Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

What You Expected, What You Got

What You Expected:

Whopper

What You Got…


Ultdblwhop

What you Expected:

Starwars

What you Got:

Jarjar

What you Expected:

Apple

What you Got:

Windows


What you Expected:

Algore

What you Got:

Bush

The next: What You Expected, What You Got.

What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas.

Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • UrbanBard

    Martin, you are not convincible because you are not open to change, are you? An ignoramus usually remains one. Wisdom requires both facts and logic; you have neither. The pursuit of knowledge requires a humble spirit, not one of arrogance.

    Johnny Apple, are you going metaphysical on us? Shall we speak of the afterlife? We’d better not. Leftists are rarely evil people; they lack the necessary courage to do great harm. That is why they insist that the government do their evil for them. They are lost souls; doomed to wander endlessly in search of impossible dreams.

    Just kidding Guys, Your comments were so bizarre that I couldn’t resist.

  • johnnyapple

    gus, you too are a minneappleoid? Cool, I’m ready for that free beer. I’ll toss my wallet in for round two.

    Would this constitute a “Daniel Fan Club”?? Is he flattered or creeped out?

  • johnnyapple

    Theoretical explanations of the origins of the universe leave me questioning. Face it, if you believe everything you’re ever told you’ll never discover anything new. Dark matter and red shift and expansion theory leave me wondering. There’s a thing or two missing in the finished picture. Einstein admitted as much seventy years ago. I find it challenging and exciting. I think red shift is a misinterpretation. Subject changed?

  • Martin

    I just said that u insult me instead of trying to convince me with information, argumentation, facts.

    give me a link about those 200 pages that proove that saddam was inviting Al Qaeda members in Iraq.

    and explain why being in Iraq is part of the so called “war” on terror.

    sorry, i’m stupid, i don’t get it.

    i just see that there are more terrorist attacks today than ever before.

  • johnnyapple

    Martin, I think you may have fallen victim to an Urban Legend. The best cure is to ignore it. It will eventually go away. Keep an eye on your temperature. If it hits 103 or more, see a doctor immediately. You’re not stupid.

  • Martin

    I’m 40, i know who i am :)

  • johnnyapple

    I’m 39. That makes you pretty dang old from my point of view. What’s your thought on red-shift? I think it might have something to do with dark matter (not to be confused with the dark side… different subject)

  • Martin

    do u mean the red shift that is the visual equivalent of the doppler effect, and shows that the universe is expanding ?

    or is there another red shift related to dark matter ?

    (i’m not up to date, too old … :)

  • johnnyapple

    I think that – perhaps – red shift is an observerd illusion caused by high frequency photons (the blue ones) traveling billions of years through space being intercepted and bounced off of dark, dusty particles that we can’t see or measure. There’s a lot of mass in the misty steam between observable objects. I’m likely wrong but it’s fun stuff (for me) to think about. I got a D in high school physics but have since read “the elegant universe” a few times, often getting lost. Ain’t physics fun!! Science is fun and the sky is amazing.

    Is the subject changed? Cool!

  • Martin

    i think red shift is caused by a fast movement away from us.

    it’s just like the sound of a car passing by, when it approaches the engine has a higher pitch than when it drives away.

    just like the sound waves are contracted and expanded by the movement of the car, the lightwaves emitted by stars are expanded, turning to red (longer wavelength)

  • johnnyapple

    But, short wavelength photons are much more likely to be intercepted and bounced out of our plain of view than long ones. Blues cross the plane of view more often – so the likelyhood of red freqs reaching us are far more likely than blue freqs. I think interstellar smoke explains a lot of this. I don’t think it’s doppler (my opinion) it’s scattered photons.

  • Martin

    that’s what i remember from school, and wikipedia confirms it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

  • roz

    “America has more than just al Qaeda to worry about.”
    If you are saying the so called War on Terror is important, then of course we should have a focus. I think most would agree that Al Qaeda should be the focus. As you say: “After all, al Qaeda is just a financier, strategic planning and training organization for thousands of terrorist organizations world wide.” Seems like a good target to me.

    “We needed to transform the Mid East and the only way to do that was to plant a free economy and a republic in Iraq”

    Why do we *need* to do that? Nothing requires us to transform the Middle East. Is it better to have a democratic Middle East? Sure. Should we bankrupt the US and devistate the US military, and indirectly recruit a new generation of terrorists for that goal. Uh, no. Lets be wise with the use of force and how we select our goals. At the very least we should have a national debate on what our goals should be. Nothing required us to invade Iraq when we did. We did not need to do that. And even if you say that we should help change the Middle East, on what basis can you say its the only way to do it?

    “But, your plan is for us to lose.”

    You don’t know my plan, don’t try to speak for me. Our problem is that we went in without a plan and with out preparation, now we don’t have good options. Don’t blame people on the left who opposed a losing war for its failure. Take responsibility for the fact that your people got us into this mess, its your mess. Don’t pin it on others – take responsibility for the failure that your side created.

    “It was a different world. Clinton had soft peddled the Islamist threat. Bush had to wake up and smell the roses on 9/11. When will you?”
    Clinton did not soft peddle Osama”s threat. It was the Republicans who said that Clinton was trying to wag the dog when he was going after then.
    Take responsibility for Bush absolutely dropping the ball and failing to activate the government in response to the threat during his administration, its his administration. He had the warnings, he and is ideologically blinded cabinet was busy with non-threats like advocating missile defense. Don’t blame Clinton for that – this was 9 months into the new administration.

    “Clinton had no plan. He passed on no messages.”
    Dishonest or ignorant – which are you? Well detailed the warnings to Bush from the prior administration, the urgent intelligence alerts, the carried-over head of anti-terrorism – all ignored.

    The Republicans cant face the fact that they screwed up, so they look to blame everyone else. They blame Clinton. They blame the American people and seek to invade its privacy. They try to find a way to blame Saddam Hussein. They blame the intelligence community. When really, they failed to respond, failed to figure out the signs and act. They did not even warn the FAA.

    “What have you been smoking? I was talking about the Mainstream Media. The Washington Post, the NY Times, The LA times, The Boston Globe, ABC, NBC. CBS are all anti war. Who are you talking about?”

    Yes, now! You think they should not tell the truth about the war? Its not going well – face it. Don’t blame the media because we were not prepared and invaded a country of 26 million people with too few troops and no plan. That is not the media’s fault.

  • roz

    You said that there is cognitive dissonance on the Left. My point that the right is much worse. And they say one thing, and do another. They have a moment to govern their way and they do the opposite.
    To me that is a major dissonance. Republicans have been talking about this whole small government stuff for decades. They get in there, have the Congress and Presidency and what do they do – grow the government! You know who shrank the government – CLINTON and GORE.
    And you are wrong about Bush – he says he is a small government Republican. Yet he grew the government. You can say whatever you like but he is the leader of the right and he does not govern based on his own supposed political beliefs.The Congress ran with it too, they all of the Republican are to blame and they were removed for it – totally discredited as a party. Either the ideas are bad or the Republicans are a fraud. Face it. That is the fake conservative right in action. Sorry it hurts, but its true.
    “It isn’t. The voters aren’t ready for that yet. They don’t want to give up their special interests.”
    Again, you blame the public for Republican failure? Blame others, but Republicans had the power and opportunity and proved themselves unworthy. Now they lash out at the Democrats. But look at every point of criticism and it applies much worse about the Republicans themselves. Cognitive dissonance – ha! The conservatives are intellectually bankrupt and don’t want to see it – they are the agent of the kind of government corruption they supposedly despise.
    “There is no separation of Church and state enshrined in the constitution or in the federalist papers.”
    Hello, First Amendment? You recognize the amendments right? The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy. They would want to govern on fact and principle – not anti-science not by imposing morality on people.
    ““Why would anyone want them in office?” The fact is that the electorate does.”
    Uh, you must have been asleep the last year, have you checked Congress lately?
    “You are an ignoramus. The national debt is dropping rapidly. It will be gone in several years.”
    Huh what? The debt is growing under Bush. The annual deficit may be reduced over time but that is not the same thing. Again I find that the attacks you launch at me, perhaps this one especially, more aptly apply to yourself.

  • johnnyapple

    Martin, I was only trying to change the topic. Didn’t work any better here than it does at the Thanksgiving table.

  • Martin

    and i was helping :)

  • UrbanBard

    Martin said:
    “I just said that u insult me instead of trying to convince me with information, argumentation, facts.”

    Sorry about that. Insults are catching, you know. All I said in the beginning was that Daniel’s pictures reminded me of 60’s anti war propaganda. I got a considerable number of insults and slurs on my character from that. I try not to be affect by it, but I fail.

    My comments were that I think an Al Gore Presidency would be little different from a George Bush Presidency. Oh! There wouldn’t be an IMPEACH GORE sign; the Republicans learned not to do that with Clinton.

    What I disputed was the rosy impression which Daniel’s pictures fostered that, if Al Gore had become president, all would be perfect. Radical Muslim terrorists have been at war with us since 1979. They hate Democrats just as much as they do the Republicans. They parrots the Democratic Party line because that divides us. I suspect that more Americans would be dead with a Gore Presidency than with a Bush one, but we will never know.

    “give me a link about those 200 pages that prove that saddam was inviting Al Qaeda members in Iraq.”

    It’s 200,000 Iraqi government documents that are slowly being translated. Fascist and Communist governments, like Saddam’s, are great record keepers. I’ll have to check up on them. I haven’t heard much about them lately. But, The war is slowly dying out in Iraq too. You can tell this because there is no daily bad news in the Mainstream media.

    The picture I got from the document’s that I read were that Saddam’s government was not part of al Qaeda, but that they had a common enemy– America. Saddam gave refuge to many terrorists. They went to Iraq when they needed surgery. Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda were friendly only because they were on the same side.

    The various terrorist groups had things that kept them apart too. The Saudi al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood were Sunni. The terrorists financed by Iran were Shia. Al Qaeda is a “headquarters group” that financed, trained, and did strategic planning for about one to two thousand terrorist groups.

    Saddam allowed an al Qaeda training camp up by the Kurdish zone and Iran. The pretense was that Saddam couldn’t send a thousand troops with Russian armor up to wipe them out whenever he wanted to. Clearly, he didn’t want to.

    “and explain why being in Iraq is part of the so called “war” on terror.”

    It’s simple: it divides the enemy.

    After we took the Taliban down, there were a number of centers of terrorist action in the Mid East– great and small. Iran supplied money, a refuge, training and arms to terrorists all across the Mid East. The Wahabi/ Salafi clerics of Saudi Arabia supplied money, indoctrination and soldiers. The Egyptians supplied soldiers. Iraq gave money, mostly.

    The Bush administration could have attacked Iran, but it had no cause that would stand up before world opinion.

    Iraq was a natural strategy for us because if we could place a free economy and a representative government in Iraq, then the Muslims would eventually defeat themselves. The, restless and unemployed, young men in the Mid East, who now fight us, would be drawn to Iraq, where they would get jobs and married. They would stop fighting us, although they wouldn’t like us any better. They would choose a political solution, rather than a military one. But, this would be a very long term solution.

    Taking down Saddam’s regime was natural, too, because the UN was at war with Iraq. There was a “Cease Fire” from the Gulf War that was dependent on Saddam keeping his agreements in UN Resolution 687. There were 15 other UN Resolutions documenting that Saddam was NOT keeping his promises. The UN inspectors found, through the aid of Saddam’s sons-in-law, hundreds of thousands of tons of WMD that Saddam had hidden. Where that WMD went is anyone’s guess.

    The point was that finding this illegal WMD in 1995 was a cause for restarting the war. The will just wasn’t there to do that, so the issue smoldered on. Then, Saddam threw out the UN inspectors in 1998 which was a direct provocation to war.

    The war was still going on; America was spending a billion dollars a year to maintain the “No Fly” zones. Saddam’s military would occasionally shoot down one of our planes. President Clinton intended to do something about taking down Saddam’s regime in 1998, but there was no political will and his personal problems intervened.

    “i just see that there are more terrorist attacks today than ever before.”

    That is because we are more aware of it. There have been many planned terrorist attacks that have been foiled, sometimes at the last minute.

    America has been lucky, or our anti-terrorist people have been effective, that we haven’t been attacked in the US. But, it is from no lack of trying; Terrorist attacks have been going off where we have no control– like Africa, Europe and the Mid East.

