It's not uncommon for an interviewer to tell a guest offering orotund pronouncements that he's sounding "like a candidate." But Meredith Vieira took that one giant step further this morning, informing renegade Republican Chuck Hagel that he was sounding downright "presidential." Of course, nothing sounds more presidential to an MSMer's ears than defeatist criticism of the war in Iraq and by extension of the current occupant of the White House. But when it came to the key question, Hagel, far from flashing presidential timber, equivocated like a garden-variety pol.
Vieira: "Senator, at this point, do you believe we are fighting and dying for nothing?"
Hagel immediately went into bob-and-weave mode: "Well, I think the Congress needs to take a look at it and each member of Congress needs to go on the record and need [sic] to address the issue in a very clear way so that they can go back to their constituents and say yes I either support an escalation to put 22,000 more troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war, or I don't."
View video here.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Senator, your resolution doesn't "take a look at it." It would deny the president the means to fight this war. Hagel pontificated at length until Meredith, clearly dissatisfied with his evasiveness, tried again:"But again, senator, do you believe that we are fighting and dying for nothing, at this point?"
Hagel: "Well, we're asking that question. When you say dying and fighting for nothing, what are the parameters, what's the definition?"
No, Sen. Hagel, you're not "asking that question." By condemning the president's policy and opposing the surge, you're answering it. You obviously do believe our people are fighting and dying in vain. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say so?
Later, Vieira hit Hagel with a quote from Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT] accusing Hagel of "playing around with resolutions," adding "most Republicans want us to win over there."
Hagel seems given to big-league bloviating, but within his windy response to the Hatch quote was this: "Again, I go back to the question of what do you mean, 'win'? . . . Are we going to just blindly to continue to feed more troops into this situation, a sectarian civil war that American troops cannot win?"
In closing, Vieira turned to Hagel's ambitions: "I can't let you go without asking you, Senator Hagel. Are you planning to run for president? You're sounding presidential."
Hagel, albeit clumsily so, offered up a stock answer: "You'll be one of the first I, I let know and soon as I let, ah, let you know, we'll go from there. Thank you."
So let's see. Defeatism, leavened with a "define your terms" dodge reminiscent of Bill Clinton soliloquizing on the meaning of "is." Guess that would sound "presidential" to a member of the liberal media.
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hagel?
January 26, 2007 - 09:47 ET by allanfCan someone remind me. Is Chuck Hagel a Republican?
Define "Republican&quo
January 26, 2007 - 09:50 ET by Mark FinkelsteinDefine "Republican" ;-)
It's interesting that Hagel c
January 26, 2007 - 10:03 ET by EvilRoyIt's interesting that Hagel claims he became a Republican while serving in Viet Nam when the Democratics in Congress cut funding to troops in during that war. He now seems bent on alienating our troops in Iraq. Maybe this is just an attempt by a loyal Republican to increase the number of Republicans in the military by doing today what caused him to become one back in the 1960's. ;)
Republican: A person who is a
January 26, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Dave RRepublican: A person who is a member of an American political party that was once dominated by the principles of conservatism but has, over the last ten years or so, moved sharply leftward to occupy the area of the "murkey middle" the Democrat Party vacated when it lurched to the extreme far left.
How's that?
"Republican" = a me
January 26, 2007 - 14:37 ET by mattm"Republican" = a member of the Republican Party.
Technically, Hagel is a Republican, but then, my old rustbucket of a 1979 Impala was technically a car.... : )
"a sectarian civil war
January 26, 2007 - 17:13 ET by motherbelt"a sectarian civil war that American troops cannot win"
Hagel can't define "win", but he apparently knows that whatever it is, American troops can't do it.
allanf,In name only. Only lib
January 26, 2007 - 09:53 ET by msh1973allanf,
In name only. Only liberal Republicans get face time on these stupid shows. Who are these people who keep voting for this fake Republican?
Maybe he's a NACILBUPER.T
January 26, 2007 - 10:54 ET by Jack BauerMaybe he's a NACILBUPER.
That's a Republican who seems to have gotten his thinking backwards.
If that's the case Jack, is
January 26, 2007 - 11:06 ET by MightyMouthIf that's the case Jack, is Lieberman a:
TARCOMED
or
CITARCOMED ?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Tar-comed is great.Certai
January 26, 2007 - 11:13 ET by Jack BauerTar-comed is great.
Certainly we could benefit with a few more getting a TAR-COMED OVER.
That's interesting, the dif
January 26, 2007 - 11:39 ET by JDWThat's interesting, the difference between the rino facetime and the liberal mockery. Hagel is willing to dance with the devil and shuns his own. Lieberman simply stands up for America.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
and here's my dumb a$$ tryi
January 26, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Troika37and here's my dumb a$$ trying to figure out what base NACIL was... Um... BUPERS what? lol
Don't be so hard on yoursel
January 26, 2007 - 15:09 ET by MightyMouthDon't be so hard on yourself there Troika. You're relativily new here. It took me a while to pick up on some of the backward and twisted humor too :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Let's start a trade-Hagel-for
January 26, 2007 - 11:28 ET by FishFace222Let's start a trade-Hagel-for-Lieberman campaign.
We're going to be pretty &q
January 26, 2007 - 13:16 ET by MightyMouthWe're going to be pretty "upside down" on that transaction. Same things happens to me everytime I use a trade in on a new car. We for sure owe more on Hagel then he is worth :-p
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
what do you mean, 'win'? .
January 26, 2007 - 09:52 ET by motherbeltDeleted....edited post below
So what is the definition of Win?
January 26, 2007 - 09:56 ET by cjkinseyI assume you have the same criticism of the administration, since they have not defined winning, what the "surge" will do, and how it improves the chances of this "winning".
http://iamnotsosure....
They have defined it. The m
January 26, 2007 - 11:33 ET by FishFace222They have defined it. The media fails to report it.
Winning is getting the Iraqi people to be able to handle their own security. The surge will help hold areas that have been cleared of terrorists by our military. That's a change from the past where the military did not have enough people to hold these areas--a mistake that has been acknowledged by GWB and is being corrected.
Try listening or watching something other than the Clintoon News Network or freaks like Olberman.
Fishface
January 26, 2007 - 12:01 ET by cjkinseyAh if it were just so simple.
If that is the definition of victory, "the Iraqi people to be able to handle their own security".
Then they had this before we ever went there. Was that really the reason we went there? Care to try again?
http://iamnotsosure....
Wrong again. I did not say
January 26, 2007 - 12:19 ET by FishFace222Wrong again. I did not say that was the reason we went there and they have had sectarian violence there for decades. Ask the Kurds. The reason we went was to protect the world from Hussein and his WMD program. We have taken care of that problem. We now have to help a new government get up and running instead of leaving a void like we have so many times in the past.
fishface
January 26, 2007 - 13:07 ET by cjkinseyFishface, nor did I say that you said this was reason we went. But it did draw out that you think we went to protect the world from Saddam and WMD. Which we know now, he didn't have, and that our administration knew he didn't have. So while yes you can claim you have taken care of the problem, and I support you fulling in doing so, if you then claim that we have completed our military mission and want to bring the military folks home. However if the you support putting more in, we have to go back to for what purpose and what is the goal. How do our guns and military build their government. I suggest that they don't, won't, and aren't intended to.
