Bulletproof. Now is it idiotproof?
Actually, it's the "patriots" who are the "scumbags" but you would have to be familiar with Samuel Johnson, (instead of Charles Johnson), to know this. Of course, Dr. Johnson was British and he was afraid of offending the Crown when he defined Patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel. Leave it to a real American to tell it to you straight.
PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
A.B.
So basically, you really don't understand the quote in question, but that isn't going to stop you from using it to slam all those icky people you don't like.
Hey, A.B.?
You're the kind of jerk who'd show up at a New England Patriots game with a soccer ball and say, "Actually, THIS is a 'Football,' " and think you'd actually contributed something useful to the discussion.
Why don't you and Dr. Johnson go play with yourselves while the adults save your lives. We know who, and what a Patriot is.
Thanks, Froggy. You are so right. 'Rats are so wrong. That is why 'rats keep loosing national elections. Americans see right through their BS and pathological hate of America.
Personally, I am sick and tired of seeing the same old accusations thrown around. Please, liberals, get a new line. That poor horse is about as dead as it can be.
Bravo Zulu Froggy.
Nail, Head.
I hope they keep up their lying and unpatriotic rhetoric! The current ad running on Fox News by the Kurds to thank Americans for their freedom is going to hit a greater chord in the heart of America, than all of their negativity & traitorous sound bites, and it will pay off for the GOP next November. So keep it up, sKerry et al, you're digging your own graves!
Matt:
What you stated is definately not politically correct but the truth never is. The "cut and run democrats" are nothing more than a modern day bunch of "quislings." Legitimate dissent is one thing but the outright lies and dirty tricks coming from the so called "loyal opposition" is nothing more than treason during a time of war. I am sure the moonbat lefties that will respond to your post will make their usual moronic ramblings about right wing extremism etc. The 3 stooges on the left, Schumer, Durbin and Kennedy (oh, I apologize to the 3 stooges for dissing them by comparing those losers to them) should be brought up on charges in the well of the Senate for their treasonous actions. We could only hope.
The Democratic congresscritters -- hoisted by their own petard!
You nailed it, Froggy ... and nailed it well.
Keep your hammer out though ... for the Dihimmicrats and the Wilson Kolbs of this world will be back to obfuscate the truth. Yours and the President's are just the first salvos in a new, bloodless conflict that, like Iraq, was inevitible ... the War On Rhetorical Moonbat Stupidity (WORMS).
We won't be fooled again ... for to let that happen would be fatal.
Kudos!! Well said, Froggy!!
Why is it also the news media ignored the apparent link to mobile weapon labs that were discovered in Mosul in 2003:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/
wm...ia28may2003.htm
despite the fact that they match the description of mobile biological warfare factories given to the United Nations, and that they were made in 2002, and undeclared to the U.N despite the fact they could be used, or misconstrued as mobile B/W labs?
How about this for some irony, these two articles from 1999 [pre - Bush] by CNN, and the UK Guardian:
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/mea...fghan.binladen/
"Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
intern...,314700,00.html
so in 1999 this information was being circulated by U.S Intelligence agencies, but now they want the President to take responsibility for faulty intelligence and "lying"?
amazing.
Froggy,
I'm sure you realize that not all liberals feel the way you describe. Nor do all conservatives. I consider myself a liberal, but no one who knows me would ever doubt my patriotism.
The mere fact that the lib's lie and deceive about issues that have been proven to be true years ago is enough for anyone to say I'm not going to vote for you in the next election! But our biggest problem as a country is that common people refuse to investigate issues to find the truth. They'll watch the MSM and just take it as gospel, while the truth is right there on Google. Shame on us for allowing ourselves as a "free" nation to be manipulated by unpatriotic fools that we allow to steer the ship! God help us and our children if we don't wise up and get these people out of office. Thanks Matt for being a purveyor of truth!
Damn straight. Too bad ELECTED representatives don't have the juevos to say the same thing.
It's just us knuckle-draggers.
How about a run for office, Congress could use a REAL straight talker.
Well said Matt. Good work. Keep it coming...
Greetings: Matt a great job on the Valour IT Project - Thanks. Thank you also for this great blog about the liberal bastards. I have sent it to everyone I know and hope they will send it on. If "W" will stand up and fight for himself I think many other folks will join up. If he would continue to lay low we would just say "that's too bad". His speech this week was good but too "polite" for my taste. I hope to see the day when he can say, "if you don't like what I do, please kiss my red rosy ass". Is that asking too much ?? Best Wishes and Semper Fi. Ron Henderson, Greenwood, MO
As usual, Matt has nailed the libs scrawny asses to the floor on this one. Somebody commented you should keep your hammer out, I suggest an industrial nailgun of merciless truth is required. These asshats need to be refuted rapid fire. All they care about is their Congressional majority that WE THE PEOPLE have taken from them. Screw the GWOT because Republicans might actually recieve some credit for waging it on all our behalf, and that can't be allowed. They seem to think that everything with an "R" after it is corrupt and stolen from them, the rightful heirs to all the committees that run things in Congress.
This must also include beuro-rats4life in the state dept. and the CIA undermining this administration at every turn through leaks to the press and that assclown J. WilsonIV. So what if Cheney scares you? YOU asspipes are not elected by anyone! Yet they seem to beleive it's "patriotic" to commit treason from within our national security agencies. This is where talk of hoisting on petards needs to happen. A treason trial is sorely needed IMHO. I vote for a military tribunal. Then send these traitors to Club Gitmo, your tropical retreat from the stress of jihad.
Go Go Froggy!!
Excellent post Froggy! Thanks for the referrences as well 
A bloggy toast to the Frogs of Freedom!
Great post - oorah!
Well done, my squiddy brother!
With these brewing attacks on the patriotism of those challenging the honesty of Bush's pre-war WMD claims, it is critical to note that the precise kinds of challenges against Bush being made by Democrats now were routinely made by Republicans every time Clinton used the military. As revealed by this post (via Daily Kos today):
Compilation of GOP statements in the 1990s attacking Clinton's motives and honesty with regard to Kosovo, bin Laden attack and Iraq bombings
The GOP incessently made the exact kinds of attacks on Clinton's honesty and motives when it came to deploying the military which the GOP is now claiming are "unpatriotic."
I'd love to know what the difference is. Why is it OK for the GOP to do that to Clinton - for years - but it's suddenly "unpatriotic" when the Democrats do it to Bush?
Or, Tracy, we could ask - if you objected to it under Clinton why is it OK for Dems to do it now? If you're using the "you hit me first" argument, well, no one's getting any ice cream.
Tracy -
Because Clinton really was a dirty dog (remember where he was putting cigars?) who actually turned down an opportunity to get bin Ladin.
The GOP didn't start out claiming Clinton's attacks were the right thing do to, and then, when the political opportunity presented itself (in a time of war, no less) LIE about whether they supported the president or not.
Interesting reading Tracy, but it really isn't germaine to the discussion for several reasons. A) The attacks on the President "manipulating" intel is demonstrably false and all the Dems who are engaging in it know that. Republicans were making some unseemly assertions to be sure, but who can say that they were'nt correct? Did the Senate Intelligence Committee investigate whether Clinton was attempting to distract the nation from his personal foibles? Which leads me to B) Clinton was a well known liar by that point in his presidency who had cheated on his wife with a whole host of floozies prior to his election. It wasn't much of a logical leap to assert that he was at least using the issue of military operations to cover for his other problems.
President Bush in 2003 had sky high approval ratings after taking down the taliban and no scandals at all on the horizon. Not to mention the fact that we were and are engaged in a world war on terrorism having been attacked on 9/11. Under the circumstances it seems prudent to assess other major threats to US security which Iraq certainly was.
The bottom line is that lying willfully to undermine a president and the war he is directing is UNPATRIOTIC as hell.
Damn right spot on, Froggy. Do they REALLY want to start comparing Presidents? REALLY? In the words of a certain great wartime leader, "Bring it on!!"
The left is always about pure politics. They will do and say anything to regain power. It is as simple as that. The left believes that the ends justify the means.
Hey, Anonymous, didn't you write a book about how the GWOT is all screwed up because Bush is running it?
Right on Froggy! Excellent post!
Somebody should leak that guy's identity to the WaPo!
" If you persist in this campaign of lies, you are UNPATRIOTIC, a TRAITOR, and SCUMBAG as well."
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Yadda yadda yadda. Barely one-third of the U.S. public supports the Lying Sack these days, and 57% say he's dishonest and unethical. By the way, speaking of a lack of patriotism, how about Bill O'Leilly of FauxNews urging al-Qaeda to bomb Coit Tower in San Francisco? Did Billy-boy know that this monument was built to commemorate the firefighters who died in the fires after the 1906 earthquake?
"You want to blow up Coit Tower?" O'Leilly said. "Go ahead."
My oh my, but aren't the wingnuts patriotic.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar.../11/12/
COIT.TMP
That's because San Fran wants to be apart from the rest of us. If that's what they want, we'll just withdraw all federal support and let them take care of themselves. War on Terror is just a police action anyway, right? SFPD can handle AQ all by themselves I suppose. Your cute little FOX insults are about as clever as a 3rd grader. Why don't you get over yourself, Wilson the A$$hatted lib loser.
Froggy, you're the best!
This was a great post.
Adele
Why can't we create Club Gitmo West, right on Alcatraz Island? Mr. Wilson"I'm an asspipe" Kolb can be the caretaker there.
Yesterday, our Arab (street) savvy Al-President Ibn Bush as they call him in Saudistani collaborationist circles delivered his long-awaited Veterans Day speech on the fight against “terrorism” at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania: this turned out to be a fascinating speech full of true-blue Trotskyite/Noecon clichés about the eventual collapse of the Islamic Al-Qaeda “system” from the burden of “its internal contradictions” and the firm presidential belief that its leaders will soon be “joining the dustbins of history”…beyond the irony of listening to a right-wing Republican leader using 19th century vintage Marxist metaphors, Dubya’s delivery was clearly below (his own already sub-par) personal average, and the rehearsed hurrahs sounded less enthusiastic than usual- maybe because Karl and Scooter were busy elsewhere and didn’t have enough time to prepare properly for this staged show of martial masculinity.
Anyway, the following 2 points in Bush’s speech caught my attention as they perfectly capture the essence of “Neo-conservative” Pharisaic propaganda:
1) “…the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments”
This type of talk is particularly racist and offensive: 1.4 billion Muslims around the world will be glad to learn that the US government has officially segmented them into two broad categories: “Radical/Al-Qaeda types” and “Non-radical Muslims” [sic]
2) “…our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life”
That’s an outright lie, which has been propagandized on a massive scale since September 11th 2001 by Wolfowitz, Perl, Libby, Sharon, Cheney & Co.
As veteran Middle-East experts such as former senior CIA officer Michael Scheuer have said repeatedly, this canard about “Bin Laden’s alleged desire to shatter the American way of life” was (and still is) the ultimate justification of the invasion of Iraq…simply because it was “market-tested” extensively by the White House and proved to fly well with focus groups and folks in the heartland.
See link below for more on Mike Scheuer’s sharp criticism of the Bush administration
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain655407.shtml
Dubya’s mass repetition of the same failed arguments ad nauseam now threatens to unmask the dirty secrets of Neocon statecraft: in the future, he should keep his advanced Pharisaic talking points algorithm under wraps lest he reveal his intellectual edge to the enemies of freedom/democracy/Zion/McDonalds burgers/Philadelphia cheese/Alabama banana pudding/you name your favorite American dish and call the PR & Public Information Management department at the Israeli embassy in Houston so they can add it to the list of heartland gastronomic liberties that constitute the bedrock of culinary freedom on which this great nation was built!
We won’t let Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein destroy our way of life with their poisonous Gallic Gaullist soufflés and other radioactive “yellow cakes” cum hummus sauce cooked in the dirty Baathist/terrorist/evil/satanic/Islamo-fascist kitchens of Damascus and Tickrit.
