manage to get around to the Jooooos.

I had my doubts about Afghanistan but those were nothing compared with the disaster in Iraq.

WTF?

Jon, when is the use of force justified?

I find it embarrassing that the entire planet could read this banter and think it truly reflects the way we think in the US.

Once upon a time we had a country here where people could disagree without name calling and the lovely F word being thrown in for sport. On here it appears that it's mostly about a lot of people throwing a lot of tongue and cheek comments to show how cute they are - followed by insults, name calling and some of the worst put downs I've ever seen.

A lot of you might have some very good points. Only you blow it by the way you behave on here. A whole pack of you need to grow up from the sound of things. You embarrass me.

I give the greatest honor to the person referring to Cindy Sheehan as a bitch. The comments about how Cindy's son would die all over again if he knew his mother . . . . .

This stuff is just ugly.

A lot of people are dying and a good part of you seem to come across like it's all funny or a sport.

You know, I'm a mom. I don't have a dang clue how I might feel if I stood in Sheehan's spot. I shudder when I try to put my head around it. So, for what it's worth ? THERE IS NOTHING MORE DISGUSTING than your verbal lashings towards a mother that has lost her son, her marriage, possibly her mom and about everything else dear to her. Have some damn compassion. I'm sorry but SHE gets a "free get out of jail card" with me for what she has to deal with right now. She is NOT Jane Fonda and you need to lay off her. If you want to bash anybody than bash away at those that have walked in on this and taken advantage of her and exploited it for their own agenda.

I'd be surprised if she knew what day it was today she's lost so much.

Now, I'm SURE the guilty parties will immediately pounce on this "troll" because I had the nerve to tell you to clean it up some and show some respect. If you have to chat in cyber world then would you mind acting like you have some decency if you're representing my country?

Jon and others like him are members of the Flat Earth Society.

For him it is an article of Faith that the war is unnecessary. All the empirical evidence in the world will not budge his world view.
Unless of course, it is a Democrat who is dropping the bombs.

Why bother?

I'm in general agreement with you, anonymous poster, a mother who's lost a son deserves some respect for that. I think if you'll read the original post, and all the comments, with a very few exceptions everybody else agrees with you too.

Most of the criticism, certainly in the post, is about the media circus she's playing to, and that she doesn't want "answers" she wants to make political speeches in front of the cameras.

In conclusion, lighten up already.

last post was me

You know what I find embarrassing?

The Deuce Bigalow movies.

Now, I'm SURE the guilty parties will immediately pounce on this "troll" because I had the nerve to tell you to clean it up some and show some respect. If you have to chat in cyber world then would you mind acting like you have some decency if you're representing my country?

Excuse me. Do I know you? I don't think so. So stop the condscending tongue-lashing "Mom". I don't report to you.

I agree that we should be civil and stated as much above. I think that coarse language is a poor substitute for intelligent discourse. However, I think most of the time, the posters on this blog are much more cordial than the trolls who come here from D.U. and other moonbat places. If you want to see disgusting language and ridiculous conspiracy theories -- I propose you visit Kos and his friends.

I, for one, appreciate Jon and a couple of the other Lefties appearing here. It provides a chance for some discussion. There is much emotion surrounding this issue and it sometimes clouds the arguments.

I have to ask the one-eyed-man for something more than vague arguments.

Iraq is of the same piece: the premises which led us to war are demonstrably false,

Concrete example please. Historical document/speech you reference? What premises exactly?

the post-invasion planning was non-existent

This smells of opinion. I suppose you, again, have some document to back this up?

the country is a mess

Says who? What Iraqis have you talked to?

we have created a new terrorist hot zone, and the violence gets steadily worse.

Do you have a link where you can provide statistics?

This sounds like mindless recital of Democratic talking points.

I'm with you as regards the Cindy Sheehan thing. I think the best thing to do is not respond to her at all.

If you read some of the quotes attributed to her which have not been exculpated (sanitized), you will know why.

On here it appears that it's mostly about a lot of people throwing a lot of tongue and cheek comments to show how cute they are - followed by insults, name calling and some of the worst put downs I've ever seen.

This ain't The Belmont Club, and you have a lot of nerve.
Why don't you go to a porno site and tell everybody they're misrepresenting your country and to put some clothes on please.
Sheesh.
You should be here for Flame Thread night.
The stuff people say to each other- people who LIKE each other- will turn your hair white in ten minutes.

To lauraw: and what exactly is the empirical evidence that the Iraqi war is necessary? The empirical evidence against the war is: 1800 US dead, over 10,000 seriously wounded, an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians dead and wounded, $200 billion per year added to the budget deficit, a new place for terrorists to learn their trade, and the diminution of American stature and moral authority throughout the world. The stated causes for the war -- WMD and an Al Qaeda connection -- are illusory. So tell me: what exactly is the empirical evidence which supports the war, and why is anyone who opposes the war (this being now 60% of the US population) a member of the Flat Earth Society?

August 19, 2005 07:19 PM:

Oh, give me a fucking break! Sheehan is not the only person in the entire world who has had someone they dearly love die. When it happened to me, I was not, and no one else I know in the same position, was given carte blanche to say and do what ever the hell we want.

People were exceptionally tolerant of Sheehan bc she had a son die and bc her son died serving his country. However, she passed the point of grieving mother a long time ago. She is a political activist. She has made numerous offensive and insane political comments. For you and others to say we can not criticize her is bullshit. YOU show some respect.

Majority of US is now against the war. Focusing on Cindy Sheehan is idiotic, except that she is saying things that almost no one else with airtime is saying (yet), though some are coming around.

So there is a majority with few outlets versus the Hannitys and Limbaughs and Novaks etc etc. And a large number of this majority are those who changed their minds about the war, for whatever reasons: they now feel lied to, Downing Street memos, that Bush went with those later-retracted 16 words, though he had been told they were false,... so many possibilities.

And if Cindy Sheehan has no special stance, she is just one of a majority.

Keep sliming her, and by the time you're done, there will be a few million voters who are more in agreement with her than with you.

Keep it up.

majority! see, I say it, and it becomes so!

the power of SPEAKING, er, uh, typing!

What is it about Cindy Sheehan which makes the Right hyper-ventilate? We all remember when the Right dragged Clinton to impeachment because of his affair with Monica.

Were it only so. If Clinton had just been diddling the tarts, nobody would care because EVERYONE knew he diddled the tarts before he was even elected. That was about as much a revelation as stating the pope is catholic.

Tart diddling is NOT, and NEVER has been an impeachable offense - indeed most D.C. politicians engage in tart diddling.

Not all engage in demonstrated perjury however...

If your own mother dared to question Bush's policy of nation building (Iraq War) would you also slime her and sling dirt at her for holding a different opinion than yourself?

Keep sliming her, and by the time you're done, there will be a few million voters who are more in agreement with her than with you.

You can add it to your selected/ not elected meme and all the otherbullshit and dire predictions you and your ilk keep spotting off. No one's buying it.

Oh I dunno, I thought the first Deuce Bigelow movie had a certain quirky charm. Haven't seen the second one. No, I'm more embarrassed by Steel Magnolias and that movie where Tom Cruise plays a Vietnam vet in a wheelchair. What were we thinking???

Entering the wayback machine to get to RagingBee's comment:

There's people DYING over there

You know what else is embarrassing?

The talking moose in Bugaboo Creek restaurants.

Tubino - she is just one of a majority.

Bullshit. She is one of the extreme Left Wing that constitutes perhaps 5% of the American population. Just because she has an OPINION about the Iraq War's conduct that is NOT overall favorable does not make her Lindsay Grahams or John Warner's soulmate.