Laws, money, power, and jobs are what will build the government back up. Remove our military and the violence will subside.
The problem with this, is there isn't a way to allow them to do this on their own while filling the pockets of Haliburton, whose stock has risen from 10.33/share on 7mar03 to 29.40/share today.
Do ask the kurds, they want to be left alone and the ability to build their own future. This is why the communications must start and not more troops and violence.
CJ - you sound foolish
January 26, 2007 - 13:13 ET by JimboProve that the President knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Give specific, undeniable proof. I’m waiting. Otherwise, drop that tired line. It makes you look foolish.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 13:19 ET by cjkinseyWhat would you consider proof? Let me take a quick stab at it though. The simplest is that we invaded Iraq. If we actually thought they had a nuclear weapon, we would not have invaded. Becuase we would have simply walked/flown into our own destruction if he had a nuclear bomb, or WMD. If it was truly thought that he had a nuclear weapon to use on us, we would not have marched into his country.
WOW
January 26, 2007 - 13:26 ET by JimboWow.
The term “proof” is truly straightforward and unambiguous. True to your liberal heritage, you prefer to twist that to make your point. Your prior post is light years from the definition of proof.
If what you said is true, you wouldn’t defend yourself against an aggressor you knew possessed weapons of mass destruction. That’s OK. Everyone has their opinion. This is a free country. Fortunately for the rest of us, the President and people like him don’t agree with you, which keeps this country free for people like you to continue to make ridiculous statements such as this one.
Back to my previous point, if you can’t prove that the President knew there were no WMD,s then drop it. It makes you look foolish.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 13:43 ET by cjkinseyHow am I trying to imprison this country, or whatever term you think is the opposite of your freedom?
How am I trying to take away your freedom, I have never said you don't have the right to your opinion, I have just tried to make sense of it.
If you value your freedom so much, why are you willing to give it up? What keeps this country free is the constitution and its laws.
Back to my point, if you would attack someone with a knife if he had a machine gun, you would be insane. Are you calling the president insane?
If you don't like my argument, what if you expanded your vision and included North Korea in this discussion. Why have they been treated differently?
It is not the constitution th
January 26, 2007 - 13:46 ET by BDIt is not the constitution that ensures your freedom, it is armed citizens willing to INSIST on those freedoms and will ing to put their lives on the line.
Why has North Korea been treated fdifferntly? They are armed and capable of mayhem already. Stopping them is Moot.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 14:03 ET by cjkinseyYou see the problem? We had to attack Iraq, because he had these weapons and was an eminent threat against us, but yet, they didn't have them yet and therefore we had to attack them before he gets them.
BD to some extent we agree entirely, and so you should be ready to take up arms against the bush administration for trying to take those freedoms away. We can only do that to ourselves, except for the clear case of being killed.
Secret Service!
January 26, 2007 - 14:08 ET by JimboYour fist paragraph is unintelligible, your second paragraph calls for an armed insurrection to overthrow the government of the United States. Does anyone have the phone number for the Secret Service??
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
I don't know why you guys was
January 26, 2007 - 14:42 ET by Roger the ShrubberI don't know why you guys waste your time "debating" this Sheehanista. It's a waste of time and energy.
Great picture Shrub. Don't
January 26, 2007 - 14:50 ET by JimboGreat picture Shrub. Don't recall seeing it on the news.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Rog...What we have here is an
January 26, 2007 - 14:52 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
What we have here is another 'New World Order' alarmist. These folks call for the overthrow of our government as a blow to the NWO. Next on their list is an all out war to capture Big Foot.
Oddly enough, I believe the s
January 26, 2007 - 14:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberOddly enough, I believe the same nutjob called both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh's shows today. I listen to Beck every day, and Limbaugh only occasionally. I happened to have Limbaugh and the same douche called, talking about the NWO, but didn't get to mention the "Bohemian Garden" before Rush cut him off.
Today must be Libotard Day.
Rog...Some of this is coming
January 26, 2007 - 15:05 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
Some of this is coming from the 'Resistance Manifesto' site. They have been talking about a co-ordinated effort to get themselves heard on talk radio for about a week now.
That was it!I couldn't rememb
January 26, 2007 - 16:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberThat was it!
I couldn't remember. Thx, CT!
I just went to the "Resi
January 26, 2007 - 16:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberI just went to the "Resistance Manifesto" website.
The retard running the show is John Connor, no, not the little shit from the Terminator movies, but you will remember from the Danny Bonaduce video that came out last month.
We're talking FatesWebb territory here.
Rog...Pretty worthless stuff
January 26, 2007 - 17:12 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
Pretty worthless stuff there, huh?
Roger the Shrubber
January 26, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Clear thinkerRoger... M. Savage is next. I just copied this from their own website...
this Friday (Jan 26th) lets all call Michael Savage. He probably won't use the 7 second delay to prevent statements from making it to air..he'll probably just start yelling. his number is
CALLING MICHAEL SAVAGE 1(800) 449-8255
And his show airs live from 5:00pm Central to 8pm central. thats 3:00 to 6:00 Pacific, 6:00 to 9:00 Eastern. you can stream the show live from www.760kfmb.com
How its done....usually you should call RIGHT WHEN THE SHOW STARTS. he'll mention a few topics and take calls on that. these hosts don't want to have the listeners ask random questions....they want very much to stay on topic....sometimes savage will say he's sick of a topic and switch, and then the board op drops all calls and opens it up for new ones on the topic. I've been on hold with savage numerous times when the guy gets on and says "we're chaning topics...sorry" and hangs up on me. Lets jam him on 9/11 and Bohemian Grove.....and again....if you plug a website you'll get cut off...so bring up issues and questions.
I don't know if i'll be able to record the show, so if someone can record it, please email me the show, or mp3z of the calls.
Last edited by John_Conner on Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:58 am; edited 1 time in total
As a new member here, you'r
January 26, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Mark FinkelsteinAs a new member here, you're welcome to read our threads and express your opinions. But I'd strongly suggest laying off the armed insurrection calls.
PS: imminent, not eminent.
If yer gonna have an insurr
January 26, 2007 - 14:42 ET by balboaIf yer gonna have an insurrection, the first thing you're gonna want to do is set up a perimeter for your compound.
And round up all the vacuous
January 26, 2007 - 16:08 ET by BDAnd round up all the vacuous young women with spineless young men ala Waco and Jonestown....
We had to attack Iraq, becaus
January 26, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Jack BauerWe had to attack Iraq, because he had these weapons and was an eminent (sic) threat against us.
The word in imminent.
Eminent means a person is respected, or famous. Look it up.
And Bush never said what you just said he said.
What he actually said was that he would never wait until a threat to the United States became "imminent."
Don't worry though, no one will ever accuse you of being eminent.
cjkinsey... Mark,
January 26, 2007 - 15:00 ET by ww thumpercjkinsey... Mark, Noel, Greg; are you reading this?? Time for at least a "warning" or....B...... v Being "Politcaly Correct" with ISLAM will distroy America......V
CJKinsey:As I have stated sev
January 26, 2007 - 16:06 ET by BDCJKinsey:
As I have stated several times in coutner to your earlier postings. WMD was only one of Sixteen seperate reasons to go to war against Iraq. Therefore your assessment from your first paragraph is not valid.