Vive le Liberty!
Vive el Presidente!
Dubya’s mass repetition of the same failed arguments ad nauseam now threatens to unmask the dirty secrets of Neocon statecraft: in the future, he should keep his.....blah blah blah.
repitition ad naseum is a hallmark of tinhatted moonbats like these.
Geez now I need a shower.
It's all about Neocons(JOOOOOOWS)!
Anti semitism is really tired and old in this debate. If you believe that crapola, then line up for fitting of your tinhat.
Without left or right, there would be no center. It would be my best guest that you prefer totalitarianism because you don't like to be challenged for your backwards way of thinking and completely blind to reality.
You are a sucker for the right wing media just as the left is a sucker for the left wing media. Get off your soapbox, put down your thesaurus and start thinking for yourself.
Bloggermouth:
Is it difficult finding balanced meals, when you live in Candyland?
f
Maybe some of you America-hating rightwingnuts can tell us when, for example, Michael Moore called upon al-Qaeda to attack Dallas.
Tracy:
Funny, I responded to the exact same (verbatim) comment over at Protein Wisdom--where it was posted by a CurtJacobs.
So, who's plagiarizing ('scuse me, borrowing open-source material) from whom? Or are you both the same person? Or are you both getting this from someone else who's urging that it be posted on all the right-wing sites?
Matt: Quite a salvo but, respectfully, I think with that title you're hitting a good number of people who don't deserve it. Your post narrows down who you're talking about, but it is a subset of liberals. For the record I am very conservative, but I do have liberal patriot friends and colleagues.
Oh, and, Froggy: Please excuse my misplaced familiarity in addressing you; no disrespect intended.
Fred.
Is the candyland rebuttal the best you can come up with? You are in over your head.
JPS,
The title was intended to "create interest" in the post as well as impugn the many liberals (like the ones squealing here) who know that what the Senate liberals are doing is unpatriotic and frankly traitorous.
I don't remember writing about Bill O'Reilly and SF which I don't even care about. Do you see Bill O'Reilly's website in my blogroll?
Jeff at Protein Wisdom told me that it only took about 50 comments before the tinfoil crowd started in with the NeoCon ie Jewish conspiracy theories. I remarked to him at the time that since I'm a WASP SEAL that I would be somewhat innoculated from the JOOOOOOOOOs and chickenhawk epithets, but you racist, unpatriotic, liberal slimeballs just couldn't help yourselves I guess.
Poll numbers? Poll numbers are so much more important than our troops in the field and the security of the Homeland. Thank you for so blatantly proving the point of my post.
"It seems that we just found 1.77 METRIC TONS of enriched uranium and “1,000 ‘highly radioactive sources’ were also removed” in Iraq but I had to link to a BBC report because the American media isn’t interested"
---------
These things weren't "just found." They were removed a couple years ago. The 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium was the strength usable by nuclear power reactors. The Iraqis had built three of them, one of which was destroyed in an Israeli bombing raid in 1981. The other two were shut down in 1991 after the first Gulf War.
The uranium was put under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency and left in Iraq. This is in contrast to biological and chemical agents that were seized. The uranium remained under seal until just before the U.S. blitzkrieg. After "shock & awe" it look American forces a month to go check on the uranium, which means that they couldn't have regarded it as particularly dangerous given the "WMD" justification for the war.
As for the 1,000 "highly radioactive sources," they included radioactive items commonly used in radiotherapy for cancer and in a wide variety of industrial devices.
The information about this stuff comes from an article by a neocon propagandist by the named of Podhoretz, who simply threw out a bullet-point list without ever bothering to look deeper. The wingnut-o-sphere did its usual thing of just passing it along without a second glance. Par for the course.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF WILLFUL LYING THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. THIS COMMENT IS FALSE. THAT URANIUM WAS TAKEN AWAY LAST SUMMER (2004) AND THE IAEA DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL WE INFORMED THEM WE WERE GETTING RID OF IT. THE IRAQIS NEVER HAD 3 REACTORS ONLY ONE WHICH WAS BOMBED BY ISRAEL IN THE 80S.
ADDITIONALLY WE HAVE A NICE EXAMPLE OF ANTI-SEMITISM THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE GOING AFTER JPOD AS A NEOCON (JOOOOOOOOO) PROPAGANDIST. THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS ME SAYING THAT FARRAKHAN IS A SPADE PROPAGANDIST.
Edited By Siteowner
I visited this website for the first time today and read numerous comments on this topic. I find it absolutely remarkable that the tone of the conversation has degenerated into each side calling the other names. People are dying dammit. Good people, bad people, my side or your side they're still people. This is not right and someone has to stop it--and I don't see any organized enemy who can sign a peace treaty and that bothers me because without it I don't see an end to this war.
'NeoCon ie Jewish conspiracy theories.'
David brooks tried this line, and was appropriately called on it. Why do you keep on repeating this crap?
First of all you don't have any information to confirm a word of what you just spun. Second, ask Jay Rockefeller who had what in 2003. Third, what makes what you have done any different from what Levin is trying to do? You're cherrypicking a fantasy scenario that has nothing to do with what's on the table right now. Levin and the moonbats are trying to rewrite history, and we're not going to let them. Your self satisfaction in your role of making things up to suit your political proclivities without any thought of the consequences puts you and your vile brethren directly in the crosshairs of this post. You know that you are an American hating slimeball who despises our troops.
Wilson Kolb said:
"Maybe some of you America-hating rightwingnuts can tell us when, for example, Michael Moore called upon al-Qaeda to attack Dallas."
I can't do that, but I can point out that only one day after 9/11, Moore said that the wrong city had been hit, which means that he would've supported a hit on a city like Dallas.
"If someone did this [the WTC attack] to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"
http://www.moorelies.com/news/ar....cfm?
newsID=332
"I can't do that, but I can point out that only one day after 9/11, Moore said that the wrong city had been hit, which means that he would've supported a hit on a city like Dallas."
Um, that's not what the quote you provided means. That quote means that if the intent was to get back at Bush, they hit the wrong target. Do you think the intent was to get back at bush?
This conversation has strayed from the main point that Froggy made: in a time of war, if you want your country to loose you are a traitor.
Can it be any simpler than that? I know that our effete friends posting above don't want to think of themselves that way, but if the shoe fits...what did Samuel:Johnson say?
At least they should have the courage of their convictions instead of hiding behind a shield of overblown prose, and feigned moral indignation. If you hate America and Americans just come out and say it!
The quote I provided does not mean "It was terrible that any American city was attacked." The quote means "If the intent was to get back at Bush, why pick these people?" Which in turn means "There were better people to hit, namely the ones who voted for Bush."
Ergo, if the intent was to get back at Bush, the wrong city was hit. A red-state city would have made more sense to Michael Moore.
You and I said, "How horrible that any city was hit for whatever reason," right?
That's not what Michael Moore said. His statement clearly indicates his horror that the wrong people may have been killed by someone trying to press home a legitimate point.
Actus,
You object to the line criticizing "NeoCon ie Jewish conspiracy theories."
I won't try to speak for Froggy, but of people you know who use the word neocon epithetically, how many can name three non-Jewish examples?
The only names I can ever get my interlocutors on the left to cough up are either Jewish opinion writers, or the same four Jewish advisors and undersecretaries in foreign/defense policy. It seems to me that to a good number on the left (and a few on the Pat Buchanan right), "neocon" does indeed mean "right-wing Jew."
(Others on the left who use the term have no freakin' clue what it means, but seem to enjoy associating that vaguely sinister-sounding "neo" with their opponents; witness the occasional, and absurd, characterization of Cheney or Rumsfeld as neocons.)
WOW, these leftards just keep proving the point that they're scumbags, don't they?
You must have touched a nerve--as they say, if you're getting ridiculous insults and drive-by trolls are crapping on the carpet, you obviously nailed 'em.
The truth hurts, doesn't it, Hate-Filled Lefty? 
:smirking:
I love America!
Where else could I make 6 figure income?
However, I want the US to fail in Iraq. I object to the cost (6 billion per month with no end in sight) and I hate all the faux patriotism.
Success in Iraq will just encourage more of the same reckless behavior. What's next, Syria, Iraq?
Where does it end?
What a bunch of dumb, fucking assholes. You live is a country where a majority of the population are "traitors" and "scumbags" and yu call us stupid? Get your own fucking country, like Jonestown, in Guyana. We will send you all the cyanide laced kool-aid you can drink. That's what good wingnuts do.
"Bush's new approval low of 36 percent in the NEWSWEEK poll equals the low point of Bill Clinton's presidency in May 1993, when the former president hit 36 percent.
Now is the autumn of Bush's discontent, according to the NEWSWEEK poll, taken by phone of 1,002 Americans over Thursday and Friday nights. The president can take some solace in the fact that 42 percent of Americans believe he is honest and ethical. Only 29 percent believe that Vice President Dick Cheney is. And more than a quarter of Republicans, 26 percent, believe the vice president is not honest and ethical. The growing credibility gap could have ramifications across the president's agenda: 56 percent of Americans say Bush "won't be able to get much done;" only 36 percent say he "can be effective."
Most worrisome for the White House: the base seems to be cracking. When asked whether anyone in the administration "acted unethically" in the case involving the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name, a 54-percent majority of Americans said they did - and 30 percent of Republicans said they did. And 45 percent of Americans believe someone in the "Bush administration broke the law and acted criminally" - including 22 percent of Republicans."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1001.../site/newsweek/
Rick Schwag, are you just pretending to be an idiotarian chickenjihadi moonbat, or are you really THAT stupid?
You live is a country where a majority of the population are "traitors" and "scumbags" and yu call us stupid?
No, we call you stupid. You obviously don't understand the difference between approval rating polls and DOING THE RIGHT THING. You also don't understand that those who say they don't completely approve of Bush's job performance DO NOT ALL LIE about the war and DO NOT ALL WANT us to LOSE in Iraq.
Nice try, ya dumb, fucking asshole. Go back to swilling your Kool-Aid. I, however, won't wish cyanide in it like you do, because I don't wish death on other Americans, EVEN when they're criminally stupid liars like you.
Well, traitors, yes...and I think many of your ilk definitely do provide aid and comfort to the enemy.
R. Schwanz,
Hope you had a pleasant Veterans' Day. Did you have to work?
Failure in war (oh, yeah this is a war) means more KIA and their sacrifices being for nothing. Go to the nearest National Cemetery and see where it ends.
I hate that I served and my son serves to protect the likes of fat Mike Moore and you.
Pvt. Joker said:
"Bush's new approval low of 36 percent in the NEWSWEEK poll equals the low point of Bill Clinton's presidency in May 1993, when the former president hit 36 percent."
And when President Clinton left office, he had an approval rating of 57%.
Bush has three years to go, so I'm not worried. 
.
Rick schwag -- where does it end?
Here.
Tom W ... thanks for the historical info on approval ratings!
Wilson Kolb ... are you listening?
Rick Schwag (who is too stupid to find the Caps key),
You are beneath contempt, and a major asshole. Fuck right off.
And Pvt Joker, apparently the majority of folks in the poll that you quoted are morons. Someone in the administration allegedly DID act unethically and illegally in the investigation. Scooter-boy apparently lied to investigators about what / when / to whom he told what, but by all accounts it had NOTHING whatever to do with the outing of the non-covert Wilsonette. Following the serial lying by her husband, this prosecutorial sleight-of-hand seems minor, but if he did indeed lie he should be hung from a yardarm for dishonoring the VP and administration.
Froggy, To add more facts, the French, yes the ones that stabbed the US and Colin in the back, determined that the alum tubes that were located could be used for one thing only..a centrifuge. This was stated by Fred Barnes on Beltway Boys this date. Am looking for a original doc. For Rick
Schwag, standby till after the elections in Dec. The ELECTED government of Iraq will warn Syria and Iran any more cross boarder assualts on the soverign nation of Iraq will be met with retaliation, supported by our allies America and Great Britain and led by the Armies of Iraq. Come to Jesus time for Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and American Liberals.
