Drudge mentions that during a live press conference in Baghdad, CNN "reporter" Michael Ware heckled John McCain. Video from the event is sure to follow. What will be interesting to see is who in the mainstream press covers it. Will it be covered on CNN? Will the press gossip blogs mention it? Or will this be swept under the rug as usual?
"Objective reporter" Michael Ware is no stranger to spouting his personal opinions. In an interview with Bill Maher he said "I've been given a front-row ticket to watch this slow-motion train wreck … I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here … In fact, I'm drinking now.”
Right in line with the the journalist code of conduct.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I just hope that Tom Tancredo
April 2, 2007 - 03:02 ET byI just hope that Tom Tancredo runs and wins. Sorry, but John McCain is a jerk. He wants to give new citizens, ones who worked here illegally before becoming citizens, Social Security on money earned illegally.
I won’t support a man, just because he is a Republican. Anyone can ‘call’ them self a Republican. I want a true Republican.
And personally, I feel that a man (or woman, in Hillary’s case…hmm..ya, okay), well, anyway, anyone running for office, should be able to take some heckling. However, I am guessing that the mainstream media will not cover it, because it was not done to a Democrat.
Debra…
Too honest for most to deal with, I’m sure. :o)
you are considered honest
April 2, 2007 - 17:32 ET by tumbler_2007Yes, Debra; honest enough in your own household. Why not ?
The more important thing is to honestly assay the real possibilities of winning the American presidency. It's not quite enough to offer your personal support to a candidate over some other one. You have to make a vote count.
Tancredo's no doubt a fine man. Could he defeat a well-funded and eagerly-supported Democrat candidate? Not likely. He would be buried by Hillary Clinton and likely enough fail narrowly against Obamasama. Tancredo isn't much more than a provincial character on a private ego trip. Nobody ever heard of the man in a majority of this nation's state capitals. He's a nobody, IMHO. I'm not demeaning him, but looking at a candidate. A non-starter, frankly.
Hi tumbler, So, you do not kn
April 2, 2007 - 17:52 ET byHi tumbler,
So, you do not know who Tancredo is, but you say he is a 'provincial character on a private ego trip.' lol.. Well, I guess if you have nothing to support you dislike for a person, you just come up with something like that.
Debra...
If anyone would like to know who Tom Tancredo is; click here
And let's remember, that Obama was a nobody a few years back. I believe that Hillary will win over him in the primaries, but then she will not win in the Presidential race itself. America, on a whole, is not ready for a woman president.
Debra, Debra, Debra...Tumbler
April 2, 2007 - 17:59 ET by Clear thinkerDebra, Debra, Debra...
Tumbler has to minimize Tom Tancredo because the man actually wants to DO SOMETHING about illegals in our country. If case you have missed it, tumbler is our resident illegal appologist and gets a weekly paycheck from La Raza to come here and shower us with his pity for the poor illegal.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Debra...Tancredo is everythin
April 2, 2007 - 18:10 ET by bigtimerDebra...
Tancredo is everything tumbster fears...
More to come tumbster as the election creeps nearer to you and your illegal buddies in La Raza......
LMAO!
As stated in the Drudge Repor
April 2, 2007 - 04:32 ET by old croAs stated in the Drudge Report "This guy is an activist not a reporter."
CNN has moved the line when it comes to "reporting". Imagine a democrat being heckled while speaking on a serious subject, it would be replayed endlessly showing how irreverent and heartless Republicans are. CNN should be shunned (oh wait, they already are according to viewer ship numbers) err, they should be congratulated (yea that's the ticket) on opening the door for other "reporters" to give their personal and political takes on candidates running for president (think hillary). Not that the MSM doesn't do that now, they are just trying to keep the appearance of being subtle.
"Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life."
Brooke Shields (during an interview to become spokesperson for a federal anti-smoking campaign).
Well I guess we are entering
April 2, 2007 - 04:41 ET by tweakthetrollWell I guess we are entering the times when reporters feel the obligation or need to combine news with thier comedy act. Complete bias is not enough I guess. Heck might as well through a lie or two in, with hold a few facts to bugger up the context and we will all have a real good time..........heck Keith Olbermann has been doing this for a couple of years now and look at his suck-cess.
"I try to stay as drun
April 2, 2007 - 05:33 ET by motherbelt"I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here …"-MIchael Ware regarding Iraq
And since the above-mentioned press conference was in Baghdad, can we assume that Mr. Ware might have been drunk, or at least drinking, by his own words?
Maybe it's time for the "Big Mouth Sympathy Play".....checking into Rehab.
this explains why the Iraq re
April 2, 2007 - 08:25 ET by Conservative in the Artsthis explains why the Iraq reporting is so negative. When you view the world only from a bar stool, it gets pertty depressing. It also explains why the loosers are not willing to go out and get the good stories, because there isn't a bar close by.
Michelle Ware ... CNN incitat
April 2, 2007 - 06:24 ET by jonathanandersonMichelle Ware ... CNN incitationist and resident 3rd string antichrist ... looks like he's making a push for a starting position.
Why DO the liberals rage and the Democrats imagine a vain thing? Well ... because of first-class idiots like Michelle Ware.
Ware is nothing more than a t
April 2, 2007 - 08:43 ET by FOXFANWare is nothing more than a terrorist partisan, a CNN scumbag. Keep it up CNN, as your viewership drops.
ware's double standard is showing
April 2, 2007 - 07:27 ET by kahoonaWare's double standard is showing...
...specifically:
"WARE: well, let's bear in mind that this is a report that was leaked by
an unnamed official of some kind to a blog, to somewhere on the
internet. no one has gone and put their name forward. we certainly
haven't heard senator mccain say anything about it or any of his staff
have come forward to say anything about it. i did not heckle the
senator..."
So, unnamed sources are uncredible when it comes to making a CNN reporter look bad in front of a Republican and someone who (God forbid) actually supports the troops...but, when it makes a Republican look bad, unnamed sources are perfectly acceptable? Right.
What a jerk.
Well, Ware says that we sho
April 2, 2007 - 07:55 ET by motherbeltWell, Ware says that we should wait and see on the videotape whether or not he heckled. Sounds fair. Maybe the unnamed source is wrong. But the fact that it was "leaked to a blog" doesn't automatically make it wrong, any more than an unnamed source leaking something to CNN makes it true. We shall see.
better said
April 2, 2007 - 08:47 ET by kahoonaexactly my point...thanks for making it better than I did... :)
motherbelt - Drudge made the
April 2, 2007 - 10:58 ET by ding7777motherbelt - Drudge made the claim so it should be up to Drudge to show proof of the heckling
YouTube had a video up and
April 2, 2007 - 11:07 ET by ScottyDogYouTube had a video up and it was linked on HotAir but they removed the video.
Then YouTube allowed a rebuttal to be posted by Michael Ware and it has not been removed.
Google and YouTube must be joined at the hip
Is this Mexico or the USA
What??? POST THE VIDEO FOR
April 2, 2007 - 11:50 ET by dahliatraversWhat??? POST THE VIDEO FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. Why does Ware get to rebut something no one has seen?
McCain's Press Conference vid
April 2, 2007 - 12:56 ET by ding7777McCain's Press Conference video now up RAW STORY - Drudge is wrong
Its the 2nd video (about halfway down the page - 10 minutes long)
I can't convict him without s
April 2, 2007 - 08:25 ET by jondelwicheI can't convict him without seeing the video. I'd love to see it.Yet, it's hard to imagine this report wouldn't have some merit, and yet again would highlight the true media bias despite the ongoing massive Borking of FoxNews (i.e. that fierce "hit-job" question Chris Wallace delivered to Bill Clinton, "did you do enough?") in an attempt to discredit or tone it down.Exactly why do Republican spokespeople apologize for calling these news hacks "partisans?" It should be an everyday word.
that fierce "hit-job&quo
April 2, 2007 - 09:53 ET by dahliatraversthat fierce "hit-job" question Chris Wallace delivered to Bill Clinton
Now THAT was some serious heckling. <sarcasm off>
Yet, we are into year four of
April 2, 2007 - 09:54 ET by jdhawkYet, we are into year four of the war in Iraq and not a single "news" outlet has honored our heroes with stories of their derring-do, courage, and sacrifice. We see no stories about our brave young men and women's bravery and compassion. No stories of risking life and limb so that Iraqi's lives are saved. No accounting of the myriad country rebuilding projects and the impact of the same on the average Iraqi. We hear or view few stories on the ever more vibrant economy, the peaceful Kurdish area in the north western part of the country, and the normalized south eastern areas of the country.