Regarding your second paragraph, I have not lost, nor am I in any danger of losing any of my freedoms to any actions that the Bush Administration has performed. Please cite for me a freedom I have lost.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 17:05 ET by cjkinseyI have lost this thread I don't know which first paragraph you are referencing.
As to the list of freedoms, one is your freedom to peace of mind, according to the president.
The second is your right to privacy, NSA wiretapping.
Third is the right for oversight to the actions of the executive branch. In the "patriot act" there is a section allowing for any prosecutor to be removed from their job and replaced without congressional oversight.
Just the other day, gonzalez was trying to aruge that you are not guaranteed Habeas Corpus.
It continues in light of efforts and potential.
I have not lost any freedoms.
January 26, 2007 - 17:24 ET by BDI have not lost any freedoms.
1.) I have great peace of mind knowing that my compadres spend long days and nights hunting bad people throughout the world and bringing them to justice. In the past month we have announced that both Khaddaffy Janjalani and Abu Soliaman have assumed room temperature. Their deaths comforts my mind and should comfort your immensely if you were to know them.
2.) I have not called, nor have I received calls from an overseas entity known to plan death and destruction in the US. Nor did my grandparents receive and reply to coded transmissions from Germany during WWII on an shortwave radio. They did not have their rights interfered with nor have I. No harm no foul.
3.) Regarding congressional oversight. Seems to me that they are having longwinded meetings right now rialing about what each politico FEELS shoudl have happened. What more oversight do you want?
4.) Regarding Habeus Corpus, enemy combatants do not receive just such a judgement and that is what is referenced. How many Illegal combatants during WWII were brought before a judge just to assure that we could hold them in our prisons? ZERO.
I have not lost any freedoms. Nor have you.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 18:03 ET by cjkinsey1. This was sarcasm, sorry.
2. This was an interesting argument when this issue first came to light 2 years ago, but since then they have said, well ok, it doesn't just have to be international. Then it raises the question of who is a threat and what speech is a threat. This is where the loss comes. Who gets to make this defintion?
3. What is going on is not oversight. And with a president and vice president saying they can make what statements they want, but I have decided and we are going down this path. This is unconstitutional and should be blatantly offensive to you.
4. Same problem who gets to make the decision about an enemy combatant? This is not the right of an individual, we have said noone gets to make this decision, and because you have been fooled by this you have lost a tremendous amount.
2.) Please list all admissi
January 26, 2007 - 18:23 ET by BD2.) Please list all admissions of transcripts of such monitored transmissions into a court of law for prosecution of a US person. Has not happened, nor likely tooo happen.
But, has such information been used to identify threats against US persons? I am quite certain it has.
3.) Specifically what oversight has yet to occur. Can Congress use its power of the purse to cut off any offending program- YEP! Can the appropriate Congressional Oversights groups such as the select committees review? YEP! What oversight has not occurred?
Or is the oversight you wish to see a congressmen reading classified documents intot he microphone of All THings Considred so our enemies get a better idea of how to counter our efforts? As such, I am not offended by the administration, but am mightiliy offended by Congressional staffers leaking material which can harm me and the boys.
4.) A person carrying magazines of 7.62 x 39 ammunition and who tests positive for gunshot residue who is picked up in the mountains of Afghanistan by SFC Bagadonoughnuts SF A-Team following an ambush not wearing a uniform is AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT. There is no requirement for a civilian judge in San Francisco to review this after the Three member military panal has made this determination.
Detaining said individual does not harm my freedoms, it actually protects my freedoms.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 18:53 ET by cjkinseyBD what makes that person an IC and not a POW?
No I am not saying announce secrets over a global broadcast or even a national one. I am saying that we elect representatives so it is there job, to know this information in detail. Honest detailed discussions, I don't believe have happened.
Well there is some truth to your statement, and this the lack of response from a complicit republican congress. Had they been doing their job, we might have seen earlier that this president plans to do what he wants regardless earlier. We have been let down by our leaders and we need to hold the to account.
How has the detention of Maher Arar, protected your freedom?
BD what makes that person an
January 26, 2007 - 21:56 ET by JimboBD what makes that person an IC and not a POW?
Ever hear of the Geneva Convention?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
On illegal combatants
January 26, 2007 - 22:09 ET by UnsaneAs I have seen BD point out before (hat tip to BD), there IS a reason that every single soldier, sailor, Airman and Marine have "name tapes" on their BDUs that have the person's last name and then the letters "U.S." followed by the branch of service. This is because that is what the Geneva Convention demands of its signatories for proper identification of legal combatants.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Thanks for pointing that out
January 27, 2007 - 14:26 ET by BDThanks for pointing that out Unsane.
The current and past conventions demand that legal combatants must wear a visible sign regarding essentially which side they are on. (We wear uniforms and as Unsane points out I proudly wear a tape saying "US Army" over my pocket flap of my ACU uniform.)
If a soldier/combatant were to wear civilian clothing, or an enemy uniform as a manner of ruse to foil the other side he becomes an illegal combatant, or if not armed and perfroming a mission like reconnaissance he is classified as a spy.
Thus, if we were to push it, we could justifiably execute any of the captured illegal combatants picked up and currently stored at Gitmo and Geneva legally could not say boooo.
CJ - you're killing me.
January 26, 2007 - 13:54 ET by JimboHow am I trying to imprison this country, or whatever term you think is the opposite of your freedom?
No idea what you are talking about.
How am I trying to take away your freedom, I have never said you don't have the right to your opinion, I have just tried to make sense of it.
Still don’t know what you are talking about.
If you value your freedom so much, why are you willing to give it up? What keeps this country free is the constitution and its laws.
And the military has nothing to do with that. Is that what you are saying?
Back to my point, if you would attack someone with a knife if he had a machine gun, you would be insane. Are you calling the president insane?
If someone were attacking my family with a machine gun, I would fight back with my bare hands if I needed to. If you wouldn’t do the same, I’d call you insane.
If you don't like my argument, what if you expanded your vision and included North Korea in this discussion. Why have they been treated differently?
So are you saying that we should abandon UN talks and invade North Korea and Iraq? Both will be dealt with appropriately and when the time is right.
Nice misdirection on the whole lack of proof on “Bush lied about WMDs” discussion though.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo, there is one word to s
January 26, 2007 - 14:01 ET by bassndudeJimbo, there is one word to sum up all of cj's nonsence. That word is "Crap~!"
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 14:03 ET by misterbill"Back to my point, if you would attack someone with a knife if he had a machine gun, you would be insane. Are you calling the president insane?"
"If someone were attacking my family with a machine gun, I would fight back with my bare hands if I needed to. If you wouldn’t do the same, I’d call you insane."
Jimbo, when I saw that question I was impressed in two ways.
One--without understanding the circumstances it would be difficult to say, but it does indicate a wide streak of cowardice.
Two-- What ?? the hell is he asking? what kind of argument/question is that?
If you do not try to fight against oppression you have already lost your life. It's just a matter of time until you are buried. I, too,would use bare hands , if necessary.
CJ- put down that pipe, it's affecting your reasoning!