Rich Casebolt:
It's amazing that approval ratings matter so much to some people. We're back in elementary school, apparently. The self-appointed in-crowd is taunting us with "You like George Bu-ush, you like George Bu-ush," and we're supposed to go "Nah-ah! I do not! Stop saying that!"
Half the country voted for John F'n Kerry, for God's sake! An absolute disgrace of a human being with no accomplishments, and a self-parodying clown on top of that. "I have a plan! I have a plan! I have a plan!" And that gave him half the electorate. So now we're supposed to be surprised and terrified that a huge chunk of Americans hate Bush?
Big news.
Tom W: I think they're trying to buoy their own flagging morale by seizing upon whatever poll "proves" everyone's on their side, all the apostates will be punished, etc.
' witness the occasional, and absurd, characterization of Cheney or Rumsfeld as neocons.)'
They did sign the PNAC agenda didn't they? that's one litmus test. You don't all have to be ex-trotskyite straussians.
"It seems that we just found 1.77 METRIC TONS of enriched uranium and “1,000 ‘highly radioactive sources’ were also removed” in Iraq but I had to link to a BBC report because the American media isn’t interested. So there’s a famous dissenting view that turned out to be DEAD WRONG."
Using Google, it seems CNN noticed it:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...7/iraq.nuclear/
It is good that the "low-enriched" material is gone; although the article isn't specific, one could imagine it was in a military "nuclear research facility".
They did sign the PNAC agenda didn't they? that's one litmus test. You don't all have to be ex-trotskyite straussians.
Heh... they make up words AND litmus tests to see if the made up words are applicable.
Actus, do people like you have jobs?
Froggy, Wilson Kolb got banned over at CDR Salamanders for blatant trolling. Since he appears to be a fuzz faced college kid with zero life experience, a probable raging case of acne due entirely to lack of relief from a certain kind of "pressure", and couldn't on the best day of his miserable, deluded, shit for brains life ever stand with real service members and do the job they do each and every day, there is little to try to understand why his spleen is so vile and misguided. Have pity upon him...send him back to his bridge, and feed him no more.
By the way, to everyone licking their chops over the latest See BS poll showing Bush's approval rating at 36%, you should know that Rasmussen has him at 46%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
...ob_Approval.htm
Call me crazy, but I'll take Rasmussen over an organization that gave us fake documents debunked by their own experts. And anybody who'd hire Mary Mapes to do anything except scrub sinks has no credibility at all. Have you heard her on her book tour? She sounds like Cindy Sheehan's sister, with that same little-girl boo-poop-pa-doop voice.
Why do they all sound like that? Judith Miller has the same voice, as do Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi.
Yuck.
Great post, Froggy! Thank you for saying so well what must be said again, and again, and again to prevent the democrats and the liberal media from succeeding in their latest act of treason.
I'm glad I came across this blog.
GREAT post, Froggy..couldn't have said it any better.
WHO CARES ABOUT POLLS ? The only one that mattered was taken last November, and the liberal idiots couldn't bias it like they do with the media polls.
What these incredible Liberal comments in the above posts say clearly to me is that these "gentlemen" clearly do not have a clue about the difference between Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, or Truth and Lies. Everything to them is either situational ethhics or the Marxist Dialectic. They are too stupid or ignorant to understand that NO amount of appeasement, NO amount of compromise with these vicious radical criminal terrorists will change their behaviour one whit. For these Democrats it's all about their personal power and feelings of self-importance. America be damned. Your neighbors be damned. Freedom be damned. You Libs really ARE traitors, not legitimate dissenters.
Frog- excellent work. The Left carries a viral strain of pacifism. This infuriates them but it's true. Ultimately, they view US military action through the prism of imperialism; they can't see beyond it. They have an inherent distrust of everything military. One exception to this thread though- Tracy's right. The GOP's virulent hatred of Clinton resulted in opposition of a handful of attempts (not many, to be sure) of military intervention. The GOP shifted to a neo-isolationist posture out of its hatred of Clinton. It was the mirror image of what's happening to GWB now... politics, pure and simple. It was just on a smaller scale- because Clinton rarely supported military intervention.
"I'd love to know what the difference is. Why is it OK for the GOP to do that to Clinton - for years - but it's suddenly "unpatriotic" when the Democrats do it to Bush?
Tracy"
9/11 changed everything. We are now fighting for survival.
won't try to speak for Froggy, but of people you know who use the word neocon epithetically, how many can name three non-Jewish examples?
Lessee -- "NeoConservatism" would be, technically, the post-Kissingerian realism strategy espoused by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Looking at the list of signatories on the PNAC Statement of Principles, I can name Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Steve Forbes, Francis Fukayama and Jeb Bush, all non-Jews.
You were aware that "NeoConservatism" was actually a political movement and philosophy with it's own website, yeah? I believe it was originally invented by William Kristol, although I am open to correction on the precise origins of the term.
(Others on the left who use the term have no freakin' clue what it means, but seem to enjoy associating that vaguely sinister-sounding "neo" with their opponents; witness the occasional, and absurd, characterization of Cheney or Rumsfeld as neocons.)
This is very sweet, and ironic. Cheney and Rumsfeld, as indicated both by their signatures being and remaining on the PNAC SoP, are indeed in the "hard core" of NeoConservatism. President Bush, intriguingly, is not on this list. If he is a NeoConservative, and he walks and talks enough like one to pass, he is not a core NeoCon in the same way that Cheney is -- he's a latecomer to the party.
Patriots that we all are here, I think we should all take a similarly damning position against the European, fringe-moonbat paper The Economist, which in a recent editorial slammed Mr Bush for opposing the cynical leftist John McCain and the fifth-columnists who apparently make up 90% of the US Senate.
One does wonder, though -- if America is not torturing people and would never condone torture, why is the executive so strongly resisting laws which would, as McCain claims, simply "clarify" the existing status quo?
'Heh... they make up words AND litmus tests to see if the made up words are applicable. '
What words have I made up? What is your mind making up?
McDuff -- the reason for the Administration's resistance to the "clarification" is that, by codifying it, we place it within the grasp of our untrustworthy, activist judiciary to fold/spindle/mutilate AND STRETCH it to fit their worldviews.
We then risk having legitimate interrogation techniques, and even incarceration of enemy combatants, redefined as "torture" and placed off limits for our government, based on the whims of a few unelected officials.
Another reason why judicial appointments are so critical.
Has anyone here read The Pentagon's New Map by Tom Barnett? This man is a former Naval War College Professor, Office of SecDef for force transformation. His construct for the post cold war security environment seems very neocon-like, but he's a democrat. Lots of moonbats have harrassed him about being a tool of the neocon-zionist agenda. It's obvious they know nothing about what they are saying. This is hilarious to him I think, at least his blog indicates it.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/index.htm
Thomas P.M. Barnett
Great post there.
I find it interesting that every single one of the Libs that have posted nasty comments in reaction to it have come up with absolutely NOTHING to refute the basic facts that you posted in your argument. I find it interesting, but hardly surprising.
What Democrats said about Iraq:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/ru.../b/
bushlied.htm
They would prefer that everyone go back to drinking the bong water and forget they said things like this:
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.
I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means." Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), December 16, 1998
(In this statement Rep. Pelosi was not urging that action be taken against Iraq in order to destroy its WMD technology; she was expressing support for attacks that had already begun with that purpose as their stated objective.)
found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/w...r/
wmdquotes.asp
But do not try to hold Democrats to their words as the Los Angeles Times reports at http://www.latimes.com/news/nati...a-iraq-
complete (registration required):
"Duhnke said that of the statements assembled for scrutiny, about 330 were compiled by Democratic members of the committee, and all represented claims by Bush or other members of his administration. The remainder of the list includes about 100 statements by members of Congress — evenly split between Democrats and Republicans — as well as comments by Clinton administration officials."
[]"Duhnke said Roberts’ plan called for committee members to evaluate statements without the names of the speakers attached, to guard against partisanship. If necessary, Duhnke said, the committee could hold a vote on each claim to determine whether it appears to have been substantiated by intelligence available at the time. The results would then be presented in a public report that would carry the names of officials and their comments.
Democrats have balked at that plan, saying staff members should make initial determinations on the validity of officials’ comments, just as they rendered preliminary judgments on whether the words contained in prewar intelligence reports were warranted. Senators could then endorse or alter the staff’s conclusions.
Having committee members wrangle over hundreds of statements “doesn’t seem like a productive use of U.S. senators’ time,” said a Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing the issue.
The aide said some questioned whether Republicans intended for the process to become hopelessly bogged down. “Maybe they want … people just to throw up their hands,” the aide said."
Don't throw up your hands. Just try being honest for a change.
Bravo Froggy!
"Don't throw up your hands. Just try being honest for a change."
People can't seem to understand the difference between the 1998 attacks and the war we have now.
People can't seem to understand the difference between the 1998 attacks and the war we have now.
Hmmmm, lessee...That difference would be that we have a real, majority-elected President in office prosecuting this war, as opposed to the intern-porking frat-boy who occupied the White House in 1998 with his constant "Wag the Dog" scenarios.
Mm-hm. Yep, Actus, you moron, I'd say we understand the difference quite well. (snicker)
Well well,
It seems that the liberal moonbats have come in for a landing with their asses smarting.
Hysterical that their conspiracy theories are being exposed as mere fantasy, they've come to honk out torrents of obfuscation.
From the laughably idiotic ramblings of Private Toker/Brainless Joe Stalin to the comic obtuseness of actus, they cling desperately to the same tired memes and recycled talking points.
Having learned nothing from 2002 and 2004, they've once again engaged in the ridiculous fantasy that the hapless democrats are going to "regain power".
Once again they're building themselves up with grandiose visions of victory and setting themselves up for another fall.
Who can forget the gloating and crowing of liberal morons at the news of the "exit polls" turn into shrill bleats of dismay and despair as the reality of the actual ballots set in during the 2004 election?
Watching the specatacle of that moonbat meltdown was like having Christmas in November.
Like little automatons, they're going to treat us to yet more of the same entertainment in 2006.
They can rest assured that we'll be watching and laughing....
Heh,
Spelled "spectacle" incorrectly.
I must have gotten some of the liberal asshat Kool-Aid splashed on me.
Nothing a little exploitation of The Third World in the name of the V.R.W.C. and Halliburton won't fix....
You who wish our defeat in this vital war against world jihad are traitors.
TRAITORS period
You are pampered cowards who live in a fantasyland of your own mythologies.
Once again, the adults must protect you.
I just hope there are still enough adults to pull it off.
Just be aware, as there will be no appeasement of the ghouls and head-choppers, there will be no peace declared with you either, since you have aligned yourselves with everything that would destroy our country. No we won't be shooting you, but we will oppose you with our last breath and our last vote, and you will lose this war.
We will remember every lie, every distortion, every cheap shot, every dishonest hate-filled screed you aimed at our country and at us. Long after all this is over, we will remember every one of you dirtbag cowards with your large mouths attached to your quasi-educated brains used for nothing but hatred of your own country.
Shame on you.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/...13/
131646.shtml
GW is going to use the Dems icon Slick Willy aginst his own. That should sent the moonbats into a tizzy.
What exactly are the differences between the 1998 attacks and now? That Clinton, with the same gutted intel community we had when Bush got in, mysteriously knew where ALL of Saddams WMD's were begin developed and stored. Then he managed to surprise all of said installations and destroyed them with 100% certainty using cruise missiles (or other air assets), a satalite overflight, and no intelligence or ground force securing the site afterwards? (note to the sane: I've heard this as a serious statement before from the local hippies and commies...and that's not being derogatory, Communist Party and the yearly hippy rally were spouting that off about a year and a half ago)
The moonbat "hate every white man, doubly-so if he's an American, because they're the root of ALL evil" class Ethnic Studies 101 even says that in retrospect all we hit were some coal and gas powerplants and water reclamation facilities in those attacks. Where's the mass outcry from the left that the Clinton Administration attacked invalid targets on false pretenses, worsening the lives of the Iraqi people by destroying their electricity and polluting their rivers and drinking water with seweage?