Just as those still approving of Bush's conduct of the War have amongst their numbers the 5-10% of the population that feels Bush is the Maximum infallible Leader who will Save Israel and "surgically take out" Iran next in a cakewalk. The majority that favor us being in the War and winning it have no such extreme feelings.

It's no shit Remington Steele now? When did we switch from Sherlock??

damn I'm behind every pop culture shift.

damn I'm behind every pop culture shift.

Shhhh...don't tell Dave.

If your own mother dared to question Bush's policy of nation building (Iraq War) would you also slime her and sling dirt at her for holding a different opinion than yourself?

If she made herself look manipulated, egotistical, and possessed of a caveman-level intellect in the process? Yeah, you bet your ass I would. And I'd damn well expect any kids I had to do the same to me, without any hesitation or second thoughts. Bereavement is no excuse for throwing one's dignity out the window.

To The Shadow: thanks for your response -- I would answer as follows:

1) The stated reasons for the war were the search for WMD and a purported Al Qaeda/9-11-2001 link. The administration has admitted that there were no Al Qaeda link was ever shown -- and while you cannot prove a negative, the 9/11 Commission (among others) has stated that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

2) The lack of (or inadequacy of) post-war planning is obvious: a provisional authority which was hastily brought in and disbanded (remember Jay Garner?); the inability to fix the infrastructure (as virtually no reconstruction funds were spent in the first two years after invasion); a failure to seal borders, stop looting, and help create a middle class whose prosperity would create a natural basis of support (because those contractors and companies which did receive American funds were almost exclusively non-Iraqi; and the quick squandering of any goodwill which we received for toppling Saddam. Put another way: we were promised a cakewalk where we would be greeted with flowers, and instead we were greeted by an insurgency which is far from its "last throes."

3) You don't think Iraq is a mess? There is unstable electricity, inadequate sewage and water, and a dysfunctional economy. According to eyewitness reporting, kidnapping and car-jacking are epidemic. Candidates in the recent election were anonymous because revealing their identities would lead to their assasination. The level of violence continues to escalate (how many Iraqis were killed in the past week by random violence? 100? 150? 200?). The country is spinning apart in religious and sectarian violence. Is there a more appropriate word than "mess" to describe Iraq?

4) New terrorist hot zone: Rumsfeld has complained often and loudly about the terrorists with foreign passports in Iraq. There were many problems with Saddam before the war, but terrorism was not among them.

These may or may not be Democratic talking points, but that is irrelevant: the only relevancy is whether they are true or not. I initially supported the war for the (unspoken) premise that some dictators are so ruthlessly evil that the protection of sovereignty does not apply. I believe that a war to topple Pol Pot or Kim Il Jong would be a moral war. However, I did not count on the complete ineptitude of the Bush administration in executing the war and the occupation: I thought these guys were the A-Team. I hope that in the fullness of time some good will come of this (I am reminded of Chiang Kai Shek's remark in 1950 when asked about the French Revolution: "it is too early to know"). I don't have all of the answers -- I look at what I believe to be the facts and follow them to their logical conclusion -- after all, in the Kingdom of the Blind, the one eyed man is King --

There is unstable electricity, inadequate sewage and water, and a dysfunctional economy.

Come on, how is that worse than Aroostook County, Maine?

I got into this late, but I’ve got to put my .02 in. For all of you on the Left side of this debate, this is NOT Bush’s War. This is a perfectly legal military action authorized by the US Congress and, for all of you internationalists, the United Nations. So cut the crap about Bush’s War – This is the United States of America’s War, all fifty of them. Now if you disagree about the decision to go to war, contact your Congressman and Senator, they most likely voted for the action (Even the 2K’s up in Mass)

For all of you who claim that Iraq (read Saddam) had no ties to terrorism, go to this link and educate yourself:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

As far as the prosecution of the war goes...it goes better than any other major conflict in the history of this country. I guess we can agree that this is a major conflict. We took out the most "capable" and most "feared" military in the middle east in record time with a minimum of casualties. I know, I know, we have now over 1800 deaths, which equals out to about 2 per day since we have been there and almost a third of those deaths are "non combat" casualties. Hell, when I was in Nam we "lost" that many in a week sometimes. I wish we had not had a single casualty, but that can only be a wish...war by it's nature requires casualties.

When you say that Democracy has little chance of success in Iraq, you need to tell that to the 8 million plus purple fingers that voted. When you denigrate the push for Democracy in the ME and the action in Iraq, what can you say about the Democracy in Afghanistan? They now have a central government, properly elected by the people. What do you say about the Democracy in Lebannon? How about them kicking out the Syrians, heh? What about old Moammar saying, "Here, take my nukes, please? How about Egypt having open elections for the first time? How about Saudia Arabia allowing "some" elections?

I know some of these are small steps - but they're all steps in the direction of a free Democratic Middle East. Hell, these things take time. Our own Constitution was, what, some ten years after the revolution? We didn't have rebels and insurgents trying to kill the Founding Fathers either.

The thing you people on the left need to do is to be FOR something, not just AGAINST ChimpyMcBu$hitler. No one has said that the only minds with content were on the right. The problem is that you cannot get past your hatred for Bush to think clearly enough to put forward a viable alternative. Put an agenda forward that thinking people can be FOR. Run something, anything, up the flagpole that I can salute and I will gladly stand at attention.

I have yet to hear anyone on the left praise ANY program or policy initiated by this Administration. And make no mistake about it, there is just as much here to be FOR as there is to be AGAINST.

So, quit yer bitchin' and DO something. Get a candidate I can vote for next time, not some character deficient false war hero that wants to spend more money than GWB.

Am I the only one who thinks that the only question left is exactly when Cindy's going to do a photo spread in Playboy?

Because that is going to be some hot shit.

If you could show me a Bush program or policy which is praiseworthy, I would gladly praise it -- Bush's tax and fiscal policy? ($400 billion in deficit spending: don't think so). Energy policy? (Nah: did you see that the administration this week is giving a special exemption to Hummers and similar vehicles from fuel economy standards?) Judicial appointments? (John Roberts: maybe -- seems like a very intelligent and capable man. The others? Fuggedaboutit). Foreign policy? (Don't even go there).

Kerry was a weak candidate -- but a false war hero? Geez, the Navy must have been run by Socialists to give him so many Purple Hearts and medals.

The Democrats have many ideas -- you may well disagree with them, and many of them are status quo (e.g., keeping Social Security as it is) -- all you have to do is listen --

If you could show me a Bush program or policy which is praiseworthy, I would gladly praise it

Now THAT's partisanship. You can't think of a single Bush policy you like? Not one?

Over 200 posts? Holy cow.

I think I can save some time reading all of them. Let me guess: we have moonbats positively WEEPING and HOWLING with much gnashing of teeth over someone daring to criticize a woman who's LOST HER SON *snivel snivel*, and the regulars here are pounding these losers over the head with their own ignorance.

Is that about right?

Later,
bbeck

one eyed man:

Open your other eye. You mean ALL that money that GWB has spent, and there is more there than I want, NONE of it has gone for a purpose or program that you deem worthy?

Hmmm....just as I said, your hatred for Bush is the only policy you have. Your "many programs" mean keeping a program (Social Security) that EVERYONE admits will have to be changed in some way, i.e. raise the limit, increase the withholding, raise the retirement age. It is a statistical certainty it cannot remain "the same".

What legislation has been introduced by the Democrats in the last five years? What groundbreaking program has ANY Democrat initiated? The only debate and votes I can remember are those that were AGAINST the Repubs. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

bbeck,

except for my witty reparte and humorous anecdotes, yes.

those are worth reading though. you know they are.

Okay, someone open up the referrer logs and see what delirious, deranged, and deluded lefty website linked to this post.

This is the worst infestation I've seen since the Schiavo days, and Ace was getting pot-smoking, boy-fondling libertarians counted in the mix then.

bbeck,

Hell, I'm just surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't taken effect yet.

