Why we fight.

Mixer's picture


Please view this video reminder.

Mixer's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 9:02am.

Golly, your video makes it appear that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

That is soooooooooooo 2004!

Even President Bunnypants, normally not a fan of reality, now admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Click here to hear him say so himself!


Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 1:27pm.

Every time I see that video I wonder how our political will to take the fight on terrorism to them rather than waiting on them to take it to us...yet again... ever died so quickly. I guess they were right about one thing - we are a weak nation with no political will.

Here are a couple more videos that I think you Democrats who support the withdrawl will dislike:

Would you rather fight here?

Or Over There?

The troops speak on withdrawl

Because we will fight this war - not by choice - but necessity.

Al-Qaeda has four basic strategies in order to reach their ultimate goal of destroying Israel and America. They are:

1. Overwhelm the enemy
2. Strangle the enemy financially
3. Have the enemy fight amongst themselves
4. Stretch the enemy thin

What Al Qaeda Wants


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:35pm.

Thanks for the links. Say, you aren't 'Ga Conservative' are you??

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Ga Conservative's picture
Submitted by Ga Conservative on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 4:32pm.

Thanks for the compliment, though. The post above is excellent.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 12:06pm.

That is sooooooooooooo kindergartenish.

Come on man.... you can disagree as to why we're there but 911 was not the reason we liberated Iraq. But one must admit that Iraq is where the battlefield of 911 has spread to.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 9:22am.

Ever.

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 12:20am.

Know Your Enemy

XXXX WARNING XXXX

THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS ARE EXTREMELY GRAPHIC. HOWEVER, WE FEEL IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THEM TO YOU IN ORDER TO SHOW YOU WHO THE ENEMY REALLY IS AND WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF.

XXXX WARNING XXXX

The savage beheadings of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and others by Islamists can be viewed HERE once you choose to view them at this site.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 6:15am.

Why make it worse?

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 9:34am.

You are a complete village idiot. You are either a fake, or you are the dumbest person I have ever seen on a blogging site. Do you have any idea why you get ignored so much? It's because you can't spell, you don't make sense, and you ignore any and all attempts to allow you to see someone else’s point of view. You babble incoherently so often people can't follow your logic. You struggle greatly with the English language and yet, you fancy yourself someone who 'gets it' when all other fail to. You make up statistics at random and provide no source, no rational, and no basis for explanation. This is why, despite best efforts, I can no longer discount you as a 'harmless old fool' trying to pass the time. Now, you are calling for the impeachment of the President of the United States while we are at war. You are a disgraceful example to anyone who reads these blogs and you would be better served spending your time reading - ANYTHING.

Just so you will know- for the last time I will tell you what you do not know and will not read to learn:

You say: "We shouldn't have been there?"
Do you mean been 'there' as in Iraq on 9-11-2001? We weren't Einstein.

You think there are no terrorists in Iraq?
Your Ignorance Won't Change Reality

Or do you think Iraq didn't support the terrorists there prior to 9-11-2001? Let’s not forget the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, during which Abu Nidal murdered Leon Klinghoffer - before taking refuge in Iraq.

Lying Won't Change Reality

Do you think the only terror attack against America happened on 9-11?

Lying Won't Change Reality

Cut and paste these and go read them - I am not making a link for you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/achille.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/byman20030303.htm
http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/07/21/everything-that-came-before-iraq-war/

Do you think we are fighting the milk maids over there?
Do you even read or watch the news or read?

Now tell me the only terrorist in the world is Osama Bin Laden- right? Or better yet, if we don't find him we can't fight terror! Now there's a nice piece of logic!

I'll tell you what 'dollar', try supporting the troops and the effort and let's see what happens. In this microwave- want it now- instant gratification - world, some things, like this war, still take time. When to good General said we needed a political solution he didn’t mean a cut and run surrender policy – he meant we need to find to political will to sallow the military to succeed. But what do you care- we already lost- right? Besides, the only person in the world who thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (aside from Saddam himself) was George W. Bush, right? Of course, I do have a list of Democrats that also said they did, including Bite My Lip Clinton. Want to see the list Dollaradayandlost?

Here is a fact for you – spin this one :

We have not been attacked since 9-11-2001.

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here

Lying Won't Change Reality
*********************************************


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 2:46am.

Sadly, $ won't read your post because of its length (it's more than 2 words), its logic (too mentally taxing), and the BLUE links (more reading than he's ever done). Laughing out loud

"Dollaradayandlost" responds to any of these 3 techniques with Take back Fayette's childish sentiments:

"Denise, do us all a favor and go play in traffic."

To which $ added this comment:

"Not in the road. At the end of runway three."

I hope $ or Take Back don't drive because they seem like road rage just waiting to happen.

Dollar's responses to you:

"I assume this is "old English", or something." -- Nooooo, just plain, 21st-century English!

"I don't know why you ramble so" Laughing out loud
Whine & complain, whine & complain, that's $. "Ramble" to him is anything beyond a pre-K reader -- "See Spot" with lots of pictures!

He doesn't realize that his refusal to read any links or even try to understand someone's point view ("I'm not going to try") excludes him from "most intelligent people."

I really doubt that he even read Jeff's post. Smiling

A village idiot is a person widely known in the community for his stupidity and ignorant behavior. The underlying supposition is that in every small town there resides a dimwitted and foolish rustic whom his fellow citizens regard as very amusing. [The term first appears in the preface to the play Major Barbara (which criticizes Christianity and the Salvation Army) by George Bernard Shaw, a socialist and an ardent supporter of Stalin.]

$ just fails at the "very amusing" part. Smiling

The root of the word "fool" is from the Latin follis, which means "bag of wind." Seeing the resemblance between a bellows or an inflated ball and a person who is what we would call “a windbag” or “an airhead,” people began using the word to mean “a stupid or ignorant person deficient in good judgment and who is easily duped.”

Your assessment that $ "babble[s] incoherently so often people can't follow your logic" is almost correct. You were too generous -- there is no "logic" from $. Laughing out loud

__________________________

"No place so sacred from such fops is barr'd ... Nay, fly to altars; there they'll talk you dead; For fools rush in where angels fear to tread." ~ Alexander Pope's "Essay on Criticism"

__________________________

"What view is one likely to take of the state of a person’s mind when his speech is wild and incoherent and knows no constraint?" ~ Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 9:43am.

I finished and posted from my treo- God forbid I have a typo and $ have to decypher the meaning.

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:27am.

"find to political will to sallow"
All villages, in addition to an idiot, have a defender of the faith. Now that doesn't mean religious faith, but false doctrine.
These defenders are widely known as masters of deception in that mass confusion created by them, using other people's opinion instead of their own, tends to make some of what they say legitimate, maybe.
They are amen corner type people, saying "yes sir" after every word of the preacher's lament.
Pretentious intellects are almost always such people. They have no original thoughts or ideas and only try to add gravitas to what others say.
We have enough of such people, and desperately need some new thought.
Denise, you are one.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:40pm.