Bush would not have had nearly the support he did if it had not been for almost a decade our the media and national leadership spouting off on how dangerous Saddam was because he had WMDs. I was young, but I can remember hearing it from people like Pelosi, Clinton, and random big network commentator guys (to be fair, some Republicans too) ever since the end of Desert Storm. If Bush and the right really lied about Saddam's weapons programs then the left shares equally in the resposibility for setting it up.
The idea of past events setting up current events apparently has no meaning to the liberals...unless it can be put on the other guy. I can't say I blame them for this mindset; it's only human nature practiced by all sides. However, trying to deep-six the careers of only the most recent people that are key to an issue and simply saying that any legitimate proof that they may share in the responsibility is 'all lies', is unforgivable and dishonorable to the highest degree.
Troops aren't protecting me from shit. From Iraqis? are you nuts? God you kool aiders just crack me up. It's kind of sad some of you learned how to type in prison, though. Morons.
I was young, but I can remember hearing it from people like Pelosi, Clinton, and random big network commentator guys (to be fair, some Republicans too) ever since the end of Desert Storm.
Ofnir, we know that Hussein had WMDs because he used them against the Kurds in his own country. That's incontrovertible fact; the mass graves are there.
A provision of the 1991 armistice was that Hussein physically account for all the WMDs in his stockpile, destroy them, thoroughly document their destruction and allow unfettered access by UN inspectors for the purpose of verification.
He was under no fewer than 12 UN mandates to do all this (the last of which, if memory serves, was numbered 1441), and he defied them all. He also shot at US and Coalition pilots on a daily basis following the armistice, in violation thereof. And a condition of the armistice was that so much as one violation gave the United States the right to go back in if it so chose.
These are facts that Actus, Pvt. Jackass and Slick Willie Kolb would just as soon have you forget, so that they can try to put their "Bush lied people died" bullshit mantras past you.
The problem is that those of us who remember know better, and can call them on their asshattery.
Prewar, it appeared to me that post-1991 US foreign policy had successfully contained Iraq. To be sure, there were scores of UN inspector violations. But there was never a showing that that Saddam was a real threat to the US. 9-11 changed that perception, shifting the burden of proof to Saddam. Sadly, Colin Powell had it right on 2 fronts: 1) we had Iraq sufficiently contained and 2) that if we broke Iraq, we owned it, complete with the Shia/Sunni split. All of this has been irrelevant since 2003. The issue now isn't why we went in- it's how we win and get out.
Just to be clear, I don't support the whole "Bush lied" thing. I was just saying that under the assumption that he did (using the opposition's argument), the majority of public officals who are saying so now are just as guilty of the same thing.
"Troops aren't protecting me from shit. From Iraqis? are you nuts? God you kool aiders just crack me up. It's kind of sad some of you learned how to type in prison, though. Morons."
Ya lost me after, "Blah, blah, blah."
If Schumer, Durbin and Kennedy are Moe, Larry and Curly, does this make Kerry "Schemp", and Byrd "Joe"?
"Troops aren't protecting me from shit. From Iraqis? are you nuts?"
Yeah, you troops! Stop picking on the Iraqis, who never posed a threat to us because they're just Arabs. We all know that brown-skinned people can't be taken seriously. C'mon! They're just sweet little folk with big eyes, and they like to pretend that they have armies and governments, kind of like what's happening in Iraq today.
Iraqis are so cute when they go out and do that fake voting thing and hold up their little purple fingers. But we all know that they're just Arabs, so we never had anything to worry about.
Bush lied, harmless little Arabs died!
September 11 changed the perception ... not the threat. That had always been there, stockpiles or no stockpiles.
Before that we were just fooling ourselves ... continuing to live in the delusion that we didn't have to confront a thug like Saddam ... that diplomacy and sanctions would bring him to heel, as we had been told by the chattering classes for decades about thugs like him.
Just how much WMD would it have taken to produce 911: The Sequel?
The Duelfer Report documented how Saddam had his WMD programs sitting on the shelf, ready to go back into business at the end of sanctions.
He wasn't being brought to heel -- he was planning on waiting us out, until the diplomatic community (led by his Crude-for-Food buddies) could yank us back.
The critics have yet to answer me how they were going to stop that from happening, short of removing Saddam & Sons from power.
911 was our wake-up call ... a wake-up to the inadequacy of the Leftist-derived elements of our foreign policy, put in place over the last five decades.
We won't be fooled again.
I'm a Colin Powell man on the pre-War front. 911 may have been our wake-up call but we ignored Powell's doctrine (overwhelming force with defined goals and an exit strategy) at our own risk. Would I have made a decision to go in? Doubtful, we had him contained and the Shia/Sunni schism looked insurmountable. But the President assessed the risk differently, all in good faith.
Hey Tom W.
Racism is precisely that which assumes that those "sweet little folks" don't want democracy. This despite the fact that they had a higher per capita turnout for their last election than Bush v. Kerry.
Why don't you find some ethics? I'm sure you must have a friend somewhere you can borrow some from.
pathetic
"Troops aren't protecting me from shit. From Iraqis? are you nuts? God you kool aiders just crack me up. It's kind of sad some of you learned how to type in prison, though. Morons."
So says Zen, yet another lonely, pimple faced, fat kid from the safety of his mommy's basement.
Wilson Kolb: Moore asked, after 9/11, why AQ bombed NYC, after all, they voted for Gore. Oh, you forgot about that, didn't you?
Would I have made a decision to go in? Doubtful, we had him contained and the Shia/Sunni schism looked insurmountable.
You have to remember that Saddam was well on his way to having the sanctions lifted and with the help of the "oil for food" fiasco, he had the means to reconstitute his weapons programs once "the heat was off".
Remember the Marine colonel in "A Few Good Men"?
"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use those words as the backbone of a life spent defending something... I have neither the time nor inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the very blanket of freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it."
Forget the film's excesses. Ask yourself if you're sleeping under a blanket of freedom. I suggest so.
Raw speculation, Elephant Man. Not enough to charge into war.
Good Post, Froggie.
Minor addition (maybe): I read a few days ago (don't have the source) that the 4th ID discovered a warehouse of 55 gallon barrels of Binary Chems; incidentally sitting next to missiles thet had been modified to carry chemical weapons. Haven't heard anything for a couple of days, though.
Lord Spatula: "frat-boy "
Wait. who is the frat-boy? 98 or now? Are you really this nuts?
Wait. who is the frat-boy? 98 or now? Are you really this nuts?
Awwwwwww, whassa matter, jact-ass? Does it stick in him's craw that him's getting him's ass handed to him again??? Remember? Just like it did at the Rott before him's got him's'self banned?
Awwwwwwwwwwww, po' bab-eeeeeeee... (chortle)
"Awwwwwww, whassa matter, jact-ass? Does it stick in him's craw that him's getting him's ass handed to him again??? Remember? Just like it did at the Rott before him's got him's'self banned?"
You know that dubya was a frat man right? I don't know 'bout clinton -- he seemed a bit more the hippie type.
'You who wish our defeat in this vital war against world jihad are traitors.'
Is it ok to wish that only some people are defeated, but not me? Like, can I pull an o'reilly and say 'want to take out colorado springs, go ahead.'?
Raw speculation, Elephant Man. Not enough to charge into war.
Oh really?
So you think that the sanctions would have gone on indefinitely to keep Saddam "contained"?
It was my understanding that France, Germany and Russia were pushing hard to have the sanctions lifted.
They had numerous deals in place that were going to go into effect as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
Why do you think they opposed the invasion so strongly?
It would be naive to think that it was because those countries were convinced that Saddam had "turned over a new leaf".
Fortunately, President Bush didn't have your faith in Saddam's good nature and honesty.
By the way, we didn't "charge into war".
That's a ridiculously childish liberal moonbat cliche.
The administration spent over a year jumping through hoops for Congress and the UN.
Something conveniently forgotten by liberal asshats and their Kool-Aid chugging minions.
Ha! Right on the mark. Imagine Blubberbutt Teddy or Dickless Turbin busted for treason. This makes a satisfying fantasy, but Daniel Pipes rains on the parade at http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2865
I am afraid America will have to wait for the Islamonazis to fashion and detonate a nuke on American soil before the moonbat left pulls its head out of its collective ass. No joke - this is coming. Paging Neville Chamberlain...
Actus said?
Is it ok to wish that only some people are defeated, but not me? Like, can I pull an o'reilly and say 'want to take out colorado springs, go ahead.'?
-------------------------------
Is it ever being a good citizen to support the death and defeat of our armed forces during a time of war, and to propose actions and policies that will lead to that defeat?
Is that not treason?
You go first, then we will deal with O'Reilly.
You know that dubya was a frat man right?
You know that Bush treats the office with respect, unlike your honeyboy Der Kaiser who ran the White House like it was a frat party, right?
Got any more BS you want slammed back up your ass? (snicker)
Is it ok to wish that only some people are defeated, but not me? Like, can I pull an o'reilly and say 'want to take out colorado springs, go ahead.'?
Yes you can, actus.
After all, this is a free country.
But there are consequences for uttering stupidity as you well know.
Like everyone considering you a moron for the total idiocy of your last comment, for instance.....
"You know that Bush treats the office with respect, unlike your honeyboy Der Kaiser who ran the White House like it was a frat party, right?"
I'd say the world would be a better place if Dubya could get a blowjob, a beer, and a toke everynow and then. But from what I know of the clinton white house, it looked like a real boring frat party.
"Is it ever being a good citizen to support the death and defeat of our armed forces during a time of war, and to propose actions and policies that will lead to that defeat?"
Not the armed forces. Just that that freak Dobson and his minions live under a caliphate. But of course not me.
Great post Froggy. You hit the nail on the head. Not only are these dirt merchants trying to deceive the folks, they've been laboring to deceive themselves. Nothing pisses them off more than being reminded of who and what they are.
"We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves."
-Eric Hoffer
I think actus either had a stroke or he's turned to the bong for "guidance".
His babbling is getting more nonsensical by the minute...
Hippies....
*guffaw*
I'd say the world would be a better place if Dubya could get a blowjob, a beer, and a toke everynow and then.
And that's why most of us here know that you have your head up your ass, moron.
But from what I know of the clinton white house, it looked like a real boring frat party.
Tell that to Gennifer, Paula, Juanita, Monica...
Awesome post Froggy!
Love watching these punks getting all butt-hurt when they get called out.
By the way actus, Bubba Clinton was indeed a "fratboy"
Alpha Phi Omega when he was at Georgetown U.
Nice try.
"Alpha Phi Omega when he was at Georgetown U."
Thats' a co-ed 'service fraternity' for 'volunteerism' not quite the land of DeKE kegstands.
"Nice try."
Yup.
'Tell that to Gennifer, Paula, Juanita, Monica...'
Like I said, real boring to have those types around.
Like I said, real boring to have those types around.
And like I said, Jact-ass - that's why we know you're a moron...
Actus,
I wonder what you are doing spending your Sunday afternoon bickering about Bill Clinton's frat, and making crude analogies to a caliphate and James Dobson. Those things were never mentioned in my post and they have no relevance to the subject at hand...that you are an unpatriotic America hater. You have already proven that to everyone here 100 times over. Why don't you go spend some time with your family or go to the gym. Do something productive with yourself. You are pathetic.
kreizman -- re-read the Duelfer Report, or go herefor my take on it.
There is a lot more to Elephant Man's assertions than merely "raw speculation".