Instead we have the likes of a despicable cur like Ware and the bunch of hotel balcony tele-prompt readers feeding us line and verse the most terrible aspects of this war and the reverberating drumbeat that we are surely losing.
Meanwhile, the "news" outlets blithely reference Vietnam without accounting for their on hand in causing millions of human beings' deaths and even more millions to face torture and decades of incarceration at the hands of ruthless communists governments. Never mentioned is the possibility of the same occurring should we lose in Iraqi.
Ware
April 2, 2007 - 10:08 ET by iveseenitall"I did not heckle the senator"--- heckle, smeckle, Ware. A rose by any other name. Another partisan "journalist".
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Do not forget it was Michae
April 2, 2007 - 10:27 ET by ScottyDogDo not forget it was Michael Ware that provided the tape of our solders being killed by snipers. He has embedded with the insurgents on numerous occasions to the point the military was investigating him for possible aid to the enemy.
His credentials should have been revoked a long time ago. He is a traitor and should not be allowed to continue spreading propaganda for the enemy.
Is this Mexico or the USA
Nice to know that being &qu
April 2, 2007 - 13:03 ET by Rupert CadellNice to know that being "investigated" for "possible" wrongdoing equals automatic treason. Isn't that sort of attitude precisely what had conservatives freaking out about the Scooter trial?
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
No stories of troops' sacrifi
April 2, 2007 - 12:13 ET by waka wakaNo stories of troops' sacrifice and heroics? Do you even read or watch the news? Where have you been?
And I LOVE it when you warbloggers bravely diss the reporters who are actually there from the safety of your living rooms. That speaks volumes.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Do you know what your link
April 2, 2007 - 12:18 ET by MightyMouthDo you know what your link points to waka waka? A good start! *rimshot*
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Monkey Boy is back
April 2, 2007 - 12:26 ET by RJMonkey Boy is just here to throw things from the safety of his tree, MM. This site has a much highter percentage of active military, vets, and their families than the general population....which, unfortunately, has to include the whining leftists who won't lift a finger to protect their precious freedom of speech. That irritates Monkey Boy, 'cause he knows it's true.
War is hell RJ. I wonder h
April 2, 2007 - 12:34 ET by MightyMouthWar is hell RJ. I wonder how many of those "brave" journalists got themselves killed trying to inbed themselves too close to the "freedom fighters"? Probably trying to get their side of the story against the "evil" US military. The NYT will gladly pay good money for those stories. Playing with fire, CAN get you burnt!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Where have I been Fozzie?
April 2, 2007 - 12:24 ET by The Wicked ConservativeWhere have I been Fozzie? I can't think of any from any MS M except for Fox on occasion. And your "brave" reporters that hide in the green zone till a report of dead troops comes around then they scurry like cockroaches
to take pictures of the corpse and then scurry back to the safety of the green zone. You make me ill. You have no right to speak of bravery. You who speak of the bravery of reporters while insulting our troops. We'll see your bravery when militant islam comes here to the US because of the actions of those you support in our crippled by PC government.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
The current issue of Newswe
April 2, 2007 - 12:58 ET by Rupert CadellThe current issue of Newsweek is exactly that of which you're bemoaning a lack. Not to mention several hundred articles, documentaries, and other pathos-laced tributes from the past 4 years designed to counteract the whole "They don't support the war so obviously they also hate the troops" rhetoric.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
And, um, where exactly did
April 2, 2007 - 13:01 ET by Rupert CadellAnd, um, where exactly did Waka insult the troops? Oh, you were just reading maliciously into his benign words and finding something that wasn't there? That explains it.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
I asssure you it was a swipe, Rupert
April 2, 2007 - 18:21 ET by RJBenign? Clearly, either you haven't been paying attention to Waka's posting, or you're wearing rose-colored glasses. Virtualy everything he posts is sarcastic. He's aware that there are many, many active military, vets, and military families on this board. I assure you that his post was a swipe against the military.
Look at it this way: I call him Monkey Boy. That's because he sits in his tree and throws things.....and that's all he does.
Waka has always been whacked
April 2, 2007 - 18:35 ET by bigtimerWaka has always been whacked since he got here RJ....maybe you were on leave of absence of such...
LOL!
Rip..er Rup.... has never been far behind.
Just IMHO.
This might seem like a a sm
April 2, 2007 - 12:26 ET by ChumlyThis might seem like a a small detail, but, we are into YEAR 5, not year four. Year four is over and gone along with over 3,200 brave Americans and countless Iraqi civilians (upwards of 150,000?). We are in the 5th year of this war with nothing but death and destruction of a country to show for it.
We have been in this war for longer than we were in World War 2!!
People, we have been involved over there for so long because this can't be solved by military force. We are in the middle of a civil war.
Please tell me who our enemy is over there?? Can you?
BTW, show me the video of Ware heckling McCain. I have not seen it yet.
See ScottyDog's post at 12:07
April 2, 2007 - 12:36 ET by dahliatraversSee ScottyDog's post at 12:07, Chumley. It was on YouTube, then it was taken down. Only CNN would have authorization to tell YouTube to yank it.
Best guess is that initial reports about the press conference are correct and CNN doesn't want the whole world to see one of their reporters behaving unprofessionally.
You're right, dahlia. Not!Man
April 2, 2007 - 13:11 ET by waka wakaYou're right, dahlia. Not!
Man, you guys will believe anything.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
We have been in this war fo
April 2, 2007 - 12:41 ET by MightyMouthWe have been in this war for longer than we were in World War 2!!
Ya wanna know why Chumley? Because idiots like you wont let the president fight the war! The war is dragging on because of Democrats and their fawning MSM. If you idiots would shut up and support victory, maybe there would be some! How much soldier's blood is on YOUR ilks hands?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Bush has had an open pock
April 2, 2007 - 12:58 ET by ChumlyBush has had an open pocket book to do as he pleases over there. Liberals have had little to no influence on what Bush does over there.
BTW, I have absolutely zero influence over what Bush does over there. Thanks for the complement, though.
Victory? How would we leave Iraq as victors? How would you describe victory? And, who would we be victorious over?? Who are we fighting over there?
Our boys and girls are being killed by Sunnis, Shias, and Al Qaeda-in-Iraq (which is different than Al Qaeda). About 90 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there, so I have read.
Exactly Chumly, thank you!
April 2, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Rupert CadellExactly Chumly, thank you! Let's not forget that the media largely supported Bush in the run-up to the war, its combat operations, and for a good long while into the "rebuilding" process.
Let's see: Abu Ghraib, no bin Laden, no WMD, laughable flightsuit incident, major U.S. casualties, lukewarm reception from Iraqi people, no functional Iraqi army. If you ask me, Bush was given every courtesy right up until it was apparent that he had NO plan for the country that didn't involve problems solved by firepower.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Rupert, it's not the war, it's "get GWB"
April 2, 2007 - 13:23 ET by RJRupert, your post clearly demonstrates that the left's attacks have little to do with the war in Iraq and everything to do with "get GWB." Your BDS has been so virulent, dating back to 2000, that even encouraging the terrorists and discouraging our military is of no matter to you.