You "desperately need some new thought," or maybe just any thought! Laughing out loud

At least Jeff C said about me, "Its [sic] refreshing to have new opinions."

~ Substance; weightiness

~ A serious or dignified demeanor

~ Formality in bearing and appearance

Gravitas conveys a sense of substance or depth of personality.

In an ancient Roman context, the word gravitas communicated a sense of dignity, seriousness, and duty. Gravitas is one of the several virtues that Ancient Roman society expected men to possess, along with pietas [from which we get our modern word piety] and dignitas.

Thank you for the compliment.

I'd better go "play in the traffic" now since I'd rather not go to the airport to "play at the end of the runway." Laughing out loud

______________________________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 2:26pm.

All villages, in addition to an idiot, have a defender of the faith. [snip] Denise, you are one.
Well at least you don't deny being the first. Smiling

desperately need some new thought
Hmm...how about some new thought that doesn't include the words "Halliburton," "Cheney," or "oil" when talking about Iraq? Without fail, you repeat the left wing talking points whenever you talk about Iraq.

As for thought, I'd really doubt most people would use the words "thought" and "dollaradayandfound" in the same sentence. Eye-wink

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:14pm.

Halliburton, evil. Cheney, evil. oil, what it is about!
New thought: Iran or Syria is next to divert from Iraq. Not sure which yet. They are desperately trying to find six or seven more divisions to go in after the bombing, but it is tough without a draft.
Want any more new thoughts?
How about our false economy, based upon credit by the feds and credit by the citizens?
Want any more?

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 1:01pm.

I assume this is "old English", or something.
I don't know why you ramble so, most intelligent people once seeing the light will learn---not you, just produce further deaths until something good might happen, it won't.
I'm not going to try and decipher your retorts, but I would think you might learn a little by reading Jeff's message today.

Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 12:15pm.

You certainly do not need to say something about someone making a typographical error or misspelled word. Thusfar, we have a collection of users who are unable to understand you. this list includes, but is not limited to: Denise, Hobbs, Hutch, Mixer, Me, Pentapanguin, ArmyMajor, Git_Real, and others.

Even in your 'retort' you fail to use proper grammar when attempting to make fun of 'Mixer'. "I don't know why you ramble so, most intelligent people once seeing the light will learn---not you, just produce further deaths until something good might happen, it won't." At least you acknowledge he is intelligent.

On the other hand, 'Mixer's' usually well thought out responses can be followed using inference:
"... he meant we need to find to political will to sallow the military to succeed."

I feel certain this should have been "... he meant we need to find (to = the) the political will to (sallow = allow) allow the military to succeed." Don't let those three little letters keep you from responding to the other thousand and the message they convey.

I, like most Citizen blog readers, can extrapolate and have no problem understanding the occasional error especially considering the remainder of his post was clear, accurate, and well presented.

You are indeed lacking 'dollar'. It is a rare occurrence for me to be able to understand what you are attempting to say. I usually depend on Hutch or Denise to interpret for me.


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 12:25pm.

Greetings and welcome back from your absence. Good to see you. Hope all is well.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 2:27pm.

^^ What Git Real said. Smiling

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Fri, 05/04/2007 - 10:28pm.

Thanks for sharing that video, Mixer. Let's not forget the brutal beheadings done too by these scumballs. I really don't understand why more people don't "get it" -- it's either us or them. There's no middle ground because these people want us all dead and wiped off the map. I'd rather the war be fought in their backyard -- not ours.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 9:01am.

If Iraqi soldiers attempted to enter the US to change our system of government, I think very, very bad things would happen to them. We are civilized enough to differentiate between combatants and media figures, but I am sure some Take Bake Fayette type of American would kill ANY Muslim from the occupying country. I would not characterize all Americans by the things Take Back Fayette types would do. The type of person that bombs abortion clinics is an extremist. This means that they do not represent the status quo.

So Pentapenguin, Extremists are not the norm of Muslem behavior. So many of them just want security and sovereignty. I do not see this as "us against them." That means we have to do what? Kill all Muslems? Kill all extremists while not making more? Do Iraqis that did not sponsor terrorism, but violently object to our presence in their country count as extremists, or more of an Iraqi liberation force? Iraqis are, by all reports, going after Al Qaida elements. I give this as an example that Iraqis may be able to fix their own problems with extremists. Remember, sunnis are the minority, and al qaida sunni are an unwanted sliver of that minority.

Truly, if Iraq came here without invitation, we would not be welcoming. How could Iraq then say, "America resisted our efforts to liberate them. It is now us against them?" This is a circular argument that ensures we never, ever leave Iraq. I would like to see a central front in Afghanistan and even a glance towards Saudi connections to terror, but we can't seem to get that ball rolling.

All of that being said, I do believe it is important that we go to the linked sites and understand the capabilities of those radical extremist elements we face. Mainstream Muslims have to continue to get on board with condemnation of barbaric acts.

Cheers mates,

Kevin "Hack" King


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 11:48pm.

Take Bake Fayette type of American would kill ANY Muslim from the occupying country.
Hack, in fairness, don't say that about him. Yes, he's an apparent bigot (and stupid too in my opinion) who has said several dumb and mean spirited things, but (as far as I know) he hasn't called for anyone to be killed. Don't put words in his mouth. And this is in NO WAY an apology for his words -- they were wrong pure and simple. Let him shoot himself in the foot (and completely discredit himself) by saying that himself. Eye-wink

The type of person that bombs abortion clinics is an extremist.
Glad you do realize that and don't assume all pro life people just want to kill the nearest abortion "doctor." Eye-wink We use logic, facts, medical science, and ethics for our weapons of choice -- not pipe bombs. (Countdown to Basmati twisting this...3.2.1....)

So Pentapenguin, Extremists are not the norm of Muslem behavior.
Where did I ever say that? It's foolish to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but it's also foolish NOT to realize that all the terrorists that want to kill us are Muslims. Sure, no reasonable person objects to the fact that a majority of Muslims don't want to kill us. It's just that there is a significant minority (for now) of Muslims that want nothing but to kill every "Zionist" Jew and American. You need to realize that too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 10:10am.

I agree with most of what you said in your blog. Here is where you lost me:

"Truly, if Iraq came here without invitation, we would not be welcoming. How could Iraq then say, "America resisted our efforts to liberate them. It is now us against them?"

Hack, if America was under the tyrannical rule and a dictator like Saddam Hussein (never happen) that gassed minorities (Turks), summarily executed people, and stifled freedom and then a country like America(Iraq in a role reversal that you used) came to liberate us, I would be very thankful and would fight beside the liberators for my freedom.