Annoy a lib today!
It appears none of us has read Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to a Liberal - if you have to."
Until we have Ann's sage advice, I suggest we ignore the screechings of the anti-American, baby-murdering, cowardly, cry-baby, crypto-commie, cynical, defeatist, (serially) dishonest, loser, pseudo-intellectual, reverse racist, socialist, treasonous, women-abusing rats. How's that for carpet ad homineming?
Or else, merely say, as I read a while back on the web: "None of this would be happening if Algore had been elected." Such inane comments resonate with the louts.
Perhaps so, Rich, I'll read your take. I'm the first to agree that 9/11 shifted the burden of proof to Saddam. But preemptive military action is still a big deal, rarely used and reserved for extraordinary threats. Iraq's threat wasn't unique or imminent. After 9/11, did we have the luxury of waiting? The President thought not. I disagreed with that assessment but support his decision.
The real problem with going in was the PRACTICAL ones. Taking out Saddam was great; it still makes me smile. But in addition, we aimed to create a stable democracy that is our ally. Those are 3 very tall orders- dependent largely on factors outside of our control. Now our guys wait gamely as Iraqi troops try to get up to speed. That's a sobering thought.
"Those things were never mentioned in my post and they have no relevance to the subject at hand...that you are an unpatriotic America hater."
Well Dobson's example is about figuring out just what it means to be a patriot.
Like any true red-blooded fratboy-american, I also want to make sure that those of us who pledged get their recognition, and not the faux-fratboys of 'service fraternity' fame.
Mission Accomplished.
Mission Accomplished.
So your mission was showing us all what a dumbass you are?
Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
"So your mission was showing us all what a dumbass you are?"
Dig up some more frat-facts for me.
The real problem with going in was the PRACTICAL ones. Taking out Saddam was great; it still makes me smile. But in addition, we aimed to create a stable democracy that is our ally. Those are 3 very tall orders- dependent largely on factors outside of our control. Now our guys wait gamely as Iraqi troops try to get up to speed. That's a sobering thought.
kreizman, I understand your concerns but at least Bush had the "cojones" to try rather then live with the Middle Eastern "status quo".
We are filling those "three tall orders" despite the nonsense being spewed by the democrats and the unbiased media.
Of course it's not all sunshine and roses in Iraq.
However, it's not nearly as bad as the democrats and their moonbatted bretheren would have you believe.
The lies and distortions that the liberal moonbats are trying to peddle to the American people is at the very heart of the outrage expressed on this thread.
The democrats and the leftist moonbats are either so deluded and retarded er, "mentally challenged" that they actually believe the crap they're vomiting out.
or
They're purposely spinning lies and distortions for political expediency.
If they're deluded and retarded, then I can't consider them traitors. Just..well ...deluded and retarded.
However, if they're purposely spinning lies and distortions, then the "traitor" label is appropriate.
Demoscum and their liberal moonbat minions are either one or the other.
There is no third possibility.
I see that actus is obviously in the "deluded and retarded" category...
let me make sure I'm hearing this right...drunken hazers in the safety of academe are more "real" than those of us who rely, day in and day out, for months at a time, often in dangerous conditions on our brothers and sisters on watch. Relying for our very lives.
Boy, I am knowledgeable in both these arenas and you are absolutely deluded if you discount the "service fraternity".
"I see that actus is obviously in the "deluded and retarded" category..."
And that's a tough one to beat too.
And that's a tough one to beat too.
Yes it is, especially since it's true.
Acceptance is the first step towards recovery.
"Yes it is, especially since it's true."
This one is even better!
'Boy, I am knowledgeable in both these arenas and you are absolutely deluded if you discount the "service fraternity".'
Its not military service. Its volunteer service. The frat Clinton was in. Contra the real frat that Dubya was in. Fine by me though if you want to be wrong about it.
and actus babbles on like a crack -smoking chimp...
"and actus babbles on like a crack -smoking chimp..."
I'm amazed at your ability to continue to outdo yourself. I mean, who would imagine a chimp smoking crack?
I knew all Repukes were reptiles but here's your proof...FROGGY!
I'm amazed at your ability to continue to outdo yourself. I mean, who would imagine a chimp smoking crack?
But actus, you make it so easy.
There's no need for the flattery.
Your comments are so inane, they'd envoke images of being uttered by a drug addled primate in anyone's mind.
BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!
Hey "Ima-Moron"!
Frogs are amphibians, not reptiles.
Obviously you're a prodigy of our "Publik Skool Sistum".
You know, you lefties should find something to do with your lives. Some of those protester girls are kind of cute, maybe you could try some of these lines on them. Who knows? you might get lucky.
As far as this group goes, since you have utterly failed to respond to the issues at hand, and important issues they are, and now are simply throwing around high-school level insults, perhaps your time here has reached its useful limit...
Just a thought...
What a mindless thread. Let's all be honest. Most Americans could careless about Iraq nor the idiots in uniform.
I say piss on all of them, towelheads and jarheads alike.
I had a great year($$) and I'm leaving this week for two weeks R & R (hows that for a military anacronym for someone who never wore the uni!).
Mexico and Cuba!! Sex, drugs & Rock & Roll!!!
Hot fucking with my young dark wife, nice beaches and seafood in Huatulco, and a few days of cigars & rum in La Habana!!!
Enjoy your badly cooked turkeys!!!
Gringos pendejos!!
Muerte a Bush!!!
Dig up some more frat-facts for me.
Do your own legwork, dumbass. See if you can work your way up to "fool".
Hey actus, are you still on this frat BS? How about we go back to the substance of this post and you tell us how lying about what the President's motivations for going to war were is not un-patriotic.
rick schwagTRANSLATED:
I'm a lonely pimple-faced fat kid who earns minimum wage swabbing out toilets in a fast food restaurant.
The closest I've ever gotten to Mexico is the local Taco Bell.
It's not all bad. I've named my right hand "Rosita" and she gives me "hot lovin" while I gawk at Hentai Porn.
A public service reminder to all you Leftist trolls ...
Back when we started this thing, President Bush based our response on three items, when you get right down to it:
> The threat presented by Iraqi development/possession/transfer of WMD.
> Saddam's ties to terrorism.
> Freedom for the Iraqi people.
All the other items ... the stockpiles, etc. ... were derivative details of these basic areas of concern.
Read my lips ... he delivered, on all three points!
> Finally, we can be assured that Saddam Huessein does not have the ability to either directly deploy WMD, or deliver it to terrorist surrogates ... a condition NO ONE, be they President, Senator, Head Spook at any intel agency around the world, UN Secretary General, or weapons inspector was able to achieve prior to this war. Consider this war a comprehensive weapons inspection for any WMD under Saddam's control ... the only comprehensive one, free of the obfuscation, obstruction, and shell-gaming of Saddam & Sons.
> We can also be assured that Saddam no longer has the ability to reconstitute those shelved WMD programs documented in the NON-PARTISAN Duelfer Report. Riddle me this, trolls ... just how were YOU going to stop those programs from restarting, once Saddam squeaked by one (non-comprehensive) weapons inspection and got sanctions lifted? Those were every bit as dangerous in the long term as any "stockpile" -- yet you parse words, simply because someone you loathe led the way in permanently stopping them.
> We are also assured that Saddam no longer has access to that 500 tons of uranium -- and that 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium -- for further processing into radiological, or even nuclear, weapons. Don't give me the BS about IAEA seals protecting this stuff ... they are only as good as IAEA access to the sealed areas, which was under the control of who? Saddam. No reasonable person would place their trust in such a situation.
> We are also assured that Saddam can no longer stoke the fires of Palestinian terrorism, one $25,000 log at a time ... and we are assured that he can no longer deliver his usual material/logistical/training/medical services to terrorists, including shelter to all those "retired" terrorists who fled to Iraq, the 1993 WTC bomber, and a certain headchopper by the name of Zarqawi. We are also assured that those documented, casual ties between Saddam & AQ will never be turned into a full operational relationship. Of course ... keep in mind, this was always about more than Al Quada ... this is a TOTAL War on Terror, that is being intelligently fought ... with the recognition that not all of the Arab/Muslim world, even in Saudi Arabia, is our enemy.
> With regards to the freedom of the Iraqi people, we have put an end to their filling mass graves with their own bodies at the behest of Saddam & Sons? Instead, their bodies are still attached to MILLIONS of living, purple fingers who are pointing the way to taking their nation back ... another FACT that gives the LIE to any assertion that this was "a war for empire"
> Finally, if y'all had your way, Saddam would still be in power ... instead of being on trial, not for the pleasure of George W. Bush, but for crimes against his own people. ... with his successors, Uday and Qusay ...DEAD-AY
This list shows that the issues y'all repeatedly assert that George W. Bush "manufactured" ... Saddam's dealings with WMD, his terrorist support, and freedom for the Iraqi people ... were REAL ... not "manufactured". And it also shows that George W. Bush ... who this independent is proud to call "my President" ... was good to his word, and addressed them, decisively, by removing Saddam & Sons from control of Iraq.
Keep in mind, trolls, that all the above was executed, NOT IN YOUR NAME, but in the name of millions of people ... including the killed and wounded you and your fellow moonbats wave like a bloody shirt ... many of whom would, if they had the chance, spit on you for besmirching their sacrifice.
All the above truly is "someone else's fault" ... not yours.
Mike Rosen wrote on Veterans Day:
George Orwell once noted, "To abjure violence is a luxury which a delicate few enjoy only because others stand ready to do violence in their behalf." So U.S. Marines died on Iwo Jima so that pacifists could sing Kumbaya in safety. Warriors are essential; pacifists are a luxury.
God bless you, Froggy. The leftists are beginning to see their grip on the MSM propaganda machine slipping. You and your fellow Milbloggers are winning the trust and respect of the people. Risking your life for our freedom has given you the clarity and the moral platform to speak the truth in love for your country.
Happy Veterans Day, all of you heroes.
God Bless America. Our family prays for you all every day.
Joe and Jade Sackett
rick schwag,
If you think Mexico and Cuba are so great, do us a favor and stay in one of those backward countries. You have a hell of allot of nerve coming on this site talking about the dollars you made (or maybe its just claiming) in our country this year and criticizing our military. While your candy ass was doing so, good men and women put their lives on the line every day and they are not getting paid nearly enough for doing so. You come on here with your moronic comments and think we want to listen to them. Don't you have something else to do to entertain yourself? Take Elephant Mans reference to "Rosita" for example. I think he hits the nail right on the head with that one. I know your wrist will hurt but at least we won't have to put up with your BS here.
Say hello to Fidel when you go to Cuba and please STAY there. I am sure he will recive you as the communist freak that you are.
Rich
"Your comments are so inane, they'd envoke images of being uttered by a drug addled primate in anyone's mind."
see, rephrasing isn't as good as coming up with a new phrase. I suppose we all have our limits.
"Hey actus, are you still on this frat BS? How about we go back to the substance of this post and you tell us how lying about what the President's motivations for going to war were is not un-patriotic."
Lying is very unpatriotic. Indeed.
"Do your own legwork, dumbass. See if you can work your way up to "fool"."
I did. And then along came someone else with the wrong frat facts. What can you do?
I did. And then along came someone else with the wrong frat facts.
Let's understand something, dumbass. You could tell us the sky was blue, and I'd go outside to double-check. Your word doesn't mean shit around these parts.
What can you do?
Laugh our asses off at you...which is pretty much what we've been doing all thread, isn't it? (snicker)
Froggy, your 11-9-5 Post on Welcome To The Suck was listed in www.realclearpolitics.com.
It was a great post, by the way.
I have to agree with Froggy on this one.
It's one thing for a Michael Moore or a Cindy Sh*thead to go around spewing propaganda. It's much worse when a Uinted States Senator (Carl Levin) purposely fills the TV screens with anti-war propaganda while waving a stale DIA report. He has essentially kicked our troops in the crouch over the national airwaves. This goes far beyond partisan politics. It gives aid and confort to the emeny and is on the edge of sedition.