Actually, RJ, the only item
April 2, 2007 - 13:33 ET by Rupert CadellActually, RJ, the only item in my post that pertains to Bush personally rather than his war is the one about him playing dress-up. And besides which, this thread is about whether and at what points in time the MsM has been behind him. So, um, what's your point again?
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Rupert, do you and have you not
April 2, 2007 - 13:47 ET by RJDo you and have you not blamed virtually everything on GWB? Hasn't that been the underlying driving force of the media and the left?
And this belies your claim that your post was not all about GWB: "Bush was given every courtesy right up until it was apparent that he had NO plan for the country that didn't involve problems solved by firepower."
That's what the thread was
April 2, 2007 - 13:55 ET by Rupert CadellThat's what the thread was about. And you can't separate Bush from the war entirely, no matter how much some of those things were beyond his immediate control
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Non-responsive, Rupert
April 2, 2007 - 13:59 ET by RJ"Let's see: Abu Ghraib
April 2, 2007 - 13:23 ET by MightyMouth"Let's see: Abu Ghraib, no bin Laden, no WMD"
You dimwits have been bombarded at this site with post after post from people willing to take the time to answer your stupid talking apoints and yet you STILL come back and post them! What a bunch of baffoons!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You are truly delusional. &
April 2, 2007 - 13:18 ET by MightyMouthYou are truly delusional. "Liberals have had little to no influence on what Bush does over there"
Well howabout enboldening the enemy by your war protests? And believe me chum, I was not giving you a complement, but isn't it just like liberal scum to be accused of helping to kill US troops and then taking it as a compliment!
You guys never disappoint, that's for sure.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well howabout enboldening t
April 2, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Rupert Cadell"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Well howabout enboldening t
April 2, 2007 - 13:28 ET by Rupert CadellWell howabout enboldening the enemy by your war protests?
The majority of large-scale protests came before the actual invasion. I don't think it's accurate to characterize this as some sort of anti-American activity, wanting to express disagreement with a president's foreign policy decision, especially before combat has begun.
Nor do I agree with Bill O'Reilly's delicately phrased maxim that "Once the war begins, dissenters had better shut up." Talk about anti-American. If the people you're talking about had said "We want the Islamofascists to beat the US military", then I'd agree with you. Even though the right implies that the left says this every day, I have yet to see a documented example of it.
"Emboldening the enemy"....get some new material.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
I am sorry, I must give up
April 2, 2007 - 13:34 ET by MightyMouthI am sorry, I must give up on you two. There is no reasoning with people who are so utterly full of shit. Claim victory over another freeper troll if you must. If you guys weren't so tragic, you'd be funny...
Oh what the heck!! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Here's a "documented example" Rupert
April 2, 2007 - 13:41 ET by RJHere's a "documented example" Rupert: Viet Nam has admitted that they couldn't have forced America to leave without the assistance of the left and the media. In fact, they said analysis of the activities of the media and the left were part of their daily military briefings. The same thing clearly applies with Iraq. "Emboldening the enemy" is exactly what the left has done, and your whining that the material is "old" doesn't change it.
And your assertion that large scale protests essentially came before the beginning of the war is foolishly inaccurate. They have been constant, and their genesis is "get GWB", not anti-war.
You're right RJ. We on the le
April 2, 2007 - 13:48 ET by waka wakaYou're right RJ. We on the left are dying for the Islamofascists to win. Bring em over here, and quick! Because you know they'll be so kind to us, what with the way we're all for equal rights for women and gays, don't want anyone shoving their religion down our throats and disapprove of the death penalty. We'll get along great once they're in charge over here. You right wingers have nothing in common with these guys, just ask D'Souza.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Still throwing things, Monkey Boy?
April 2, 2007 - 13:57 ET by RJStill throwing things from the safety of your tree, Monkey Boy? For all your sarcastic howling and your posturing about wanting the best for America, it all boils down to your BDS and the desire to "get GWB"
Actually, that's not docume
April 2, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Rupert CadellActually, that's not documented at all since you don't even provide so much as a link. But hey, if you say that one Vietnam official said that they "won" the war (as far as I'm concerned there were no winners in that monstrous conflict) because of some nebulous claim about watching American news reports and what "the left did," then I guess I'd better forfeit the debate right now, 'cause man, that is some incontrovertible evidence right there!
Basically, you and MM want people to shut the hell up when their country spends billions of dollars a week to send young men and women into combat against a weaker nation. given the circumstances, I'd say it's entirely appropriate to speak up and hold our leaders accountable for the reasons behind their decisions.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
If you say there are no winne
April 2, 2007 - 13:56 ET by BDIf you say there are no winners from the final outcomeof Vietnam, the ghosts of the re-eduation Centers and the washed up bodies of the boat people would disagree with you.
THe same power mad commies who shoved bodies onto the wire of US firebases are STILL in power, not only in Hanoi - but Saigon as well. THe formerly free population from the south is now not free at all. THe montagnards, Nung, Bodes, and others are damned near now extinct as peoples.
So I guess the north and American Left won, right?
well, well, Rupert
April 2, 2007 - 14:06 ET by RJWell, well, Rupert. You're now openly admitting that YOU DON'T CARE if your behavior emboldens the terrorists, because the big, bad Americans are picking on a "weaker nation".....
And your words, "against a weaker nation" is ALSO an admission that you see America as being in a war directly against Iraq, not against terrorists.....amazing....what a truly pathetic unAmerican piece of work you are, Rupert.
Yes, he would allow us to fig
April 2, 2007 - 14:16 ET by BDYes, he would allow us to fight for the downtrodden and oppressed in a "Stronger Nation" but apparently there is some sort of prohibition against fighting weaker ones.
I am now looking it up in the Ivy book of liberalism to see exactly what the liberal ground rules are.
Di Opressor Libre - For all my SOF friends....
BD...The rule book clearly st
April 2, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Clear thinkerBD...
The rule book clearly states that all wars must be blamed on the military industrial complex. Then we are supposed to lie down and take it up the rear. All gays and liberals are supposed to smile!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Rupert admits that he doesn't care if he helps terrorists
April 2, 2007 - 16:01 ET by RJWell of course. Blame America first leftists like Rupert openly admit they don't care if their behavior emboldens the terrorists. Rupert says that big bad America isn't fighting terrorism, you see. We're fighting "a weaker nation." It's good to get them on this board, where we can see their true anti-American nature.
Rupert, your nuts. No winner
April 2, 2007 - 14:44 ET by bassndudeRupert, your nuts. No winner in Vietnam? Engagement wise, we, the American military, won. Hands down, everytime. The brave men and women in the Armed Forces today are all volunteers. All have more courage in their hearts than the likes of you can even imagine. The left cannot even phantom the depths of a patriots soul. It is true that you and your kind emboledened the enemy during the time frame of Vietnam. Even Diep said they could not have suceeded with out the American left. And the scorn you heaped upon our returning soldiers was then and is still now, disgraceful. If your kind succeed in pulling the troops out of Iraq, it is your kind that will be begging for your lives on you knees, and begging those same troops to defend you here at home.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Mouth, you did not accuse
April 2, 2007 - 13:33 ET by ChumlyMouth, you did not accuse me of helping kill Americans over there, you accused me of having influence over what Bush has accomplished over there. How do you streeeeetch what I said into such a lie or, at least, a very huge misrepresentation?
BTW, what do you consider victory? Who are we fighting? Who is killing or sons and daughters over there?
The ONLY ones that should be accused of helping to get our soldiers killed over there are you guys...the people who buy the crap that they sell on Fox "News".
Emboldening our enemies by practicing democracy? Un fing believable!
Bush is trying to shove democracy down their throats over there. Thats the ticket! We'll force them into democracy by force of arms.
Is he supposed to force democracy and at the same time repress democracy in our country? Come on!
It's only democracy if you ag
April 2, 2007 - 13:51 ET by waka wakaIt's only democracy if you agree with Bush. Everything else is TREASON!