    If we pretend that we are not at war and slacken off, then The terrorists will strike closer to home. The Democrats seem unprepared for that.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:

    “”America has more than just al Qaeda to worry about.”
    If you are saying the so called War on Terror is important, then of course we should have a focus. I think most would agree that Al Qaeda should be the focus. ”

    I wish we had the luxury of picking our enemies. The War in Iraq is a long term strategy that could save us problems twenty years down the road.

    “As you say: “After all, al Qaeda is just a financier, strategic planning and training organization for thousands of terrorist organizations world wide.” Seems like a good target to me.”

    We are doing that. It’s just not enough.

    Look. In WWII, we were at war with Germany, Italy and Japan, so where did we first fight? In North Africa, which had done us no harm, and an ocean war in the Pacific. You try to fight where it gives us the most advantage.

    ““We needed to transform the Mid East and the only way to do that was to plant a free economy and a republic in Iraq”

    Why do we “need” to do that? Nothing requires us to transform the Middle East. ”

    This is a very long term strategy that short sighted people can dispute. Nothing “requires” any particular tactic. It just the best way to handle it.

    “Should we bankrupt the US and devastate the US military, and indirectly recruit a new generation of terrorists for that goal. ”

    America is in no danger of bankrupting itself over the war on terror. The war costs us about one percent of our Gross Domestic Product. It is one of the cheapest wars in human history in lives and treasure.

    Could Hillary’s planned domestic agenda, if she wins the presidency, bankrupt us? Sure.

    “Lets be wise with the use of force and how we select our goals. At the very least we should have a national debate on what our goals should be. ”

    We had that debate before the war: the Left lost.

    “We did not need to do that. ”

    We disagree.

    “And even if you say that we should help change the Middle East, on what basis can you say its the only way to do it?”

    Tell your plan. The only ones I see from the democrats is for the Republicans to lose. And that means that America loses.

    ““But, your plan is for us to lose.”

    You don’t know my plan, don’t try to speak for me. ”

    Then speak up. Tell us your plan.

    “Our problem is that we went in without a plan and with out preparation, now we don’t have good options. ”

    You are speaking without knowledge. We had plenty of plans. But, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” Events change and plans go out the window.

    “Don’t blame people on the left who opposed a losing war for its failure. ”

    We haven’t lost the war. The surest way of losing is to surrender like you are doing.

    ““It was a different world. Clinton had soft peddled the Islamist threat. Bush had to wake up and smell the roses on 9/11. When will you?”
    Clinton did not soft peddle Osama’’s threat. ”

    We disagree. Neither party took the terrorists seriously. The Democratic Party still doesn’t.

    ““Clinton had no plan. He passed on no messages.”
    Dishonest or ignorant – which are you? ”

    Half hearted plans are meaningless. Clinton’s administration set nothing into motion that the Bush administration had to carry through with. A coming Democratic administration will have difficulty backing away from Bush’s war agenda. If they did, and the terrorists struck, then they would be sunk politically.

    “Well detailed the warnings to Bush from the prior administration, the urgent intelligence alerts, the carried-over head of anti-terrorism – all ignored.”

    At least the Republican are trying to do something now. The Democrats have dug in their heels against the war.

    Success has a thousand father, failure is an orphan. Politics as usual, Roz.

    ““What have you been smoking? I was talking about the Mainstream Media. The Washington Post, the NY Times, The LA times, The Boston Globe, ABC, NBC. CBS are all anti war. Who are you talking about?”

    Yes, now! You think they should not tell the truth about the war? ”

    If only they only knew what the truth was. Right now, they are not reporting anything from Iraq because the news is too good.

    Iraq, in the 2008 election, will be a non-issue. Our troop levels will, if everything goes according to plan, be at 60 to 80 thousand troops with more planned to leave. Iraq won’t be peaceful, but it won’t anything that the Iraqi Defense Forces cannot control. We will maintain a force in Iraq, like we did in Germany after WWII, about 40 to 60 thousand troops to confront Iran.

  • Encolpius

    Someone open a window. It’s getting stuffy in here.

  • MisterGibson

    Ahem,
    I doubt changing the topic is possible just yet, but allow me to suggest engaging another section of our brains & get back to the possibility of an alternate-Earth where Gore assumed the office. With a track record like this administration it’s all-too easy to compare and contrast the previous Clinton-era responses to natural, terrorist, budgetary disasters…
    ‘Spiders’ is an entertaining on-line comic that assumes a much more open-source, pro-active, _competent_ engagement with ObL and his ilk, http://e-sheep.com/spiders/ rather than the crony-capitalism and fear-mongering foisted upon U.S. so far this millennia.

    ‘UrbanBard’ obviously savors the the Cliff Notes version of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged forgetting her critique of graft, incompetence, and waste in cartels, cabals, large companies and other hierarchies. I found her work thrilling and bold as a budding architecture student, but now merely juvenile and of limited range – much as our bellicose friend here. If he’s so all-fired sure of what we ought to be doing, why doesn’t he stop pounding out blog re-comments like a one-note Samba and sign up to go extend the Green Zone?

    [crickets]

    Why are the UrbanBards of this world so damned scared of every bogeyman, trial-balloon, shadowplay, rumor, feint and fart these clowns throw into the media-mix? In the forty miles of bad road I grew up in having someone _else_ go fight and die for your fervent beliefs is called “coward.”
    On the rare chance you’ve served somewhere besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders I gotta wonder why you oxycotin-deprived reich-wing types _still_ haven’t gone whole-hog for the capitalist gold and sought that neo-con wet-dream of an Iraqi tax-free contractor income… See and conquer the world, haul away palette-loads of American $100 bills, shoot up brown-skinned streets for fun and profit! The implied slight that limited-vision sorts like this guy often miss is that our troops can’t be BOTH the very best in the world, YET not good enough to protect our diplomats – that’s for no-bid mercenary armies started by those Friend$-Of-George.
    Of course, it also gets downright embarrassing when you have to consider these plumb Free Market {?} reforms to our military require one to stick their metaphorical head under the belly of the beast to suckle at that mother of all tits – the Government.
    LoL.
    ‘UrbanBard’ is just another adrenaline junkie looking for a fix.

    Anyway… all this is interesting only because Gore entering the race now would completely flummox Clinton’s {the Mrs} corporate-centrist game plan to harvest the wide-spread social discontent for her monied backers: she’s a sphincter to contain the ever-growing poor bubbling into a froth for change that might spill Blue Blood. The Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves & deserve the political exile approaching as witnessed by the as-we-speak drowning puppy-love of Law&Order farce Fred “Fog-Horn Leg-Horn” Thompson proving the paucity of so-called Conservative offerings.
    No man is an island, nor economy – we are all in this together and sorting out how we divvy the collective pie _IS_ politics whether you recognize it or not.

    Ciao, dah-links…

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “You said that there is cognitive dissonance on the Left. My point that the right is much worse.”

    You have a right to your opinion. I disagree.

    The Left are living in a dream world. That was what all the propaganda photos that Daniel inserted was about. You on the Left have this dream that life would be wonderful if only a Democrat was in the Presidency. Not so. Good tasting burgers often look like crap, Movies routinely disappoint us and enemies choose us rather than we choose them. Life is made up of disappointments. I’d rather deal with reality than live in a dream world like the left.

    “And they say one thing, and do another. They have a moment to govern their way and they do the opposite.”

    That is true of politicians in general. You can’t trust any of them. So, giving them more power is dangerous. That is why I want smaller government. They can’t do as much damage that way.

    I don’t imagine it will be easy or quick. Often, we have to turn on the politicians that we send to office. We did not get into this mess in a hurry, nor will we get out of it fast. Don’t be so impatient.

    “To me that is a major dissonance. Republicans have been talking about this whole small government stuff for decades.”

    Yes, but Politics is the art of the possible; we have to deal with reality. The electorate is not yet ready for the change toward smaller government. They vote people out of office who touch their entitlements.

    Do you think that Social Security in any jeopardy? I don’t. But, thirty years down the road Social Security will bankrupt the US economy. I don’t like that idea, although I will, most likely, be dead at the time. We Republicans just need to get our points across better. And elect better candidates.

    “They get in there, have the Congress and Presidency and what do they do – grow the government! You know who shrank the government – CLINTON and GORE.”

    Yes. But Clinton did not have a free spending Democratic congress and he did not have a war to run. Most of the fiscal restrains were due to the Republican congress struggling with a Democratic President.

    Now, the Republicans have to buy off the Democrats to get anything done. Fortunately, we have a deadlocked congress. Consequently, the National debt keeps plummeting.

    “And you are wrong about Bush – he says he is a small government Republican. ”

    I disagree with him.

    “Yet he grew the government. You can say whatever you like but he is the leader of the right and he does not govern based on his own supposed political beliefs.”

    So, the Republicans are falling down on the job, right? What beliefs do you want to replace them with? Hillary wants hundreds of billions of dollars for entitlements. I’m sure you agree with her. So, you don’t really favor smaller government, do you? This is just a verbal ploy. Right?

    ” Either the ideas are bad or the Republicans are a fraud. ”

    The individual Republican office holders can a fraud; we Conservative, often, are fighting them. The Democrats are just a disaster waiting to happen. America isn’t getting good candidates to run.

    ““It isn’t. The voters aren’t ready for that yet. They don’t want to give up their special interests.”
    Again, you blame the public for Republican failure? ”

    Yes. In a Republic, the electorate is always ultimately responsible for the people they send to represent them. When the officeholders screw up– throw them out of office. Are you opposed to democracy? You sound like it.

    ” Republicans had the power and opportunity and proved themselves unworthy. Now they lash out at the Democrats. ”

    We have had an almost deadlocked Congress since Bush took office. Neither party has had sixty members to take control.

    Again, you can complain all you want, but what is your plan? I don’t see that the Democrats have one.

    “The conservatives are intellectually bankrupt and don’t want to see it – they are the agent of the kind of government corruption they supposedly despise.”

    The only new ideas are on the right. The Left only has Socialism. The voters have rejected that.

    ““There is no separation of Church and state enshrined in the constitution or in the federalist papers.”
    Hello, First Amendment? ”

    The Amendments are not part of the Constitution. They were voted on later. That is what amendment means. There were two amendments that did not get approved by the voters, so they are not law.

    What the First amendment does is to deny the establishment of an official, governmentally supported and tax paid, Church like the Church of England. The Founders never intended to forbid the free exercise of religion in public buildings. Before Thomas Jefferson was confirmed to the presidency he attended church services in the capital building. Removing religion from public buildings is a Leftist usurpation of the people’s freedom.

    “The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy. ”

    Spoken like a true atheist. You are anti-religion like most of the left. So, you violate the First Amendment because you would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

    ““Why would anyone want them in office?” The fact is that the electorate does.”
    Uh, you must have been asleep the last year, have you checked Congress lately?”

    As I said elsewhere, the 2006 election was a typical sixth year reversal of a two term presidency. This was despite an unpopular war.

    You Democrats did not win on your issues. Many of your candidates were “Blue Dog” conservative Democrats who ran to the right of the Republicans. You were merely Anti-Bush administration. The electorate was luke warm.

    ““You are an ignoramus. The national debt is dropping rapidly. It will be gone in several years.”
    Huh what? The debt is growing under Bush. ”

    You have been listening too much to the mainstream Media. They are telling you lies.

    “The annual deficit may be reduced over time but that is not the same thing. ”

    When I say the national debt; I mean the national debt. Go on the web to the GAO– the Congressal Govenment Accounting Office. They will tell you what the nation debt is and what it was. The last I heard was that is was $158 billion and dropping. The commerce department can give you the budgetary figures. You don’t know what you are talking about.

  • UrbanBard

    Encolpius said”
    “Someone open a window. It’s getting stuffy in here.”

    The window is open. That is reality that you smell. Sometimes, it isn’t pleasant.

  • roz

    In response to the previous posting:

    I find this discussion utterly confounding, not because the arguments presented are difficult to respond to, they are inane. The issue for me is the indifference to deceit that is tolerated by those who advocate it. We are subjected to lie upon lie upon lie upon lie. Its disgusting and corrosive to democracy. The Neo-cons say they want to spread democracy but the truth is they don’t want to live under democracy and for that we should reject them.

    I am sick of the obfuscation so, in the interest of transparency, a value they reject but we must defend, lets just lay out their case as simply as possible. The crux of the issue for them is oil and power. Neo-cons realized that in the post-cold war system whoever controls oil will control power in the world. If not the US then someone else they reasoned, so how could the US do it? Iran, once an ally was lost to extremism. Fearing the same trajectory for Saudi Arabia, the notion was that Iraq represented a relatively non-extremist country between the two other oil-rich countries. Iraq in this crucial geographic position could serve as a keystone for American dominance of the region. Controlling Iraq would be the key to the Middle East in the same way that the US position in Germany maintains stability and US influence in Europe.