"If it was truly thoug
January 26, 2007 - 14:48 ET by ckc1227"If it was truly thought that he had a nuclear weapon to use on us, we would not have marched into his country."
And if he knew there were no WMDs there, he would have secretly planted some there to cover his lie. Duh. And I don't think he ever said they had a nuclear weapon.
Sigh, the dumb just get dumberer
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
1.) Sixteen seperate reason
January 26, 2007 - 13:17 ET by BD1.) Sixteen seperate reasons were presented reference the need to invade Iraq, only one of which was referencing WMD. THese reasons extended from the fact that Saddam Gassed his people to the fact that he was paying bounties for captured US personnel who might be shot down patrolling the UN mandated no-fly zone. SHACK!
2.) Remove our military and violence will subside? The same argument was presented by the Anti-war movement regarding South East asia. We pulled out and "SURPRISE" the violence rose to incredibly high levels. Camboadians sloughtered by the millions. 700K+ of our former allies in South Vietnam "Liquidated." SHACK!
3.) The Kurds I have met with hardly wish to be left alone. The seek our continued support, military, political , and economic. SHACK!
Please try again.
BD Response
January 26, 2007 - 13:36 ET by cjkinseyBD I appreciate your comments.
I hope you don't take my responses the wrong way, but I would really like to continue this discussion.
1. UN No fly zones, why were these imposed? What if someone came to the US and said, because of what you have done in Haiti, you can't fly your own planes over this section of your country. How would you respond?
2. And now, the violence has subsided. I am not saying that it will immediately become paradise. But we must seriously look at what are the options. If we send in more military, do you suggest there will be less violence?
3. The Kurdish government wants us to remain in their country and to remain? I don't think it is that simple, there is more in what you say of the political and economic. They want us to help them with Turkey, supporting them in keeping some of the money from the oil derived from the Shiite southern Iraq, and what do they provide to us in return?
Not sure what Shack means?
cj...without a doubt you have
January 26, 2007 - 13:54 ET by bassndudecj...without a doubt you have demonstrated your ignorance, or your disreguard for the lives of those in Iraq. When refering to SE Asia, and your commit that, "And now, the violence has subsided." Seems you dont care how many die in the process or how long it takes for the violence to subside. Pull out of Iraq, in within the first year, the Kurds will be facing eradication, again. From the Turks, some in Iraq and Iran. The Christians in the area will be killed. And within the next two years, you will see another attack that pales 9/11.
You people never cease to amaze me, with your lack of understanding. Appeasement never works. Never has, never will. Your obvious lack of knowledge of history is glowinly apparent. You have demonstrated a total ignorance of the military and how it works. You have never served in the military, and the thought of military service, more than likely, brightens that yellow strip down you back. The one where most people have a spine.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass
January 26, 2007 - 14:10 ET by misterbillbass ditto. Right on>
bassn
January 26, 2007 - 15:30 ET by cjkinseyHow many Iraqi people, we will make it simple, enemies and innocent people have died? It is not that I don't care about life, that is why I was opposed to going into Iraq initially. Now we are talking about the way forward that causes the least problems. So it is not a disregard of life, but a best method forward.
We will have another attack, we might, do you not see how that is connected with our actions in the middle east.
Appeasement, what does that mean? What composes appeasement? I have never heard of anyone being convinced of a truth at the end of a gun or by force.
This is where I might actually agree that we are at war, a war of ideas. I am trying to help delineate those ideas and how I think they work, but they don't fit into short, simple, quippy remarks. So they will require some work. I am up for that kind of work and "fight".
cj.....How many Iraqi have di
January 26, 2007 - 15:46 ET by bassndudecj.....How many Iraqi have died? Not near as many as will die if we pull out now. Some 2 million or more died after we left Vietnam. But to read what you wrote, that was ok, because it did stop. However, it hasent stoped yet. Thats right. They are still purging those minorities over there.
The way forward is to pound, kill and punish those who will not lay down their arms. Kill the Iranians that cross the border OR supply the terrorists with weapons. If nessary, we replace the Syrian goverment with one that will crack down on those crossing the border there. Sidenote: None of the Arab countries want an Iran with atomic weapons either.
Appeasement is to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles, think Hitler here.
So far as anyone being convinced at the end of a gun, lets look at Japan and Germany in recent times. And for more folks, visit a prision sometime. Most all of those in those walls were convinced at the end of a gun. Some after they were shot, but they did become convinced.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
1.) Why were the no-fly zon
January 26, 2007 - 13:58 ET by BD1.) Why were the no-fly zones imposed? They were imposed following the first gulf war to reduce Saddams capabilities to primarily take revenge of Kuwait and also to protect Shia in the south, Kurds in the North in accordance wtih the Cease Fire. The ceasefire was essentially a contract signed between the victors and the vanquished.
2.) Violence always subsides following victory by a despot because HE KILLS EVERYONE who is a potential threat. Very much unlike our western philosophy. There will be less violence when we send more troops. The violence spikes in vaccuums..
3.) Correct. The Kurds desire our assistance and have goals similar to our own, politically, militarily, socially, and economically.
Shack is the radio call that a trained targeteer makes when his target has been totally destroyed by ordinance. Often you will hear USAF pilots use it when reviewing strike footage. By the way, it just feels GOOD to call it. SOrta like saying Touchdown following a long bomb in the 4th quarter.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 15:42 ET by cjkinsey1. Yes you have identified the first level of why, but you failed to address the second level of how would you feel if this were done to you? Why should he agree to this? Why did he invade Kuwait in the first place? Why were we helping him with money and weapons at the time? It is never just so simple.
2. Vaccuums of what, of military force, really. Is that why you don't break laws here? Or do you, if so which ones? Why? What makes them little laws that are ok to break?
Thanks for Shack, I can understand that. While I am asking what is MSM mean?
"While I am asking wha
January 26, 2007 - 15:56 ET by MightyMouth"While I am asking what is MSM mean?"
Well, based upon the blog you like so much, I must guess that "MSM" means:
Hi Hater!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
1.) How I FEEL is immateria
January 26, 2007 - 16:16 ET by BD1.) How I FEEL is immaterial as I am an analyst, and therefore a conservative. What I THINK about it is more important.
2.) All Laws are enforced by force and adverse action. Don't pay your taxes? Armed men come to your door to arrest you. if you resist they fill your hide with led. Es ist nicht?
MSM is mainstream media. NBC, CBS, ABC, New yOrk Times, Wash Post, CNN, etc
BD
January 26, 2007 - 17:13 ET by cjkinseyOk, change the word, what would you think, if you were asked not to fly over a part of the US. What would you think if the US were invaded by france, because they said Bush was guilty of war crimes?
CJ - you are very good at put
January 26, 2007 - 17:18 ET by florida_chadCJ - you are very good at putting yourself in the position of an Iraqi and thinking about things. Try putting yourself in the position of an American and then reexamine your positions. The UN agreed that the no fly zones were necessary. Do you know why?
Nevermind. Its America's fault. I know where you are coming from.
If I had lost a war in which
January 26, 2007 - 17:29 ET by BDIf I had lost a war in which I had massacred large numbers of people from a neighboring country in order to assure that they would not have a leadership infrastructure to compete with my new order... I would think that the civilized nations were showing restraint in only preventing my flights.