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Disagreeing with him is not
April 2, 2007 - 14:02 ET by MightyMouthDisagreeing with him is not treason, going out of your way to undermine a Congressionally authorized war, just might be!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Totally! That traitorous Demo
April 2, 2007 - 13:22 ET by waka wakaTotally! That traitorous Democrat Congress forced Bush to use an inadequately sized force and not plan for the aftermath of Saddam's overthrow. And to top that off, they forced Bush to send over civilian administrators based on their opinion of Roe v. Wade and not their competence. And then ordered up some no-bid contracts for Halliburton that were never fulfilled and disbanded the Iraqi military. And don't forget Abu Ghraib. That has "General" Pelosi's fingerprints ALL over it.
Hilarious MM! Keep 'em coming, please.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Look kid, I am no Bush apol
April 2, 2007 - 13:29 ET by MightyMouthLook kid, I am no Bush apologist. He has pissed me to no end, BUT I am mature enough to know that we are at WAR! And I don't root for the other side! WHEN WILL YOU DUMBASSES GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Since MM is engaging in unm
April 2, 2007 - 13:37 ET by Rupert CadellSince MM is engaging in unmitigated flaming and mouth-frothing personal insults, I can only assume that his enlightening post will soon be deleted. However, it apparently proves that MM and I are in disagreement about the notion that once a war begins, anyone who believes it is a giant mistake and that that mistake should be addressed, ought to just "shut up." Apparently, believing that also automatically equals "rooting for the other side", easily one of the more ludicrous ideas that the right has tried to pass off in the last few years. I mean, I disagree with the war, but I don't go around accusing you of such obviously untrue things.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
LOL, trying to sound like y
April 2, 2007 - 13:49 ET by MightyMouthLOL, trying to sound like you're sane and MM is the nut huh? Too young to remember Vietnam and how the anti war protest at home helped the enemy and hurt the cause? Back to mama's basement kiddies.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MightyMouse, don't have a cor
April 2, 2007 - 13:43 ET by waka wakaMightyMouse, don't have a coronary bro!
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Who is rooting for the ot
April 2, 2007 - 13:46 ET by ChumlyWho is rooting for the other side? Who IS the other side?
Bush, and his supporters (people like you) have done EVERYTHING to play into the Real Al Qeada's hands. He has given them everything AND MORE than they could have ever dreamed of. He has broken us financially. He has helped devide our country. He has stopped going after Bin Laden. He and his supporters, (again, people like you) are responsible for killing over 3,200 of our bravest, and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Oil prices are through the roof!! The Saudis are just loving it!!!!!
Talk about thick?!
The big lie coming from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh is that wanting our sons and daughters home safe from Iraq is like being against our troops. Wanting our country's reputation and credibility back and intact is like being against our troops.
Now, doesn't that sound like a stupid thing to believe? I am not talking just a little stupid. I am talking Big League stupid.
Rupert, what gives YOU the
April 2, 2007 - 14:15 ET by MightyMouthRupert, what gives YOU the right to tell the president (or anyone
else for that matter) who and where the enemy are? Are you in country?
have you ever been in country? Where do you get your information?
Don't
you think it's more prudent to trust what your government tells you
about the War in Iraq? I have a nephew who served and came back and
told me the truth .He didn't seem to think the government is
lying. He did say the media is bias and only reports the violence not
the good.
Now, unless you speak with authority on the subject of the Iraq war, I suggest you get back to your video games!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The other side is those who w
April 2, 2007 - 14:32 ET by BDThe other side is those who would sacrifice our gains for their own personal reward. John Kerry comes to mind....
If Bush has played in to AQ hands, I must have missed it since the latest AQ 20 year reunion list is getting shorter by the day. We have taken back two whole countries that theyhad free reign in (Afghanistan and Yeman) and have removed the southern Phillipines from their AO. (THank God the Abu's are mostly room temperature and moldering now.)
In Iraq we have teams being formed amongst the population to go hunting. ANd eventually they will act as a counterweight to those in Iran who have been unburded since Jimmy Carter gave in.
Bush has not divided our country. THe left has done that out of fear that a successful war will endanger their OWN true and singular goal - sex without consequense. When I look at Code Pink protests and those unwashed masses on the capital mall, I do not see people who car whether I or my conrades live or die. THey would not deign to talk to us barbarians in the first place, they consider us uneducated fascists. THey simply cannot face the fact that our culture is moving away from them and are rebelling.
Regarding our countries reputation. It has never been better. We are now known for as a country who will do what it says, rather than what we had been. We were known as the country who would make bold proclamations, but then not follow them up -sort of like the parents of spoiled children.
Liberal method...
1.) You must stop funding terrorists.
2.) Really, you gotta stop funding terrorists.
3.) PRetty Please, stop funding terrorists...
4.) We will all get upset unless you stop funding terrorists.
5.) People wont like you unless you stop funding terrorists...
And on and On and On until we actually got a conservative in place.
Conservative method.
1. """BAM""" See, he should have stopped funding terrorists. Anyone elase wanna go?
You are making the mistake
April 2, 2007 - 14:58 ET by ChumlyYou are making the mistake of assuming that we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. Wasn't a single AQ terrorist in Iraq before Bush invaded. Not one. Now, it is a terrorist training ground. it is a terrorists DREAMLAND. Not only do they get great training, but, they also get to kill Americans.
If our reputation is doing so well, what has happened to all of our allies?? I think the Republic of Palau is still with us.
We look like fools in the eyes of the majority of the world. We look ignorant...i.e. two weeks before the Iraq invasion, OUR President did not even know about the sectarian devide over there. He said "I thought they were all jist Moslems".
We had no idea what we were getting our soldiers into over there. Huge cultural gap.
AND, you guys are in the minority here in this country. The majority of the US population does not support Bush or his war.
Your assumption is that we ar
April 2, 2007 - 15:10 ET by BDYour assumption is that we are fighting terrorism as a law enforcement exercise. We break down doors of countries that host terrorists, and only engage those that can be prosecuted for previous offenses.
THis is not the case. In order to win the war we will be forced to engage the center of gravity of the Islamo Fascist effort. In order to do that we will be forced to gain and control the popular will of the Islamic (Particularly Arabic) states and convert them to our philosphy. In orde rto do that we will need access to the populous.
THere is no better place to gain such access as Iraq since it sits square in the middle of the Arabic populations, is highly educated, and has the ability to grow in the directiion we wish it to go. Our selected weapon to use in this effort is very powerful - it is called democracy and is hailed everywhere, except Berkeley for some reason.
How else would you engage the Islamo Fascist Center of Gravity?
Regarding your assessment that we have somehow lost our allies. I will have to tell that to the Poles, Ukranians, US, AUS, and others whom I meet next time I am in Bagdhad.
Hell, we have more support now for this cause than Bill Clinton ever had for actions in Serbia, Haiti, and SOmalia....
If I am in the minority of our country, it is good to know that I am in the minority that includes the vast majority of the troops engaged and in uniform.
Your assumption is that und
April 2, 2007 - 15:18 ET by sarcasmoYour assumption is that under enforced-democracy Iraq would remain one country, but it's not one country. It's three: Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan; and absent a Tito/Saddam style brutal-strongman feared-ruler, it's likely to keep moving towards what's natural, which is becoming 3 countries. Nobody seems to like hearing this, like most of the stuff I say around here, but IMO it's true so I'll keep on saying it.
JMR
Could be, but you could make
April 2, 2007 - 15:37 ET by BDCould be, but you could make the same case refence the US being several regional countries added into a mix as well. Not worth discussing in this case since the facts on the ground would remain the same regardless as long as a democratic government could flourish in all or in the singular country.
I think the case was instea
April 2, 2007 - 15:57 ET by sarcasmoI think the case was instead for (cheaply) killing Saddam & sons and letting the 3 new countries that emerge sort things out as they will. No, it won't be "fair," especially WRT oil, but the important part for the future, as oil-less Dubai proves nearby, is which one has the most economic freedom. From that stems hope for the other kinds of freedom, IMO, and I think 3 tiny governments are a better result for individual freedom than one that's big enough to keep citizens afraid. I also think the dictatorships of the UN and various other big governments don't want to hear what I've said.