    So the concept of the US controlling Iraq was hatched long before 9/11.This is not a conspiracy argument, this was the accepted public Neo-con agenda. That is why US energy companies were strategizing about the Iraq’s oil fields well before 9/11. 9/11 just created an opportunity for enacting this strategy. That is why, Bush shortly after 9/11 asked Richard Clarke to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11. And this is why our friend argues that the US should keep 60 – 80k troops in Iraq in perpetuity – its the realization of this plan.

    Now to be clear, taken in isolation, as a strategy, the Neo-con agenda has some merit. US control of Iraq would give us a control point in that crucial region. And it may be in time, as oil runs out, the strategic value of our presence there will go up. This is why Neo-cons argue that we will all thank them later for lying their way into Iraq. And, so they think, no matter what other people say now, we’ll stay if we can, the same way we stayed in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.

    This process of accepting the lies that have been propagated on us is part of the seduction of power, and people like Cheney, and our fellow here, get so wrapped up in it that it warps their judgement of right and wrong, truth and fiction. If their plans leads the US to incredible power in the future, so their logic goes, why bother with niggling moralists today? What’s a little propaganda in service of a larger cause? And why be troubled with people today who bother with things like not being evil in the way we treat people. And they are getting away with it, its only elections that limit their power and we have seen how brittle that system is given enough pressure.

    There are some complications to their strategy:

    They have been totally inept in the actual execution of the plan. They were arrogant and blinded by ideology going into Iraq and they misunderstood what happens in a state with no government. Libertarian bliss? No – violent chaos! If you have any doubts about this go watch No End in Sight for a small measure of their ineptitude. As we have it, a patient who went in for supposedly a simple operation, is still on the operating table with a massive infection. He may survive but its not clear, and it certainly represents a huge risk to our security. The potential of a failed Iraq, one where we must exit, even if small, is enough of a danger that it would have warned clearer heads from going in in the first place.

    Second, global warming, which they falsely reject, raises a case argument that maybe we don’t want to burn all that oil in the ground after-all. So is it really worth what they think it is? Does it really represent the same strategic value that they intended if we can’t use it? Maybe it does, but only in an effort to stop it from being used for green reasons, that would be the ultimate irony.

    Finally, its tough going propagating the lies they needed to produce in order to get their way. No one would permit this type of effort without some sort of overarching mantel of justification, like a hysterical War Against Terror. Any reasonable person would accept Bin Ladin as the critical target for our fight against those who perpetrated 9/11 but clearly for our writer here, Osama is small potatoes. He says we don’t “Have the luxury of choosing our enemies”, when that is precisely what we have done! So dressed in the clothing of 9/11 he now argues for Iran as our biggest threat. The need for a continued presence in Iraq a natural consequence. Its insane and the rest of the world rejects it and sees it for what it is. Most of the US is basically in the dark, but the public knows the war is wasteful and not run well, they accept the explanation that our leaders are stupid and want them to be stopped. Maybe the American pubic, though blunt, is not that far off. Then we have the few who cling to the ideology who see a dangling prize are rabid and predict dark consequences for not listening to them. And who is to say when we will have the next terrorist attack, when we leave the principles in place and create new basis on which to hate us.

    So there you have it my unadulterated response. Its deeply sickening to me to hear this sort of propaganda spread. Lets stop the lies, its insulting and offensive and start trying to realize a path out of here. What’s my plan? To expose and reject you and try to save our democracy in the process.

  • roz

    “Yes. But Clinton did not have a free spending Democratic congress and he did not have a war to run.”

    Free spending? Your ideology says that, fact say otherwise. Bush had a Republican Congress and non-war spending grew, new expensive entitlements were created under Republican leadership. Democratic budgetary discipline is far better.

    Clinton said the era of big government is over – I agree with him. Why not join us and actually enact this idea, instead of allying yourself with pretenders. I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care. its a huge problem and our collective failure to create an efficient alternative demands reform. This probably will require government involvement of some kind.

    Honestly I think the Republicans are so wacko and off the ranch a real conservative should be a Democrat at this point. If you value reason, you can’t ally yourself with religious fanatics. Clinton led with market oriented policies, government restraint and fiscal responsibility. That is your conservative ideology in practice, why not embrace it?

    “We have had an almost deadlocked Congress since Bush took office. Neither party has had sixty members to take control.”

    Oh please. The Republicans had the power and they allowed it to be put up to sale to the highest bidder. Medicare Drug Benefit – nice idea, but a huge subsidy for drug industry, that was a feeding frenzy under Republican rule.

    “The only new ideas are on the right. The Left only has Socialism. The voters have rejected that.”

    Clinton signed Nafta and embraced fiscal restraint. He was no socialist.

    “The Amendments are not part of the Constitution.”

    Of course they are! The issue is not removing religion from buildings or coinage – its blocking stem cell research to please a few fanatics. Its not permitting federal dollars for explaining the use of contraceptives. Its imposing morality that does not accept gay people as having equal standing in society.

    “The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy.”

    Who is against free-exercise? Just don’t have the government funding church programs. My conservatism believes that faith based programs don’t need or what government support, I think the founders would agree.

    “When I say the national debt; I mean the national debt. Go on the web to the GAO– the Congressal Govenment Accounting Office. They will tell you what the nation debt is and what it was. The last I heard was that is was $158 billion and dropping. The commerce department can give you the budgetary figures. You don’t know what you are talking about.”

    No – when you say debt, you don’t know what you are talking about:

    Deficit:

    “A year ago, the CBO’s forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.”

    Debt:

    Wikipedia (whose source is the Treasury Dept) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt):
    “The United States public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. Debt Instruments. As of October 9, 2007, the total U.S. federal public debt was >>>$9.04 trillion.<<< [1]” (Emphasis added.)

    Why don’t you turn off right wing talk radio go outside and get some air, go for a walk.

  • UrbanBard

    Hello Roz,

    It’s nice to hear from you. I hope we can discuss this without rancor; I do enjoy a lively discussion. It doesn’t matter to me if we disagree. Just say so on any point, and we can move on.

    We have different viewpoints. I may have facts not in your possession. I have no emotions binding me to a position. This just my conclusions after studying all sides and arguments.

    “Roz said:
    “The issue for me is the indifference to deceit that is tolerated by those who advocate it. We are subjected to lie upon lie upon lie upon lie. Its disgusting and corrosive to democracy. ”

    I agree, but who is doing the lying? You say it is the Republicans. I say it is the Democrats. So, how do we resolve this?

    “The Neo-cons say they want to spread democracy but the truth is they don’t want to live under democracy and for that we should reject them.”

    I’ve seen no evidence that the Conservatives (or Neo-Cons) want to end democracy in America. I’ve seen leftist propaganda alleging this, but it never stands up to reason.

    Neo-Con is a word used by Liberals as a swear word. They do not use it correctly as a group of influential, mostly Jewish, Trotskyites who rejected Socialism and slowly drifted toward the right. I can list names of them, but why bother? There is no essential difference between them and a Conservative now.

    A Conservative is an ideology. The Republican party is a political party. Often, Conservatives are fighting for control of the Party.

    Why not use the word Conservative or Republican instead of Neo-Con and I will refrain from using pejorative names. Leftist, Liberal, Democratic party, Social Democrat, Fascist, Socialist and Communist are not swear words to me, since they are political positions. I can define them.

    “I am sick of the obfuscation so, in the interest of transparency, a value they reject but we must defend, lets just lay out their case as simply as possible. The crux of the issue for them is oil and power.”

    I’ve heard that accusation from the left that the war is about oil, but it never stands up to reason. If the Left could prove anything in a court of law, people would have gone to Jail.

    Regarding this being about power, That is partly correct. After 9/11, the American people wanted their pound of flesh. Any political party that refused to satisfy that need for revenge risked being turned out of office. That is why the Democrats went along with the War on Terror for about a year and a half. When the American flags were no longer flying, then the left could start to oppose the war.

    Don’t get me wrong. The Republican Party wants to remain in power while the Democrats desperately want to win high office. What is at stake is not just the war, which the Democrat are in denial of, but also about the Domestic agenda.

    The Republicans want a smaller government and lower taxes. The Democrats are fighting that tooth-and-nail, because this will end their entitlement programs. The Democrats have been quite successful in halting the Republicans aims. Don’t blame that on the Republicans.

    “Neo-cons realized that in the post-cold war system whoever controls oil will control power in the world. ”

    That sound like paranoid fantasies, Roz. There is more oil been found than there has ever been. The current high prices, from a terrorist fear premium, will produce a world wide oil glut in five years. The same thing happened after OPEC jacked up oil prices in the 70’s. The North Sea oil reserves had not been drilled yet. Sweden and Russia became the two and three oil producers. They weren’t even close then. Now, it’s Canadian tar sands that will be king. There is twice as much oil in Canada as in Saudi Arabia.

    “Iran, once an ally was lost to extremism.”

    What’s your point, Roz? Muslim extremist took over in Iran. They now fund many of the terrorists. That was none of our doing, except for the incompetence of the Carter administration.

    “Fearing the same trajectory for Saudi Arabia, the notion was that Iraq represented a relatively non-extremist country between the two other oil-rich countries. Iraq in this crucial geographic position could serve as a keystone for American dominance of the region. Controlling Iraq would be the key to the Middle East in the same way that the US position in Germany maintains stability and US influence in Europe.”

    Jesus, Roz, this is strange stuff. It takes some true facts and twists it into a paranoid fantasy.

    Does the US want to influence the Mid East? Sure. Why would America need to control Iraq to do that? We will be leaving Iraq a free country fairly soon. The Iraqi’s want us out, but not until the country is more secure. We don’t need direct control. The fact that Iraq has a representative government and a free economy will marginalize our other enemies, Syria and Iran.

    “So the concept of the US controlling Iraq was hatched long before 9/11. ”

    Sure, by the Clinton administration. Regime change in Iraq has been US foreign policy since 1998.

    “This is not a conspiracy argument, this was the accepted public Neo-con agenda. ”

    Saddam was an embarrassment. He was making fools of the UN. He had dismissed UN Resolution 687 and the other UN Resolutions. He was a regional threat. He was buying off UN officials and reporters. He was making payments of $25, 000 to the families of suicide bombers. Why wouldn’t people see him as a threat that needed to be taken care of? No conspiracy here. Just foreign policy.

    “That is why US energy companies were strategizing about the Iraq’s oil fields well before 9/11.”

    Saddam was selling Iraq’s oil to the French, the Germans and the Russians. They became a power block in the UN to try to get the sanctions removed. They had billions in contracts to win if they did this.

    Do the American companies get Iraqi oil now? No, it is sold on the open market and the money goes to the Iraq government. Where do American companies gain from that? The amount of money is chicken feed to EXXON.

    “9/11 just created an opportunity for enacting this strategy.”

    Did the Bush administration want to end Saddam’s regime before 9/11? Yes. But not for the reasons you name. I’m sure you have no proof of any of this.

    “That is why, Bush shortly after 9/11 asked Richard Clarke to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11. ”

    The administration has never said that there was any direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Why wouldn’t Bush ask to see if there was one after 9/11? Are you suggest that Bush wanted to fake evidence? May I have some proof, please?

    “And this is why our friend argues that the US should keep 60 – 80k troops in Iraq in perpetuity – its the realization of this plan.”

    I guess that is also the reason we kept 80 thousand troops in Germany after WWII for sixty years: to steal all their beer?

    We will be keeping troops in Iraq, because of Syria and Iran. Those two nations represent a threat to the region. Keeping American soldiers there will keep a short leash on those countries.

    “Now to be clear, taken in isolation, as a strategy, the Neo-con agenda has some merit. US control of Iraq would give us a control point in that crucial region.”

    I agree with that.

    “And it may be in time, as oil runs out, the strategic value of our presence there will go up. ”

    As long as there are people in the Mid East who want to Kill American and have the money to afford it, we will keep troops there.

    “This is why Neo-cons argue that we will all thank them later for lying their way into Iraq. ”

    There were no lies, Roz. Just some mysteries. We do not know where the WMD, that the UN inspectors said was there in 1995, went.

    “And, so they think, no matter what other people say now, we’ll stay if we can, the same way we stayed in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.”