"It's no shit Remington Steele now? When did we switch from Sherlock??"

I thought I'd update. Gotta think of the young 'uns. Also "We Are the 80s" was on Vh-2 earlier.

If you looked at a US government website in early 2004 for countries infiltrated by Al Qaeda, Iraq was not listed. I was amazed at that, and wish I'd taken a screenshot of the map, because whether the website shows it now or not, Iraq is definitely infiltrated by Al Qaeda.
So if the government itself didn't consider it that way in 2004, then it looks like those who say they've been there since before we invaded look to be dead wrong.
Speaking of dead, whether you agree with Sheehan or not (I don't), smearing a woman who gave her son for our country is shameful behavior.

Re: whatever moonbattish freaksite linked to this post: well, I took a brief look at Ace's Sitemeter referrals and found this site, where this post is currently headlining as "Blogging on the Right." It's a Salon site, so I don't know if that counts as major, as I have not read Salon since 1999.

Just checked the logs. Salon's Daou report linked this one.

I like it when the moonbats fly in. I am an incurable optimist and imagine a few of them getting hit hard enough with the clue stick that their eyes get opened.

Hmmm. Pretty quiet now. Must be 4:20 on the Left Coast.

Please tell me this thread is over. I'm just quivering to start posting Batman quotes.

If you looked at a US government website in early 2004...

uh, ok, that's helpful. Department of Transportation? Treasury? Customs?

I am honest and sincere in stating that there really is not a Bush policy I can point to which I view as a step forward. Much of what the government does is a continuation of what it has always done: build roads, maintain an Army, distribute Social Security, etc. Nothing wrong with that -- and to the extent that the money Bush has spent contributes to these services, fine. However, when I look at what Bush has done to change the status quo -- new laws and regulations, Cabinet and judicial appointments, foreign and domestic policy, tax and fiscal policy -- nothing comes to mind which strikes me as brilliant or inspired or even successful. I try my best to keep an open mind -- I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page every day, and even though I live in latte-drinking, Prius-driving San Francisco Bay Area, I try to seek out people who disagree with me -- but I just think that Bush is plain wrong about nearly everything. I also think that Clinton was a fairly good president -- call me old fashioned, but eight years of peace and prosperity (and a budget surplus!) isn't so bad. Forget about his personal ethics or lack thereof -- I don't want to be in the position of excusing that -- but I thnk his policies are those which are the right ones to move forward (fiscal restraint, pro free trade, etc.). I have a basic and fundamental disagreement with the things Bush does: deficit spending, government interference in private matters (e.g. flying to DC to grand-stand for Terri Schiavo), lack of a meaningful energy policy, lack of concern for the environment, etc. So if there is nothing I can find praiseworthy in the Bush agenda, it isn't because I think he is an evil man -- I believe that he is doing what in his heart he thinks is best -- it is just that what he thinks is best I think is dead wrong.

"I do love animals. Just not like you guys do."

-Kyle, South Park

call me old fashioned, but eight years of peace and prosperity (and a budget surplus!) isn't so bad.

Peace?

January 25, 1993 Langley, Virginia
CIA Employees in Langley, VA are Shot

February 26, 1993 New York, New York
1993 World Trade Center in New York Bombed

November 13, 1995 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
U.S. Military Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is Bombed

June 25, 1996 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia are Bombed

August 07, 1998 Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are Bombed

October 12, 2000 Aden, Yemen
USS Cole Bombed

Guess we have to count on prosperity.

I love Cindy. Think about the rational of the Left. She has absolute moral authority because of her dead son. Hmmm, what about parents that have lost two sons?

Since she has absolute moral authority I guess she can put up crosses (God bless her what other Lefty would allow religious symbols in public) with the names of dead soldiers disrespecting the wishes of their parents.

So we have the Left's morality on display. The only people fit to comment on the war are draft dodgers;
mothers who prostitute their son's memory; pacifists who lack the courage and integrity to defend their rights; followers of Marx; people who cannot differentiate between a public affairs officer and a SEAL; and of course Leftist patriots who suuport the troops by burning flags and convincing of us of the rightness of their cause by using profanity at every opportunity.

So I say Go Cindy. Each day you convert more and more people.

Dirk et al.,

For the last time, she did not "give" her son - he left over her protests. In the eyes of conservatives, her activities are making a mockery of the gentleman who *did* make a sacrifice: her son, Casey Sheehan. No one is mocking her motherhood, and nearly everyone has stated that they pity her for her loss. But none of the regular commentors here believe that her loss: 1) gives her any extraordinary insight into foreign policy, 2) should allow her on-demand access to the President; and 3) gives her special moral authority.

Rather we believe that she has callously used the memory of her son to deliberately bait the President and seize a pulpit for far-left propaganda, and that she is endangering the troops presently in Iraq and Afghanistan with her statements.

Would you give special deference to such a woman if you shared these beliefs?

Hold the phone: there is a Bush policy I like. I think his immigration policy is both bold and constructive. I hope it passes.

Hey, I agree.

Well, that's no fun.

"Speaking of dead, whether you agree with Sheehan or not (I don't), smearing a woman who gave her son for our country is shameful behavior."

I am one that does not consider pointing out her irrational, untrue, constantly changing, anti Semitic, vulgar rants as "smearing". If you want to throw the "smear" charge, you need to throw it at the woman that is smearing the Jews, the Administration, the memory of every casualty in the GWOT and every member of the Armed Forces currently stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan. I can't imagine what it is like to bury a child. That said, it does NOT give her immunity from being critized for her comments by people that do not agree with her. If the Pope made some of the inane, uncivil, asisnine remarks that Sheehan has made, he would get the same criticism from me.

Go to this link for Iraq/Terrorism connection:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Come back when you have something to say that makes sense.

Slublog: we may even agree on other things. Do you like the New York Yankees? (just joking) However, re your listing of the six events during the Clinton years: yeah, I would call it peace. You will never have eight consecutive years of complete non-violence -- relative to most other eight year periods of American history, I would say that 1992-2000 counts as peaceful.

How about bush recipes? Any of those you can get behind?

For me, that guacamole is killer diller. yes sir.

the secret is the lime juice

Do you like the New York Yankees? (just joking)

I'm from Maine, where everyone is a Boston Red Sox fan. I don't like baseball all that much, so during the playoffs, I put a Yankees banner up at work.

I thought I was going to die.

There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for"

--Samwise Gamgee

Sorry. Last one was mine.

Correction: I'm from Texas, but live in Maine.

I'm a *gulp* Dallas Cowboys fan.

Yes, they've been terrible lately, but they are on their way back.

Any day now.

f you looked at a US government website in early 2004...

uh, ok, that's helpful. Department of Transportation? Treasury? Customs?

Okay, so I don't know whose website, but--
A) That doesn't mean I made it up, though you'd have to trust me and I don't expect that.

B) Try to dispute that Al Qaeda and other terrorists are not more--much more--plentiful in Iraq now than before 3/2003 and I'll LMAO. As for the argument, once you've conceded that point, that we're gathering them for the slaughter, there are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world, so if only .01% a year decides to fight us we'll have 100,000 new jihadis a year to deal with.
They can see that aside from going nuclear we're doing our best, and that gives them courage every day and night. Mark my words, they'll outlast us if we continue trying to fight them with conventional means.
We should have taken out Saddam and let the Iraqis fend for themselves. It's not like they appreciate our presence, so let them deal with their own problems. Meanwhile, we should be going 100% after Al Qaeda and shoring up our borders. Less eye candy on the evening news, I know, but better at preventing mushroom clouds over one of our port cities.

Put up a Bucky Dent poster, then see what happens

"I would say that 1992-2000 counts as peaceful."