JMR
BD, please be honest. Ther
April 2, 2007 - 16:14 ET by ChumlyBD, please be honest. There have been more US contractors killed in Iraq than all of our allies (including Brittain) combined!
Who is fighting this war? We have no real allies here.
You are incorrect. More Ira
April 2, 2007 - 17:13 ET by BDYou are incorrect. More Iraqi's have been killed lining up to enlist than US troops killed in action to date.
I guess Iraqi's are not allies?
Oh, and I forgot. THere wer
April 2, 2007 - 15:14 ET by BDOh, and I forgot. THere were no German Field formations in Western North Africa when FDR invaded during WWII either. THe Germans did not arrive until weeks after we finished fighting our "Erstwhile Allies" the frogs in Algeria and Morrocoo. Surprisingly our casualties from Iraq and North Africa are quite similar...
So, should we dig up FDR and throw his body in the trash while tearing down his statue in Washington for his transgressions?
Well gee RJ, just like your
April 2, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Rupert CadellWell gee RJ, just like your implication that to question a war is to embolden the enemy. Did you come up with that phrasing all by yourself? Uh, no, it's what head-in-the-sand hawks have been saying from day 1. So, to paraphrase you, just cause it's an old sentiment doesn't make it true.
And as to the content of what you're responding too, none of us on the moderate-left side are saying anything radical. We're saying things that the majority of the country agree with, only I (and I'm betting waka and chumly) were in on the ground floor. You're the ones trying to suppress free speech because you have some vague, abstract idea that we're actively supporting the enemy by saying "Gee, this war was a bad idea."
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Uh, I am not RJ..... I am B
April 2, 2007 - 15:42 ET by BDUh, I am not RJ..... I am BD, Glad to meet you.
Now reference your point that nothing the left is saying is not radical:
We have had several cases of liberals indicating the US troops are routinely committing war crimes, that US forces are torturing people in Guantanamo, and that US forces have committed genocide.
I personally consider this radical and not in keepign with what the US public feels.
Concur BD
April 2, 2007 - 17:04 ET by acumenNot to mention the flushing Korans lie that resulted in the loss of many lives....
Rupert, you're behaving even more stupidly than usual
April 2, 2007 - 15:45 ET by RJWhat the hell are you talking about, Rupert? You're behaving even more stupidly than usual. Your post is under BD but you're addressing me. And I think someone else used the word "embolden."
Even so, all you did was prattle on with generalized one-post-fits-all DUmmie talking points that aren't specific to anything anyone has said.
What a clown.
BD, my posting to you was a
April 2, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Rupert CadellBD, my posting to you was accidental; but to address your point, I'm only speaking for myself and to some extent for Waka and Chumly - I am not attempting to be a spokesman for the entire left. What we are expressing is opposition to the war, both its inception and its current state. Like it or not, that position is the norm these days.
RJ, omg I accidentally posted to the wrong person, I'm sooooo sorry [sarc off]. You did indeed use the word embolden. Scroll up.
Oh no, I'm being "Stupider than usual"? Guess what big man, I'm not here to grovel for your attention and approval; I'll leave that to Balboa. If I'm reciting DUmmie talking points, whatever that means, by pointing out that the majority of Americans are unhappy about the state of the war, then you're reciting Limbaugh talking points about how I'm single-handedly causing ill to the troops by being of the opinion that the war is wrong.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
My mistake RJ, you used &qu
April 2, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Rupert CadellMy mistake RJ, you used "embolden" at least twice, in fact. And your remark that I'm an unpatriotic piece of work just goes to show how ass-backwards your idea of liberty is. Exactly what kind of "democracy" do you want to force upon Iraq when you can't even react reasonably to widespread questioning and dissent in a country based on such things?
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Oh, come off it, Rupert
April 2, 2007 - 16:53 ET by RJOh, come off it, Rupert. The behavior of you leftists has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with anger toward GWB that goes back to 2000. No way were you EVER willing to give him an opportunity in Iraq, and claiming otherwise is BS. It's never been about the war and always been about "get GWB."
And, yes, you ARE an unpatriotic piece of work. That's what I call it when you knowingly encourage the terrorists and knowingly discourage our military.
RJTHeir anger goes far furthe
April 2, 2007 - 17:16 ET by BDRJ
THeir anger goes far further back than 2000. I would say it goes all the way back to 1968 when the left decided to abandone their country the first time andjoin our enemies.
If we are successful this time, the left will be forced to realize that their entire lives of appeasement to dictators such as Ho Chi Mihn and kotowing to commies will have come to naught.
So you assess that the common
April 2, 2007 - 16:10 ET by BDSo you assess that the common, average US citizen now believes US forces are genocidal war criminals as much of the left believes?
Come on BD, that is a distr
April 2, 2007 - 16:23 ET by ChumlyCome on BD, that is a distraction and it is not even true. The military is even prosecuting their own troops for such things as occured at Abu Ghraib, instead of the ones responsible...their leaders. Those things happened on Rummy's watch.
So you consider the svengali
April 2, 2007 - 17:19 ET by BDSo you consider the svengali NCO in charge of the night shift who had his girlfiends abuse the prisoners less responsible than the DEFSEC? Huh?
We prosecuted those people for good cause. What they wre doing had NOTHING to do with interrogation as the left believes and more to do with personal sexual jollies that I THOUGHT the left championed.
BD, please point out where
April 2, 2007 - 16:57 ET by Rupert CadellBD, please point out where I said that. Surely, one can acknowledge that Abu Ghraib was a disaster and a disgrace without calling the entire US armed forces "genocidal war criminals"? The common, average US citizen does, however, believe that the war is going badly. Not the same thing my friend.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
THe left attempts to tar peop
April 2, 2007 - 17:23 ET by BDTHe left attempts to tar people outside the scope of Abu Ghraib with the scandel. In fact, if you were to ask your average leftist he will tell you that US interrogators regularly torture enemy prisoners 90% of the time.
Leftists ALWAYS assume the worst about their own country, particularly its military.
Who is "your average l
April 2, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Rupert CadellWho is "your average leftist"? Where does 90% come from? I'm talking about real, every day people, not the cabal of malcontents and whiners that comprise the media. If you want to make fun of Rosie O'Donnell, I'll be right there with you, but she does NOT represent the left-of-center American citizenry.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
I would guess that Rosie wo
April 2, 2007 - 17:54 ET by BDI would guess that Rosie would fit right in with the bulk of the Left.
I have always toyed with the creation of a survey to gather data on this issue. Ask a question such as "Has the US been a force for good in the world: and allow possible results such as:
Unquesionably, probably, possibly, probably not , definately not.
Conservatives will answer Unquestionably, while most liberals will answer probably not.
haha. Love your unintentional irony, Rupert.
April 2, 2007 - 16:22 ET by RJ"Stupider"???? haha. Love the unintentional irony, Rupert. My, my, you do sound defensive, fella. It's hilarious that you don't recognize that the post I referred to is obviously a one-post-fits-all koolaid post. They just kinda appear in your brain, huh?
But I wouldn't expect anything different from someone who admits that he doesn't care if his actions emboldens the terrorists. Or who is so anti-American that he believes that we are fighting a "weaker nation." Tell me, Rupert, which "weaker nation" are we fighting?
I'd say you paint a pretty clear picture of a Tokyo Rose kinda guy.
Ahh, yep, in my haste I wro
April 2, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Rupert CadellAhh, yep, in my haste I wrote "stupider" instead of "more stupidly than usual." How 'bout that? Ironic, yes, but doesn't really make the war a better thing, I'm afraid.