On the agreement side:

This is a circular argument that ensures we never, ever leave Iraq. I would like to see a central front in Afghanistan and even a glance towards Saudi connections to terror, but we can't seem to get that ball rolling.

Would you prefer we never, ever leave Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq? We all want to leave Iraq as soon as we can with the confidence that they can defend themselves against any threats to their new Democracy. We are still in Korea, but the country has stabilized; however, we are there with 40 thousand troops to back up the South Koreans should they need us. Isn't that where we are trying to get and where we want to be in Iraq?

You stated (and I agree) that the Iraqis are now beginning to go after the terrorists themselves more and more. That means you recognize that the terrorists (a cottage industry in the middle east) are there. Where will the terrorist go when we leave - if we leave now? Those same Iraqis now pointing out and fighting and killing the terrorists (including the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq as we just learned) state that the biggest fear they have is that we will leave and the terrorists will over run them because they are not yet ready. They here the calls for withdrawal from America Hack - from the politicians here in America. They heard Harry Reid say we have "LOST" the war.

As for the glance at Saudi - never happen Hack - nor will we glance at Iran and they know it (and they have tested both us and the British on it with hostage taking and armor peircing IEDs). You think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would support what they would call a "widening, an escalation" of this war on terror?

Hack, after the skewering this President has taken for this war on terrorism thus far, no future President who cares about politics will even consider taking any action. Let's be honest, despite attacks on US soil, including the first World Trade Center attacks, Clinton never took action. He launched a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory the night before his mistress testified in court, but he certainly didn’t go kick anyone out of a tyrannical, terror supporting leadership and install a democratic government in it's stead.

This is way too complex to ever be able to blog through- you and I know that. I can say this - it's like believing in God. I ask an Atheist when I see one, "if I am right what happens to you and me?" (I go to heaven and you go to hell.) "If you are right, we both have the same fate." - Sometimes the danger of being wrong is just too great for our country, or family, and our beliefs. We cannot waiver from our resolve. We need the 80% political support required to succeed to be 100% there. God knows the 20% military solution portion is there, and is costing the lives of many great men and women. We MUST succeed 'there' or we will fight this war here and all over the world.

Don’t take the training wheels off the Iraqi military yet- they are just learning to balance for themselves.

**********************************************
Reality

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 11:44am.

The “Reality” site is replete with errors. For instance, Abu Sayyaf is linked to al Qaeda and said to then somehow be linked to Iraq. This is not true and they probably meant to identify the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Abu Sayyaf has only been linked to al Qaeda through unproven rumors, most likely untrue or in a very peripheral way, and the definitive U.S. State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism does not mention any ties between Abu Sayyaf and Al Qaeda. Also, attributing Abu Nidal’s actions to Saddam is a real stretch. Nidal was sponsored by Egypt, Syria and most notoriously Libya. His Iraq connection was always tenuous and, in fact, Saddam had him executed; shot six times in what Iraqi intelligence ruled a suicide. Likewise, Saddam’s support for the murderous suicide bomber Fuad Isma’il Ahmad al-Hurani and others came after Operation Defensive Shield. There is no evidence Iraq instigated or planned these attacks which were sponsored by the Palestinian Liberation Front.

My point is not to exonerate Saddam but to reinforce Sun Tzu’s maxim: “know your enemy.” I am afraid that attributing all of these terrorists attacks and actions to Saddam may remove the focus from others and thereby diminish the awareness of the widespread nature of the threats.

Also, I thought your comments were excessively partisan. There is certainly enough blame to spread around for both political parties. As for Clinton, four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison.

As for the Khobar Towers, on 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody and they have refused to extradite them.

The bombing of the USS Cole was not solved until after President Bush took office and no action was taken.

The 1993 Beirut barracks bombing happened under Regan’s term and President Reagan’s response was to withdraw, arguably the single most important action encouraging terrorists in the Middle East in decades.

And, of course, check out this well known picture from the National Security Archive

My point is not criticism but rather to emphasize that to truly recognize the threat and to respond to it adequately will require a non-partisan strategy backed by a long term commitment. Correct me if I am wrong, but from your writings, I believe that you agree.

Finally, I will not try to spin the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11. However, we were not attacked after the first World Trade Center attack for much longer than it has been since 9/11 and I suspect that you would be loath to attribute that to Clinton's diligence.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:45pm.

These are old sites. The “A Bitter and Confused Former President” link did not work for me but I remember reading the article a while ago. In fact, I emailed it to my brother and we regaled each other with the errors in it so don’t put to much stock in that one. For a really good current anti-Carter site, check out the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America at www.camera.org.

Or, find a transcript of Michael Savage’s May 16 radio program where he declared that former President Jimmy Carter is a "Jew-hater" and a "war criminal" who "is like Hitler"…. He added that Carter is a "communist, anti-American, anti-Semitic (deleted word for child with no father)" who has "caused worldwide Islamic terrorism to proliferate around the globe." (There’s more but in fairness that pretty much covers the best parts.)

However, for real consternation, check out this: Gallup Poll on Carter


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 4:20pm.

... save Kerry's of '04. But this is not a new problem Jeff.

My major point was for you to know that this problem began in the late 70's. I watched it - I warned of it- I fought against it and I lost cohorts and comrades because of it. Discounting one aspect of one link of many links, as you did in a previous post, does not diminish the overwhelming evidence and facts contained in others. (Besides, I am not so willing to discount some of your aforementioned claims of inaccuracy.)

I also read where you oppose the troop withdrawal policy and I very much respect that opinion as well. It at least tells me that you have some understanding of the concept of "... a long and protracted battle fought in many ways, over many years, and in many lands."

I have no interest in rehashing your Father's Presidency at all except to say than if you are going to quote Sun Tzu and 'The Art of War',you need to realize that retreat and surrender are not a part of his philosophy and that is part of the reason we are where we are now. We are not dealing with a civil, rational, 'Roberts Rules of Order', signatory of the Geneva Convention.

We would be wise to regroup, take this fight seriously (add about 100k troops) and find the political will the hippies of the 60s and the democrats of today (one and the same group) are so substantially lacking to actually fight to win. Killing everything and everyone who supports your enemy is Sun Tzu's way. I support whatever it takes, how ever long it takes, and want the politicization OUT of the entire process. War sucks, people die, things get broken. Since when do we give a terrorist a lawyer at taxpayers expense? Tell me what part of Abu Ghraib, the liberal poster event of this war, was worse than having your head sawed off while you were still alive? Sun Tzu my butt. Give the military cart blanc and tell them in no uncertain terms to win it as fast and decisive as possible and send a message to the rest of the world that consequences are immediately, painful and certain when you attack America or declare war against us.