    When there is no threat to the region. I’m sure will will leave. America is slowly disengaging from its bases it set up during the “Cold War.” The American people want our troops to come home. This is happening. The last troops from Germany are coming home next year.

    “This process of accepting the lies that have been propagated on us is part of the seduction of power, and people like Cheney, and our fellow here, get so wrapped up in it that it warps their judgement of right and wrong, truth and fiction. ”

    You keep alluding to lies: what are they? WMD is a mystery. The main reason we went to war was not about WMD. There were many reasons for the war, but one was to save the credibility of the United Nations. Saddam had been making a mockery of the UN.

    “If their plans leads the US to incredible power in the future, so their logic goes, why bother with niggling moralists today?”

    This is delusive, Roz.

    “What’s a little propaganda in service of a larger cause? And why be troubled with people today who bother with things like not being evil in the way we treat people. And they are getting away with it, its only elections that limit their power and we have seen how brittle that system is given enough pressure.

    Weird, too weird, Roz.

    “There are some complications to their strategy:

    They have been totally inept in the actual execution of the plan. They were arrogant and blinded by ideology going into Iraq and they misunderstood what happens in a state with no government. Libertarian bliss? No – violent chaos! If you have any doubts about this go watch No End in Sight for a small measure of their ineptitude. ”

    Roz, there have been few wars that did not have an insurrection after them. Our own Civil War had the KKK rampaging for six years. This was no lack of planning. It is SNAFU– situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

    Also, we have been fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We have killed or captured 80 thousand of them in Iraq from all over the world.

    “As we have it, a patient who went in for supposedly a simple operation, is still on the operating table with a massive infection. He may survive but its not clear, and it certainly represents a huge risk to our security. ”

    Inserting a Representative government in a Totalitarian country is not easy. Only the Liberal would think it should be.

    “The potential of a failed Iraq, one where we must exit, even if small, is enough of a danger that it would have warned clearer heads from going in in the first place.”

    Nothing worth doing is easy. We just disagree on the necessity. This is part of Bush’s long term strategy. This is also something that you know nothing about.

    “Second, global warming, which they falsely reject, raises a case argument that maybe we don’t want to burn all that oil in the ground after-all. So is it really worth what they think it is? Does it really represent the same strategic value that they intended if we can’t use it? Maybe it does, but only in an effort to stop it from being used for green reasons, that would be the ultimate irony.”

    Please don’t bring up Global Warming.

    And we are no where close to burning up all the oil. There is three times as much oil in Colorado Oil Sands as in all the Mid East. The high oil priced will lead to a oil glut in a few years. There is enough oil and gas on the East and West coasts of the US to supply our needs for fifty years, but the Environmentalists have tied them up so we can’t drill for it.

    “Finally, its tough going propagating the lies they needed to produce in order to get their way. No one would permit this type of effort without some sort of overarching mantel of justification, like a hysterical War Against Terror. ”

    Lies, Lies, Lies. With not one shred of proof.

    “Any reasonable person would accept Bin Laden as the critical target for our fight against those who perpetrated 9/11 but clearly for our writer here, Osama is small potatoes. ”

    In the larger scheme of things, Osama is only important to the leftists, because they use him to beat up us conservative. If he were caught or killed, he would discarded as worthless.

    “He says we don’t “Have the luxury of choosing our enemies”, when that is precisely what we have done! So dressed in the clothing of 9/11 he now argues for Iran as our biggest threat. …”

    You are in a world of your own, Roz. I wish you could prove any of your conjectures, but you can’t. All you have is accusations.

    “So there you have it my unadulterated response. Its deeply sickening to me to hear this sort of propaganda spread. Lets stop the lies, its insulting and offensive and start trying to realize a path out of here. What’s my plan? To expose and reject you and try to save our democracy in the process.”

    You still don’t detail the lies. You have no proof of anything. And I don’t believe you know what a democracy is.

    By the way, the United States Government is not a democracy. The founders were afraid of installing a democracy here, because every previous democracy turned into a tyranny. And we came rather close under FDR. What we have in America is a Limited Constitutional Republic. I’m sure you oppose that.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said”
    ““Yes. But Clinton did not have a free spending Democratic congress and he did not have a war to run.”

    Free spending? Your ideology says that, fact say otherwise. ”

    Neither party has had control of congress and the presidency since 1990 — 92 under Clinton. We have had dead locked congresses where little has gotten done. I think it is a blessing mainly. The only time we got new taxes is when both parties ganged up on the American people.

    But, Hillary, if elected, is just chomping at the bit to install new programs. She clearly states she wants new taxes. Do you?

    “Bush had a Republican Congress and non-war spending grew, new expensive entitlements were created under Republican leadership. Democratic budgetary discipline is far better.”

    You are delusive. The Republicans did not have a filibuster proof congress although they were the majority party. The first two years of Bush’s term of office, the Senate was split 50-50. This is a deadlocked congress.

    The Democrats are nominally in charge of that congress now, but they haven’t accomplish much. They don’t have the power to ramrod any legislation through. Neither did the Republicans.

    “Clinton said the era of big government is over – I agree with him. ”

    It isn’t the first or last time he lied.

    “Why not join us and actually enact this idea, instead of allying yourself with pretenders. ”

    I told you I am a Small Government Conservative. I do not believe that you want small government.

    “I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care.”

    That is a perfect case. National health care has failed in every place where it has been tried. It is socialism and socialism always fails.

    “Honestly I think the Republicans are so wacko and off the ranch a real conservative should be a Democrat at this point. ”

    Sorry, all the movement, since the turn of the last century, was from the Democrats to the Republicans. Ronald Reagan said, “I never left the Democratic party; it left me.”

    “If you value reason, you can’t ally yourself with religious fanatics. ”

    I am religious but no fanatic. Christians have fewer mental health problems than Liberals. We are forgiven. We don’t need to assuage our guilt of being rich by giving away other people’s money.

    “Clinton led with market oriented policies, government restraint and fiscal responsibility. That is your conservative ideology in practice, why not embrace it?”

    Because all that was a sham. He did not have a congress that he could control. He used “Triangulation” to strip away votes. But, the Leftists in the Democratic Party despised his policies. They would change them in a an instant if they could.

    The major point was that Clinton was a canny politician; he could see the hand writing on the wall. The US electorate is sick of socialism.

    The Far Left who now control the Democratic party will not allow the Democrtic Leadersip Council, controlled by the Clintons, any power. George Soro’s has the money and he gives it to Mediamatters and Moveon.org. No Democrat can win in 2008 unless he/she can move to the center.

    ““We have had an almost deadlocked Congress since Bush took office. Neither party has had sixty members to take control.”

    Oh please. The Republicans had the power and they allowed it to be put up to sale to the highest bidder. ”

    And who do the Democrats sell out to? The Poor, the gays, the bureaucrats, the trade unions, the teacher’s unions, the trial lawyers etc. Unfortunately, that is politics as usual in Washington.

    “Medicare Drug Benefit – nice idea, but a huge subsidy for drug industry, that was a feeding frenzy under Republican rule.”

    There are areas where I disagree with President Bush. This is one.

    ““The only new ideas are on the right. The Left only has Socialism. The voters have rejected that.”

    Clinton signed Nafta and embraced fiscal restraint. He was no socialist.”

    No, he left the Socialism to Hillary. Clinton was an opportunist. He was out for number one. It was just that he knew where his bread was buttered.

    ““The Amendments are not part of the Constitution.”

    Of course they are! The issue is not removing religion from buildings or coinage – its blocking stem cell research to please a few fanatics. Its not permitting federal dollars for explaining the use of contraceptives. Its imposing morality that does not accept gay people as having equal standing in society.”

    Well. Why weren’t you clear about what you meant earlier. Why did you make me guess?

    There is plenty of private and state funded stem cell research. We don’t need the Federal government involved.

    Of course, there is no place in the Constitution that permits funding such a thing as medical R&D, hoever worthy. The founders would be aghast at the idea.

    Nor is their permission for the funding of condom indoctrination to eight year olds without the permission of their parents.

    My position is that “Gay Marriage” is a state matter. If the legislature passes a law supporting it and the voters don’t throw them out of office, then I am fine with it. I just think that having the courts mandate this on bogus premises is usurpatious.

    ““The point is that real American conservatives should not want to bring religion into policy.”

    Who is against free-exercise? ”

    Free exercise means that the government cannot deny a religious use to public buildings. A denial is a denial of free exercise.

    “Just don’t have the government funding church programs. ”

    If the government allows the use of government facilities to any other group, then denying a religious group is a denial of free exercise.

    “My conservatism believes that faith based programs don’t need or what government support, I think the founders would agree.”

    I believe that the founders, and they are quite clear in the federalists papers on this, said that a church should not be “Established.” By that, they meant that the preacher and the church buildings should not be paid for by the government. I agree.

    What the Left are doing is forbidding even voluntary prayer in schools, Christmas trees and creches on government property, even when they are privately owned. That is a denial of free exercise. There is no historical precedent for it. It is Leftist dogma.

    ““When I say the national debt; I mean the national debt. Go on the web to the GAO– the Congressional Government Accounting Office. They will tell you what the nation debt is and what it was. The last I heard was that is was $158 billion and dropping. The commerce department can give you the budgetary figures. You don’t know what you are talking about.”

    No – when you say debt, you don’t know what you are talking about:

    Deficit:

    “A year ago, the CBO’s forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.””

    Okay, I was wrong on the figure, but right on the fact that is coming down.

    “Debt:

    Wikipedia (whose source is the Treasury Dept) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt):
    “The United States public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. Debt Instruments. As of October 9, 2007, the total U.S. federal public debt was >>>$9.04 trillion.<<< [1]” (Emphasis added.)”

    Yes, that is what we call the national debt. It rightly includes Social Security debt as well as the unfunded liability for the Civil Service.

    Of course, the Left won’t allow us to touch that part of the national debt or even argue about it. Most of the arguments I am in with the left never want to discuss Social Security. They think it is self funded. It is not.

    “Why don’t you turn off right wing talk radio go outside and get some air, go for a walk.”

    I could say something smart-assed here, but I’ll refrain.

    Roz, You have no solutions for anything. All you leftists want is for the government to grow bigger. This will just leave bigger problems down the road. You have no foresight. You just want your free Government giveaways and jobs.

    PS. You are leading us very far afield. This thread was about Al Gore’s glory and George Bush’s Foreign problems. What does that have to do with what you have been writing recently?

  • johnnyapple

    Flame off? Cool!

  • UrbanBard

    Roz, the major difference between us seems to be that we have different enemies. I believe that there are Muslim extremists who are out to kill us. They would destroy America if they could. They are aided and abetted by Muslim governments and social organizations.

    They are indirectly supported by Leftists groups, not because the Left wants the terrorists to win, but that they want the Conservatives to lose. The Left thinks that the Muslims can be placated or reasoned with. Prime Minister Chamberlain thought the same about Adolf Hitler.

    The short term solution was to go after the organizations who struck us on 9/11. That is why we have been taking down al Qaeda. When the Taliban refused to hand them over, we took them down too.

    But, that does not solve the long term problem that Muslims have been fighting America since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. So long as they are plotting against us, we must do something about that.

    I’m not crazy about big business, but I’m not paranoid of them as you are. I believe that they will act in their self interest, just as we citizens do.

    The solution for too much corporate power is competition. I favor small to medium sized business vs Big Business because it is usually more cost effective. One reason for BIG business is to deal with BIG government; let’s work to reduce both. I recognize that some businesses are big because of the complexity and difficulty of a particular industry. Breaking them up will cost the consumers money.

    I really dislike and am fearful of BIG government. I don’t care who is in charge of it– Democrats or Republicans. I don’t like either Party bossing us around.

    I don’t like government giveaways, like National Health Care, because they always become corrupted by the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats seize power and use it against the American people.

    This, more than any other reason, is why I am not a Liberal. I don’t believe in “Free government services.” Everything the government touches turns to cr*p. That is why our “Big Cities” in the Blue States are so corrupt.

    You would place most things in our lives under governmental control. That is tyranny, Roz. The government, that gives you everything you want, can take away everything you have. What if you and the government disagree over how you should run your life? So long as you are harming no one but yourself, the government should leave you alone. But, they shouldn’t rescue you from your folly, either.

    Hillary has millions of plans to “help People” and all of them cost money. What if you and I have better uses for that money? Like for feeding and clothing our families?

    Your plan is to have the bureaucrats to be our masters. The Founders intended them to be our servants. I prefer the Founders plans. That is why I am a Small Government Conservative.