We're both spouting talking points here RJ. Did these things materialize in my head? No. But they're true. And all the things you said are straight from Rush's show. You think you can impugn my staus as an American because I'm against a particular war? Do you realize how stupid that is? Do you realize that, considering the moderate ideology I've expressed here, you're also impugning something like 60% of the nation? Yes, it's been said enough times to be a talking point, but it's still true. You seem to want to convince me that the war is the right thing because you believe it just HAS to be. Your arguments about why the war is necessary or going well, of which you haven't really presented any, would be more convincing if you didn't keep turning it into "You just hate Bush" and "Why do you hate America?"
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
No, Rupert, you have no clue
April 2, 2007 - 17:16 ET by RJNo, Rupert, you have no clue about either what I believe or why I believe it. Only a stupid person would believe it just HAS to be right, just as only a stupid person would believe it HAS to be wrong.
And you still don't get it that I was jeering at that particular one-post-fits-all because it could have been dropped, exactly as is, in just about anywhere on any thread...and apparently was...
As for "impugning your status", YOU did that when you stated that you don't care that what you do encourages terrorists. Yeah, that makes you "moderate" alright.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I understand that you're working from an implacable anger toward GWB and nothing anyone can say will change that. The war is just a convenient vehicle. And your ignorance about what it means to truly support the troops is another reason you cannot be convinced of why your behavior is repugnant. As a military man, I can tell you that anyone whose behavior endangers the troops is to be despised. You do and you are....deeply.
Again, all I'm saying is th
April 2, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Rupert CadellAgain, all I'm saying is that I disagreed with the war from the beginning, and I think it's tragic the way the administration has handled it. It's quite a double-bind you put on free speech and the right to voice one's opinion about the direction of his/her country when espousing anything other than Bush's line of reasoning (and you seem to have a real persecution complex on his behalf, as I apparently can't so much as send back an undercooked steak at a restaurant without you saying it's only because I hate Bush) means denigrating and impeding the troops.
So, let's walk our way through this. I, along with something like 65% of Americans, am angry with the way the war is being handled. Like another significant percentage of the population, disagreed with the pretext upon which it began. What am I supposed to do about it, as an American, that isn't repugnant or endangering toward the troops? I never said I didn't care if my remarks were endangering them, by the way, I simply contest your right to absolutely state that they are. So, you tell me, do we just blindly support something we're morally opposed to or what?
You're taking a perfectly legitimate, common view and twisting it around to make me sound like the second coming of Jane Fonda.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Jane Fonda? Well, what should I think?
April 2, 2007 - 17:55 ET by RJJane Fonda? Well, what SHOULD I think of someone who says he doesn't care if his behavior encourages the terrorists or that we're at war "with" a "weaker nation?"
"I disagreed with the war from the beginning" and "the pretext upon which it began" says it all. In every war the U.S. has fought, from the Revolution to present day, it's been about 1/3 each for the pro, anti and uncommitted. You may be anti, but to deliberately enganger the mission and the soldiers is clearly anti-American. That's why we have elections and a representative government....so that we aren't run by mob rule (i.e. popular opinion). But now, congress, the left, the media, and the judicial system are all trying to run the war. Not until Viet Nam and today have the anti crowd done these things that endanger the mission and our soldiers...while not caring that they encourage the enemy.
I don't like the way the war was fought, either. But I believe that GWB and his team were unduly influenced by the constant negativity. I believe they allowed that to sway them, and because of it were reluctant to go in with the full necessary force....a big mistake.
In Iraq, as never before, the constant harrassment by congress, the left, and the media have forced the war to be fought with shackles. Now, they use the predictable results as "proof" that we're "losing." As for the "popular" opinion, what do you expect? The media has been misreporting events from the beginning, and that "middle 1/3" has been moved to "anti" side. That doesn't mean the reasons were wrong, just that the propaganda has worked.
RJ, you are proving yoursel
April 3, 2007 - 11:13 ET by ChumlyRJ, you are proving yourself to be a "dead-ender". You are swallowing hook, line and sinker what Fox "news" and rush limbaugh espouse.
You need to take a step back and look at all of the decisions that our commander-in-chief has made on the war. Nearly ALL of his premises and decisions have been wrong. AND, not just a little bit wrong.
As far as supporting the troops?? How many soldiers do you think were killed just because of Bush's statement "bring em on!" caused?
WMD?? Wrong!
Al Qaeda conspiring with Saddam Hussein?? Wrong!
Yellow cake from Niger?? Wrong!
Greeted with flowers?? Wrong!
Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war? Wrong!
The war will be over very quickly?? Wrong!
Iraqi's converted to Texas-style democracy overnight (by force)?? Wrong!
If you are not with us (on the war) you are aginst us?? Wrong!
If you don't support the war you are against the troops?? Laughably Wrong!
Oh! Remember Terry Schiavo - Not brain dead, still functioning??!! WRONG!!!
Bush (AND HIS SUPPORTERS, (THAT MEANS YOU!!)) do not have a terribly good track record when it comes to good ideas or EVEN BEING RIGHT!!
Your kind of thinking is taking this country down the wrong path. I can see being wrong about certain parts of a policy, or an occasional blunder. BUT, being wrong MOST of the time on MAJOR DECISIONS impugns your decision making skills. AND your argument.
You can not blame the liberals on the mistakes of this war (and they are legion!!). Bush and his Congress and Senate ran this war into the ground with no possible opposition from the left. Please? No more lies. Be honest.
Saying that because you oppose the war you do not support the troops and are just emboldening the enemy is just flat out wrong. You bought what Cheney is saying and you are just as guilty as him for trying to spread that crap.
What cave did you come out of
April 3, 2007 - 11:18 ET by contraryWhat cave did you come out of?
Yawn. Same old robot DUmmie talking points, Chumpster
April 3, 2007 - 11:23 ET by RJYawn. Same old DUmmie robot talking points, Chumpster. Some day, if you actually begin using your own brain cells, I may be interested in what you have to say....but I'm willing to bet you never make that leap.
You prove my point again, R
April 3, 2007 - 11:40 ET by ChumlyYou prove my point again, RJ. You have nothing to counter my claim with.
Chumpster, all you post are random non sequiturs
April 3, 2007 - 12:10 ET by RJAs usual, Chumpster, your "claim" is a list of random non sequiturs to my post. It's a prime example of why I have absolutely no interest in having a dialogue with you. Recent public education and taught lots of amour propre, I'll bet.
Geez, RJ,You guys have been w
April 2, 2007 - 17:21 ET by BlondeGeez, RJ,
You guys have been wiping the floor with the resident lefty annoyances today.
Must be Monday following a full moon, or somesuch. It was a really tedious day, today....so...I've really enjoyed reading this thread....nicely done to you & BD.
Hi Blonde.
April 2, 2007 - 17:30 ET by RJHi Blonde. I know it's probably coincidence, but sometimes they appear in flight formation....squeaking furiously... ;^>
Well, you shot them down with
April 2, 2007 - 17:34 ET by BlondeWell, you shot them down with alacrity.
I am still laughing over the "stupider" comment....as well as the great screeching over you being the grammar police. As if!
This bunch is just as bad as old JoZeF....planting his face continually in the wall at full speed.
I think you're now the king of the troll patrol. You totally wrapped Rupert around his own axle. Thanks, I'm not up to it today...plus I have to garner my strength for the Gators tonite!!!!
Not sure I get it there Blo
April 2, 2007 - 17:41 ET by Rupert CadellNot sure I get it there Blondie. I've responded in a measured, reasonable way to every single thing RJ has thrown at me. Nothing sticks, because he's trying to lump me (and the others) into some sort of leftist mold; that's what makes it so easy to refute his nonsense. His whole argument is that I just hate Bush, and that's why I'm against the war. To quote you: As if!
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
It's no small wonder you don'
April 2, 2007 - 17:48 ET by BlondeIt's no small wonder you don't get it.
You think you've responded in a measured, reasonable way to every single thing....