We embolden this enemy when we talk of surrender, defeat, withdrawal and timetables. We attempted to placate them in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and it got us to 9-11-2001. Thye time to stand is now. "If not us, who. If not now, when?"

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 5:18pm.

You ask, “Tell me what part of Abu Ghraib, the liberal poster event of this war, was worse than having your head sawed off while you were still alive?” No part. However, it is unacceptable for the position of the United States to be that we will sink to whatever level of depravity anyone else anywhere in the world is willing to wallow in.

I totally agree with your statement that if we would “Give the military cart blanc and tell them in no uncertain terms to win it as fast and decisive as possible and send a message to the rest of the world that consequences are immediately, painful and certain when you attack America or declare war against us.” However, I cannot believe that you think this is a realistic option. Given the situation as it exists, what is victory? Shias or Sunnis? And how is it achieved realistically.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 5:30am.

I think smothering someone with a wet towel, slowly, or using high voltage electricity connected to tender body parts, while standing on a barrell, blindfolded, are bad enough, but I read another good one today in the paper---similar to what the Vietnamese did to John McCain in Viet-Nam.
What you do is find a suitable bench, then stretch the prisoner across the bench, back down onto the bench, bend his body backwards as much as possible, then tie his arms to this feet and legs, and then draw even tighter. At this point, pick up the bench about two feet from the floor and drop it onto the floor, repeat when prisoner is conscious again.
To all you pushers of such questioning by American soldiers and spys, I give this to you.
I'm sure our enemies can dream up even worse for us when they capture us next time. They didn't like the bombing of civilians too much, but they hate this stuff.
We can win without such things if we let someone smart enough do the planning and decidering!

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:15pm.

Sun Tzu is out. There is no point in even attempting to adopt his philosophy on war. We do not have the stomach for it in America.

We have a bigger problem though - Harry Reid and the cut and run philosophy. Your children and mine will have to fight this fight if we do not. I am convinced of that.

Despite all of the nay-sayers, real progress is being made in Iraq.

There is sectarian violence- yes. There is much debate as to whether it is a civil war though. Regardless, it will require a strong and somewhat well established police force, military, and judicial system for the Iraqis to handle this phase themselves. Hussein did it - we know it can be done by a legitimate democratic government with fewer executions and more compassion too. The biggest fear in the Iraqi population is that we will do what Harry Reid is asking we do and walk away and leave the lambs for slaughter. Jeff, neither of us has the time to blog through something this complex - but we do agree on one thing already - Get the withdrawal dates and talk of leaving out of the discussion. Please help spread the message that this is not a high speed, instant gratification situation. Not only is it a long and tedious process, we are dealing with a people that move at the speed of the thirteenth century - not at out breakneck, do it yesterday, faster, cheaper, buy now-pay-later society.

Have faith that people want to be free.

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 11:07am.

We just didn't do anything about it until after George W. Bush decided enough was enough on 9/11/2001. And now, you, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and rest your political party has already surrendered (despite having 160,000 troops in the field).
_________________________________________________________________
America's war on terrorism did not begin in September 2001. It began in November 1979. That was shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, riding the slogan "Death to America" - and sure enough, the attacks on Americans soon began. In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, making them the first of militant Islam's many American casualties. Others included:
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996,
224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998
and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:
July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.
August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.
September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.
February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.
In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 - more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War. (Further, this listing does not include the dozens more Americans in Israel killed by militant Islamic terrorists.)

And yet, these murders hardly registered. Only with the events of a year ago did Americans finally realize that "Death to America" truly is the battle cry of this era's most dangerous foe, militant Islam.
In retrospect, the mistake began when Iranians assaulted the U.S. embassy in Tehran and met with no resistance.

Interestingly, a Marine sergeant present at the embassy that fateful day in November 1979 agrees with this assessment. As the militant Islamic mob invaded the embassy, Rodney V. Sickmann followed orders and protected neither himself nor the embassy. As a result, he was taken hostage and lived to tell the tale. (He now works for Anheuser-Busch.)

In retrospect, he believes that passivity was a mistake. The Marines should have done their assigned duty, even if it cost their lives. "Had we opened fire on them, maybe we would only have lasted an hour." But had they done that, they "could have changed history."
Standing their ground would have sent a powerful signal that the United States of America cannot be attacked with impunity. In contrast, the embassy's surrender sent the opposite signal - that it's open season on Americans. "If you look back, it started in 1979; it's just escalated," Sickmann correctly concludes.
To which one of the century's great geostrategist thinkers, Robert Strausz-Hupé, adds his assent. Just before passing away earlier this year at the age of 98, Strausz-Hupé wrote his final words, and they were about the war on terrorism: "I have lived long enough to see good repeatedly win over evil, although at a much higher cost than need have been paid. This time we have already paid the price of victory. It remains for us to win it."

**********************************************
Jimmy Carter: A Terrorist's Best Friend
**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************
The Worst President In the History of America


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 4:07pm.

Here are mine…

Worse President Ever?

Historians vs. George W. Bush

However your link to a letter to the editor (The Worst President In the History of America)about the Venezuela election concerns a discredited poll which has been disavowed by the pollster. Call them and ask. They won’t talk about it anymore. If you really are concerned about the Venezuela elections, here is a link to the Carter Center’s official final reports. If you have real question after reading the reports, I will try my best to answer it for you.

Venezuela Election Reports


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 10:32am.

Jeff C,

I enjoy reading your posts, but sometimes I wonder where you find the time to come up with these specific details. Your ability to cherry pick the specifics of your argument, is noteworthy. I understand you do some type of work at the Carter Center that might assist you in coming up with these "history lessons", I wish I had the time and opportunity to study it quite as much as you.

However, as to Iraq, you talk about the answers in dealing with it should be "non-partisan", and I can't imagine that you would suggest this with a straight face.

You Wrote: "My point is not criticism but rather to emphasize that to truly recognize the threat and to respond to it adequately will require a non-partisan strategy backed by a long term commitment. Correct me if I am wrong, but from your writings, I believe that you agree."

Where in Washington D.C. do you propose to find the politicians that will act "non-partisan?"

If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of Democratic Presidential Candidates, including her royal Highness, all supported the buildup and authorization to go to War against Iraq. They snipe back and forth about how they were miss-lead, or lied to by Bush, as if he was the one that wrote the reports that were coming back from the dozens of intelligence sources, or even from MI-6. They now politicize the entire effort by writing bills that they know Bush will never sign. Why? to appease their base, which is the far left of the Democratic Party.

The fact is, we are in Iraq and we can not leave until the job is done. To abdicate that responsibility is perhaps, desirable for Democrats, but that is not what America is all about. We cut and ran in Vietnam and we then sat back and saw the millions of deaths that occurred in Vietnam and Cambodia in the months following our defeat.