  • johnnyapple

    UrbanBard and roz, why don’t you two set up an iChat session and leave the rest of us out of your rant. HOW WUDE!

  • UrbanBard

    Johnnyapple, it would be rude of me to abandon her. If you don’t want to read this, don’t visit. It’s not as though you have anything of consequence to say.

  • roz

    “I’m not paranoid of big business.”
    Neither am I. I have said nothing of the sort.

    “You would place most things in our lives under governmental control.”
    No I wouldn’t, I have said not one thing to suggest this.

    “Your plan is to have the bureaucrats to be our masters.”
    Not at all, I said nothing of the sort.

    I said that I am a Democrat, not a socialist. I am not a leftist. I am the center.

    You make generalizations and false statements about people who oppose you because it fits your political stereo-types. What makes you think you speak for me?

    The difference between me and you is that I question the means, tactics, goals and statements out government makes about its hyped up War on Terror, you do not.

    “I believe that there are Muslim extremists who are out to kill us.”
    Yes, and I believe we should find and kill them, you do not think it matters.

    “They are indirectly supported by Leftists groups, not because the Left wants the terrorists to win, but that they want the Conservatives to lose.”
    This is absolute nonsense. Nothing of the sort is true.

    “But, that does not solve the long term problem that Muslims have been fighting America since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. So long as they are plotting against us, we must do something about that.”

    Certainly not all Muslims. And the situation with Iran was improving prior to 2000. iran was making moves towards liberalization. Then some idiot called them the Axis of Evil.

  • roz

    “me to abandon her.” I am a man.

  • johnnyapple

    Uh oh, now you’ve gotta figure out who’s on top. What you wanted and what you got aren’t the same thing.

  • http://homepage.mac.com/johnnyapple johnnyapple

    I would ignore you but I clicked the “Notify me” option and couldn’t find how to turn it off. Your debate was flooding my iPhone. I found it now. Thanks and bye.

  • UrbanBard

    ““I’m not paranoid of big business.”
    Neither am I. I have said nothing of the sort.”

    You just put out this paranoid fantasy of a cabal between big business and the neo-cons. What else was I to expect?

    ““You would place most things in our lives under governmental control.”
    No I wouldn’t, I have said not one thing to suggest this.”

    Then what do you believe in? When all you do is attack, you never tell anything about yourself. That leave me to make judgements based on your behavior which may be wrong.

    ““Your plan is to have the bureaucrats to be our masters.”
    Not at all, I said nothing of the sort.”

    Of course, you never say anything, but attack in a leftist way. What do you believe in? I used to be a Democrat. I know all the different types. The one your rantings fit was what I imagined you as.

    “I said that I am a Democrat, not a socialist. I am not a leftist. I am the center.”

    There is nothing Centrist about your rantings. The paranoid fantasy you just put out was straight out of the “Class Struggle.” I don’t believe in “Class Struggle: all competition is within a class.

    “You make generalizations and false statements about people who oppose you because it fits your political stereo-types. What makes you think you speak for me?”

    Then stop projecting stereotypes. Stop thinking that I am a Neo-con when I am not. You are completely unclear.

    “The difference between me and you is that I question the means, tactics, goals and statements out government makes about its hyped up War on Terror, you do not.”

    Yes, I do question those, but what is my alternative? The Democrats have no policy but surrender to the terrorists. I will not accept that.

    ““I believe that there are Muslim extremists who are out to kill us.”
    Yes, and I believe we should find and kill them, you do not think it matters.”

    Of course, we have to do that. But we can fight a war on many fronts because we have many enemies.

    In WWII, we had three fronts. America against the japanese alone, America and the British in North Africa and then Europe while America gave material support to Russia for a front from the East. America is not so poor that we cannot do it all, Military and Diplomatic. Having only one front leaves most of our enemies unassailed. You want to fight this war half-heartedly that never works. What is your plan. You don’t have one.

    ““They are indirectly supported by Leftists groups, not because the Left wants the terrorists to win, but that they want the Conservatives to lose.”
    This is absolute nonsense. Nothing of the sort is true.”

    We disagree. The Democrats have shown no evidence of supporting this war and often has hindered it.

    ““But, that does not solve the long term problem that Muslims have been fighting America since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. So long as they are plotting against us, we must do something about that.”

    Certainly not all Muslims. ”

    Of course not, I am very careful in the names I use. There really is an internal war between the moderate Muslims and the Radicals. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to tell them apart. We must force them to choose side. That is why Iraq is so important.

    “And the situation with Iran was improving prior to 2000. iran was making moves towards liberalization. Then some idiot called them the Axis of Evil.”

    I saw no evidence that Iran was liberalizing. Iran was supporting terrorism. Perhaps Iran was acting so to the Clinton administration. But, Clinton was uninterested in terrorism. Neither was Bush until 9/11.

    The problem is that Iran is an axis of evil; it is the top promoter of terrorism after the Wahabi/ Salifi Clerics of Saudi Arabia. You just hate to tell the truth, that’s all.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “me to abandon her.” I am a man.”

    If you use a feminine name you get taken for one. Nothing you have written would have told me differently. No insult intended, because to imply that being a woman was somehow inferior is sexist. Can’t have that.

    As things stand now, I have not a clue as to who you are– male or female. All I can think of you is as an attack animal. You don’t try to make any sense. You don’t try to present a case or evidence. You just push your drama on people.

    National Health care is not a centrist position: it is a leftist position– a Socialist position. Therefore, why wouldn’t I think that you were a leftist? What clue have you given me to make me think otherwise? Nothing.

  • roz

    ““I’m not paranoid of big business.”
Neither am I. I have said nothing of the sort.”
    You just put out this paranoid fantasy of a cabal between big business and the neo-cons. What else was I to expect?

    Its not a fantasy, its well reported fact Cheney met with oil companies before 9/11 and on of the issues discussed was oil fields in Iraq. I never said it was a cabal between business and the Neo-cons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force) I said Iraq was an strategic interest that was identified before 9/11 and that I believe 9/11 was an excuse to take action in Iraq – not because it had anything to do with Al Qaeda but because it was seen as a strategic interest their concept to remake the Middle East on terms that suited the US. If you don’t think that oil and power have anything to do with that then you are the one in the fantasy world.

    “Then what do you believe in? When all you do is attack, you never tell anything about yourself. That leave me to make judgements based on your behavior which may be wrong.”
    I believe its a total waste communicating with on this blog. No one is forcing you to think or say anything, I am simply intending to respond to the things you are saying that I think are wrong. I am tired of hearing from people who distort the truth. I don’t think this is a forum for expressing ideas, it is far too tedious.

    “There is nothing Centrist about your rantings. The paranoid fantasy you just put out was straight out of the “Class Struggle.” I don’t believe in “Class Struggle: all competition is within a class.”
    I made no reference to social class in any comment I made. Your thinking is warped and old fashioned.

    “Then stop projecting stereotypes. Stop thinking that I am a Neo-con when I am not. You are completely unclear.”
    I will think whatever I like and, to me, you parrot the neo-con line exactly. Call yourself what you like, i don’t care. Above you said that Neo-con were just conservatives and you call yourself a conservative, so what is your problem anyway? I don’t use neo-con as a swear word, though some are right to because of the way they have betrayed and misled the American people. I simply use it as a term to describe a category of “conservatives”, I’d call them radicals, who advocate for an aggressive foreign policy as described by the Project for a New American Century.

    “We disagree. The Democrats have shown no evidence of supporting this war and often has hindered it.”
    Democrats are paying for, fighting for and dying in the war as much as everyone else. I don’t see any case where they have hindered it. They should scrutinize it more.

  • roz

    roz is not a feminine name – its a screen name like urbantard.

    And I said I was a man – so this is wrong: “As things stand now, I have not a clue as to who you are– male or female.”

    “National Health care is not a centrist position: it is a leftist position– a Socialist position. ”

    I did not advocate a National Heathcare System. My words: “I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care. its a huge problem and our collective failure to create an efficient alternative demands reform. This probably will require government involvement of some kind.”

    But that might be purely on a regulatory basis – so stop jumping to conclusions. Be more thoughtful, cautious and fact based like a real conservative. You are acting like a Republican not a conservative.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz, I have nothing against you. Or Daniel. I just dislike propaganda of any sort. Especially, Leftist propaganda because it is so prevalent. I don’t like where the left would lead us– to the poor house.

    After a long study of Socialism in the Democratic party, I have come to believe that it is out of harmony with reality– truth. Oh! It has short term gains for some people, but as time goes on, it becomes increasingly harmful because it shifts the burdens of life from one set of people to another. Those who’s burden is made lighter stop working so hard because their needs are fulfilled. Those who’s burden is made worse, stop working so hard because the government will just take away anything extra. Since no one is working as hard as before, the entire society becomes poorer.

    Every society that has tried to follow the Socialist path has become poorer. Cuba was the richest country in the Caribbean in 1952, now it is the poorest. Russia was many years away from being as rich as Germany in 1912, but it had a much faster growth rate. Germany was afraid of being surpassed. That was the major cause of World War One.

    “From Each according to his ability; to each according to his need” is a Marxian phrase. Do you agree with that comcept?

    It is the basis on which National Health Care is founded. Some people are judged to be needy, so their medical care is paid for those who have ability. The problem with this system is that the needs of the poor increase to cover every minor ache and pain. Meanwhile, the man of ability works less and finally tries to to escape paying. Then the bureaucrats who take a cut of the money given to the poor to live on, must punish the people of ability to keep them working.

    Progressively, the men of ability try to escape the country so barriers must be erected to keep people in. The Government make an examples of those who are deemed to be “shirkers” so they send the “men of ability” to jail, torture or kill them to persuade other “men of ability” to obey.

    Thus, the result of National Heath Care and any other Socialist program is a Totalitarian state. No one intended for it to go there but it does step by step. Once you disregard a person’s right to control his own life and property, then the end is always tyranny.

    Do you disagree with this analysis?

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “Its not a fantasy, its well reported fact Cheney met with oil companies before 9/11 and on of the issues discussed was oil fields in Iraq. ”

    It is not immoral to meet with campaign contributors. Nor is it against the law to get together and talk about the oil prospects in other lands. Why do you put such a paranoid spin on things? Why do you see such evil designs? Do you have a transcript? How do you know what was said then? Why could it not been about issues in many countries, including the Mid East. The Mid East has been troubling for some time.

    Don’t get me wrong. People who are interested in foreign policy have been wondering about what to do about Iraq for decades. It was a regional threat. Saddam was making fools of the UN. People talk about such things.

    Did American oil people have any investments is Iraq? No. The French, the Germans and the Russians were hand in glove with Saddam, not Americans. That was why they were pressing to get UN sanctions lifted.

    “I never said it was a cabal between business and the Neo-cons. ”

    True, but that is what I inferred from your statements. That the reason that Cheney was concerned about Iraq was to help his friends in the oil business. That is a conspiracy. If the Left had direct evidence that there was a link or a conspiracy, then they would do more than just make slurs. They would name names and dates. Where are they?

    “I said Iraq was an strategic interest that was identified before 9/11 and that I believe 9/11 was an excuse to take action in Iraq – not because it had anything to do with Al Qaeda but because it was seen as a strategic interest their concept to remake the Middle East on terms that suited the US. ”

    A strategic interest for whom? Bill Clinton? He went before congress in 1998 and made overturning Saddam’s regime a US national priority. But all that was about Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN and UN resolution 687. Iraq has been troubling to foreign policy buffs for decades. Cheney is a foreign policy buff. He wouldn’t be doing his job if he ignored Iraq. Bush depended on Cheney to give him a heads up on foreign policy. Bush couldn’t trust the State department to tell him the truth. They had their own agenda and has opposed him all during his term.

    “If you don’t think that oil and power have anything to do with that then you are the one in the fantasy world.”

    It does but not in the way you mean. There was no plot to steal Iraq’s oil. That hasn’t happened and won’t. But Saddam was upsetting the oil interests, because of threats to the straits of Hormuz.

    America never bought any of Iraq’s oil but cutting off mid-eastern oil would send the price skyrocketing. Why wouldn’t oil men be concerned about that and hope for a change? But, the public will was not there to do anything until 9/11. That is mostly why Clinton did nothing, too.

    As I have said that invading Iraq is a Long term strategy. It divides the Mid East and gives the hope of a lasting peace there. I’ve seen no plan from the Democrats to solve the terrorist threat.