Too bad for you that you can't comprehend the irony of your posts.
There are some liberals here, who actually can communicate in a measured, reasonable way. JasonC comes to mind. You, however, are just thrashing.
You're entitled to your opionion....it doesn't mean I have to buy it, however. And I don't. You've made a fool of yourself here today.
Blonde, I guess I don't see
April 2, 2007 - 18:14 ET by Rupert CadellBlonde, I guess I don't see the irony. I explain why I disagreed with invading Iraq, I'm accused of hating America. I discuss what I think has gone wrong since 2003, I'm accused of working against the troops. I point out that the majority of the country is on my side, I'm a libtard. I thought my responses were reasonable.
Having never seen one post by "jasonC" I guess I don't know how a good little kowtowing "liberal" is supposed to behave here.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Not my problem that you "
April 2, 2007 - 18:21 ET by BlondeNot my problem that you "dont see".
Too bad for you.
But it's just typical of your kind that you would denigrate someone whom you've never seen post.
So tolerant, and all that.
Blond, you are doing the sa
April 3, 2007 - 12:00 ET by ChumlyBlond, you are doing the same thing that MOST people do on this site. You attack the character of the person and NOT the message they are conveying. That kind of tactic is what you see on Fox "news" and on limbaugh's show. You are parroting what you see on your MSM - Fox and the gang. That kind of tactic is done to distract from the message when you can't counter it.
I am fairly new to this blog and my observation is that if you disagree with the general population here, you are ridiculed and verbally abused. The message is sometimes lost in the vitriol being spewed by the righties here. I have even seen a post by you saying that just seeing someone abuse a liberal on this blog "made your day", when you were having a tough day.
Doesn't that sound kind of hateful?
I think what a lot of you don't understand is that the whole reason for NewsBusters is to distract the easily distractable from the important issues at hand.
The Michael Ware Non-heckling issue is a good example. Apparently it did not occur. At least there is no evidence that it did, and even one person (at least) on this blog has said they saw the video and there was no heckling.
It was a NON-ISSUE. I have found that MOST of the issues brought up on NewsBusters are Non-Issues. Distractions. And, you people fall all over yourselves bashing and trashing people over the non-issues.
What is your point, Chumly?Ru
April 3, 2007 - 17:52 ET by BlondeWhat is your point, Chumly?
Rupert made a stupid statement about another poster whom he admitted he has never seen post.
And I called him on his rude, and typically liberal behaviour. After he'd tried to convince me of his "reasonable" arguments with RJ and BD.
Why don't you go chase someone else around this site. I don't have the time nor the patience to educate you as to the etiquette here.
rupe, old pal:
April 2, 2007 - 17:45 ET by tumbler_2007I choke on the idea of supporting anything RJ BS is raising hell about; but the least I say here is that you've misinterpreted him:
Well gee RJ, just like your implication that
to question a war is to embolden the enemy,
No; --who cares if you and a band of liberals "enboldens" them? You are demanding that our leaders APPEASE the enemy. They're already very bold, as long as our left-wing Bush-haters are running interference for them. Appeasers never get it, --you mean GIVE UP, not question.
rupe, old pal:
April 2, 2007 - 17:46 ET by tumbler_2007I choke on the idea of supporting anything RJ BS is raising hell about; but the least I say here is that you've misinterpreted him:
Well gee RJ, just like your implication that
to question a war is to embolden the enemy,
No; --who cares if you and a band of liberals "enboldens" them? You are demanding that our leaders APPEASE the enemy. They're already very bold, as long as our left-wing Bush-haters are running interference for them. Appeasers never get it, --you mean GIVE UP, not question.
Actually, I don't support a
April 2, 2007 - 17:49 ET by Rupert CadellActually, I don't support a timetable for withdrawal. Try again.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Surrender type of guy, huh?
April 2, 2007 - 17:57 ET by BDSurrender type of guy, huh?
Human Shield?
April 2, 2007 - 18:04 ET by acumenI was thinking more like a hands on type of guy. To satisfy the feel-good factor. Human shield material?
Chumly,When, exactly, are you
April 2, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Dave RChumly,
When, exactly, are you libs going to figure out what we are up against in this war? Will it be when a nuke goes off in a major US population center? Will it be when your two boys are forced to pray towards Mecca five times a day at the point of an AK-47, or when some guy named Akhmed or Habib is raising a sword above their infidel necks? Maybe you will figure it out when that sword is being raised above your own neck. Of course, it will be a little late at that point.
As for our "reputation" with the rest of the world, who cares what the rest of the world thinks? As soon as they realize their 'nads are in a vice with the 7th century barbarian horde, we will be the first ones they appeal to for help. Given that Spain & France have all but surrendered, and the UK isn't far behind in waving the white flag, how long will we have to wait for that to happen? Let's face it, Europe is toast, as are significant portions of Africa and Asia.
But don't worry there, Chumly. If we suffer another major attack, say a nuke strike or something similar because of the appeasement and ignorance of Islamic history (of which if you new anything at all about, you would understand why we are in Iraq) being practiced by your ilk, many of us are going to be out hunting libs with dogs and guns.
Should be a hoot. I hear they taste like chicken. :-^)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
What war are you talking ab
April 2, 2007 - 15:58 ET by ChumlyWhat war are you talking about. The war on the terrorist who attacked us on 9/11? Or the war we are now fighting in Iraq? Please be clear.
Fox "News" has told you that they are one and the same. They are not.
I am all for fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Are you? We are loosing that war in afghanistan because of ineptitude in the Bush administration. We have still not caught Bin Laden.
Bush wanted to attack Iraq back in 1999, before he became President. Sadly for our country, he only wanted to go to war with them to ensure a successful presidency and boster his place in history. He got his way (about going to war with Iraq), but it had nothing to do with terrorists. He even said so. It had to do with WMD. Remember? That was proven to be a fabrication.
Is the wake-up call going to be a mushroom cloud?? Four years ago that line was used as a lie to garner support from the easily swayed sheep in this country. You guys bought it hook, line and stinker.
We now have many more enemies than we did prior to our invasion of Iraq, and fewer freinds. Thank the Bush supporters for that one. We are actually very engaged in the training of those terrorists in Iraq. Our sons and daughters are the targets that they practice on. Thanks again, Bush supporters.
All of the money that should have been used for infrastructure in this country for the benefit of our children and grandchildren has been spent on this misadventure, and we owe that money to China now. Our progeny will judge the chicken hawks in this administration and their supporters harshly for that.
Please stipulate your rationa
April 2, 2007 - 16:05 ET by BDPlease stipulate your rationale for the statement that we are "Losing the war in Afghanistan."
I await with baited breath for that one.
Hey RJ, keeper of grammatic
April 2, 2007 - 17:12 ET by Rupert CadellHey RJ, keeper of grammatical propriety are you gonna step in with a paragraph-long taunt for the typo/syntax error in BD's post? It's VERY ironic!
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Okay Rupert, please "Pro
April 2, 2007 - 17:25 ET by BDOkay Rupert, please "Provide" your rationale for that statement....
It's "bated", not
April 2, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Rupert CadellIt's "bated", not "baited." It's a common mistake, because no one uses the term "bated" outside of this saying anymore. I think Orwell mentions it in "Politics and the English Language." Anyway, I wasn't picking on you, just RJ for raising such a ruckus about my saying "stupider" (in reference to myself, no less).
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Please provide your rationale
April 2, 2007 - 17:35 ET by BDPlease provide your rationale.
Did I miss something?"
April 2, 2007 - 17:43 ET by Rupert CadellDid I miss something?
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
I have challenged your side t
April 2, 2007 - 18:02 ET by BDI have challenged your side to provide a rationale proving that we have lost the war in Afghnistan. I am still awaiting the answer.