America was not defeated in Vietnam, we chose to not win, and thereby lost the war. We had the capacity to have won the war, but the political winds of public support was widdled down by the Democrats until we could not mount any formidable challenge.

This is exactly what the Democrats are doing today in Iraq. During the first Gulf War, many Democrats fought the war tooth and nail, including your father, and if it were not for Bush 41's quick in and out plan, then they would have continued to have underminded its efforts as well. (Of course, Democrats criticized him for leaving too soon in the first war as well.)

This fact is important, because without the same international support we had in the first Gulf War and with 9-11 only 2 dozen months away, we went to battle in Iraq. And what did you hear from the Democrats? Nothing, they were too scared of the Politics of losing. They imagined another quick victory and they wanted to be on the "right" side, so Hillary, Kerry, Gore, et. al, all supported the resolutions to go to war. Bush's poll numbers were high, so they bowed to him, now that his numbers are low, they attack him. This ain't leadership.

Now that the effort is in disarray and public support has died, they want to pretend they had no idea how this happened. And you think that these politicians will give us a "non-partisan" answer to the Iraq question? Yeah, do what the commercials suggest, send the same Iraq surrender bill back to Bush knowing full well he will veto it. Thats truly non-partisan.

Iraq, for whatever reason, is our responsibility today. Right or Wrong. We now owe a duty to stabilize that region, for their sake and for our future. The Democrats play upon our public's resolve to win like a drum. They know America wants all of our problems to be solved in 30 second sound bites, so they play upon the impatience of the American public. Is that leadership or is that politics as usual?

The fact is Jeff C, to leave Iraq now, or with a specific deadline, is to do that which our enemy wants.
Why is it the Democrats have the same goals as our enemies? Leadership doesn't follow the polls. Leadership leads. Bush has poorly described or defended where he wants to lead, but he has never faltered in what he thinks needs to be done in Iraq.

Do you really believe that if we let the Democrats really do to Iraq what they say they want done in their town hall meetings on MSNBC, that this would be good for the world and America? Do really believe this is non-partisan? C'mon Jeff C, you are much smarter than this.

My apologizes for not responding more often on this blog. I have had many other engagements of late, and I have to be careful how I spend my time. (Including rooting out the Democrats cloaked as Republicans in our own local party.) Arguing with many bloggers on this site is truly a waste of time. You at least argue with a decorum such as to suggest that you really care about the truth. I just happen to think that you have no ability to see with your near sightedness, what the truth really is.

Can you imagine if in the 1920's, the world powers could have seen the results of their decisions, long term, that maybe they would not have carved up the middle east/Ottoman Empire quite like they did? What will the world look like in 20, 40, 60 years if we cut and run in Iraq as your near-sightned political mates want? I would suggest it will be the new haven for terrorists to thrive, such that we will have to go back there in 20 years to do it all over again.

Please Jeff C, get your eyes examined, and you will find that the future is not so blurry as you see it. That with the right amount of dedication and public support, we can still help improve lives of those that live in the middle east and secure our national security. All without blaming the Jews. (I had to stick that one in there for your dear old dad. Sorry, it was too juicy.)


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:08pm.

"Democrats have Myopia and Jeff C is their optometrist" is very funny. Smiling

Your mentioning the many "specific details" that Jeff C uses has made me wonder.

"I understand you do some type of work at the Carter Center that might assist you in coming up with these "history lessons", I wish I had the time and opportunity to study it quite as much as you."

Definitely agree! My dad's not nearly as wealthy; so I don't have the time, either.

One of Jeff C's replies to me:

"She's listed as a new blogger. We should encourage her. She states everything she just 'knows' so forcefully as fact! Its refreshing to have new opinions even if they have no idea why they arrived at them .... Really Denise, if you read this and care to respond in the future, you should do your own homework and know or semi-know what you're for or against (and why) to the point of defending it beyond one post. Sometimes, using facts will help, especially if they are on your side. Study Richard Hobbs blogs."

Do I detect a slight snobbishness, a patronizingly superior attitude here, especially to females? Eye-wink

I try to comply with these dictatorial Dems and all I get is criticism! Laughing out loud


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:46pm.

Rereading my earlier reply to you... well I have to admit it sounded patronizing. My apologies. I vaguely remember though that every time I responded to you, you then came back with something along the lines of "I don't have time to research everything." Nevertheless, I will not respond like that in the future and you are right to call me on it. I study wars and conflicts for a living as an analyst and you may notice that I rarely blog on other topics. Everyone here probably realizes that we are not going to solve the world's problems through our postings here. Frankly, I find it both fun and informative to get anonymous opinions on world conflicts from what I assume to be a predominantly conservative viewpoint. If I have facts and figures available at my disposal, it is because I do it for a living and have for a long time and have access to specialized databases and the freedom to spend my time using them as I see fit. I truly do not mean to offend anyone here. I am sorry that I condescended in my earlier reply to you. It will not happen again.

I have found that since I am so public and everyone knows who I am here that it is not advantageous for me to blog. Frankly, I do not seek or crave publicity normally and these blogs have reminded me why. I do not enjoy being recognized in public much less accosted because of something I wrote here. Especially and particularly when I am out with my wife and kids. I have found that exchanging provocative ideas here with mostly informed and definitely opinionated bloggers on this site does not translate well for me day to day. I have recently had a series of experiences that I found distasteful as a result of my writings here, none of which were caused by the bloggers here, all of which have treated me respectfully even while passionately arguing against my positions (which I have enjoyed.) I will continue to follow the blogs but you will see less of me.

Oh, and one last thing. Most of the people I work with are women. I find them most intelligent, informed, opinionated and capable. I wish you could meet them. Any suggestion of gender bias is met with a wrath which would make you proud.


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Fri, 05/18/2007 - 6:44am.

While reading some older posts, I saw your post.

I guess I started the hostilities with calling your dad . . . . Well, I’ll not repeat it. Can I blame Dick Yarbrough for planting the caricature in my subconscious? Smiling

I guess it’s natural to defend your dad. I’d prefer that you deviated a lot more from his philosophy, of course, but usually you’re quite civil, even when you asked for Ann Coulter’s columns not to be run any more in The Citizen.

I posted a few (well, more than that!) quotes from the columns of Thomas Sowell and Robert Novak about Plame and Libby because I perceive that they have first-hand knowledge of the facts and/or know those who do.

At your suggestion that I read the transcript of the trial (a very lengthy primary source), I responded, “I don't have the time since I'm not retired and work long hours.” I gave comments as a casual observer; I never claimed to be an expert witness or an attorney involved in the trial (at least then I'd get paid to read the transcript!).