One could concluded that Levin is trying to pull another John "F" Kerry on us. Kerry sucked the morale out of the troops like an industrial vacuum cleaner and boosted the morale of the VC. Levin might as well have gone on al Jazeera TV with his bogus claims. Levin is hoping for another Vietnam.
To understand the difference between disagreeing with Bush and the treacherous jackassery associated with "Bush lied," just look at Kreitzman's posts. He may be wrong, but he conducts himself like an adult and is treated as such.
To speak to K's points, Saddam's geo-political track record was to over-reach himself time and again, using supremely poor judgement to take on Iran and then the U.S. (twice!) His history indicates that he would have -loved- to have gotten away with being a third-party supplier of WMD to terrorists once the sanctions were off.
see, rephrasing isn't as good as coming up with a new phrase. I suppose we all have our limits.
Why "change up" descriptions of your simpering bleats when my comparing you to drug addled primate appears to have struck a nerve?
Obviously, chimpanzee intellect is your limit.
Lying is very unpatriotic. Indeed.
Still trying to gain "traitor" status, are you?
Sorry "cracktus", you've already been categorized as deluded and retarded but keep trying.
I did. And then along came someone else with the wrong frat facts.
TRANSLATION: Yes, I'm deluded and retarded.
What can you do?
I'll tell you what I can do.
Laugh and taunt you while marveling at your unfailing ability to paint yourself as a complete moron.
I'll suggest what you can do.
Grab a crowbar and try to dislodge your head from your ass.
Ok actus, since you agree with me, what shall we do with the lying traitors Reid, Kennedy, Rockefeller?
Many liberals up here in Seattle have no concept of patritoism because they have declared themselves Citizens Of The World. It's quite common for Seattle and Northwest-area liberals to feel not one ounce of loyalty to the land of their birth, nor to the soldiers and other officers who protect and defend their soft, opinionated asses every day of every year. They have totally swallowed the lie that patriotism equals jingoism equals fascism equals nazism. Funny how they get all bent out of shape, suddenly, when anyone has the nerve to tell them their liberal shit stinks to high heaven. "Don't question my patriotism!" Why, dear sir, I thought you thought patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels? I've just paid you a high compliments!
I guess ole Froggy really stirred up the moonbat nest with this most excellent and accurate post. Nice to see the very combative Lord Spatula here to fisk the morons point by point. Frat creds aside, what can they do to refute Froggy? Squeal and holler like Ned "Miss Piggy" Beatty in Deliverance.
"All I re-Quire is you get yer ass up in dem woods."
Elephant Man: missed your 6:12 post yesterday. You're right- we didn't 'rush into war'. It's a loaded phrase that I didn't mean to use. Sorry.
The original US decision not to go into Baghdad wasn't made by moonbat liberals. It was made by Bush41, Scowcroft & Powell, hawks and patriots. Their rationale was simple: they saw the Sunni-Shiite split and the likelihood of religious turmoilay. They guessed that it would result in an Islamic theocracy alighed with Iran- and they opted out. Fast-forward to 9/11. Our perceptions of the Iraqi threat changed. But the realpolitik facts recited above didn't. Again, Bush43 acted in good faith; that's why I voted for him.
Now, postwar. It's imperative that we win this war; that's where I take exceptiion with liberals. But the president has defined winning as 'a stable, democratic Iraqthat's our ally'. That's a tall order. It's going to be a long, tough, extended war, something Americans will get tired of- with the Left doing everything it can to encourage this fatigue. It's further complicated by an exit strategy that's dependent upon Iraq's ability to stand-up. I'm skeptical about this. I pray I'm wrong. If they stand up, we win. If they don't, we'll end up declaring victory and leaving, much as we did in Vietnam. That's disasterous.
There's a looming issue here, folks, and it isn't Iraq. It's Iran, which is trying to go nuclear. Unless our ally Israel bombs the crap out of Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran's going to have a bomb within the next 5-10 years. All Americans of all political persuasions need to sober up and think this one through.
Earnest- thanks for the kind words. I'm a veteran (for what it's worth), not a traitor.
Kreizman: With all due respect, President Bush has never stated that our involvment in Iraq was going to be quick or easy. He as consistantly said that it would be a long, hard fight, and that we needed to stick it out.
My support of the war included that knowledge. I have never thought that it would be easy. My opinion is that we'll have to stay in Iraq for at least a decade, although our actual involvement in Iraqi affairs will begin to draw down as more and more Iraqi troops take over the jobs that we're currently doing. And believe me, the Iraqi's are taking over. They might not be standing completely on their own at this exact moment, but they are on their feet. Every assault on terrorists is now a campaign that includes both Coalition AND Iraqi forces.
I agree with you on Iran, btw. I've stated before on my blog that Iran is going to have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. In my opinion, that is one small part of the reason that we're in Iraq right now. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we have 140,000 troops sitting a stone's throw away from Iran. This is important when you consider that A) Iran is working towards a nuke, and B) Iran has repeatedly stated that once they have a nuke, Tel Aviv turns into a mushroom cloud. I think that everyone here could agree that if Isreal saw a nuke-tipped missle coming at them from Iran, they would be pushing the Big Red Button just as fast as they could before that nuke hit them.
Quite simply, that scenario cannot be allowed to happen. So one of two things must come to pass: Either Iran gives up it's nukes, or we go into Iran and dismantle their nuke program. I prefer the former, but I doubt it's going to happen.
By the way, I'm saying this as a member of the US Army who's in line to go to the Sandbox. This isn't abstract arguments for me, this is most likely where I'll be headed soon enough.
But you can't argue with irrational people. Happily, most Americans aren't so crazy. Hannity had a great bit in a NJ shopping mall, with an intern asking people Who's the VP? Who's Alito? Would you vote for Hillary for Prez, etc.
Not a single person could identify Scooter Libby
Dave: you're right about the Prez's representations that this would be a long hard struggle. Sadly, I question whether post-Vietnam America is capable of a sustained, long limited war (limited war meaning something less than an all-out direct attack against the US.) This is the one weakness that radical Islam exploits. We can't lose militarily but we can certainly lose politically.
Our comments tie back into Matt's original post. While Matt's assessment may be right, America's attention deficit disorder and fatigue in this context is a reality that must be factored into any decision to engage. We can argue about the Left, the media, academia being unpatriotic- but, like it or not, we know that after a month, the Left will coalesce and start dissenting. It's reality- wishing otherwise won't change it. The Administration figured it would be out quickly, assuming it would looking like Kuwait in 1991. They guessed wrong.
Jihadgene to Froggy-
This article, "Liberals are Unpatriotic", has made my day! You are so very on target! Keep on firing for effect! I love reading the responses of the Libs who have totally "nutted up" over this! God bless our troops! And thank you for putting into words what so many proud Americans feel!
kreizman, you are right that we could lose politically. Zawahiri said as much in his letter to Zarquawi that the Vietnam model is noteworthy to their cause. That is EXACTLY why what Froggy has said in this post is so damn necessary. I think the majority of americans, whether they lived through the Vietnam period or not, have learned something about how Gen. Giap used moonbat socialist lefties here and in EUrope to undermine the political support at home, because the Vietcong or the regular NVA couldn't overpower our military on the battlefield. The terrorist scumbags know the same thing, and are gonna try to replicate the strategy that worked for Giap. They have said as much quite plainly. Americans don't want those mistakes repeated, and I for one believe they won't be.
"You could tell us the sky was blue, and I'd go outside to double-check. "
Do you really not remember? I'm sorry.
"Ok actus, since you agree with me, what shall we do with the lying traitors Reid, Kennedy, Rockefeller?"
Making them president seems to be popular.
"I'll suggest what you can do.
Grab a crowbar and try to dislodge your head from your ass."
Won't you come and help?
"Ok actus, since you agree with me, what shall we do with the lying traitors Reid, Kennedy, Rockefeller?"
Making them president seems to be popular.
President Harry Reid? President Edward Kennedy? Ha! That's the best joke I've heard all week. Keep dreaming your moonbat dreams, anus.
I notice that the trollers have stopped arguing the FACTUAL information in Froggy's great post, and sound like shoolyard bullies now. hink they know they've lost this one hands down. Heh.
Good for you for not only saying what needs to be said, and for backing it up with facts.
Anyone who spends all their time criticizing the US and Western society, yet no time criticizing China, Iran, N. Korea, Sudan etc. is a hypocrite.
Anyone who hides behind the "bush lied thousands died" mantra wants it both ways.
It's time we held a mirror up to these people and forced them to see themselves.
Great post froggy. The Dems seem to think they smell blood in the water with this new resurgance of the 'bush lied' meme, but time hasn't transformed the shite into blood, nor will it ever. Proof that once again the Dems have no sense for this sort of thing, and are willing to lie to themselves, and to the rest of us, in order to either regain power or to continue to delude themselves that they are the ones who have always been correct.
Many of them are unpatriotic, but since patriotism is something else that they have decided to redefine in their own image, they don't understand why. They once again prove that they are masters of self-delusion. Why deal with reality when you have POLLS, POLLS, POLLS?
Great post - I'm glad to see us going over on offense instead of reacting to various Barking Moonbat assertions.
They can twist, turn, staple, fold, and mutilate the language all they want, but the bottom line is most Democrats and Liberals ARE traitors. It's time to start calling them what they are (and that goes for Carl Levin, Joe Wilson, the MSM, etc.): traitors to America.
Just a reminder ==
U.S. CONSTITUTION: "ARTICLE III. Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "
We should not have stopped at the Rosenbergs. I can add a lot of names like Fonda to the list.
"Adhering" gee I can open that definition up a bit, too.
Good on you Froggy.
"But repeating lies every day to get back at the President that beat you doesn't make them true; it makes you a traitor to this country and disloyal to the troops who are on this day protecting you." - AMEN, Froggy. Another reminder of why I can't go through a day without reading your posts.
Excellent post, froggie.
As always, the right has completely missed the point. Froggy, no offense, but you're an idiot! The Congress did not have access to the same intelligence that the President had - no ifs and or buts. You can argue all you want that the Dems are making political hay out of this, but that's not even the question. Bush lied; our soldiers died! And all the Right does is follow like a bunch of f*&king lemmings.
Hmmmm.... This has to be one of the most moronic posts ever written. That anyone believes that the Preznut's administration presented a balanced view of pre-war intelligence is a testament to the sad state of the education system in this country. Dumb-de-dumb-dumb. Now why don't you sick f*cks go and pull the wings off some more insects like you did when you were kids.
Keep up the good work! Dont know if you seen the interview with Carol Lin on CNN and Gen. Spider Marks on WMD. I thought it was quite interesting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS.../13/
sun.05.html
I think that I have figured out the liberal mindset here. It's just Munchousin-by-proxy. The sicker and weaker America gets, the more power they get. It makes them feel supperior when America is hurt. After watching this las week of crap in the news, I also know that what helps AQ, also helps liberals. We can't trust liberals with America's security or the future. They prefer a defeated, beaten and impoverished nation that surrenders at the first shot and grovles at the feet of despots.
Sounds like Fwance to me.
Yep, and the Fwenchman Jacques Chirac just attributed the multi day riots in france to a "malaise".
Live by PC crap, die by PC crap.
"Now why don't you sick f*cks go and pull the wings off some more insects like you did when you were kids." -Rational Actor
The only people that I personally know of who pulled wings off of insects as a kid are now far left Dems or card-carrying commies.
One time they also held my little sister down and tried to force her to eat caterpillers that everyone in the area knew were poisonous. The only ones who escaped righteous anger were the ones who made it home and hid behind their parents. Now that I think back on it, it makes me wonder how much sway such incidents have on where a person later ends up in the political spectrum and on the issue of the use of force...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq.