If the US were invaded by France I would assume we had a liberal in charge to allow such a thing.
"What do you expect from a cluture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting Big mac's and Disneyworld than the Nazi's." -Dennis Miller.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 18:18 ET by cjkinseyI don't think the invasion of Kuwait is that simple, given that we were supporting him at the time. It is not likely that he attacked without some discussion with us.
what does that even mean a liberal must have been in charge? So we have never been attacked when a republican "hawk" was in charge?
You are suggesting that Sadaa
January 26, 2007 - 22:00 ET by JimboYou are suggesting that Sadaam consulted with the first President Bush before he invaded? If you even remotely believe that, then you are truly lost my friend.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Supporting Iraq?
January 26, 2007 - 22:04 ET by UnsaneWe were supporting Iraq? Since when has the United States been manufacturing T-72s, Mirages, and planes designed by Mikoyan/Gurevich and other Soviet design bureaus? When has the United States ever designed or produced the Exocet?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Let's not forget those &quo
January 26, 2007 - 22:07 ET by JerryLet's not forget those "Scuds" with their pin-point accuracy.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
He attacked following a brief
January 27, 2007 - 14:35 ET by BDHe attacked following a brief discussion with a denizen of Foggy Bottom who did not say one way or the other. Typical Diplo. We need to resume hiring diplomats from West Point and Analpolis again instead of the Ivy diploma mills.
We supported Saddam in his fight with Iran, a nation we have been in conflict with since Jimmy Carter waffled in response to our embassy being seized. Which leads us to our second point....
Conservatives are less apt to be attacked since we have the guts to strike back. Note that Carter sent feeble diplo efforts to get our hostages back. Reagan made it know that when he was in office, things would be a bit "Harsher" for our enemies in Tehran. Guess which had a more efficaciousl effect?
THe US was attacked at least six times during the Clinton administration and the US responded by rippling off a few cruise missiles.
THe US was hit during the Bush administration and the response was to seize two countries within the affected region and begin democratizing those locations. We have also hunted the bad guys in the Horn of Africa and the Southern Philippines.
What would the Liberal response have been to 9/11? Probably twice as many cruise missiles as before and a lot of self loathing.....
BD - I think CJ is another h
January 26, 2007 - 13:38 ET by RunningBeerBD - I think CJ is another history revisionist. Those types like to forget that Saddam was blocking the UN required weapons inspections and refused to abide by the UN resolutions. By conveniently leaving out this huge piece of the puzzle they are able to fool themselves into believing this was all about oil. CJ's problem is he didn't figure there were enough of us left that remember the facts.
Running Beer
January 26, 2007 - 13:54 ET by cjkinseySeriously, you quote an arms control site? What about a news organization that reports the UN members, with pictures of them leaving Iraq, after the president told them we were about to bomb Iraq.
I have never mentioned oil. I have simply asked questions. It is funny that you think you know the arguments, this helps you only address the issues you know and not deal with the actual facts.
Let's remember that there were no weapons of mass destruction, showing that the inspections were working.
CJ - How can inspections work
January 26, 2007 - 14:56 ET by RunningBeerCJ - How can inspections work if they aren't being allowed? I'm standing on my head and telling myself black is white, white is black. I've tried yoga, deep meditation, even called L Ron... and I still can't figure out what your smoking.
RB...You are using logic with
January 26, 2007 - 14:59 ET by Clear thinkerRB...
You are using logic with this guy, probably a mistake.
Clear - Stupid of me, I shoul
January 26, 2007 - 15:06 ET by RunningBeerClear - Stupid of me, I should know better. His link was interesting to read though. A nice piece from the oh so honest CBS about inspectors leaving Iraq. Even a quote from Saddam himself saying he DID have WMD's but had gotten rid of them so no need to attack.
Pretty funny-that "news
January 26, 2007 - 15:03 ET by Del DolemontePretty funny-that "news organization" you link to is CBS News. The same CBS News whose lead TV "news" anchor/managing editor recklessly ran with a bogus story. To be fair, the link is actually C-BS running an Associated Press story. This is the same AP that has also been caught running false stories as "news".
In addition, when one actually reads the CBS/AP story, there is absolutely *no* mention of the President "telling the UN we were about to bomb Iraq." All it mentions is that Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum.
As for the WMDs, Bush's predecessor said Iraq had them, so did Bush's opponents in 2000 and 2004. So if Bush was lying about them, they were as well.
I'm Impressed
January 26, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Jimbo"Remove our military and the violence will subside"
He summed up his total lack of understanding of what is going on around him in 8 words. I’m impressed.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
"Remove our military a
January 26, 2007 - 14:58 ET by ckc1227"Remove our military and the violence will subside."
Wow, the sunni and shia (according to leftists)have been killing each other for thousands of years. Who knew all that violence was because we were in Iraq.
Still, maybe we should try that in Los Angeles by removing the police. We should keep the laws in place of course, but remove anyone with the power to enforce it. Surely then the gang violence will subside.
Thanks for proving the phrase in my sig line better than I ever could.
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
ck and jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 16:04 ET by cjkinseyI could define subside for you, but I don't want to insult you. But we have removed all the laws and removed all consequences. They have fought for thousands of years, which also means they have existed for thousands of years. So they clearly have some insight into what they are doing. They also haven't been killing each other in these numbers, otherwise they wouldn't still be in existence. So there might be something a little bigger and deeper going on.
Gangs are a problem not simply solved, but must you continue to pitch to yourself to be able to create an argument?
cj...you really should read u
January 26, 2007 - 16:10 ET by bassndudecj...you really should read up on your history. The Persians and the Arabs have been at a constant war for centuries. See the Ottoman empire, read about it and get back to me. You are aware that the Iranians are not Arabs, right?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
First you bring up the "
January 26, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberFirst you bring up the "Maginot Wall", and now claim the residents of the Middle East HAVEN'T been killing each other "in these numbers" until today?
I would consider replying to you, but you are too stupid to understand. Your lack of historical knowledge is impressive.
You must be 15 years old. All you have is what you copy from the Libotard website you hang out at.
Come back when you have a better perspective of history, Junior.
SHACK!!! "I
January 26, 2007 - 16:22 ET by Uncle JohnSHACK!!!
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Roger
January 26, 2007 - 16:35 ET by cjkinseyMust less impressive post, do you have a point, or do you just want to call me names.
Was my last post too complica
January 26, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Roger the ShrubberWas my last post too complicated for you?
Okay, let me make it short and sweet for you:
Do not talk about history unless you actually understand it and can reference it properly. You lose all your credibility when you do that.
Rog...Did you see my post abo
January 26, 2007 - 17:40 ET by Clear thinkerRog...
Did you see my post about Savage?
I went to the stupid whackjob
January 26, 2007 - 17:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberI went to the stupid whackjob site after reading your post. Thx for the heads up, CT. I missed it the first time I was on that site.
roger
January 26, 2007 - 18:23 ET by cjkinseynot complicated, just not relevant. Nor did it make any actual agruments, just attacks.
Make an argument and I will analyze it.
Sigh.You base your arguments
January 26, 2007 - 21:19 ET by Roger the ShrubberSigh.