Then Major King jumped in and was a little less than civil, and Basmati posted his usual attacks. I responded to Kevin, “At least I’m HONEST enough to say that I don’t have time to read everything about every subject. I do have a life besides politics; it’s not an obsession with me. I try not to be a know-it-all; I just present information for discussion.” I also pointed out that I don't have time to watch much TV. I always thought that using one’s time well is a virtue. Smiling

It is at this point that you responded with more than the facts, shall we say!

Your having the time to research information (and be paid for it) because it’s part of your job (you likely have research assistants, etc., too) compared to the rest of us here is like Gen. Cornwallis and the entire British army vs. Farmer Brown’s 12-year-old son (or daughter!) with a squirrel gun. But, I do remember who won in the end! Smiling

It must be hard living a normal life having a famous parent, especially if others fail to perceive you as separate from your father. I guess some people will be uncivil to you and your family just because of your dad. I hope that you continue to blog and hopefully use some of that research time to help out Republicans. They surely need it. Smiling


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 7:58am.

I'm very well aware of what you speak. I frequently have people coming up to me after reading something in the newspaper about something I have said and/or done. I find this interesting, since I am truly not a person of any influence. I just happen to speak my mind from time to time. Which is one reason I've regretted using my name. But then again, I find it distasteful to hide behind a moniker too. So, I'll just continue to on occaision, comment on one subject or another.

I do find this blogging to be somewhat disorganized. I thought the other site Fayette Speaks or Fayette Forums might be better at creating a true debate board. I find too many of our subjects to be lost due to the degree and quality of discussion. Instead of truly debating certain subjects and following them in a concise order, we have bloggers running off into tangental areas that I find very hard to follow. (Plus they censure you on the other sites if they don't like how or what you argue, ergo, my decision to not participate there either.)

I'm developing a new website for my growing membership of trial attorneys, that might work well for a true political junkies debate forum. I'll think about whether this is something I want to do. If so, I'll invite you to join, since even though your arguments are often wrong, they at least are made intelligently and with less personal attacks than most. (I guess being the son of Jimmy Carter has had to toughen you up a bit. I can't imagine how that has been for you.)

As to your public persona, I've met you in the past Jeff C. You don't remember me, but I have. And of course, I've seen you around town from time to time. I've purposefully avoided saying hello out of concern that you probably get more attention than you want. I know I enjoy my privacy as well.

So, chill out from this blog for a while, and then when its time, come on back. I know I grow weary over the quality and quanity of discussion of this site. It would be so much better if half of the bloggers would post only half as much as they do, and only half as much as they would like.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 9:16am.

I will still occasionally blog here and I appreciated everyone’s kind words.

Richard, next time you see me around please introduce yourself. I believe under Robert’s Rules of Order, if you make the initial challenge, then I get to pick the weapons.


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 11:28am.

I have to agree with Richard Hobbs (oh, how painful it was to type that last sentence!!!) in that these blogs are definitely NOT conducive for rational debate. Too much gets lost as replies "fall off the page", and all it takes is one blogger with a grudge, a tendency towards "cut and paste" and a joy in derailing serious topics to ruin the blogging experience for everyone.

I also have to agree with Richard Hobbs (sweet Jesus, I'm going to need a shower after this post...I feel so....dirty ) that Fayette Speaks is definitely not going to fill that need, either. Their history of editing posts and making up "rules" on the fly and applying them retroactively disqualifies them from serious consideration as well.

I'd suggest, once again, that Cal and his folks open up that FORUMS tab that has lain dormant on the lower left hand side of the screen for about a year and a half now. It appears well-suited for discussing the events of the day. I'm curious as to why it hasn't been enabled for us trembling masses to post in.


pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 1:41am.

JeffC, I echo what the other good bloggers here say: please stay with us. While I disagree with you, I have to hand it to you -- you're a real classy guy (with Southern charm), civil, and and a good debater and a very worthwhile contributor to the discourse here. We all like you (even though you are a Democrat)! Smiling and Laughing out loud

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 8:40pm.

Stay - otherwise - confrontation boy wins. You just have to become an Enigma.


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 8:30pm.

Please don't stop giving us your input. You are civil, articulate, and knowledgeable. (How can you NOT be a Republican for crying out loud!)

Now you know more than ever why we blog anonymously.

Please give strong consideration to blogging anonymously.

Anyone who would confront you in public, especially in the presence of you wife and children, is an inconsiderate, obtuse, red-neck.

Even though you are wrong about everything you disagree with me on, I like you and I like your Christian spirit.

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 5:45am.

We know you. Got it off the phone taps that are illegal!

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 7:59pm.

I have recently had a series of experiences that I found distasteful as a result of my writings here,

That's ridiculous. I'm sorry for that. I'm not apologizing for the moron that confronted you, I'm just sorry you got hassled in public.

I will continue to follow the blogs but you will see less of me.

Even those of us who disagree with you often would rather not see you go. Get yourself an anonymous moniker and give us a wink so we know who you are. Well...second thought don't tell us we'll figure it out and that way you can blog hassle free. I have a suggestion for you. How about "Git Real's Right". No thanks expected. Just doing what I can for the little people. Smiling

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:21pm.

That's why liberals are so offended by scholars who are conservatives, by blacks who don't 'tow the line', and women like you who think for themselves and yet remain 'heterosexual and feminine'.

You know well that the knee-jerk, closed minded, emotive thinkers are always befuddled when one uses common sense and logic. Especially a woman or minority who has the audacity to presume that they can actually think for themselves rather than blindly buy the Democrats' "snake oil for women and minorities" (patent pending) . Eye-wink

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:13pm.

First let me lay to rest your fears about by eyes. In fact, I had them lazed last Thursday with truly wondrous results. Amazing, really.

However, I must say that your underlying assumption is wrong. I do not support the Democratic leadership’s position on withdrawing from Iraq which was why I was calling for a bipartisan solution. In my opinion, withdrawing completely now would lead to a bloodbath in Iraq entailing a full scale civil war. The overwhelmingly Shia majority would try engage in ethnic cleansing of the Sunni minority which would provoke the Saudi’s to funnel more money and support to the Sunnis, the Shiites to become even more radicalized and more tightly aligned with Iran, and would lead to the destabilization of Jordan. Unfortunately, I believe that this would be the best case scenario with the worst case being a wide-scale war between Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to divide up the spoils of Iraq.

On the other hand, the current policy of the surge is, in my opinion, not viable either. General Petraeus has repeatedly said that there is no military solution without a diplomatic component, and this is the key failing of the current administrations strategy. The Baker-Hamilton report laid the foundation for a workable solution with a regional approach. I understand that the Bush administration does not want to engage Iran. My opinion carries no weight but I simply disagree with them. I do not now and I never have been able to understand how they thought they could end up with any government in Iraq (which is almost 80% Shia not counting the Kurds) that was not aligned with the Shiite government of Iran. It was inevitable. A blind man could have seen it with a stick!