Right. Bosnia doesn't count. Neither does Somalia. Haiti. etc. etc. etc.

Autumn is almost upon us. Cindy is gone. Though she vows to return, Bush will be back in DC by then. She says she will follow him but if she does, she will have a great number of counter demonstrators to deal with.

This assault on the ace of spades lifestyle is only a last ditch offensive by the moonbats because they smell defeat.

To BrewFan: it is all relative. Were the Clinton years more peaceful than the Bush years? Absolutely, no question. Bush I? Also no question. And I may well be wrong, but I thought Somalia was Bush I. More peaceful than the Reagan years? About the same (Panama, Nicaragua, etc.) -- these were also peaceful years. More peaceful than the 1960's and 1970's? Absolutely. There were military interventions under Clinton to be sure, but relative to the rest of the 20th century I don't think it can be disputed that those eight years were relatively peaceful ones.

Try to dispute that Al Qaeda and other terrorists are not more--much more--plentiful in Iraq now than before 3/2003 and I'll LMAO.

Nobody is disputing that, Dirk. We just like the fact we're fighting the terrorists in Anbar Province and not New York City.

As for the argument, once you've conceded that point, that we're gathering them for the slaughter, there are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world, so if only .01% a year decides to fight us we'll have 100,000 new jihadis a year to deal with.

So all those Muslims in Indonesia are going to get to Iraq how? Swim? And how many Iraqi citizens do you think we're fighting right now? They all have the opportunity don't they?

They can see that aside from going nuclear we're doing our best, and that gives them courage every day and night. Mark my words, they'll outlast us if we continue trying to fight them with conventional means.

They might be able to outlast you but they're not going to outlast me. And I think there are more 'mes' then 'yous'

We should have taken out Saddam and let the Iraqis fend for themselves. It's not like they appreciate our presence, so let them deal with their own problems.

But if we did that they would hate us and become terrorists!

Meanwhile, we should be going 100% after Al Qaeda

We are, you just don't realize it. There is a point of diminishing returns on how many people can be put on one task so this argument that somehow we're being distracted by Iraq is bogus.

and shoring up our borders. Less eye candy on the evening news, I know, but better at preventing mushroom clouds over one of our port cities.

Do you really think we can secure our borders to the point something can't be smuggled in? Really?

Dirk
I don't really know if there are more AQ in Iraq now then 3/03, but if I had to make a guess, I'd say, yea, you're right. That being said, it doesn't change anything except every one of them that is there is one less that is here. They are much easier to kill there, than they are here. I think that the Iraqui's are making tremendous progress to self-determination and self defense. Go read some of the great military blogs and some of the Iraqi Blogs and see what the people that are THERE every day are saying.

The insurgents (AQ) have never won any battle that they stayed and fought. The only success that they have had is blowing up civilians. It is evident that the Iraqi civilian population is getting damn tired of that tactic. Iraqi civilians are providing more and better intelligence each day. Therefore I predict that we will NOT have to fight the 100,000 Muslim fanatics you predict will come each year. It is the Iraqi's that are going to end up clearing out the remnants of the AQ.

We HAVE NOT done the best we can do. We have pussyfooted around in deference to public opinion. If push comes to shove and we have to put the full might of the US Military in this battle, it's over quick. If this war had been prosecuted like WWII there wouldn't be much left of Iraq, including AQ.

Okay, so I don't know whose website, but--
A) That doesn't mean I made it up

No, it just means you suck at defending your assertions with examples and facts.

are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world, so if only .01% a year decides to fight us we'll have 100,000 new jihadis a year to deal with

I think we can handle it.

except for my witty reparte and humorous anecdotes, yes. those are worth reading though. you know they are.

Er, well, uh...Yeah, okay, I know they are, Dave. But you'll just have to dazzle me in another thread. :)

And ~I~ make the best guacamole in the world. The REAL secret is in the quality of the avacados.

Hell, I'm just surprised that Godwin's Law hasn't taken effect yet.

LOL! I had to look that up, Slu. I heartily agree!

Later,
bbeck

"but relative to the rest of the 20th century I don't think it can be disputed that those eight years were relatively peaceful ones"

If I accept this premise your logic is still flawed because you're trying to give Clinton credit for the work of others. The world didn't suddenly 'turn peacful' on 1/21/93. Clinton reaped the 'peace dividend' he didn't sow it.

Er, well, uh...Yeah, okay, I know they are, Dave. But you'll just have to dazzle me in another thread. :)

what, again?

And ~I~ make the best guacamole in the world

you do not. I don't have to cite anything either.

BTW, This is a good way to refresh your memory on Somalia

I think we've been in a war of sorts since 1979. We didn't know we were in a war, but it was being waged against us.

I have to admit, it's hard for me to get back into the swing of this debate. I'm in a good mood. I have chips, salsa and beer.

Speaking of salsa, I grew jalepenos, onions, and roma tomatoes in my garden this year and had my first 'batch' of fresh salsa last week :)

Next year I'm going to try growing the cilantro too

That sounds incredible. I can't wait until next spring. We'll be in our new house by then, and have a garden.

And salsa (or pico de gallo) ingredients will be a major part of that garden.

Dew Glistens on Branches

Moonbats are confused;
Can't figure out why people
Still love USA.

I'm in a good mood. I have chips, salsa and beer.

That always cheers me up.

I wonder if Cindy tried any at Camp Casey?

Couldn't hurt. I hope somebody brought em some.

Dear Posted by at August 19, 2005 08:23 PM,

Re: These may or may not be Democratic talking points, but that is irrelevant: the only relevancy is whether they are true or not.

1. Not.
2. Not.
3. Not.
4. Not.

Re: I initially supported the war

As Mother Sheehan frequently says, "Bullshit."

You're welcome.

Couldn't hurt. I hope somebody brought em some.

Depends on what kind of beer.

With the heat, though, a Corona would be good. Corona is always best on a hot day.

The REAL secret is in the quality of the avacados.

bbeck:

First of all, you have to learn how to spell "avocados" before your guacamole gets a lot of credibility. Anyone who has been within shouting distance of Texas does not have an excuse for misspelling the Fruit Of The Gods.

Secondly, the quality of your guacamole dip does not really matter. In Texas, you are judged by the quality of your Tortilla Soup (and the correct amount of avocado in said soup).

Thirdly, I have never seen an AOSHQ thread go over 300 comments. We have a shot at that tonight, if we keep posting recipes or whatever. So, I have decided not to kill the thread with Batman quotes.

True, we've only got 40 posts to go.

But all of the liberals bailed on us.

Logic: like Kryptonite to Libs.

That sounds incredible. I can't wait until next spring. We'll be in our new house by then, and have a garden.

And salsa (or pico de gallo) ingredients will be a major part of that garden.

Upon reading that, Slu, my only consolation was the fact that you aren't from Maine. Maine men don't fret about their cilantro. We may fret about our lobsters, but only because we make a show of punching the hell out of them before we toss them in the pot. Fuckin' pussies.

you do not.

O yes I do. Mine will always top yours, Dave in TEXAS, because I am from OKLAHOMA.

Hey, if the liberals are all gone, maybe we can start a fight about the best state.

Later,
bbeck

Oops.

Did I mention that guacamole tastes like a filthy sumo wrestler's man-diaper? Because it does.

Upon reading that, Slu, my only consolation was the fact that you aren't from Maine. Maine men don't fret about their cilantro. We may fret about our lobsters, but only because we make a show of punching the hell out of them before we toss them in the pot. Fuckin' pussies.

I hate lobster. Friggin' sea insect.

I like to cook. Men from Texas are man enough to admit it.

Oh fine. It is ON.

Numero Uno: Nobody gives a rats ass about the quality of the avocados. They taste like PASTE. Whatever you dress em up with is what counts.