You base your arguments off of poorly-learned history. That makes your arguments, and the basis of your stance on Iraq, well, foolish and simplistic. You show all of us the inability to understand it. Since you cannot not understand history, how can you understand current events?
Like I previously said, it looks like you are just regurgitating crap you read on another board, and are just posing inane questions to be an ass.
Your audience with me is now over, Hater. You may leave now.
Rog,Didn't you find this line
January 26, 2007 - 21:33 ET by BlondeRog,
Didn't you find this line a bit incongruous (not to mention disingenuous?)...
Make an argument and I will analyze it.
Pretty funny coming from such a troll.
As much as I hate to admit it...this isn't hater.
A KosBot, no doubt. But not Hater.
Hater had more flair than this one.
Saying the administration kne
January 26, 2007 - 15:56 ET by FishFace222Saying the administration knew he didn't have them is a flat out lie. 6 other countries and the previous administraion also said the same thing.
In a perfect world, Iraq would have become a paradise after Saddam was toppled. No one believes that was going to happen. It is a lesson learned from several other conflicts in US history. In order to do the job correctly, we need to help the new government get on its feet and be able to fully function.
Our military is second to none and can provide training to an Iraqi defense system that is in it's infancy and that takes time. They are not there with guns to shoot holes in everything they see. I'm sure they would be extremely happy if they did not have to fire a single shot.
Remove our military and the country truly becomes a quagmire with Iran just waiting in the wings to take over. If a gang fight is happening outside your door, would you just tell the cops to stay home because the violence will subside?
You can quit harping about Halliburton. They have been used since the LBJ administration to do this kind of work. Nobody can do what they do as quickly and as efficiently.
I believe communication had started and the Kurds helped us from the north to topple Saddam. If they wanted to be left alone, this would not have happened.
PROBLEM CJKINSEY
January 26, 2007 - 22:07 ET by SportPoliticsThe problem is cjkinsey - we don't know he didn't have wmd.
If you read the reports, it's a guess, because we didn't find a huge stash, but they haven't got a clue if any went swiftered away.
They don't even know what happened to 300 tons of high grade nuclear core compression explosives tittered off when we got there, including several high level nuclear research buildings, professionally dismanlted and hauled off - disappeared - that the IAEA and Baradei whined to the UN about.
So the truth is, the eggheads that get to talk might think he didn't have it( of course, they have to say so, since it's not in their hands- and if they ever said it went missing - the whole inspections process would be a joke never to be used again), but they certainly do not know that he didn't. See that's the problem. David Kaye said you should invest in a digging company for the next 100 years, because that's how long it would take to dig up everything they have buried in the sand. Yes, David Kaye said so.
That's alright, I know you want to believe your view, and the msm's view, but some of us have a realistic view, and when 300 tons of RDX/HDX etc. disappear under our noses with dismantled high level nuclear research buildings gone- and they don't have a clue how it happened or where those things went, I'm not about to give them credit for knowing no WMD was pilferred away either, which they claimed might be anywhere in country.
Good day.
MSM Robot
January 26, 2007 - 13:03 ET by JimboTo read this and see into the soul of another MSM robot, is sad. Throwing an attitude on top of it makes it laughable.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 13:11 ET by cjkinseyYou have mastered name calling, how about some actual thought and specifics?
How and please read my soul, I am fascinated.
I feel sorry for you.
January 26, 2007 - 13:15 ET by JimboFor what its worth, I feel sorry for you that you believe what you are typing.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Jimbo
January 26, 2007 - 13:24 ET by cjkinseyI am happy to be shown to be wrong, that is why I am here. Show me.
CJ
January 26, 2007 - 13:29 ET by JimboSee my post above regarding the President's "lie" about WMD's. You couldnt be more wrong.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
CJ - Fishface hit it pretty w
January 26, 2007 - 12:11 ET by RunningBeerCJ - Fishface hit it pretty well but in addition, the surge will also be used to stop the flow of weapons & training coming from Iran to the Shiites. Cutting off that flow will be HUGE in improving our chances of winning.
Senator Hagel #1:what do yo
January 26, 2007 - 09:55 ET by motherbeltSenator Hagel #1:
what do you mean, 'win'? .
Senator Hagel #2
a sectarian civil war that American troops cannot win?"
So Senator Hagel doesn't even know how we are going to define "win", but he knows that American troops can't do it?
I would like to see arm chair
January 26, 2007 - 10:02 ET by Steve SternI would like to see arm chair General Hagel stand in front of our military men and women and tell them that they do not have the capability to win a war. And if he were right, why have a military at all? Our military could never lose a war. Our politicians lose it for them.
Steve Stern response
January 26, 2007 - 12:03 ET by cjkinseySteve, do you really think this is a war? What if we tried to define war a bit? Who are we fighting and why?
These are the beginning of the questions about what it means to win? what are we winning?
http://iamnotsosure....
"Who are we fighting and
January 26, 2007 - 12:15 ET by RunningBeer"Who are we fighting and why?"
You really need to get up to speed on this. Try a different channel maybe.
Cj, What is an illegal alien,
January 26, 2007 - 12:21 ET by rdave63Cj, What is an illegal alien, is it illegal human? What is the definition of war? Is English your second language Pal? Let me guess, next you will say,
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
rdave
January 26, 2007 - 12:36 ET by cjkinseySince it is so simple why don't you answer it, what is this war?
What are its goals? Who are the opponents, specifically?
What makes someone illegal? Why are they breaking a law? If you have millions breaking a law, you must question the law.
There have been are millions
January 26, 2007 - 12:52 ET by FishFace222There have been millions of people that have murdered and robbed banks, too. Should we question the laws against those actions? But then again, people that vote for Democrats tend to elevate murderers (Che Gueverra, Tupac), rapists (BJ Billy C), child molesters (Gerry Studds) to superstar status so I'm not surprised by your comment about "millions breaking a law...".
What is war in general? How
January 26, 2007 - 13:04 ET by BDWhat is war in general? How about Politics by other measures?
What are our current goals? My own opinion is to use freedom and democracy to compete with Islamic Fascism in the Arabic/Islamic world.
If you have millions breaking the law, then you must question the law? Hmmm.... So if hundreds of thousands murder you must question that law as well? How about child abuse, theft etc.
How about "the health of the state"?
January 26, 2007 - 13:06 ET by sarcasmoHow about "the health of the state"? (Don't blame me, blame Randolph Bourne!)
JMR
Please explain.
January 26, 2007 - 13:19 ET by BDPlease explain.
Love those Bourne movies!
January 26, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Roger the ShrubberLove those Bourne movies!
BD
January 26, 2007 - 16:49 ET by cjkinseyDo mean politics by diplomacy? Well yes I do think that is a good idea.
How are freedom and democracy the opposites of Islam and, well democracy is different from Facism, but I am not sure how you are showing that Iraq, Afghan, or Iran are Facist?
Yes I think you do have to consider the law, not whether the law is good or bad, but why people think they don't have to follow it. What is the reward that they think is comparing with the risk?
Moreover there are just people that are disposed to certain crimes, ie murder and child abuse, and they must be dealt with on an individual basis. Some may have to spend the rest of their life being monitored and others may have reacted to something in a moment. I think those are different and require some investigation and thought.