    “I believe its a total waste communicating with on this blog. No one is forcing you to think or say anything, I am simply intending to respond to the things you are saying that I think are wrong. ”

    Fine. I was doing the same thing myself. I just think you are wrong on your facts and logic.

    “I am tired of hearing from people who distort the truth. ”

    And I would like you to give me a clear argument rather than just one accusation after another. Cut the personal attacks and talk about issues.

    “I don’t think this is a forum for expressing ideas, it is far too tedious.”

    Daniel opened this up by posting a propaganda piece. I merely said that if Gore were president then very little would be different. We would still have Islamist enemies, but no impeach Gore signs. What’s wrong with that?

    “I will think whatever I like and, to me, you parrot the neo-con line exactly. ”

    I just disagree with leftist propaganda. If that is sounding like being a Neo-Con, then I guess I do. How many replies are there to blatent untruths?

    “I don’t use neo-con as a swear word, though some are right to because of the way they have betrayed and misled the American people. I simply use it as a term to describe a category of “conservatives”, I’d call them radicals, who advocate for an aggressive foreign policy as described by the Project for a New American Century.”

    And what is that exactly? A plot to take over the world? I don’t see how you could get the American voters to go along with that. We are tired of being the world’s policeman. We would be quite isolationist now if 9/11 hadn’t happened.

    Is it anything like the Social Democrats of the EU’s plan to create a “One World” government centered around the UN? I don’t see much chance of that either.

    ““We disagree. The Democrats have shown no evidence of supporting this war and often has hindered it.”
    Democrats are paying for, fighting for and dying in the war as much as everyone else. I don’t see any case where they have hindered it. They should scrutinize it more.”

    Shall I trot out the actions of the New York Times and the Swift program? This was a perfectly legal intelligence gathering program on al Qaeda. The NY Times betrayed it to al Qaeda. I’d call that hindering. There were a long list of such programs that the Press have betrayed.

    I have no problem with a loyal opposition during wartime. that is necessary to avoid abuses. But the constant barrage of lies from the Leftist politicians and the Press has been disheartening.

    Fortunately, we are winning in Iraq despite the the harassment from the left. That is why there is no daily bad news from Iraq in the Mainstream Media now. The Press won’t tell the good news coming out of Iraq.

    Iraq will be a non-issue in the 2008 election. We will most likely have 60 to 80 troops and dropping there. The Democrats won’t want to remind people how wrong they were on the war, so there will no news and the voters will forget.

    “roz is not a feminine name – its a screen name like urbantard.

    And I said I was a man – so this is wrong: “As things stand now, I have not a clue as to who you are– male or female.””

    I was questioning your honesty and integrity there. I have no idea what your values are. Who you are. All I see is the attack dog.

    ““National Health care is not a centrist position: it is a leftist position– a Socialist position. ”

    I did not advocate a National Healthcare System. My words: “I would also say though that our industrial competitiveness is harmed by our failure to deal with health-care. its a huge problem and our collective failure to create an efficient alternative demands reform. This probably will require government involvement of some kind.””

    I suggest that the solution is to get the government out, not in, health care.

    “But that might be purely on a regulatory basis – so stop jumping to conclusions. Be more thoughtful, cautious and fact based like a real conservative. You are acting like a Republican not a conservative.”

    No, regulation is little different from National health care. It just approaches it from the other end. Are you aware how strangled the medical industry is? A major problem is the American Medical Association. It is a cartel that restrains the number of doctors, their prices, where they can get trained, what hospital they can operate in. It is a restraint of trade. A conservative wants more freedom, not more regulation. A conservation wants more competition.

    It sound like you have no idea what a conservative wants.

  • roz

    “People who are interested in foreign policy have been wondering about what to do about Iraq for decades. It was a regional threat.”

    Of course they have. The issue was not should something be done about Iraq, its was there an urgent threat, or even a threat at all to the US. Should something have been done, yes in time, given the messy the sanction regime, the in-human conditions there, Hussein was not a good person etc. I was not a fan of the pre-war status quo or dropping sanction with Hussein in place, so something had to be done from my perspective. The issue is that we went in on a series of lies, and then we did it, and I am talking solely of the civilian military leadership, in a way that was totally incompetent with no plan for occupation and no too few boots on the ground, and then it took far to long to adjust when our approach was not working.

    Take Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN. I am not an expert on it, but it has pretty much been totally discredited. This is the world opinion, even Powel regrets it. We should not have lied to the world, the US taxpayers, the Congress like that. I really find it impossible to believe that everying presented as evidence was simply wrong as an error. Some intelligence reports said there was no threat and they were ignored. Maybe its tough to prove the intent to lie on a evidential basis, but a rational person knows when they have been lied to. If someone came to your home and made a presentation on a product they want to sell, and you find that its all wrong, nearly every aspect of it, you’d think well, most probably I have been lied to intentionally, I would not trust that person again. Thats how I see Bush and the Republicans who refused to hold him accountable.

    If there was not a basis to invade we should not have done it – build the case. What was the rush? It was fabricated by the hawks – the neo-cons – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Are they evil? No. Did they drum up a war where there really did not need to be one at the time, of course they did. You can debate the real reasons for it. I have my theory. I don’t think its fantasy. I never said that they did it for the oil companies or for the oil itself. They wanted to go to Iraq and make a stronger foothold in the region there. Iraq had strategic value, its not extremist and it had oil itself. Its not a bogus paranoid fantasy.

    On top of this basic falsehood you add the loads of pure idiotic immoral un-american stuff, the torture, abu graib,guantanimo bay, rendition, experts in the field of interrogation, military officials all say its counterproductive – we should not have been doing any of that. its a stain on our reputation.

    I am also ashamed of the fact that we did not protect things like the antiquities of Iraq. That was the first indication to me that we did not have a clue what we were doing. Of course we should have protected that, and the civilian infrastructure and the military weapons stores. The protection of those sort of assets and ensuring general civil order are the reason why an occupation force needs to be larger, as recommended before we went in, than the administration planned.

    SO getting back to your original statement that people or the media would not be asking to impeach Gore. The media, the public would have supported him, not because they have a bias, they don’t have a liberal bias anymore than reality does, its because Gore, if he got to the point of moving on Iraq, would have made a credible transparent case to take action, whereas Bush did the opposite. Honesty and decency builds trust and faith in the process. Maybe not for the corrupt Republicans who distort facts and abuse logic, but to everyone else.

    And that is after all what this series of images is about, discovering you’ve been scammed and that you are not getting what you expect, like honestly and simple competence, thats what IMHO bothers people the most about Bush.

  • dogma00

    Anyone calling democratic party of US, not to mention Gore or Clinton “socialist” should check his head. (Or maybe check the Political Compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ )

    John Lennon was a socialist.
    Salvador Allende was a socialist.
    Gandhi was a socialist.
    Evo Morales is a socialist.
    Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

    But Gore and Clinton? Puh-leeze! By any global political standards they are moderate right-wingers. In some countries here they could maybe find themselves in a social democratic party (I can imagine Gore as a British Labour member, for example, especially the new labour), but for example here in Finland the most logical political home for them would be the conservative party kokoomus.

    Except for Bernie Sanders, you don’t have any socialists in power there. And even Sanders is actually a social democrat who just wants to be identified with socialist tradition.

    UrbanBand, you are imagining your enemies. That’s dangerous.

  • thebob

    It is interesting to me that after failing to win the presidency, and with it, the command of the war against terror, Al Gore decided to captain another, greater, struggle.

    So far all he has done is to define the battle ground.

    Global warming is real, it is provable, and defeating it is not only possible but imperative.

    Unfortunately, these days it is popular to discount, solid hard fact, because of religious or spirtual reasons.

    Perpetuating religious myth and spiritual nonsence is eroding the truth. Unfortunately the wrong things are being challenged.

    Here we are in the 20th century, supposedly enlightened with critical thinking, but teaching the “fact” of evolution, is being challenged just because is doesn’t conform to some late stone age work of fiction.

    Federal funding is not allowed for embryonic stem cell research, for no other reason than, some faith based nonsence. We need to fight the Talibanisation of science, and allow the great advances that have all ready been achieved to continue.

    Unfortunately this mindset is being indoctrinated in our children. They have become inured against the truth.

    Although we base our court system on “cold hard facts”, misguided people are allowed to corrupt, young impressonable minds, by telling them if you “believe it” enough it must be true.

    If the US does not lead the world, then it will follow.

    Global warming will be stopped eventually. Citeing economic reasons not to do so is just a canard.

    The technology exists today, but it is the mindset of astrology, religion, acupuncture, chiropractic and other mumbo jumbo that makes people think ther is an alternative to science.

  • http://www.formandfunction.com/ MisterGibson

    Ahem,

    First, my apologies for any duplication of my own post here. I tried an earlier version of this a few days ago, but WordPress still claims it’s under moderation. Dan has told me this occurs the 1st time a new member tries using the system, but it _still_ sez pending… but onward to #2, the redux.

    I doubt changing the topic is possible just yet, but allow me to suggest engaging another section of our brains & get back to the possibility of an alternate-Earth where Gore assumed the office. With a track record like this administration it’s all-too easy to compare and contrast the previous Clinton-era responses to natural, terrorist, budgetary disasters… ‘Spiders’ is an entertaining on-line graphic novel that assumes a much more open-source, pro-active, _competent_ engagement with ObL and his ilk, http://e-sheep.com/spiders/ rather than the crony-capitalism and fear-mongering foisted upon U.S. so far this millennia. Go ahead, take your other lobe for a spin and review this idea.

    ‘UrbanBard’ obviously lacks the tools to understand, let alone deal with, the forces acting on us and prefers to savor some sort of Cliff Notes version of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged forgetting her critique of graft, incompetence, waste in cartels, monied cabals, large companies and other hierarchies. His sad defense of Cheney charting out how to divvy up the anticipated spoils of Iraq is a prime example of this myopia: aggressive war & looting is a crime against humanity that the US signed onto long ago plain and simple – it’s why they hide away the facts with lots of rubber stamps like ‘secrecy’ and ‘executive priv’. Well, I found Rands’ work thrilling and bold as a budding architecture student, but now merely juvenile and of limited range – much as our bellicose friend here trying to browbeat anything that moves. If he’s so all-fired sure of what we ought to be doing overseas, then why doesn’t he stop pounding out blog re-comments like a one-note Samba and sign up to go extend the Green Zone?

    [crickets]

    Why are the UrbanBards of this world so damned scared of every bogeyman, trial-balloon, shadowplay, rumor, feint and fart these BushCo clowns throw into the media-mix? What a bunch of hide-under-the-bed reactionary scaredy-cats, ready + willing + eager to trade our real freedom for their false security. They confuse conformity of the herd with safety and reflexively try to bully dissenters into falling in line – like they meekly do.
    In the forty miles of bad road I grew up in having someone _else_ go fight and die for your fervent beliefs is called “coward.” On the rare chance General Hindmost here served somewhere besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders I gotta wonder why oxycotin-deprived reich-wing types _still_ haven’t gone whole-hog for the capitalist gold and sought that neo-con wet-dream of an Iraqi tax-free “contractor” income… See the world, haul away palette-loads of American $100 bills, conquer and plunder assets of far off lands, shoot up brown-skinned streets for fun and profit!
    The implied slight that limited-vision sorts like this guy often miss is that our troops can’t BOTH be the very best in the world, YET not good enough to protect our diplomats – that’s for no-bid mercenary armies started by those Friend$-Of-George. Hypocrites wearing lapel flag pins smirking all the way to the bank & just LOVE foot soldiers like him getting all emotional and hyper-venting. Of course, it is downright embarrassing for the proud dystopian idealists of these plumb Free Market{?} ‘reforms’ to our military that they must stick their asses up in the air so they can reach their head under the belly of the beast trying to suckle at that mother of all tits – the Military. But it doesn’t stop them.
    LoL.
    ‘UrbanBard’ is just another adrenaline junkie looking for a fix.

    All this is interesting only because Gore entering the race now would flummox Clintons’ {Mrs} corporate-centrist game plan to harvest our wide-spread social discontent for her monied backers: she’s a well-positioned sphincter to contain the ever-growing poor bubbling into a froth for change. I am not impressed with the democratic stand-down on Habeas Corpus, etc, and can’t see much support for them this next election since they give the BushCo agenda such easy nods to go-ahead, extend the empire, etc. I am comforted by the fact the religious zealots are unhappy with Republicans and expect my lack of enthusiasm for the Bolshevik {as our stale UrbanBard appears ready to call them} Left is easily offset this election cycle. I’ll be glad to eat crow if she turns out better. Meanwhile, the Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves & deserve the political exile approaching like a black-hole event horizon… witness the as-we-speak drowning puppy-love of Law&Order farce Fred “Fog-Horn Leg-Horn” Thompson proving the paucity of so-called Conservative offerings and hear their dismay at the field.