It's how much peppers, salt, sour cream (sparingly), picante, lime jooos (for Cedarford), you add that makes it taste like the tasty taste that you all CRAVE.

Numero Two-Oh. A Corona would be damn fine right now. Damn fine.

Numero Three-Oh. My tortilla soup recipe would make your nipples hard. Hi beam pingers.

Numero quatro. Whoever confused "salsa" with "pico de gallo" has GOT to be from somewhere north of Cleveland, cause down here we don't say "salsa" and we know what the hell pico de gallo is.

*hugs and friendlies by the way, from down here younder*

Numero five-oh. My Aunt Jo still calls it the "War of Northern Aggression".

Numero sex-oh (snuck that one in, didn't I?). Oklahoma. Good neighbors. They catch most of the snow in winter. Thank you.

Did I mention that guacamole tastes like a filthy sumo wrestler's man-diaper? Because it does.

Do I have to ask the fifth grade response question? Do I?

Or will you just answer it?

Well, I normally don't put religious comments on this site, but just to move us towards 300 I'm going to copy a comment I recently put on RightWingSparkle's site:

Job is fascinating to me -- the oldest book in the Bible which gives us a look at spirituality even way before the Abrahamic covenant. Job describes a time when there was not even yet a Chosen People.

And yet, the messianic message is clear. Job sends an Easter message of hope that forms the basis of a great segment of Handel's Messiah.

Here's what Job says:

(Job 19:25-27 NIV) "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. {26} And after my skin has been destroyed [Job was a leper at the time], yet in my flesh I will see God; {27} I myself will see him with my own eyes--I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!"

To appreciate this passage, you need to understand the concept of "redeemer." The Hebrew word is "ga'al" and the concept is that of a clan strong man who takes care of things. Think of Marlon Brando in The Godfather. A "ga'al" is responsible for vengeance killings, for getting widows married (Boaz is described as a "ga'al" for Ruth), and otherwise taking care of clan members in need. This concept of Redeemer is consciously preserved in the New Testament.

The point being, the Bible does not present our Redeemer as some remote Spirit in the Sky. Rather, from the earliest time our Redeemer is presented as a family member who takes care of things. Who metes out justice and mercy. And, in the end, He will stand upon the earth and we will see Him with our own eyes.

Numero Three-Oh. My tortilla soup recipe would make your nipples hard. Hi beam pingers.

Now you're talkin'! Please share recipe.

Whoever confused "salsa" with "pico de gallo" has GOT to be from somewhere north of Cleveland, cause down here we don't say "salsa" and we know what the hell pico de gallo is.

Hey, I didn't confuse the two. I'm half Mexican, dammit. I know my pico de gallo.

That and salsa do use some of the same ingredients, though.

Can I be serious for a moment? I feel that all this discussion has brought out the worst in all of us. In fact, I've written a poem that, I think, expresses everything in this thread quite deftly:

Y'all Can Just Suck It

roses are red
violets are blue
Slublog's guac is good, damn good, but not good enough to make me think that we can't all agree that a piano shouldn't fall on Cindy Sheehan.

You're all welcome.

That was beautiful.

*wipes tears from eyes*

Andrew, your poetic artistry has shaken the foundations of the earth.

Thanks, Slu. I like to imagine that, when the piano hits her, the keys somehow manage to strike the opening notes to Beethoven's Pathetique sonata. But then, I'm a hopeless romantic.

Man, if anything was going to bring back the libs, that was.

Maybe it's past their bedtime or something.

OK, so we're like 23 comments away from hitting 300. Which would make AOSHQ look like Scrappleface or LGF or some other big-time blog. Do I have to do this by myself?

OT: If you're going to drink you own urine, either pee into a cup or wear goggles.

I was merely pointing out that Cindy Sheehan has the moral authority of my left nut. Which is not an insult: My left nut is actually well-schooled in inductive logic, world history, and premodern painting techniques. Cindy is therefore free to argue with my left nut over Iraq, Aristotle's theory of the Golden Mean, or whether Giotto's brush was really all it was cracked up to be, if you catch my meaning.

Hey, I didn't confuse the two. I'm half Mexican, dammit. I know my pico de gallo.

Well somebody put that out as gospel. If it wasn't you, I withdraw my Republican-motivated smear attack machine.

Michael, the Reader's Digest condensed version is, take your favorite recipe for TS, use freshly ground cumin, double the white pepper, add cilantro.

If ya want the whole deal shoot me an e.

Pathetique sonata

Oldest daughter played that last week.. Before I moved her back to Austin. Forever. Or at least, for "not coming home summers anymore".

Dang I'm sad now.

Andrew, your poetry cheered me up.

A little.

Which reminds me of the WORDS TO LIVE BY offered by the preeminent philosopher of our time. Frank Zappa. You can't go wrong in life if you follow his simple wisdom:

Watch out where the huskies go. And don't you eat that yellow snow.

"Drink you own urine?"

Jeez, this conversation took a turn for the weird.

Not that it's unusual for this blog.

eff you gone drank yerown URN.

um, crazy talk.

Long-time lurker, first-time poster - just doing my part to get the comments to the 300 mark.

'Oldest daughter played that last week.. Before I moved her back to Austin. Forever. Or at least, for "not coming home summers anymore".

Dang I'm sad now.

Andrew, your poetry cheered me up.'

Lord know I don't refuse a compliment, Dave, but I'm confused. Was your daughter's performance some sort of senior recital? If so, then bravo for her. I would suggest that she sometime play for you the impromptus of Schubert; I'm no expert, but they're among my favorites.
Can she play piano for money? This is not a dirty question, but rather a plea to her to do something more worthwhile than I do. Compose, sweetheart. COMPOSE.

Hell, while I'm on the real dork subject, has anyone ever heard a piano transcription of Ralph Vaughn-Williams' Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis? Because I'd like to.

Nope, sorry.

I was just listening to Mario Frangoulis. What a voice.

If Cindy Sheehan were playing it, that would only be icing on the cake.

Only a few more posts to go.

So. Nobody wants to talk about Job? What's it going to take to hit 300?

Oh. bbeck's luscious tits. Or lauraw's hot sweaty loins that yearn for Batman. Or Lipstick's big feet and her penchant for pneumatic humping.

I'm going to bed. We can hit 300 tomorrow.

Bed? But it's only 12:21!

Was your daughter's performance some sort of senior recital? If so then bravo for her

It was a year ago, she was just sitting down fooling around with it last week. And it was just the 2nd movement. Should have said that.

brava my friend, brava.

me.

What about Job?

I only mention Cindy because I know she's got a few unreleased recordings of some obscure Bach pieces up there in her attic, and she's just waiting until the day that she can blame post-Medieval counterpoint techniques on Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon.

Testing, Testing...is this thing on?

OK, I'll throw Ace a bone and make my small contribution towards 300.

I like to do a little diddy from my college years.

I Love Living in the City Fear

I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY
FEAR
I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY
I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY

My house smells just like a zoo
It's chock full of shit and puke
Cockroaches on the walls
Crabs are crawling on my balls
Oh, but I'm so clean cut
I just want to fuck some slut

I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY
I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY

Spent my whole life in the city
Where junk is king and the air smells shitty
People puking everywhere,
Piles of blood, scabs and hair
Bodies wasted in defeat
People dying on the streets
But suburban scumbags they don't care
They just get fat and dye their hair

I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY
I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY

(Solo(You shut up!)

I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY
I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY

I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY
I LOVE LIVIN' IN THE CITY

peace out

Bed? But it's only 12:21!

OK, Slub, I'll hang in here awhile longer. We're actually getting close to 300.

The second movement of the Pathetique, eh? Ever see that Coen Brothers movie?
No matter, it remains sublime.