Furthermore, I would like to see the US engage Europe and the United Nations in a meaningful way to help stabilize the country. The UN is probably not your favorite organization but their peacekeeping activities are highly successful and every UN peacekeeper in the country would mean fewer of our troops so what’s the downside?

My main problem with the administration’s approach now is that they cannot define victory. It seems the civilian leadership’s strategy is to keep US troops there until after the next election for political legacy purposes. I strenuously object to this. What is victory in Iraq now? Supporting the current Shiite government aligned with Iran or supporting the Sunni insurgency aligned with al Qaeda? The policy of “we’ll stand down when they stand up” has been abandoned. None of the benchmarks President Bush set out in his State of the Union address for the Iraqi government have been met and now the Iraqi government is on a two month vacation.

Too much, too long, sorry, but let me stick one back for you. I guess you saw where Condoleezza is meeting with (horrors) the Syrians, as I have long advocated? Eventually, the powers in Israel and Palestine will come to terms and it will be along the only rational course available. The course Dad outlined in his (best-selling) book: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid!


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 8:09am.

I had the surgery 8 years ago. So did my wife, my brother, my friends, et. al. Everyone loved it. I, however, had some problems. I think they should NEVER do the procedure on you if your eyes are going through the change. (I was losing my nearsightedness during that time.)

So now I have three sets of glasses. One for reading, one for driving and one for my computer. I can see okay without them, and my vision is now no longer 20/700, but its not great sight, and I wish I would have waited until my vision was "set" before I had the surgery.

Hope your lazer surgery gives you the vision you need. Then again, as to politics, I'm amazed that you are still blind to the leftist philosphy that you envision as being appropriate for this world.

I know its been said before, perhaps by Churchhill, but if when you were young and you weren't a liberal, then you had no heart, but when you are old and aren't a conservative, you have no brain.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 5:52am.

What has 9/11 got to do with Iraq?
Not one plane bomber was an Iraqi.
Some were Saudi?
Osami Bin Laden is Saudi, Saudis are Bush Family friends.
No terrotists in Iraq when 9/11 happened, in addition to weapons of mass destruction not there.
Parsed the intelligence reports in order to bomb and invade Iraq, lies in other words by Cheney, Bush and others.
Why continue the farce? Inpeach Bush and Cheney.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Fri, 05/04/2007 - 8:39pm.

Please Check out Mixer's link. Surely it'll help you out. I just showed it to my 8 and 10 year old daughters and they understood our enemies message clearly. So I'm sure that you'll grasp it too.

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 9:08am.

I saw the films of tower destruction and about throat slitting, etc. Knew about them when they happened!
What has that got to do with our bombing of Iran and occupation? When it happened? Iraq didn't do it. Throats split after we did it.
Why scare an 8 year old? Did you tell them who was flying the planes?

pentapenguin's picture
Submitted by pentapenguin on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 11:35pm.

$, the rest of us want to be reminded of whom we are fighting. I wish you'd get your head out of the sand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:12am.

We are not fighting Iraqi citizens you cluck, only terrorists who were NOT there when we invaded!
So who are we fighting? Are we fighting Iraqis due to some OTHER Arab pilots and the Saudi, Bin Laden, flying planes into our buildings?
Were the throat slitters Iraqis? No, they weren't. Just NOW in Iraq.
We gave them a haven by geting rid of Saddam and not replacing him properly.
Speaking of head in sand, wow.

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 9:20am.

I will attempt to communicate with you in a language you can understand:

you wanna take it outside man- cause we dont want to fight here so we asked the terrorists to take it to iraq we are trying to establish democracy inb the middle east and the terrorists are so busy trying to stop us thsat they aint here killin us like they was. You no what else is that we gave women a chance to go to skool and to vote and stuff and also the mninorities have some rights to do same said stuff.

There, I hope that helps make one of many points on why we are fighting terrorism and trying to establish democracy in the Middle East.

Of course, your side just thinks women’s rights and civil rights should only apply to Americans I guess. (Although you do want to extend constitutional rights to any terrorists we capture. Strange dichotomy isn’t it?)

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 10:06am.

You had better throw that palm treo away!
inb the middle east
thsat they aint
like they was
you no
what else is that
to skool and to vote and stuff (very few yet)
mninorities have some rights to do same said stuff
YOUR WORDS---NOT MINE. Take outside to what?

Yes, I would like any prisoners we take to be treated as we would want to be.

Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 12:26pm.

Your tax money hard at work (thanks to the Democrats and the ACLU).

Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are no longer cooperating with their lawyers.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 1:01pm.

You seem to be the same age I am, 49, do you remember that cartoon that came on when we were kids, Gullivers Travels or something like that, doesn't dollar remind you of the character Glum {it'll never work, we're all going to die}?

I yam what I yam...Popeye


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:23pm.

"We're doomed!"

Others remember Glum as well:

"The main thing I remember is the mournful Lilliputian named Glum (voice of Don Messick) who was always saying 'We're doomed!' I still say that sometimes."

"Glum's most common phrases were, 'We're all doomed, I just know it.' and 'It'll never work.'"

If you want to find out more about the cartoon series, see

The Adventures of Gulliver

Episode Guide

Herb Vigran did the voice of Glum. Since he was in so many different TV shows, you'll probably remember his face if you see his picture.

He played Judge Brooker in Gunsmoke (11 episodes, 1970-1975).

For a listing of the many parts that he played, see here.

Some attribute Glum's voice to Don Messick, most famous as the voice of several Hanna-Barbera characters, including Scooby-Doo and Scrappy-Doo, Boo-Boo Bear, Muttley from Wacky Races and Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines, Bamm-Bamm Rubble in The Flintstones, The Jetsons’ dog Astro, and Jonny Quest’s father Dr. Benton Quest.

I don't know. Hutch, maybe you remember. Gulliver first aired in September 1968. I don't know if there are any re-runs currently playing or not.


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 10:57am.

The blog you cut and pasted from (above) was not done on the Treo. All errors were intened to assist you in understanding since it was writen in "dollarease" - the language of YOU my moronic pest.

In a previous post, you seemed to be fixated on a few dropped words and typos that were in the closing paragraph - that is when I was using the Treo to post while leaving town.

Please tell me that you were smart enough to have already known this and this, yet again, is a failed attempt at sarcasm!

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 1:16pm.

Glad the errors were "intened."
Oh, I forgot, closing paragraphs are excepted. When leaving town. I'll remember.
Yeah, I knew you making mistakes purposely.
I "known this and this yet again," as you say. Oh, failed sarcasm!
Excuses, excuses, that's all I get, whether it is dead people in Iraq or errors that were meant.

Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 1:32pm.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

$
Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 10:20am.