Diplomatic action is only one
January 26, 2007 - 17:15 ET by BDDiplomatic action is only one facet of politics. Sadly it is the least useful method, but do not tell that to the denizens of foggy bottom or liberals who insist that EVERYTHING can be cured if we only sit around a table long enough. Just is not so.
In my own opinion, we can sit around a table for the rest of time with Iran and North Korea and it will have no positive result. All it will do is keep the diplo's well paid and with cool license plates for the cars in Washington and New York.
How are freedom and democracy the opposites of Islamic Fascism? I believe that the engine that is freedom will move a population forward economically, socially, and even militarily in a direction away from despotism. I cannot recall a single democratic country that was harmful to the world community due to its belief structure, but can recall MANY despotic regimes that threatened their neighbors.
Even the US, the free-ist nation on earth actively engages its military in support of just such freedom and against repression.
Regarding your last paragraph, yes, there is evil in this world. I thought that would be against just such a judgement.
BD
January 26, 2007 - 17:42 ET by cjkinseyI don't think everything can be cured by sitting around a big table. I do think it takes the first couple of rounds. Additionally it takes honesty about what it is that you bring to the table and what the options are.
I think what you are saying is that even if we get another promise from North Korea to keep the peninsual nuke free, that they are only getting more time, until they try again and potentially in some other way? I think you have a point, which makes me ask the question of why. Because they feel threatened, we can't expect others not to arm themselves and then display aggressive actions. Iraq is a prime example of that, out aggression has caused Syria to announce that they will be seeking nukes, Iran won't say they won't seek them, because they see their neighbors seeking them, with our support, ie India.
I think it is very dangerous to think we are exporting freedom by attacking/occupying another country. Whatever the reason because it can so easily be seen as contradictory. You have to admit that you can't call Iraq free, if we are the security force in the country. If we had removed saddam and pulled out then there could have been a chance of salvaging the argument, but we didn't. We are building a military base there larger than the city of Sacramento, that doesn't imply temporary.
I think there are people that just do bad things without a reason we can identify. I think there are things people can do that don't give them a second chance. I think you are saying you thought I would be against this?
Regarding taking "The fi
January 26, 2007 - 17:54 ET by BDRegarding taking "The first couple of rounds" how many rounds did Saddam get of us telling him to stop shooting at our aircraft before we level his rear end. I personnally would have gotten the message the first time around. But the Diplo's can't seem to....
North Korea feel threatened? That is a laugh. When have WE threatened any backwater Communist country minding its own business. Yugoslavia? Albania under Enver Hoxha?
Only the trouble makers get hammered (Cuba, Nicaragua, etc)
You cannot see exporting freedom by attacking a country? Well by all means I will now call up the nazi heirarchy in Berlin on the phone to discuss the current state of the Japanese Militarists in Tokyo. Both examples are exquisite.
What military base are you implying that is under creation in Iraq? How does it differ from Grafenwohr and Hohenfells? Or how about Tori Station?
Hater, er, CJKinsey, begins t
January 26, 2007 - 18:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberHater, er, CJKinsey, begins to furiously research BD's statements.
"What's a Wikipedia?"
"What's a Wikipedia?"
January 26, 2007 - 18:28 ET by misterbill"What's a Wikipedia?" A doctor that specializes in treating misbehaving children???
And again Roger, you and I
January 26, 2007 - 18:33 ET by MightyMouthAnd again Roger, you and I are on the same wave length!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Running Beer
January 26, 2007 - 12:31 ET by cjkinseySet down the Beer and say who and why? You think they are simple questions then answer them.
Never mess with another mans
January 26, 2007 - 12:40 ET by RunningBeerNever mess with another mans beer.
Allow me to translate this, p
January 26, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Roger the ShrubberAllow me to translate this, please:
Go to my blog, reads my Sheehanista crap. Click on the many left-wing whackjob links I have displayed on the right-hand side of the page.
I will post on a right-wing blog, trying to pose an innocent question, fishing for a chance to amaze those dumb neo-cons with my obviously-superior intellect.
Like another intelligent NBer replied below, stick to the websites more your slower pace. IE: one of the websites you have listed on your page.
Roger
January 26, 2007 - 16:25 ET by cjkinseyThis is a fair criticsm, and I probably should have been here earlier and trying to communicate earlier, but I am hear to understand. I hope to create conversations from which to learn.
I don't have all the answers and am not hear to impress with my knowledge. I look forward to trying to keep up.
cj sayes...
January 26, 2007 - 16:38 ET by bassndude"...am not hear to impress with my knowledge." Its a good thing. So far, it seems you dont have much to work with, if that is your goal. You seem to grab bits and parts of this and that, but you have no knowledge of history, and you knowledge of current events seems somewhat lacking also. Your thought process seems primitive. If that sounds harsh, I am sorry. Just be glad I am not Simon Cowell.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
what is it you don't understand??
January 26, 2007 - 13:47 ET by misterbillwar:to carry on active hostility or contention.
We are fighting terrorists. The terrorists we know are Muslim fanatics. One can be at war with a limited part of a population or a group or any number of ways. What is it that you do not understand about the word war??
God, give it a break! How many times do you have to have the word explained to you??
Misterbill
January 26, 2007 - 16:30 ET by cjkinseyIt is not the word war, it is how it as a word applies to the concept of what is going on in the middle east right now?
And since things can be applies in any number of ways, the question is how does it apply in this specific instance.
Misterbill
January 26, 2007 - 16:31 ET by cjkinseyIt is not the word war, it is how it as a word applies to the concept of what is going on in the middle east right now?
And since things can be applies in any number of ways, the question is how does it apply in this specific instance.
The journalist/news commentar
January 26, 2007 - 10:03 ET by chris_gillThe journalist/news commentary host, who also happened to participate in an anti-war rally, is quite pleasent to 1 of 4 Republicans (3 of whom have presidential aspirations) who oppose the war? Alice look out. I'm coming down that rabbit hole behind you.
Congressman/Senators are almost worthless. We can't get any of them to stand behind their votes to go to war and prior statements supporting action against Sadaam, but they wan't to run the operation of the war from the comfort of being in front of a microphone and camera.
Bush is the CIC. It's his job to run the war. It's the Congresses job to control the purse strings. Stop trying to do the CIC's job, and do your own jobs. You're opposed to the war? Cut the funding circa. Vietnam 1973. Otherwise, go somewhere and relax.
As far as resolutions are concnerned, they are equally worthless. Considering the congress passed a resolution to go to war, then members stated they were duped into supporting the war by a person they refer to as an idiot. Why would anybody have any confidence in any resolution the congress passed.
As far as resolutions are con
January 26, 2007 - 12:03 ET by FishFace222As far as resolutions are concnerned, they are equally worthless. Considering the congress passed a resolution to go to war, then members stated they were duped into supporting the war by a person they refer to as an idiot. Why would anybody have any confidence in any resolution the congress passed.
This is typical Lib strategy. The same happened with prescription drugs (something GWB should never have signed). They got it through congress then almost immediately squealed that it wasn't enough. Either they aren't reading the bills they are voting on (which means they are failing at their jobs) or GWB is just plain smarter than them.
Here ya go Chuckie boy To g
January 26, 2007 - 10:04 ET by rimskyHere ya go Chuckie boy
To gain in or as if in battle or contest <won the championship> b : to be the victor in <won the war> To gain the victory in a contest.