Still, tell her she ought to play some Shubert sometime. Tell her Andrew said so.

That oughta teach her.

Franz Schubert?

Or his cousin Walter?

Michael...what part of Maine are you from again?

me.

What about Job?

Dave:

The messianic statement of Job referenced in my previous comment is one of the most powerful elements of the Bible. That's what about Job.

The textual and linguistic evidence suggests that the author of Job substantially predates the rest of the Bible. The fact that the messianic message is so clearly stated is simply astonishing.

301! Now everyone can go to sleep.

Uh,

Does that mean you don't want me to do another song?

Maybe something a little 'catchier'?

Feeling a little silly right now, must be lack of sleep.

Later

I think I've read about every fifth post on here, so I'm a bit confused. How the fuck did we get from Cindy bashing to Guacamole in under 300 posts? That's just not physically possible.

Good night. I really do appreciate the friendship that many of you have shown towards me. God bless you all.

Just this to add. In a recent Rasmussen Poll....

Among those with family members who have served in the military, Sheehan is viewed favorably by 31% and unfavorably by 48%

So much for absolute moral authority.....

Cool, busted 300 - way to hang in there.

Michael:
The messianic statement of Job referenced in my previous comment is one of the most powerful elements of the Bible. That's what about Job.

The textual and linguistic evidence suggests that the author of Job substantially predates the rest of the Bible. The fact that the messianic message is so clearly stated is simply astonishing.

That's some good stuff, I'll have to re-read Job from that perspective.

Now, to wrap this all up, here's some verses from Job that the moonbats that graced this thread would do well to memorize and take to heart: "... I have declared that which I did not understand .... Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:3,6)

Thank you, and good night! Be sure to tip your waitresses...

I have absolute guacamole authority.

PETA - has the absolute "guacamole authority".

(P)eople for the (E)thical (T)reatment of (A)vocados

Well this discovery is timely.

(2001)
Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.

The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies.

sorry, that was me up above

312!!! (Sorry, I just wanted to be a part of history.)

It was evident from the beginning that this current cast of clowns who call themselves "leaders" were going to make the wheels fall off the cart. Cindy Sheehan has effectively shown how measly and ineffective they are. Good for her.

For all you moonbats who still believe there were no ties between Saddam and terrorism, look here.

Jesus! Somebody strapped a vest on this thread and blowed it up!

Slublog: technically, shepherd's pie is made with lamb (shepherd? get it?). If you make it with beef, it's a cottage pie.

And to everyone who used the phrase, I hear "cycle of violence" and I think "puddle of bullshit." The very existence of such a cycle is an article of faith not shared by the right. To choose an example at random, the Japanese probably don't like us very much, but they responded to the most amazing act of violent blow-uppery in the history of our species by settling down and making inexpensive, reliable cars.

It was evident from the beginning that this current cast of clowns who call themselves "leaders" were going to make the wheels fall off the cart. Cindy Sheehan has effectively shown how measly and ineffective they are. Good for her.

So evident that people keep voting for them, though I am sure you have no respect for the American people, either. The only think Sheeran has effectively show is what a phony she really is. Face it. The Summer of Cindy is over. She had her 15 minutes of fame. Cindy has left the building. Or the tent. But, she was not really staying in a tent. She lived in an air-conditioned hotel, guarded by Code Pink.

Darn! I went to bed too early!

1. Dave & bbeck - Is it true a Texan is defined as an Okie on their way to Mexico? Just askin' :)

2. Andrew - You may well be the funniest commenter here! lol at the piano riff!

3. Michael - Your take on Job is outstanding. I love that guy. He really takes it in the shorts but never loses his faith. "The Lord gives and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord".

4. Slublog - You are secure in your manhood; keep on cookin'!

5. one eyed man - In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

6. CoonHouse - bite me.

So far, my favorite comment is S. Weasel's. You rock, dude.

Slublog: technically, shepherd's pie is made with lamb (shepherd? get it?). If you make it with beef, it's a cottage pie.

Well I'll be darned. That's pretty cool.

You learn something new every day.

Ech. Can't stand lamb.

It's how much peppers, salt, sour cream (sparingly), picante, lime jooos (for Cedarford), you add that makes it taste like the tasty taste that you all CRAVE.

Wha...*cough cough*

Sour Cream? PICANTE? In guacamole???

Blasphemer!

Avocados taste like paste -- IF you don't buy good ones! Good, ripe avocados don't NEED all that silly processed junk. Add a little tomato, onion, salt, lime juice, and that's IT. Heaven on a corn chip.

But YES, with Mexican food, the beer to drink is Corona. I'd rather have a margarita on the rocks, tho, WITH salt.

All we have in the house right now is some dang tasty homemade barley wine, which tastes like a smoother version of Guinness. MMM....

And sorry I missed the 300 mark here, but I ended up watching "The Thing" last night.

Later,
bbeck

But YES, with Mexican food, the beer to drink is Corona.

25 years ago as a grad student at UCSD I'd occasionally lurk south of the border...

...back then Corona hadn't launched a big Norteamericano PR campaign and was considered the cheapest pisswater one could get south of the border -- like in the $.75-$1.00/6-pack range down in TJ. Tecate had much better local cred.

I became a snooty Fosters guy, so I never bothered to tast Corona after grad school. I just remember it tasting like that nasty green watered down stuff the local bars would hawk on St. Patrick's day.

My preferred flavor when dining at the local cantina!

Just a spoonful bbeck. Try it, get back to me.

And Dos Equis is a good second choice.

Brewfan, the travel direction currently is northbound, not southbound.

You all are a bunch of goobers too.

It's actually quite a questionable proposition that anyone with a heavy emotional response to a policy issue should have undue influence on that policy.

This is of course perfectly correct. Ms Sheehan's protest has power only because it trades on and undermines the sort of irrational emotional arguments war apologists have used to suppress criticism of the war and to avoid confronting how badly the war on terror has been botched. It is very hard to accuse a woman who has lost a son in Iraq of not wanting to support our troops, or of disrespecting the sacrifices of the brave Americans who have died fighting the war. Directed toward a woman who has lost a son in the service of our country, such attacks only come off sounding mean-spirited and stupid.

It is very hard to accuse a woman who has lost a son in Iraq of not wanting to support our troops

Actually its quite easy -- when said woman has explicitly stated she feels no ill will towards the clown(s) who offed her son.

I assure you - that's not the kind of "support" the still living troops over there need or want.

CLICK HERE

More "moonbat support" for the troops. You know its getting BAD when even DiFi thinks the left is "petty".

Dave in Texas (Temporarily)

You're right. I remember the joke now:

Q. What is a Texan?

A. A Mexican on his way to Oklahoma

:)

The war on terror has not been 'botched.'
Thanks for your vote of confidence in our intelligence agencies and military personnel.

The war in Iraq, specifically, has gone better than virtually any comparable action in history. We've lost less than 2,000 people so far- precious people- but a blessedly low number for such an amazing achievement.
To recap: We invaded a country of 25 million people. Without your crystal ball of hindsight. So easy to criticize from your couch, after the fact, isn't it?

Pull up your knickers and buck up, Nancy, the original casualty estimates were far, far higher than this.

Our people are doing a superb job, and morale is high, especially when they don't read the NY Times.

There has been difficulty securing the more outlying areas, and closing down the ratlines from Iran and Syria has been dismal so far. This has been the source of the problems.
This is changing. Even now Iraqi and Coalition troops are squeezing the trouble areas.
And the Sunnis are starting to wake up and smell the democracy.
The only way we can lose this thing is if we allow people with a shitty, negative, LOSER attitude to make the troops' sacrifices worthless.

Jesus. When you were learning to ride a bike, did you quit trying because you fell down a few times?