    FYI – I am an army brat familiar with our defense system from many angles. I was a defense contractor when 9-11 occurred and clearly recall walking a particular grassy parade ground with a certain young Major tickled pink he was ordered to rejoin his artillery squad & insisting that we were going to war with Iraq ASAP… this was about the end of November 2001 – a mere 1 1/2 month after September 11th and this administration was well underway to X-fer from Afghanistan to Iraq. Imagine success there. Picture capturing ObL… think if we’d stayed put w/100K+ troops and finished the job – but this is about boondoggles & bilking & pillaging on a grand scale. Politically, SuperBushMan needs a Lex ‘Osama’ Luther to rally the weak-minded, but Truth is kryptonite and everyone can see his fragile brittle psyche for the shallow vessel it is.

    No man is an island, nor economy – we are all in this together and sorting out how we sort the collective pie _IS_ politics whether you recognize it or not.

    Ciao, dah-links…

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “its was there an urgent threat, or even a threat at all to the US. Should something have been done, yes in time, given the messy the sanction regime, the in-human conditions there, Hussein was not a good person etc. ”

    Do you understand “just war theory?” The point is to only go to war when there was no other recourse. That does not mean that there has to be an immediate threat; there was no immediate threat to the US in WW one. Everything else had been tried with Saddam Hussein to get him to comply with his treaties. Saddam could have folded under UN pressure, but he did not. Saddam was given chance after chance to avoid war and he chose to be defiant until the end. HE chose this war.

    The time was right, Roz. If the UN had allowed Saddam to get away with defying them, Saddam would become an even greater regional threat as “the man who backed down the US.” Once we started down the road to forcing UN compliance, it had to end in either the US or Iraq being defeated. Did you want it to be us?

    “The issue is that we went in on a series of lies, and then we did it, and I am talking solely of the civilian military leadership, in a way that was totally incompetent with no plan for occupation and no too few boots on the ground, and then it took far to long to adjust when our approach was not working.”

    You do have your Leftist dogma down pat, but it is false.

    We had plenty of plans. European Politicians screwed up our plans. The French Government forced Turkey to disallow a Northern Front.

    Every war is chaos; there is always disarray. Plans have to thrown away because the enemy intervenes. This was the fastest and most efficient war in human history. Conquering a country the size of Iraq in just three weeks put military historians in awe.

    Did you expect that it would be peaceful after Saddam’s regime fell? Why? Saddam planned for a guerilla war after Baghdad fell. Fedayeen came from many countries to fight us.

    The US military says, in the last five years, that we have killed or captured 80 thousand insurgents. Two thirds of those were foreign al Qaeda fighters. Iraq was the best place to fight them. Better there than in the US or Europe.

    The Left has lied a lot in this war. We do not know happened to the WMD. The Iraqi military wondered where it went, too. The front-line Iraqi Generals expected the WMD to be used in the incursion. An Iraqi Air Force General, Georges Soto, published a book several years ago that Saddam had smuggled the WMD to Syria in the final weeks before the incursion.

    Once the US had made a big deal about WMD in the UN, then it would be a great propaganda ploy, if the WMD was never found. That worked for Saddam. I do not believe the lies that the WMD did not exist. The UN inspectors saw tens to hundreds of thousands of tons of WMD in 1995. Where did it go? There is no proof that is was destroyed. Did the UN Inspectors lie?

    In any case, the point about the war was not WMD. There were twenty two other reasons listed in the Iraqi war proclamation.

    “We should not have lied to the world, the US taxpayers, the Congress like that. ”

    The Congress saw the same intelligence information that the president did. They, including most Democrats, chose to go to war. If you blame anyone, then blame them all. Was all of congress in on a conspiracy? That would be ridiculous.

    “I really find it impossible to believe that everything presented as evidence was simply wrong as an error. ”

    I cannot vouch for the competence of the CIA. But, you slur the Bush Administration without any actual proof. They believed that Saddam had to be forced to keep his UN Resolutions or there would be war.

    Was the Bush administration partially taking advantage of the anxious times after 9/11? Yes. That’s just politics. You strike when the iron is hot; when the public is with you. But, don’t turn that into some grand conspiracy. There is no proof.

    “Some intelligence reports said there was no threat and they were ignored. ”

    A government as big as ours has people in it who will disagree with any position. An administration can be buried under a mountain of contrary reports. That is why you have experts like George Tenet to sort it out. Tenet was sure there was WMD. He told Bush that it was a “Slam dunk.” Tenet still maintains he was right. Plenty of high Bush administration officials have left office. Where are the books agreeing with the Left’s contentions that it was all a fraud?

    “Maybe its tough to prove the intent to lie on a evidential basis, but a rational person knows when they have been lied to. ”

    You can also be listening to the lies that your side tells you. The Mainstream Leftist Media, the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. pretends to be objective, but is not.

    “If someone came to your home and made a presentation on a product they want to sell, and you find that its all wrong, nearly every aspect of it, you’d think well, most probably I have been lied to intentionally, I would not trust that person again. ”

    Funny. That’s the way I feel about the Mainstream Media.

    “If there was not a basis to invade we should not have done it – build the case.”

    You are not listening to my case. This is about the UN and the Bush administration trying to save the UN’s credibility. This is about the Bush administration deciding that the best way to solve the terror problem, long term, was to divide the Mid East by attacking Iraq. Iraq was a much easier war to sell to the American people than invading Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is about Blair and Colin Powell persuading Bush that the US had to get the UN’s blessing. This is about a host of anti-American activists trying to take America down a peg. This is about the “old school European diplomats” trying to keep the Mid East stable when what it needed was change. This war was about all this and more. You want to ignore all that.

    “What was the rush? ”

    Oh? A year and more of preparations is a rush? All those congressional hearings was a rush? Was all the UN efforts a rush? Was giving Saddam three chances to resolve this a rush? You have a funny idea of what a rush is. I suspect that any action we took would have been a rush to you.

    “Did they drum up a war where there really did not need to be one at the time, of course they did. ”

    We disagree. But then, you Democrats have no plan for attacking the terrorist problem, other than to duck under the covers and pretend that there is no necessity for war.

    “They wanted to go to Iraq and make a stronger foothold in the region there. ”

    Find some proof of that and report back. There are legitamate strategic reasons for arrcking Iraq.

    “Iraq had strategic value, its not extremist and it had oil itself. Its not a bogus paranoid fantasy.”

    We disagree on the motives for going into Iraq.

    “On top of this basic falsehood you add the loads of pure idiotic immoral un-American stuff, the torture, abu graib,guantanimo bay, rendition, experts in the field of interrogation, military officials all say its counterproductive – we should not have been doing any of that. ”

    The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have. Most of those are lies piled high on lies or they are an “Oh-so-civilized” attempt to hinder our effectiveness. But, this is too far afield of the original discussion for me to want to talk about. I’ll just use General Sherman’s remark “War is hell.” An Clauwitz, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” I’ll add in for myself, “Anyone who expects perfection is war is out of touch with reality.”

    The Left just doesn’t want for the US to win it, so they throw up rubbish arguments.

    “I am also ashamed of the fact that we did not protect things like the antiquities of Iraq. ”

    You are misinformed. Most of the antiquities were either packed away from harm by the good museum officials, or they were sold in Europe by the bad ones. Very little was lost and almost all of that was returned to Iraq. The Mid East is totally corrupt and you expected that US forces, in the midst of the shooting, would prevent that? Jesus, you are unreal.

    “The protection of those sort of assets and ensuring general civil order are the reason why an occupation force needs to be larger, as recommended before we went in, than the administration planned.”

    If it had been as large as you want, then the Left would be decrying that it was TOO large and it was bankrupting America. These are just worthless arguments. The Left has no good ones.

    “SO getting back to your original statement that people or the media would not be asking to impeach Gore. ”

    I had said that there would be no impeachment, because the Republicans would never try that after the Clinton fiasco. The American people will not support the impeachment of a president.

    “The media, the public would have supported him, not because they have a bias, they don’t have a liberal bias anymore than reality does,”

    You must be far to the left to believe that.

    ” Gore, if he got to the point of moving on Iraq, would have made a credible transparent case to take action, whereas Bush did the opposite.”

    That’s just your opinion. Bush was quite clear to me. Maybe, you didn’t want to see it. Perhaps you opposed action in Iraq for a variety of reasons.

    “Honesty and decency builds trust and faith in the process. Maybe not for the corrupt Republicans who distort facts and abuse logic, but to everyone else.”

    The left have been harping on lies that are not lies. They are mistake, different opinions, false allegations and lies themselves. The Left is living in its own dream world where there is no threat to the US.

    “And that is after all what this series of images is about, discovering you’ve been scammed and that you are not getting what you expect, like honestly and simple competence, thats what IMHO bothers people the most about Bush.”

    You know, its funny. I often compare the Bush administration to the Lincoln administration, the tactics, the lies and the slurs cast by the Copperheads are exactly the same ones used against the Bush administration. Where are the Copperhead’s in history? Defeated, totally. So will the Left in this war. In twenty years, no one will admit to being against the war. Why? Because too much good will come out of it.

  • roz

    “Saddam was given chance after chance to avoid war and he chose to be defiant until the end. HE chose this war.”
    Oh please – I am really sorry for you if you actually believe this stuff.
    “We had plenty of plans. European Politicians screwed up our plans. The French Government forced Turkey to disallow a Northern Front”
    Oh yes it’s the French’s fault that we botched an occupation they opposed – totally their fault.
    “Every war is chaos; there is always disarray. Plans have to thrown away because the enemy intervenes. This was the fastest and most efficient war in human history. Conquering a country the size of Iraq in just three weeks put military historians in awe.”
    You know better than to make this argument. Sorry for you you are not big enough to take responsibility for the mistakes of your side. IT WAS NOT THE INVASION THEY F”D UP – IT WAS THE OCCUPATION. Occupations are not chaos – they are supposed to be orderly and safe for civilians. Allowing looting on this scale is simply not acceptable.
    “Did you expect that it would be peaceful after Saddam’s regime fell? Why?”
    Who said I did? It was Wolfowitz who said that, not me.
    “The Left has lied a lot in this war.” <<< ??? Sorry where is the lie?
    “You can also be listening to the lies that your side tells you. ” << where are the lies?
    “This is about the Bush administration deciding that the best way to solve the terror problem, long term, was to divide the Mid East by attacking Iraq.”
    This was never part of the case to anyone.
    “Oh? A year and more of preparations is a rush?”
    Clearly it was a rush since we were not ready when we invaded. And there was no reason to invade when we did. We had inspectors in the country who had to leave. There was no immediate cause to invade.
    “We disagree. But then, you Democrats have no plan for attacking the terrorist problem, other than to duck under the covers and pretend that there is no necessity for war.”
    Finishing the job in Afganistan and killing OBL was a plan everyone supported.
    “The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have.”
    I assume you are not referring to me here.
    “The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have. Most of those are lies piled high on lies or they are an “Oh-so-civilized” attempt to hinder our effectiveness. But, this is too far afield of the original discussion for me to want to talk about. I’ll just use General Sherman’s remark “War is hell.” An Clauwitz, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
    None of those quotes has anything to do with the treatment prisoners after conflict. They are talking about actions taken in the field of battle, in the fog of war – not in post hostility occupation. No one should be torturing prisoners or humiliating them.
    “You are misinformed. Most of the antiquities were either packed away from harm by the good museum officials, or they were sold in Europe by the bad ones. Very little was lost and almost all of that was returned to Iraq. The Mid East is totally corrupt and you expected that US forces, in the midst of the shooting (<<you mean looting), would prevent that? Jesus, you are unreal.”
    No you are wrong. The head of the Iraqi museum sought US protection for the antiquities and did not get it. There was no reason for them to be lost or destroyed at all. As corrupt as they may by, that is no excuse for us not to protect it.
    “The left have been harping on lies that are not lies. They are mistake, different opinions, false allegations and lies themselves. The Left is living in its own dream world where there is no threat to the US.”
    Kind of a lot of mistakes. Bush made a statement during his State of the Union address that we knew was false and had to be retracted. Powell will not stand behind the UN speech.
    Who said there is no threat to the US?