Many libs would love nothing more than to see the US humbled. They think it would make it more difficult for us to go to war in the future and they feel this serves a higher purpose than supporting a war against a tyrant and terrorist backed nation (and a UN backed nation, too!). Oh, the “alternative” was to a) “Let UN sanctions work,” and b) leave well enough alone. By and large, the lefties disdain military people and are disingenuous when they say they support them. With what, lip service? Please. Try sending a few hundred packages out of your own pocket each year and then tell me you care. Actually put pen to paper and say the words “I am proud of you.” Till then, don’t mind if we see you for what you are.
Every time I heard some moron apologize to the “rest of the world” for us electing Bush I thought to myself, you did a good thing in switching from navy blue to red. I don’t regret it for a second; my only regret is I didn’t do it sooner. Oh, and I regret that it doesn’t count for much in NYC. The Founders knew we’d fight amongst ourselves but it is genuinely a new phenomena that there are citizens of this country who actually believe the best use of their time is to constrain the US at every possible turn. Yeah, those professional activists that Cindy Sheehan hangs out with are real patriots.
See you in ’08. Bring all your little factions of victimized people who are going to show us they know how to lead in a grown up world. I don't know anything about pulling wings off of insects but I do know a large group of people who couldn't care less that there are "minders" in Cuba, listening to every word and reporting in. But you won't hear the left say anything about that except that they have really great universal health care down in Cuba. Meanwhile, here's an interesting link about our various victims groups that want to lead us to a better place. I think their motto is "America, Together We Can Do Better."
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com...1_14_05_JL.html
dellababe, that was superb!
Thanks
What a lot of us are not getting is that these lefty people are gone, lost, forever to the Union. They are clueless about the nature of evil and what it takes to actually protect yourself.
They believe that their powers of reasoning will work on any attacker and that no one is a bad as we say they are. All we need to do is to be nicer and more socialist and no one will attack us.
They are fools. They are so deluded you would think they were al on LSD. They are like people who have their house invaded and wonder why the rapist/murderer will not listen to reason and just take the stereo.
I know a Japanese sword sensei. Someone who invaded his house would see eyes like flint in the darkness and then a flash of steel and then... heat... lots of heat...
That is the role our armed forces play and they are the best in history. Because of them, these narcissists are able to party through their little lives and to live in this illusion that no one has to do the dirty work for our freedom.
Won't you come and help?
Typical liberal. Can't do anything on his own.
Sorry actus. You jammed your head up your ass, it's up to you to pry it out.
Don't feel bad.
After reading the comments of "George Orwell", "Rational Actor" and some liberal asshat posting anonymously, it seems that you're not alone in your predicament.
Seems I mistakenly included the anonymous poster with the NRO link in the "head up ass" category.
Sorry about the "friendly fire".
With all the liberal moonbats flapping around, squeaking and squealing, it was bound to happen sooner or later....
DCC well said....both your posts!
George Orwell.....if you were any dumber..you'd be dangerous to yourself...
The democrats under Bill Clinton KNEW that Saddam posed the WORST threat to America and that that Bill cock sucking episodes detracted him from being able to effectively take military action the DEMOCRATS wanted him to take against Saddam.
Here let me draw your pathetic little mind to this fact as written in Feb 2000 by The Boston Globe, the voice of democrats in the hometown of Kerry and Kennedy...
"In seven years, Clinton has tried to ignore, obscure, and misrepresent the threat from Saddam. Clinton's so-called containment policy has done nothing more than deter Saddam from invading his neighbors again.But that policy has not obliged the Iraqi despot to honor the UN's disarmament resolutions,has not protected the Iraqi people from the dictator's killers and tortures, and has not defended Americans against terrorists who may be acting with the veiled and deniable support of a vengeful Saddam."
Im sorry...WHO lied??
and lets not forget this:
"While Clinton clings to his futile containment policy, seeking to avoid difficult decisions between now and the first Tuesday in November, the threat grows. Saddam's regime enriches itself with smuggling operations and by diverting money from the $10 billion in yearly oil sales allowed under the UN's oil-for-food program. And the common people of Iraq continue to suffer unspeakably from both sanctions and the dictatorship.
Saddam must be forced to permit weapons inspections or be removed from power. The failure to contain him should be a central issue in the current presidential campaign"
Im sorry...enlighten me again you ignorant candy ass fuckwit...WHO LIED?
Froggy: WERD! Unpatriotic lying, hypocrital,scumbag traitors.
"The Congress did not have access to the same intelligence that the President had - no ifs and or buts."
So George, are you trying to tell us you had access to all of the intel briefed to the Congress and the POTUS? You would have to have such access in order to be so certain. Otherwise, you are just operating on (all you liberals cover your ears now) faith.
FWIW, my best guess is that the Senate select committee on intel has access to just about anything it requires.
Rick Schwag unmasked!!
http://www.monochrom.at/english/...res/
spector.jpg
See, they're not all pimply misfits.
Some are old misfits...
"Thank you for so blatantly proving the point of my post."
Wow. After taking in the comments, I have arrived at the same conclusion. Some of the folks from the very bottom of the bucket have surfaced.
I think the dog is dead.
Out.
BZ, Froggie!
Do you really not remember? I'm sorry.
Yes, we know. Now where's your apology?
George- Senate intel committee get DIRECTLY briefed by the CIA. Still Think they didn't get enough info? Then ask yourself this- how irresponsible would it be to vote in favor of the war WITHOUT having the pertinent infor briefed to you?
"Congress did not have access to the same intelligence that the President had - no ifs and or buts." George Orwell
Same goes for you George. At least you used your real name, instead of some stupid handle like 'Tin hat on my ass'.
Apparently it wasn't idiot-proof Froggy.
Rational Actor ... those who dismember flies are rather mild, IMO, compared to those who have no problems with dismembering unborn children on demand, for the sake of convenience ... many of whom I think take your side on this debate.
A man is known by the company he keeps ...
The lefties have officially jumped the shark...
Frogman,
F'ing-A, on labeling TREASONOUS statements, directly attributable to elected officials, who not only know better, but continue to push the lies...daily. They must certainly hold the average voter in low esteem..
For what? Political gain? Nah. It's all simply friggin payback time for impeaching Clinton for peruring himself over a BJ, the 2000 election and well,..because they can.
This cabal of cretins makes the Copperheads of 1862 look like amateurs.
Real G-D honorable in a time of peril, eh? I'll hate the SOBs until I get my last breath.
B2
"Rational Actor ... those who dismember flies are rather mild, IMO, compared to those who have no problems with dismembering unborn children on demand, for the sake of convenience ... many of whom I think take your side on this debate."
A man is known by the company he keeps ...
Well said, Rich!!! Great point.
OK, this was one sloppy, lazy post.
Take the "Wrong" link to the removal or radioactive materials in Iraq. The materials included radioactive items used for "medical purposes and industrial purposes." Considering that they were removed by the IAEA with little fanfare.
Claiming that Bush never described Iraq as an imminent threat is another joke. See here for examples of Bush and his administration using those words: http://www.americanprogress.org/...JRJ8OVF&
b=24970
I could go on, but why bother? Nobody but a bunch of Pro-Bush die-hards would claim that everyone believed that Saddam Hussein posed a threat that was worth the kind of ill-planned and poorly executed military invasion we undertook.
As a result, we bear 80% of the cost of the Second Gulf War, whereas we only ate 20% of the First Gulf War's costs.
What's worse, we went from containing Saddam's threat to leaving stockpiles of conventional weapons unguarded that are now being used against our troops, by jihadists who are inspired to fight the infidel in their own lands.
It's a real shame that in the name of patriotism, George Bush and his supporters have played into the enemy's hands.
Thankfully, a majority of Americans are finally waking up to Bush's blunders.
Talk about a lazy post Neo. The "wrong" link also mentioned 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium in addition to the 1000s of radioactive (medical) materials. Nice omission. And frankly the issue of "imminent threats" is irrelevant if we can both stipulate that both the White House and the Dems both invoked this language which, as I have shown, they did.
The point of the post, which is not in dispute, is that the Democrats are knowingly lying about the intelligence situation prior to the war in order to gain electoral advantage. This is being done at the expense of the war effort with respect to encouraging our enemies, demoralizing our friends, and turning public opinion against the war despite the fact that we are fucking massacring AQ wholesale and progressing nicely on the political front.
Our success in Iraq is under reported, and milblogs are a much more valid source of information than MSM sources.
Again, Froggy is correct. Any more squealers out there?
Squeeeeeeal piggy!!!
i suppose every single serviceman and servicewoman are all right-wing patriots, right? none of them could POSSIBLY be liberal and still want to defend their country, right?
bullshit.
Yeah, there are liberal patriots and there are tolerant moslems. In about equal proportions.
What's your point Mister BS?
Do any liberals get anywhere near the Marines or SEAL Teams? I doubt it very seriously.
Neologian (how clever): "I could go on, but why bother?"
He then goes on...
"Nobody but a bunch of Pro-Bush die-hards would claim that everyone believed that Saddam Hussein posed a threat that was worth the kind of ill-planned and poorly executed military invasion we undertook."
So you're not against going in, just the strategic and tactical methodologies used? Could you be more specific- I'd be really interested in hearing your dissection of the 'failure' of the military mission in Iraq given your no doubt awe inspiring resume in the field of military history and tactics...
"As a result, we bear 80% of the cost of the Second Gulf War, whereas we only ate 20% of the First Gulf War's costs."
Oh, I see, it's really about the money... what a stinkin materialist you are. I don't care what it costs- We need to win. Period.
Douglas, it's only about the money when they have nothing else. When they have something else - anything - they hang onto it like a life raft. Ted Kennedy will roll himself out to speak against it, and we all go back to not listening to him anymore.
Too many Libs think that France, amazingly, has it right and they would have us act in the same appeasing way. Or, they actually do believe that sanctions or inspections would have worked. Go figure. Dems are deliberately trying to undermine support for the war. I cannot think of anything more unpatriotic and I'm not forgetting it.
OH! Has anyone heard the UN has reinstated the one guy who lost his job over the oil for food scandal?! All I could think was, what a fine election ad spot that would make along with some idiot senator saying we should have let inspections work.
"If you are a liberal reading this post and you followed all of those links and read that material, you now know. If you persist in this campaign of lies, you are UNPATRIOTIC, a TRAITOR, and SCUMBAG as well."
target engaged. target destroyed.
Load!
"Prewar, it appeared to me that post-1991 US foreign policy had successfully contained Iraq. To be sure, there were scores of UN inspector violations. But there was never a showing that that Saddam was a real threat to the US. 9-11 changed that perception, shifting the burden of proof to Saddam. Sadly, Colin Powell had it right on 2 fronts: 1) we had Iraq sufficiently contained and 2) that if we broke Iraq, we owned it, complete with the Shia/Sunni split. All of this has been irrelevant since 2003. The issue now isn't why we went in- it's how we win and get out."
It is a myth that Saddam was "sufficiently contained". He wasn't contained at all. Only one world-condemned Israel airstrike on the Osirak reactor in 1981 and then one lucky Gulf War airstrike at Al Tuwaitha in 1991 now stand between us and a nuclear Saddam.
So he's been contained since then, right?
Wrong.
The final reports of UN inspectors Charles Duelfer and David Kay say unequivocally that Saddam intended to restart his nuclear program the moment sanctions were lifted, and under the Oil For Food bribes and kickbacks scheme he was getting close. The Oil For Food scandals have to be the most scarily under-reported story since the Ukrainian terror famine.
But don't the 1.77 metric tons of uranium being enriched only to 2.6% show that he had only peaceful purposes in mind at his reactors from the beginning?
No. IAEA inspections in the years following the Gulf War found uranium enriched to levels as high as 93% U-235, more than enough for nuclear warheads, and weapons grade plutonium (Pu-239).