We can prevail. We've done it before, with more savage cultures than this, with fewer resources.

Your pessimism is unfounded.
If you truly want to see an improvement, why don't you pitch in, help out? Get involved. Send care packages to Marines or Soldiers. It helps them so much more than you know.

One of these nights -- you know, when I've not been drinking -- I'll look up some of those articles warning of the "thousands" of casualties we were likely to take in the first few weeks of urban combat with the famed, ferocious Republican Guard.

More than two years and less than two thousand casualties later, and it's all a failure? Feh!

Fascinating to me that our ever-so-patriotic leftist friends are always ready to talk up any military force in the world.

(But aren't they always saying they're pacifists? -ed. You're expecting consistency? From them? Oh, whoops... -ed.) [/kaus]

Any military in the world - except, you know, those who serve beneath what's supposed to be the leftists' flag, too. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, and the Merchant Marine rarely get the sort of fulsome, wholehearted praise so liberally (sorry) bestowed on Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard or the Taliban.

Odd how that works.

Well, to be fair, they never talk about how shitty our military is during a Dem presidency.

But let's wax nostalgic anyway: remember the ass whooping we were supposed to get in Afghanistan.

"The brave and fearsome mujahedeen will make the desert as the graveyard of the infidels!
The sand will run red with infidel blood and the mountains will ring with their screams!"

Yeah, how'd that go for ya, muj? Buddy? Hey?
--And how's the food at GTMO?

Excuse the triumphalism; let me also state that the US has the only military in the world that has fought to protect muslims when our own interests were not in danger.
The. Only. One.

Such imperialist bastards we are.

Never forget the Brutal Afghan Winter!

I think Steyn has the trademark on that...

I have personally confirmed that if you email Dave in Texas and ask for his tortilla soup recipe, he will give it to you (mine arrived at 12:17 am). Just reading it over, it looks really good. Apparently, the big thing is freshly ground cumin. My mouth was watering just reading this email.

You have to seize and savor the good things in life, and a really good tortilla soup recipe is one of those things. I strongly recommend that you email Dave in Texas for his tortilla soup recipe.

accountability moment:

August 21, 2005
The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
By FRANK RICH

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam résumés: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents - there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.

When the Bush mob attacks critics like Ms. Sheehan, its highest priority is to change the subject. If we talk about Richard Clarke's character, then we stop talking about the administration's pre-9/11 inattentiveness to terrorism. If Thomas Wilson is trashed as an insubordinate plant of the "liberal media," we forget the Pentagon's abysmal failure to give our troops adequate armor (a failure that persists today, eight months after he spoke up). If we focus on Joseph Wilson's wife, we lose the big picture of how the administration twisted intelligence to gin up the threat of Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D.'s.

The hope this time was that we'd change the subject to Cindy Sheehan's "wacko" rhetoric and the opportunistic left-wing groups that have attached themselves to her like barnacles. That way we would forget about her dead son. But if much of the 24/7 media has taken the bait, much of the public has not.

The backdrops against which Ms. Sheehan stands - both that of Mr. Bush's what-me-worry vacation and that of Iraq itself - are perfectly synergistic with her message of unequal sacrifice and fruitless carnage. Her point would endure even if the messenger were shot by a gun-waving Crawford hothead or she never returned to Texas from her ailing mother's bedside or the president folded the media circus by actually meeting with her.

The public knows that what matters this time is Casey Sheehan's story, not the mother who symbolizes it. Cindy Sheehan's bashers, you'll notice, almost never tell her son's story. They are afraid to go there because this young man's life and death encapsulate not just the noble intentions of those who went to fight this war but also the hubris, incompetence and recklessness of those who gave the marching orders.

Specialist Sheehan was both literally and figuratively an Eagle Scout: a church group leader and honor student whose desire to serve his country drove him to enlist before 9/11, in 2000. He died with six other soldiers on a rescue mission in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, at the age of 24, the week after four American security workers had been mutilated in Falluja and two weeks after he arrived in Iraq. This was almost a year after the president had declared the end of "major combat operations" from the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

According to the account of the battle by John F. Burns in The Times, the insurgents who slaughtered Specialist Sheehan and his cohort were militiamen loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric. The Americans probably didn't stand a chance. As Mr. Burns reported, members of "the new Iraqi-trained police and civil defense force" abandoned their posts at checkpoints and police stations "almost as soon as the militiamen appeared with their weapons, leaving the militiamen in unchallenged control."

Yet in the month before Casey Sheehan's death, Mr. Rumsfeld typically went out of his way to inflate the size and prowess of these Iraqi security forces, claiming in successive interviews that there were "over 200,000 Iraqis that have been trained and equipped" and that they were "out on the front line taking the brunt of the violence." We'll have to wait for historians to tell us whether this and all the other Rumsfeld propaganda came about because he was lied to by subordinates or lying to himself or lying to us or some combination thereof.

As The Times reported last month, even now, more than a year later, a declassified Pentagon assessment puts the total count of Iraqi troops and police officers at 171,500, with only "a small number" able to fight insurgents without American assistance. As for Moktada al-Sadr, he remains as much a player as ever in the new "democratic" Iraq. He controls one of the larger blocs in the National Assembly. His loyalists may have been responsible for last month's apparently vengeful murder of Steven Vincent, the American freelance journalist who wrote in The Times that Mr. Sadr's followers had infiltrated Basra's politics and police force.

Casey Sheehan's death in Iraq could not be more representative of the war's mismanagement and failure, but it is hardly singular. Another mother who has journeyed to Crawford, Celeste Zappala, wrote last Sunday in New York's Daily News of how her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, was also killed in April 2004 - in Baghdad, where he was providing security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with looking for W.M.D.'s "well beyond the admission by David Kay that they didn't exist."

As Ms. Zappala noted with rage, her son's death came only a few weeks after Mr. Bush regaled the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association banquet in Washington with a scripted comedy routine featuring photos of him pretending to look for W.M.D.'s in the Oval Office. "We'd like to know if he still finds humor in the fabrications that justified the war that killed my son," Ms. Zappala wrote. (Perhaps so: surely it was a joke that one of the emissaries Mr. Bush sent to Cindy Sheehan in Crawford was Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser who took responsibility for allowing the 16 errant words about doomsday uranium into the president's prewar State of the Union speech.)

Mr. Bush's stand-up shtick for the Beltway press corps wasn't some aberration; it was part of the White House's political plan for keeping the home front cool. America was to yuk it up, party on and spend its tax cuts heedlessly while the sacrifice of an inadequately manned all-volunteer army in Iraq was kept out of most Americans' sight and minds. This is why the Pentagon issued a directive at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom forbidding news coverage of "deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases. It's why Mr. Bush, unlike Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, has not attended funeral services for the military dead. It's why January's presidential inauguration, though nominally dedicated to the troops, was a gilded $40 million jamboree at which the word Iraq was banished from the Inaugural Address.

THIS summer in Crawford, the White House went to this playbook once too often. When Mr. Bush's motorcade left a grieving mother in the dust to speed on to a fund-raiser, that was one fat-cat party too far. The strategy of fighting a war without shared national sacrifice has at last backfired, just as the strategy of Swift Boating the war's critics has reached its Waterloo before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury in Washington. The 24/7 cable and Web attack dogs can keep on sliming Cindy Sheehan. The president can keep trying to ration the photos of flag-draped caskets. But this White House no longer has any more control over the insurgency at home than it does over the one in Iraq.

Did somebody just anonymously plop a whole article into this thread without supporting commentary? Because that's what it smells like...

Yeah, and it's a floater.

Hmmm.. "It's actually quite a questionable proposition that anyone with a heavy emotional response to a policy issue should have undue influence on that policy."