I will attempt to communicate with you in a language you can understand:

you wanna take it outside man- cause we dont want to fight here so we asked the terrorists to take it to iraq we are trying to establish democracy inb the middle east and the terrorists are so busy trying to stop us thsat they aint here killin us like they was. You no what else is that we gave women a chance to go to skool and to vote and stuff and also the mninorities have some rights to do same said stuff.

There, I hope that helps make one of many points on why we are fighting terrorism and trying to establish democracy in the Middle East.

Of course, your side just thinks women’s rights and civil rights should only apply to Americans I guess. (Although you do want to extend constitutional rights to any terrorists we capture. Strange dichotomy isn’t it?)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Okay Dollar, I guess I will try to let you re-read 'Mixer's' blog to see if you can catch where he says "in a language you can understand".... why do I even try to explain anything to you.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:24pm.

I didn't say he said that (in a language, etc.....)
What on earth are you talking about?

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:33pm.

You are wasting good time. Eye-wink

$, here is what he said:

"Okay Dollar, I guess I will try to let you re-read 'Mixer's' blog to see if you can catch where he says "in a language you can understand".... why do I even try to explain anything to you."

I think he COPIED MY BLOG for you to READ again.

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 10:38am.

Dollaraday, "You would want to treat the prisoners as you would want to be treated?"

I know I'm going to be sorry for commenting on something you may have said, but I can't stop. It gnaws at me like an itch that I can't scratch.

I'd suggest to you this, if I were to be of the kind that killed innocent men, women and children because I didn't like their religion. If I were to string explosives to children so as to make them a bomb in killing others in the name of Allah. If I were to be such a dispicable animal as to do these types of things, I'd probably beg you to send me to the 72 virgins that I so dearly look forward to visiting.

So treating a terrorist with death, is giving him what he wants. So, do unto him, as he would have you do unto him.

Now, please don't respond, God knows only an idiot argues with an idiot, and I just proved it by doing that very thing.


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:37pm.

Your arguments (and Denise) make about as much sense as the Crusaders trying to kill out the Muslims did, and, the Catholics trying to kill out everyone who didn't want to be a Catholic.
Iraq is simple: we could have won if we had let the army run it from scratch. We spent five years messing around and now can't win it.
If you really want to win it, put the draft in, send about two million men to the middle east and wipe them out!
Then we can start on Indonesia, and, and.......

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 2:23pm.

I'll talk to you since you're definitely NOT an idiot & I'm not either. Laughing out loud

A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him. ~ Winston Churchill

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. ~ Winston Churchill


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:17pm.

Want to volunteer, denise? If not for Iraq, maybe Syria? You could be an excuse writer for releases!

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 4:41pm.

I'd get claustrophobic in a burka!

(burqa, burkha, or burqua)

Here is the latest style for the modern woman (but acceptable in only a few places) -- very risqué.

See "Fear Is Their Religion: The Taliban's Treatment of Women in Afghanistan" for why you should not wish this on any woman.

Female slaves can be held in concubinage outside of marriage by their owners at the owner's absolute discretion.

No age limits have been fixed by Islam for marriage. Female children of the youngest age may be married or promised for marriage. Muhammed himself took a six year old child as one of his wives and commenced sexual relations with her when she was just nine years of age.

Women’s right to divorce [not that I'm an advocate of it] is often extremely limited compared with that of men in Middle East. While men can divorce their spouses easily, women face a lot of legal and financial obstacles.

The Quran explicitly gives permission to men to beat their wives if they fear "rebellion." Many (most?) Muslim men feel they have the right to beat their wives in whatever fashion, mild or severe, that they choose. Domestic violence is more common in Muslim countries than in most non-Muslim ones, and the highest rates of domestic violence in the world have been recorded in the Palestinian territories where half of all women are beaten each year. [This statistic is probably much higher because a woman would be beaten again (perhaps by the authorities also) for "rebellion" is she reported it.]

"Honor killings" [the belief that a woman's sexual immorality (or suspected immorality, including not being properly covered outside the home) causes the clan or family to lose honour] take place within all Muslim communities around the Mediterranean.

The term "what your right hands possess" allows men to rape prisoners of war and slaves [how every woman is perceived by Muslim men].

* Warning - explicit medical terminology *

Female genital mutilation is widely practiced out in the open by African Muslims, but it is also practiced in secrecy in some parts of the Middle East. When the most extreme form is forced on females, nothing remains of the normal anatomy of the genitalia and necessitates the husband's using a knife on the wedding night and on subsequent occasions.

This is just a sampling of the "peaceful" religion of Islam.

There has been some recent improvement for women in Iraq, though.

____________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 3:26pm.

You want Denise (and therefore more troops) in Iraq? Welcome aboard you senile old coot!

As for Syria, didn't Nancy Pelosi just do the Syria tour?

Besides, I paid a price and served - let's include Denise as one of those I spent my six years defending- mark her as 'paid in full' $.

Syria? LOL

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 5:32pm.

Thanks! Smiling


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 4:43pm.

Let denise speak for herself, please. I didn't derve ffor anyone else. That went out with the civil war.

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:02pm.

Denise is certainly more than capable of speaking for herself (and does an admirable job I might add).

But since I am in my 40's and was raised to genuinely respect women and to admire their feminine strength, to open doors for them and to defend their safety and honor, I must take exception to your assertion that chivalry went out with the 'civil' war.

Perhaps you are just wishing?

By the way, one who so vulgarly obliterates the English language on a regular basis("Let denise (sic)speak for herself, please. I didn't derve(sic) ffor (sic)anyone else. That went out with the civil war." should not be permitted to tell another they have made an error in a blog.

So, did you 'derve' in the Civil War dollaradayandfound?

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:19pm.

And educated, too! Smiling

The men HERE are definitely not Dems? Laughing out loud

And this definitely is NOT a Dem woman!

Isn't the internet great?

I'll be busy reading all of your posts & links while $ is trying to change a light bulb. Laughing out loud


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 4:43pm.

Let denise speak for herself, please. I didn't derve ffor anyone else. That went out with the civil war.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 5:39pm.

Any true woman, especially a Southern belle, admires a chivalrous gentleman. You should try it some time. Laughing out loud

Maybe I should read this book. Smiling

________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 1:18pm.

When were the gitmo trials, Hobbs. Go on and kill all of them anyway----they must have all killed some of us!

Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Sun, 05/06/2007 - 6:39pm.

...or was it after Berg and before this:

Click Here

Or Click Here

*WARNING-CLICKING HERE WILL SHOW GRAPHIC PICTURES OF BEHEADED YOUNG CHRISTIAN CHILDREN

You know- I really can't remember. Oh, I remember - they won't cooperate with their lawyers that we bought for them because they say they are 'Jews' and 'Gays'.

You will just have to keep waiting I guess dollar. Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and Paul Johnson Jr. meanwhile have lost their heads over the whole thing. But you couldn't care less could you dollar.
**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.