Although the plutonium was in much smaller amounts, this is a reflection of the fact that Saddam had switched plans as a result of the Osirak bombing by Israel. His original plan was to extract Pu-239 from Osirak's spent fuel rods, which is much easier to conceal. After Osirak, he switched to uranium enrichment out of expediency, which is harder to conceal and thus probably had a lot to do with all the cheating/retreating/kicking the inspectors out/letting them back in during the post Gulf War period up until the final time he kicked them out in 1998.
Saddam never gave up his pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Oil For Food scandals and the cat-and-mouse games with the inspectors in the 90's are proof of that, along with documents and interviews with Iraqi scientists all documented in the Duelfer and Kay reports.
His ace in the hole was the short attention span and stamina of the average Westerner, and the willingness of Western lefties to automatically believe the worst about America and the best about him. He knew that this combination in the West would inevitably erode the will of Western governments to keep sanctions up indefinitely because the Western press and leftist politicians would begin to portray him and his people in a more and more sympathetic light while portraying America as what he was. He was right. (Remember the visit Congressmen David Bonior and Jim McDermott took to Baghdad in early 2003?)
In the meantime he was finding ways around the sanctions by buying off UN officials and Western politicians like George Galloway of the UK with oil vouchers. (Wonder if Bonior and McDermott got any...)
He was defeating "containment" through bribery and propaganda via useful idiots in the West. It was inevitable that sanctions would be lifted and that no-one in the West would have had the political will to even send inspectors back in until it was too late. He and his henchmen must have split their sides daily laughing out how gullible and naive most of the West is.
If this is "containment", who needs lassez faire?
Bravo, anon, Bravo- or in these parts- Bravo Zulu. You should take credit for such a sharp post.
That was me -- I was on another computer and forgot that my name wasn't up there.
Anyway, here are some links to back the above up. The 4th one down is from the IAEA itself and shows that not even the UN believed even for a second that Saddam had anything in mind for these reactors other than nuclear weapons.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/pr...s/Iraq/Nuclear/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wm...aq/
tuwaitha.htm
http://www.isis-online.org/publi...q/ tuwaitha.html
http://www.iaea.org/Publications...q/
iaeaplan.html
http://www.commondreams.org/head...s03/0803-
01.htm
Let's try that ISIS one again:
http://www.isis-online.org/publi...q/
tuwaitha.html
Here's another one to debunk Joe Wilson Kolb. Some of you may recall in an earlier Froggy thread that he repeatedly claimed that the US military left Al Tuwaitha unsecured for an "entire month" as a means of proving that even Bush didn't consider Al Tuwaitha a problem.
Here's the problem with that: The Marines on the right flank of the advance arrived at Al Tuwaitha on April 7, 18 days after the invasion began on March 20.
So this involves two examples of either ignorance or outright lies:
1) Claiming 18 days constitutes a "month"; and
2) More important, that somehow the Coalition should have crossed those 200+ miles between the Iraqi border and Al Tuwaitha within minutes.
Matt, outstanding. Unpatriotic is right. What's going on in the Senate right now borders on outright treason (a word not in the Left's or Democrats' vocabulary) and should be dealt with accordingly. Our own elected politicians fighting for the other side. Un-freakin-believable.
Zhangliqun- the WH said that the Iraqi threat was "imminent"- not merely a possibility. Your description of Saddam's nefarious attempts to garner nuclear capabilities, albiet true, doesn't sound like an imminent threat. Using this logic, would you call Iran's current desire to obtain nuclear capability an "imminent threat" to the US and Israel. I'll be the first to admit that it is a likely threat- but right now, it's not imminent.
Note: froggy's post above cites Jay Rockefeller saying the threat was "imminent". My point is simply this. I believe that our President correctly assesses Iran as not being an imminent WMD threat to the US right now- despite the fact that they have nuclear aspirations and may develop nuclear weaponry within the next decade. I wouldn't call the President irresponsible for ignoring an imminenet threat by Iran- because there isn't one (at least not right now).
One more clarification: I'm STILL glad we kicked Saddam's ass. Gotta make that clear.
"Zhangliqun- the WH said that the Iraqi threat was "imminent"- not merely a possibility. Your description of Saddam's nefarious attempts to garner nuclear capabilities, albiet true, doesn't sound like an imminent threat. Using this logic, would you call Iran's current desire to obtain nuclear capability an "imminent threat" to the US and Israel. I'll be the first to admit that it is a likely threat- but right now, it's not imminent."
1) He was in fact an imminent threat. He did not have nuclear warheads either aimed at the US or to sell to AQ et al, but he made Iraq a bank, safe haven, training ground (see airliner shell at Salman Pak), base, and ammo depot for nearly every Islamic terror group in the region since the late 80's, including AQ. AQ as a result was able to pull off 9/11. Saddam didn't have to be sitting at the table when 9/11 was planned. That he supported AQ and other anti-US terror orgs in these ways was MORE than enough reason ALL BY ITSELF to invade. That he was supporting such organizations so intensely hostile to the US made him an imminent threat because they could have attacked us at any time -- and they did. And they still could.
2) Scott McClellan on two occasions that I know of, when asked if Saddam was an "imminent threat" said yes. Bush on the other hand made it clear that we couldn't wait until Saddam was an imminent threat because by then it would be too late. (Maybe the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing in the case but this is all nitpicking over just one (WMD) of MANY reasons to take this guy down.)
But it's irrelevant nitpicking. When you're dealing with terrorist organizations that scuttle about the shadows and have no infrastructure of their own to be held hostage by conventional retaliation, this pre-emption doctrine is common sense.
3) Saddam will remain an imminent threat to the US until the day he is "contained" in a pine box. That he is still alive right now gives the Baathist remnants and their jihadi allies of convenience hope.
One retraction, however. Probably in some other thread, I said that Kay and Duelfer worked for the UN. That is not true.
They worked for the Iraq Survey Group that was US-led but included experts from all over the world.
I stand corrected.
Don't know how this got to my Email, but please take me off your list. Read a few lines, then you went off on anyone not agreeing with you is a non patriotic scumbag. Wow, were you a journalist major or a talk show Rush wannabee!!! God bless you and your right wingers MAC USNR RET
"Don't know how this got to my Email, but please take me off your list. Read a few lines, then you went off on anyone not agreeing with you is a non patriotic scumbag. Wow, were you a journalist major or a talk show Rush wannabee!!! God bless you and your right wingers"
I don't know either but apparently you really did read only "a few lines". Froggy makes it clear over and over that it's not just the fact of dissent or disagreement that is the issue, it's the nature of and reasons for this "dissent" that is traitorous.
The common sense portion of your argument makes sense. The imminent threat doesn't. In paragraph 1, your description of Saddam's Iraq matches half a dozen Arab countries, including Iran and Pakistan (an actual nuclear power).
But I agree- it's irrelevant nitpicking. We agree that GWB had a basis, in fact, to take preemptive action.
Let's not forget coventional WMDs- chem/bio...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=13168
Great article outlining where we've FOUND WMDs all over Iraq, but since it doesn't look like it would in a movie, and doesn't fit the MSMs political agenda, the media pays no attention.
Gotta love Froggy. He posts the typical outrageous allegation. People respond to it, and if they're effective he bans them. This is the pattern for extremists on the Internet, be they rightwingnuts or leftwingnuts. And in Froggy's case, he and/or his sheep go right on attacking them after they're banned.
So, Froggy, how long will it take you to ban the IP address I'm using now? Extremists share one crucial characteristic: They are intellectual cowards. They can't stand a real debate.
That's fine by me, my little wingnut children. The public is rapidly seeing through this, as evidenced by the latest public opinion poll from Harris Interactive showing your Fake President at 34%. Even lower than Nixon at the same point in the second term.
Keep on shouting amongst yourselves. I'm sure it will make you feel better.
p.s.: Did anyone notice that the Nixon ... er, Bush ... Administration has retracted its white phosphorous lie? You know, the one where they said they'd used the stuff in Fallujah only for illumination? Now they say, oops, we were wrong about that and we actually used it as a weapon. But we didn't use it against civilians.
Italian TV has the film of civilian casualties from it. This begs the question: Who are you going to believe, the press releases from the U.S. government that has told falsehoods at every turn, or your lying eyes?
Hmmm, back for more WK? Go here, http://www.blackfive.net/main/
20...y_balko_ne.html and if you can actually read, you'll see that WP rounds actually diminish (nothing eliminates) collateral damage. That's if you can believe your 'lying eyes' (MSM cameras) that the injured shown were in fact 'civilians' and not insurgents or thier families, which some stupidly drag along into their suicidal exploits.
oh, and I'm pretty sure Froggy banned you because you're an ass, not because you disagree. Intelligent, respectful, disagreement is welcome- just ask Cary or Kreizman for example.
Wilson ... you wouldn't know real debate if it jumped up and bit you in the butt.
You take being banned and, like a few ultra-fundamentalists I know of, wear such "persecution" as a crown of honor ... when in fact, it is really a dunce cap!
BTW, with stuff like this and (if it checks out) this now coming into the public eye, you had better buy you a G-suit if you're gonna keep riding those polls ... to keep from blacking out when they turn up sharply.
Clinton -- 36% at his lowest ... 57% at the end of his term ... and this from a guy whose credibility was almost always in doubt -- not a guy who freed 50 million people, and decisively dealt with all three of the areas where Saddam was a threat to mankind ... his control of WMD/WMD programs, his ties to terror, and his oppression of the Iraqi people.
Let me put it another way ... you want to ride the "bull" of polls ... then Cowboy Up! Just remember ... on this ride, you only win if you stay on for eight years ... not eight seconds.
First link was busted ... here it is!
If I was perfect, they couldn't afford to pay me ...
And, speaking of payment ... next time someone brings up the cost of this war .. remind them that, according to Americans for Fair Taxation, we spend about as much EACH year on complying with our tax laws and IRS regulations, as we have on OIF to date.
If the money's such a concern ... those of you on the Left should get behind the Fair Tax.
If money is such a concern, we still haven't spent even a quarter of what 9/11 cost.
Wilson Kolb,
It amazes me that after numerous people here prove your BS wrong, you still keep coming back for another a$$ whipping. Then you complain on top of it.
I have a simple solution for you and all your lefty friends. Move to Iraq! It seems you would be more comfortable there. Just don't call on any of our troops to save your a$$ once you get there.
Honestly, I don't know why any of you liberals come on this site. You are always proven wrong.
Rich
From one Rich, to another ... a song for the Wilsons of the world.
Tested in real life -- it did it's little bit to remove the moonbat infestation from the front lawn of Halliburton's Carrollton, TX offices in 2004.
Hello again, fellow patriots. If anyone doubts what Froggy has posted here is right on target, look at this from the feverswamp.
"I am an American, Born and Raised, but I am NOT a citizen of BUSH'S America. I want nothing to do with the country these people have created.
And for those who support them, Let's get Something Nice And Sparkling CLEAR:
Stay The [F***] Away From Me. Stay OUT of my personal space. I want NOTHING from you. I want NOTHING to do with you. I want NOTHING to do with your "vision" of what the world should be.
What DO I want from you?
Honestly?
I will freely admit there are days, and they are becoming more than not, that the Alien at Area 51 in Independence Day and I share quite a common ground on the answer to that question.
And I am NOT apologizing for it.
In the words of the Late, Great Bill Hicks, about the most conciliatory thing I can say for those people at this point is simply this:
Kill Yourself."
This is who these shitbag demorats are pandering to now. Does anyone say this tripe is patriotic? If ever anyone should take a dose of their own medicine..........
The above needs a hattip to MM.
http://michellemalkin.com/archiv...ives/
003966.htm
Michelle Malkin: A WORD THAT STARTS WITH "U"
Rich Casebolt,
I did LMAO over the riding the polls and better wear a G-suit comments!
Continue the mission. Man, are you ever ON TARGET! Thanks for makin my day!!!
Commenting by HaloScan