Gee, then I guess George W. shouldn't have had an undue influence on Iraqi policy, seeing how Saddam Hussein did try to kill his father.

Well, there was a two word supporting commentary (accountability moment). Regardless, I find it interesting that every Sunday Frank Rich writes well-researched and well documented essays which (to my way of thinking, anyway) are right on the money. However, I have yet to see any response to his pieces from the right which is not mindless name-calling. (A floater. Geez, that adds a lot). This could be because of the paucity of independent thinking on the right or it could just be that Frank Rich happens to be right most or all of the time.

Looks like the one eyed man is our copyright violater. Shame on you! What would Frankie think!

Nope, wasn't me -- to be perfectly honest, I haven't read his column yet today -- being stuck in my ways, I read the different sections of the Times in the same serial order every week, and I haven't gotten to Week in Review yet --

Actually, One Eye (may I call you One Eye?), I wasn't commenting on the content of the post (which, frankly, I didn't read), but on the practice of dropping a long article in the middle of a comments thread. It sort of misses the point of blog commentary which is...well, short personal comments. It's an article critical of Bush. I get it. Was there something in particular that the poster wanted us to respond to? We'll never know. This is interrupting a conversation to read a newspaper article aloud, then buggering off without explaining why. It's autistic.

But now that I look at the article...if you guys really think Cindy Sheehan is the beginning of an "insurgency" against the war at home, you're in for yet another heartbreaking disappointment, I'm happy to say. She's polling more negative than positive, and the undecideds, I'm guessing, are just flat out embarrassed and sorry for her personally. But hey, keep flinging the shit. It's bound to stick to something, even if it seems to be mostly the flingers.

Fair enough -- I figured that whoever posted it thought that Frank Rich could express what he wanted to say better than he could, but your point is well taken -- and One Eye is fine, as in "In the Kingdom of the Blind, the one eyed man is King"

One Eye - The entire Frank Rich piece is tu quoque. That's it. Nobody addresses his points because there aren't any points.

That is an ironic description, considering that much of his piece describes how tu quoque lies at the heart of this administration: sliming the soldier who asked about inadequate armor to deflect attention from the fact that soldiers are dying because they are unprotected. The rest of the piece describes an administration which is whistling past the graveyard. Now, you may disagree and make the administraton's case that everything in Iraq is hunky-dory. Or you may make the case that despite failing to find WMD or a 9/11 link, the war effort is justified for some other reason. Like Micheal Moore (and Ann Coutler, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest), Rich is a polemicist whose purpose is to make a case. You may disagree with what he says, but to dismiss it by saying that there is nothing there is a fatuity.

"sliming the soldier who asked about inadequate armor to deflect attention from the fact that soldiers are dying because they are unprotected."

In the land of the blind you get revisionist history, even recent history. Nobody in the administration 'slimed the soldier' unless you define sliming as pointing out a reporter planted the question. Truth to Power!

Thank gaia for Paul Krugman. If it wasn't for him I'd have the shallowest column in the paper.

p.s. Truth to Power, brown eye!

Now, you may disagree and make the administraton's case that everything in Iraq is hunky-dory.

I can't recall ANYONE saying Iraq is great/peaceful/without bloodshed/effortless/creamy smooth, perfumed and oh, so heavenly, like the inside of RWS's siren-like thighs.

Everyone knows that Iraq is a fucked-up hellhole. It was a fucked-up hellhole in February, 2003, before a single US soldier entered.

However, there's no question that it's better NOW, than it was BEFORE, because we've:

(a) stopped the insanity of Saddam's massive crimes against humanity;

(b) ended the ridiculous Oil-for-Food bribery scheme, which funded a variety of terrorist groups;

(c) killed and captured roughly 20,000 terrorists;

(d) brought hope and democracy to tens of millions of oppressed, hopeless people;

(e) established a network of permanent military bases in the Middle East, on the doorsteps of Syria and Iran; and

(f) seized and destroyed thousands of terrorist training camps, ammunication dumps, shelters, funding sources, etc.

"Did somebody just anonymously plop a whole article into this thread without supporting commentary? Because that's what it smells like..."

Moonbat screeds/exegesi are always lengthy and coma inducing tomes that only someone interested in the revelations of the "blah, blah blah dialectic" would care about...

In blog comments there's a direct correspondence between response length and moonbatishness.

Fly-ng Sp-ghetti M-nster willing, we'll get to 400 on this thread yet!

Anybody else think it strange that there are other Sheehan threads on the site, but the link that got outsiders here kept them here? Me, when I stumble on a blog I've not been to, I look around a little. Kick the tires. Pee on things.

Hate to see what you do when you're out car-shopping.

Probably licks the door handle to call "dibs"

QUOTE: "Certainly there is some need to have the consequences of war explained and, yes, even dramatized."

Consequences?

Cindy's message is equal measures of *both* consequences *and* [non-]causes (e.g., non-existent WMD, specious 911/Iraq connection, disinterest in real democracy for Iraq, ... what is it this week?). That's the power of Cindy Sheehan.

-raz

QUOTE: "Certainly there is some need to have the consequences of war explained and, yes, even dramatized."

Consequences?

Cindy's message is equal measures of *both* consequences *and* [non-]causes (e.g., non-existent WMD, specious 911/Iraq connection, disinterest in real democracy for Iraq, ... what is it this week?). That's the power of Cindy Sheehan.

-raz

Dogstar's post is valid, but I question its veracity. a) and b) are undoubtedly true, but the other four assertions are arguable. Nobody knows how many terrorists were killed or captured, and nobody knows how many of the people who did get killed or captured were terrorists. (How could you know? People die in firefights -- who can tell who was a terrorist and who was in the wrong place & wrong time?) Democracy is certainly not there, and whether it eventually arrives or not is unknown. Whether people are hopeful or not is also questionable -- all I know is from eyewitness reporting, but it seems to me that the Iraqis are fearful and apprehensive. The new military bases have only been there a few years -- whether they are permanent or not is also anybody's guess. And there sure seem to be a lot more terrorist camps (and terrorists) there than there were before we invaded.

On the other side of the ledger: 1800 US dead, 10,000+ wounded, an unknown number of Iraqis dead, over $650 billion spent, hearts and minds lost throughout the world, etc., etc. If you want to make the case that whatever progress which has been achieved is worth this -- fine. I just don't see it.

Chiang Kai Shek was asked in 1950 what his opnion was of the French Revolution. He famously responded that it was too soon to tell. Perhaps this will all work out. I certainly hope so. However, based on the history of the region and the situation on the ground, my guess is that sooner or later the Iraqi people, tired of the violence, will find another strong man with tacit Western support. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

"It's actually quite a questionable proposition that anyone with a heavy emotional response to a policy issue should have undue influence on that policy."

Wow! Very good! Very very good!

Now, take that same reasoning and apply it to Terri Schiavo.

Yes, yes...you're a little late, DCeiver. The specious Schiavo comparison has already been made elsewhere. Though I'd be interested to hear why you think her husband had no heavy emotional involvement in her case and, if not, how that made him a more appropriate guardian than her parents, who manifestly did.

Glorious clue-battery on an industrial scale!!
How come no one asks where the Madonna of the Vultures gets her funding?
I mean, someone's got to be paying the tab for her high-top Converse booties.
I know those 'honorariums' she's paid at the various speaking engagements can only go so far.
How can she afford all of this free time?
Likewise, all of the kooks that have joined her in the field flinging feces...don't they have jobs, families, lives to attend to?
I guess now that school's back in session, we'll see if the numbers dwindle...

I was referring to the "heavy emotional response" put forth by members of Congress, who do not get paid to inject themselves in tiresome melodramas. They are, as individuals, of course, as entitled as anyone to have emotional responses to the world around them. But not on my time.