  • UrbanBard

    Welcome MisterGibson

    “nyone calling democratic party of US, not to mention Gore or Clinton “socialist” should check his head. (Or maybe check the Political Compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ )

    For a less politically biased quiz, look at:

    http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

    There are only two political ideologies present in the world today: individualism and Socialism. Individualism takes the rights of the individual as sovereign. These were enshrined in our US Constitution and the Declaration of independence. That is why the Leftists oppose both.

    Socialism takes the group or society as sovereign. These ideas are mutually exclusive, but people are often muddled in their thinking and try to embrace both.

    At one time, back at the turn of the 19th Century, the Democratic Party was the individualist party. It’s motto was, “Equal rights for all; special privileges for none.”

    The Republican party had been in power for 40 years and had become quite corrupt and under the control of the monied classes.

    Socialism had been promoted heavily in Europe but there wasn’t of much interest in it here. That is why there is a different form of Socialism in America. But, they all end in the same place. They all want the same thing– total governmental control.

    The Fabian party of England found that the best way of inserting Socialism there was “step by step.” The American Fabians called themselves Progressives which means the same thing. The idea was to find special interest groups and promote that the government should champion them. This meant special rights and free money giveaways.

    It was not clear early which political party the progressives would take control of because Teddy Roosevelt– a Republican (1904) was the first Progressive president.

    The Progressives took over the Democratic Party in 1908 and didn’t rock the boat much. Every time they did, they would lose members. There have been a series of groups who would get sick of the increasing socialism in the Democratic Party and leave. As Ronald Reagan said, “I never left the Democratic Party; it left me.” I waited until 1972.

    The second Progressive president was Woodrow Wilson– a Democrat. But, it wasn’t until 1928 that we got the third: Herbert Hoover– a Republican. Unlike his predecessor Calvin Coolidge, Hoover believed that the government should act aggressively in economic matters, so he intervened and made the 1929 stock market crash worse by trying to help out.

    FDR– a Democrat was the fourth Progressive president and mainly, all the Democratic president have been progressives since. Oddly enough, JFK was less progressive than Nixon was.

    As time proceeded the Progressives have become increasingly Leftist until in 1972 the New Left took control of the Democratic Party with McGovern’s reforms. There is little difference between a Democrat and a Socialist in the rest of the world. The methods are the same.

    Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it is mainly the Social Democrats who are supreme. The Russians impoverish themselves. The Social Democrats of the European Union are the model of Socialism today, since too much socialism destroys your economy. It is a hard line for the Social Democrats to follow since their wishes are always to go for totalitarian powers. That is why the European Union’s leadership and bureaucracy are unelected by anyone. That is why their economy puny compared to ours. The poorest state in the American Union, Mississippi, has a higher standard of living than the richest state in Europe: Sweden.

    “John Lennon was a socialist.
    Salvador Allende was a socialist.
    Gandhi was a socialist.
    Evo Morales is a socialist.
    Bernie Sanders is a socialist.”

    Yes, all.

    “But Gore and Clinton? Puh-leeze! By any global political standards they are moderate right-wingers. ”

    All that means that other places are more socialist than we are. Could you call Gore, Clinton or Kerry individualists? Puh-leeze.

    “Except for Bernie Sanders, you don’t have any socialists in power there. ”

    It is a matter of intent; what your values are. How much control you want for the government to have over the population. And the fact that the word “Socialist” has gotten a bad reputation here in America, just as Liberal has. Any smart politician will call themselves something innocuous. The current name in favor is Progressive. It doesn’t change any thing; they have the same values.

    “And even Sanders is actually a social democrat who just wants to be identified with socialist tradition.”

    Yes, he is the one that the other Democratic politicians wish their voters would let them emulate.

    “UrbanBand, you are imagining your enemies. That’s dangerous.”

    No, it is your ignorance that is dangerous. And your false world view that the government can solve all problems.

  • UrbanBard

    Welcome theBob”
    “It is interesting to me that after failing to win the presidency,… Al Gore decided to captain another, greater, struggle.

    Global warming is real, it is provable, and defeating it is not only possible but imperative.”

    I agree that Global Warming is real. Since the end of the “Little Ice Age” around 1850 the Earth’s Temperature has risen about a degree. There has been a corresponding rise of the ocean’s surface of about 8 inches, but that is no big deal.

    No one disputes that. The only question is the cause. The most reasonable answer is that it is a natural phenomenon. The Sun’s heat output is variable. The frost caps on the planet Mars are melting. The reasonable answer for that is the Sun. That answer applys to the Earth, too.

    “Unfortunately, these days it is popular to discount, solid hard fact, because of religious or spiritual reasons.”

    It’s not religious unless you call Socialism a religion. I believe it is just politics. I remember in the 1960’s the Environmentalists were promoting an Ice Age. Their solution is the same, both times: more government control of the economy.

    “Here we are in the 20th century, supposedly enlightened with critical thinking, but teaching the “fact” of evolution, is being challenged just because is doesn’t conform to some late stone age work of fiction.”

    You misstate the case. Natural selection is not in dispute even by the Catholic Church. It’s the religious (Atheistic) and political positions of evolution that we doubt. What Christians dispute is that Natural Selection is proof that God does not exist.

    “Federal funding is not allowed for embryonic stem cell research, for no other reason than, some faith based nonsense. ”

    As I said to Roz, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the funding of medical research, how ever valuable. There is plenty of private and State funded support. Embryonic Stem cell research seems like a dead end. It is too dangerous for a therapy; it gives people cancer. But there have been over a hundred Adult Stem Cell therapies developed. Private industry is researching those because there is a chance for a profit. Embryonic Stem Cell therapies are too far in the future. Leave it to the Universities.

    “Unfortunately this mindset is being indoctrinated in our children. They have become inured against the truth.”

    Thank goodness that children can see though Leftist dogma. The Left are not drawing a young audience today. The Left are strident and boring. There is nothing sexy about a sixties Leftist.

    “Although we base our court system on “cold hard facts”, misguided people are allowed to corrupt, young impressionable minds, by telling them if you “believe it” enough it must be true.”

    You misstate the case. Your anti-religious bias is showing. I’m religious but I demand proof. That is why I am a Christian; I found it. I was once a Leftist and it was too painful an existence. I came to a choice between suicide or God. I chose God.

    “Global warming will be stopped eventually.”

    What is very interesting is that we will have proof in the next twelve years. We are at the hight of the Sun Spot cycle and the heat output of the Sun follows it by a year or so. Meanwhile, the satellites report that the temperature off the top of clouds has remained steady since 1992. So, if the Sun Spot cycle holds, and the sun cools down, then the Earth will be considerably colder in a decade than now. Will the Left start promoting an Ice Age again?

    “The technology exists today, but it is the mindset of astrology, religion, acupuncture, chiropractic and other mumbo jumbo that makes people think there is an alternative to science.”

    Leftist bigotry strikes again. You just don’t know the issues at debate.

  • UrbanBard

    MisterGibson said:
    ‘UrbanBard’ obviously lacks the tools to understand, let alone deal with, the forces acting on us ”

    No, I merely disagree with your interpretation. I disagree with the evidence that the Mainstream Media presents you Liberals. I have alternate sources, including talking to the troops in Iraq. I just think differently from you. I am quite willing to debate the issues. If I am wrong, then I will admit it. None of you are persuasive. You have no solutions that have not been tried and failed.

    “prefers to savor some sort of Cliff Notes version of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged ”

    It was interesting reading, buy I never bought into her Philosophy called Objectivism. It was too much a contra-Communism. There places in life for social groups and action so long as they are voluntary. I just disapprove of coercive groups.

    “forgetting her critique of graft, incompetence, waste in cartels, monied cabals, large companies and other hierarchies. ”

    Don’t forget her critique of altruism, petty bureaucrats, churches, Government control of the economy, etc.

    “His sad defense of Cheney charting out how to divvy up the anticipated spoils of Iraq”

    I can’t read Cheney’s mind. I don’t believe you can either. I do not know what happened in these meetings. Neither do you. If you had any real evidence; there would be more than just vague accusations. I prefer to have an objective viewpoint. A person is considered innocent in America until proven guilty– except for Republican politicians.

    “If he’s so all-fired sure of what we ought to be doing overseas, then why doesn’t he stop pounding out blog re-comments like a one-note Samba and sign up to go extend the Green Zone?”

    They won’t take me although I served in the Air Force in Vietnam. I’ve been shot at, almost killed by inches, shot back and killed two VietCong.

    I’d go, but I just turned 65.

  • http://www.formandfunction.com/ MisterGibson

    UrbanBard,

    First of all, beyond the critiques I’ve leveled I do appreciate the service you’ve given in that other nasty civil war we got involved in, Vietnam. Most citizens simply do not understand the hardships imposed on soldiers and their families. You’ve earned whatever pension and benefits you can squeeze out of this administration. I’d argue the military is much more like a massive labor union / lobby group in many respects, but that’s for another chat and only if you actually face the various topics already brought up.

    OK. That said, I would have thought history taught you the folly of US involvement in such ‘actions’ as warning to our invasion and occupation of another country and the civil war that results. It’s certainly a lesson on most American minds these days even if you can rationalize the conundrum away… And harden your heart to the suffering millions we’ve displaced across the middle-east… And the monied graft shoveling huge funds to some of the same milspec players who bilked us in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Wasn’t that invoiced to American pocketbooks under the ‘Domino Theory’ … where country after country would go {enemy du jour} commmie? Don’t we trade and invest with {ostensbily} communist Vietnam today? Think of the flowing blood of your buddies seeping into the soil – for what?!? I have friends who take surf vacations there now. Scare-mongering is quite profitable short-term, heh? The hard truth is you’ve been had more than I because you believe the fairy tales, sops and red meat these demagogues throw you – but we are all at the short end of the stick here – make no mistake about that.

    My own father went over during the Tet and I understand very well the burdens you probably faced – and your family. I am currently playing father-figure to my nephews as I have family members spending the last few years at GitMo and other undisclosed locations in the euphemistic role of “communicator”. I have been told by my relative that there are many, many, innocent people locked up for years on end @ GitMo. The truth is we were handing out money like candy in Afghanistan and enormous numbers of innocent people were offered by locals {often just tribal rivals} to collect the bounty. Why isn’t the GwB admin touting conviction after conviction from the rooftops, chortling their successes? Because they DO NOT have any. Riddle me this: why do we keep releasing these prisoners w/o charge, but still held for _years_ w/no trial… and this would-be King George claims he can do the same for any US citizen he deems unfit… how is this an American value?
    I suggest everyone google, “Camp Iguana” to see the absurdity of painting everyone there with a black terrorist brush. It’s the underage area where 14-yr olds are given time-outs {!} and have the soccer ball taken away to face discipline… WOW, scary evil terrorists the lot of them! It would be a funny farce if there wasn’t so much blood dripping and pain emanating from our American flag.

    Face the ugly truth: Goldwater wouldn’t recognize your beloved Republican party mouthing platitudes about Freedom and Liberty while conducting themselves as they do. If you actually addressed the issues I bring up I might pay more attention to you. As it is your content to ignore my points in a defensive stance of tired old name-calling archetypes – hence my ref to Bolsheviks. This works for the Rush’s of the world because they don’t let alternate voices actually interact with them on-air, whereas here you don’t have a phone bank operator screening calls and thumb on the microphone kill-switch. Harder going isn’t it?
    Doesn’t it burn to know Rush got out of serving next to you because he couldn’t keep his ass clean, developed a boil on his butt, and was then medically excused from shooting the VC that almost got you? Which of your comrades might he have saved if he had the strength of character you have? How does Cheney’s numerous deferments sit with you in this light?

    As for Cheney and War Spoils, Freedom of Info reqs have revealed enough of this meeting to show such things as mapping oil reserves for plunder. What does the truth of FOIA releases mean when the courts are controlled by party hacks, so any information cannot be acted on? This is the rule of law your buddies died for in Vietnam?

    O… one more thing.. I heard an interview last year, er, almost two years ago actually, with a doctor being called back for Iraq duty at the age of 62… just about your age now. Imagine that. I find it hard to believe you couldn’t find _some_ kind of task among the myriad contractor positions over there… but I suppose you haven’t bothered to inquire about any of these 100K+ roles {almost equal to the number of proper soldiers we have}, heh? Since this administration saw fit to put recent college grads in charge of the Iraq stock exchange I am sure your qualified for most jobs listed since party loyalty & family connections are more important than ability and wisdom.
    Sounds like a neo-royalty structure firming up to me.