Here ya go Chuckie boy.. m
January 26, 2007 - 10:06 ET by rimskyHere ya go Chuckie boy.. maybe this'll help.
Win: To gain in or as if in battle or contest <won the championship> b : to be the victor in <won the war> To gain the victory in a contest.
If not, then basically, the way I understand WIN the WOT is that we will destroy the bad guys.. as in take them out.. as in kill them, before they kill us. Pretty simple, really.
"... [W]ar that Americ
January 26, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Troika37"... [W]ar that Americans can not win?" Has Hagel ever seen the US Armed Forces operating with the gloves off. Say, in Desert Storm? After putting on an absolute clinic on how to attain air superiority, it took US forces about 100 hours to accomplish the mission - Remove Iraqi forces from the sovereign state of Kuwait. (Remember all, the mission wasn't removing Saddam, lest our Arab coalition members loose heart.) Even Gothic Serpent - which our media friends continue to paint as a disasterous failure - was an overwhelming military success. Omar Salad was captured, along with 23 other high value targets, and up to 1,500 armed, engaging Somali militiamen were killed in the battle. While it's tragic that fifteen Rangers and 3 Delta operators were also killed, the full power of our ground forces was seen in the battle for Mogadishu. Had then President Clinton allowed the air support that our troops asked for before the battle, perhaps our casualty count would be even lower. Regardless, when called upon, our military has always answered the bell, and when allowed by Washington, have always come out victorious.
While we're operating under different roe, with a different mission, it's disgraceful to say bluntly, with no 'out-of-context' support to be had that we 'can not win.' Just yesterday I was here blasting the Dems for telling America that they are just now trying to decide how they can support the troops while advocating their failure. Now, less than 24 hours later, here's Hagel trying to dodge and weave on a simple question. Are American forces dying for nothing in Iraq? Simple answer too... Absolutely not. I thought it was a given that anyone with an (R) next to their name was on record supporting the troops.
I'm disgusted.
When taken with Vieira's 'Presidential' comment, all questions concerning the 'perceived' media bias should vanish. People only sound Presidential when they're calling Iraq a failure, or doing everything they can to undermine the morale or our troops currently down-range. I know personally that consistently reading this kind of garbage makes you question whether or not the American public supports us. Seeing that the media obviously does not, it follows that their message will not either. I can assure everyone - this does affect us.
oops, sorry for the double po
January 26, 2007 - 10:09 ET by rimskyoops, sorry for the double post..
V - Hagel is a Traitor
January 26, 2007 - 10:10 ET by pearlV - Hagel is a Traitor
I dont mind saying it. Will others?
V for Victory
TEN FOUR.. V FOR VICTORY
January 26, 2007 - 10:14 ET by rimskyTEN FOUR.. V FOR VICTORY
...Hagel that he was soundi
January 26, 2007 - 10:13 ET by JDW...Hagel that he was sounding downright "presidential."
Enough to convince everyone who is and who is not playing politics with our troops.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
These friggin' cowards
January 26, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasThese friggin' cowards make me sick. I did not agree with the decision to topple Saddam and become a military presence in Iraq when we did. However it was done and we are here and these people need us. Iraq is more vulnerable than ever and more needful of our presence and defense than ever. This is an infant nation, we have produce an environment that has required dependence on us until they are strong enough to handle and suppress illegitimate opposition and terrorism from both internal threats and external threats. How dare these pi$$ a$$ cowards say they are still making up their minds. This simply makes me sick. Damnable cowards.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
Guy,You and I have not seen e
January 26, 2007 - 10:31 ET by truth_missileGuy,
You and I have not seen eye to eye in the past but I second your comments - Liberals will give a convicted murderer appeal after appeal and let their sorry lives drag on for 20 years until justice is ultimately served, however they won't give a country trying to get up off of the knees of tyranny a year to find it's course.
Give up
January 26, 2007 - 10:34 ET by iveseenitallGive up. You can't win. You're dying for nothing. The American people don't support you. It's a lost cause. Tokyo Rose? No--- liberal Democrats and Republicans in America 2007. Disgusting!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Yeah, Hagel sounds "pres
January 26, 2007 - 10:34 ET by Chris NormanYeah, Hagel sounds "presidential", all right. If, by "presidential", one means Jimmy Carter...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Hagel
January 26, 2007 - 10:46 ET by d1carterHagel as President is a scary thing for me to think about. What is his and the Dems plan to win?
Their plan? They don't need n
January 26, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Chris NormanTheir plan? They don't need no stinkin' plan. It ain't about a strategy to win in Iraq. It's all about here...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
dlcarter plan
January 26, 2007 - 12:14 ET by cjkinseydlcarter,
I would be happy to discuss a plan with you, but first define what you mean by win.
I don't think dl was asking f
January 26, 2007 - 13:16 ET by FishFace222I don't think dl was asking for your plan--just what plan the dems have. I've heard nothing but crickets chirping on that subject when dems are asked.
They are really starting to look like fools. They took over the house and the senate and now they seem a little puzzled as to what to do next. The only thing they know is that they are against anything GWB proposes. GWB could come out with a resolution against kicking puppies and dems would protest.
Clinton Playbook
January 26, 2007 - 13:19 ET by JimboRight out of the Bill Clinton playbook. Bravo. Only the Democrats seem to have diffuculty understanding the term "win".
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Presidential? What's his ca
January 26, 2007 - 11:40 ET by mattmPresidential? What's his campaign theme going to be: "Let's not win with Hagel"?
He's not only a RINO, he's a turncoat.
how pathetic things have gott
January 26, 2007 - 12:09 ET by pmohbuckhow pathetic things have gotten and what a sad picture this story paints ....
even a hint of a coach telling a football team they can't win the big game against a better opponent would warrant the label of "quitter" and even draw enough criticism for people to question his worthiness as a coach
but ...
the same commentary coming for our highest, elected government leaders and with young men and womens' lives hanging in the balance ... it's not only considered OK, but patriotic
it sickens me to what levels the people elected into office have sunk ... they bitch and moan about politics while the bullets are flying ... and actually have the nerve to think we believe them when they say they care ... something has to be done about this .... all this "talk" about patriotism is a joke, these people absolutely DON'T CARE about anyone but themselves
at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising their rights
People DO
January 26, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Jimbo…..and actually have the nerve to think we believe them when they say they care ...
Unfortunately, PM, people DO believe them. That’s what is so dangerous about them and the MSM who support them. It undermines our effort in Iraq and as a free nation entirely…
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speach and treason"
Rush just played a number o
January 26, 2007 - 13:34 ET by Mark FinkelsteinRush just played a number of clips from the Vieira/Hagel interview.
What kind of Republican is Se
January 26, 2007 - 19:56 ET by j. frank wilsonWhat kind of Republican is Sen. Chuck Hagel?
"The party I first voted for on top to a tank in the Mekong Delta in 1968 is not the party I see today, Bob. Fiscal responsibility, engagement with others, pro-trade, personal responsiblity, less government - that's not who we are today. Parties should be the framework of philosophies and beliefs."
- Face the Nation 1/21-2007
Did Sen. Hagel leave the mainstream of the Republican Party - or did the Party leave him?