Ohhh...I wasn't aware we we
April 2, 2007 - 18:11 ET by Rupert CadellOhhh...I wasn't aware we were losing in Afghanistan. I've been talking about Iraq. And I didn't say we were losing there either. Maybe this was meant for someone else.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Roger that, it seems you dove
April 2, 2007 - 18:22 ET by BDRoger that, it seems you dove into a shot aimed at Chumly.
BD,These libs do that occasio
April 2, 2007 - 18:37 ET by BlondeBD,
These libs do that occasionally, yes?
About five or six times on this thread alone (although I've not counted).
His "Am I missing something" comment made me want to reply (in the worst way) "apparently".
But I am just really not up to conversing with the libs tonite. Gators are on in a bit.
BTW..is it you or Sua who has the "chickenwire canoe"?
Way back when I dated an arch
April 2, 2007 - 20:15 ET by BDWay back when I dated an archaeologist who was a Gator.... That was back before electric light of course....
Saying we lost is a little
April 3, 2007 - 13:23 ET by ChumlySaying we lost is a little strong, I would say. BTW, I did not say we lost. Big difference, and another example of the word-twisting that I see here all the time.
I said I think we are loosing. The only evidence I have of that is that the Taliban still exists and wields power. People are joining the Taliban now because they have no jobs.
There are more ways of fighting a war than just using guns and bombs. It is called using your brains. Our current administration is out of that ammo.
The Soviets tried to fight in Afghanistan with guns and bombs and they had to give it up.
Do you have evidence that we are winning there?
No, Rupert, I'm not the grammar police
April 2, 2007 - 17:27 ET by RJNo, Rupert, I'm not the grammar police. I make enough of my own mistakes. In your case, the irony of your usage of "stupider" was just too funny to pass up.
We are loosing that war in
April 2, 2007 - 17:39 ET by Dave RWe are loosing that war in afghanistan because of ineptitude in the Bush administration. We have still not caught Bin Laden.
Interesting. First I have heard of that. As for Osama, I'll believe he is still alive when I see him holding a recent issue of his favorite newspaper, the New York Times.
Islamic history lesson:
In the event of a Jihad, the Qu'ran commands all Muslims to go to where ever it is happening to fight. This current conflict, which actually resumed in 1979, is nothing more than the resumption of a conflict that has been raging for fourteen centuries between 7th Century Islamic barbarians and the civilized world. It was they who declared war on Western Society, not the other way around. Under Islamic Law, infidels have three choices: conversion, pay the jizya, or death.
The Islamic horde came close to over-running most of Europe in the Middle Ages, but were beaten back. The Turks tried a resurgence in WW I, but lost. The Cold War pretty much kept their turbans down for fear of getting their bearded heads blown off, but now that that it is over, the Islamic barbarians are on the move once again.
In just the last few years, Spain has surrendered outright, and France is pretty much screwed, as they have been allowing Muslims into their country by the busload. What is worse, the French aren't having children. Neither are the Italians. The once mighty UK is about to appease its way out of existence. Much of Africa and Asia has been re-conquered.
If present trends continue unchanged, the only thing standing between the Muslims realizing their stated goal of world conquest is us, and, for the time being, anyway, the Aussies.
There is nobody else. Not the Useless Nations. Not the Eropean Union. We are the only world power that has the military ability to stop the spread of this oppressive and violent political movement that is disquising itself as a religion.
I don't know about you, Chumly, but I would much rather see the Jihadists going to Afghanistan and Iraq to
kill the infidel, as I find that preferrable to them coming here to kill the infidel.
_________________________________________________
I am all for fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Are you?
It is not just the terrorists that attacked us on 911. This is a global conflict. This is the early stages of what will be known as World War IV. Just offing Osama alone isn't going to change that. If Western Society is to survive, we cannot allow the Islamic horde to become the dominant force on this planet, which it is well on its way to becoming. Do you want your boys to grow up in a world dominated by people stuck in the 7th Century who believe killing innocent women and children (even their own) is a ticket to 72 virgins?
The only thing they respect is strength. Weakness and timidity they will exploit. They have been operating this way for fourteen-hundred years. Right now, we are showing weakness, and it is going to cost us dearly somewhere down the road. Mr. Bush has erred in one way, and that is by not unleashing the full capabilities of our military, he has, to a certain extent, emboldened the barbarians, but not nearly as much as the inaction of Bill Clinton emboldened them. Remember the first attack on the WTC took place in 1993, long before GWB was on the scene.
BTW-Ever wondered what the documents contained that Sandy Berger removed from the National Archive? Bet Bill and Hillary are glad he removed them. After all, Osama's barbarians atacked this country, or its interests, five times during Clinton's presidency, and he didn't do squat about it. Wouldn't want that getting out, I mean, with The Hildebeast running for the presidency and all.
He got his way (about going to war with Iraq), but it had nothing to do
with terrorists. He even said so. It had to do with WMD. Remember? That
was proven to be a fabrication.
Wrong. George W. Bush never said we were going to war with Iraq because of WMD's. That is a media fabrication. No one has yet produced a video or a transcript that shows that Mr. Bush ever said this. This was a Useless Nations mandated operation from the word go. Only people who attended government school do not know this.
By the way, Iraq did have WMD's, not that it matters.
Is the wake-up call going to be a mushroom cloud?? Four years ago that
line was used as a lie to garner support from the easily swayed sheep
in this country. You guys bought it hook, line and stinker.
So, you are 100% positive that every single nuclear device ever constructed by us, the UK, France, the former Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan and Israel are all accounted for. Yeah, right!
Oh, and don't forget that the Norks and the Iranians are very close to manufacturing their own nukes, if they haven't already. That Hitler wanna-be in Iran has said numerous times that he will incinerate Israel as well as us, and he also says he is going to share Iran's nuclear technology with his friends in the region (ain't that just peachy), yet the libs want us to just leave the bastard alone.
We now have many more enemies than we did prior to our invasion of Iraq, and fewer freinds.
You seem to be really hung up on the rest of the world's opinion of us. Most people in this world, according to polls I have seen, want this country to be far weaker. Only problem is, somebody is going to dominate. If not us, then who? Russia? China? Some crazed dictator like that gargoyle in N. Korea? Sorry, pal, but I'm voting for us on that score.
All of the money that should have been used for infrastructure in this
country for the benefit of our children and grandchildren has been
spent on this misadventure.......Our
progeny will judge the chicken hawks in this administration and their
supporters harshly for that.
Believe me, the money we have spent to this point will pale into insignificance when compared what we will end up paying if we abandon our efforts in Iraq. That would show the Islamic horde that we are nothing more than a paper tiger and that we can be worn down to the point where we essentially give up.
If that happens, Western Society will die, and your granchildren, if not your children, will be living in a new Dark Age that will make the Middle Ages look like child's play.
I have to hand it to you, though. You've got a pretty good grip on the terrorist-enabling DimLib talking points.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
Nicely done, Dave R.To a turn
April 2, 2007 - 18:31 ET by BlondeNicely done, Dave R.
To a turn, so to speak.
Even better than your b.b.q.
GREAT post, Dave
April 2, 2007 - 18:39 ET by RJGREAT post, Dave.
(Betcha Chumpley and Rupert will ignore it, though)
Thanks Blonde & RJ.For so
April 3, 2007 - 08:33 ET by Dave RThanks Blonde & RJ.
For some reason, the libs cannot seem to wrap their minds around the fact that we are in the early stages of a global conflict, one in which the continued existence of Western Society is directly threatened.
I realize many libs despise said society due to the brainwashing by their America-hating Marxist/Leninist professors, and, let's be honest here, their logic is non-linear, meaning they are totally driven by their emotions and their feelings at the particular moment they are living in. They have no sense or appreciation of history of any kind. Like their NAZI apologist predecessors in the 1930's, they believe that if we just appease the Islamic fascists enough they will just leave us alone.
What surprises me is the very few libs who actually have children don't seem to give a rat's behind what kind of world their offspring are going to wind up living in.
Damned tragic if you ask me.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
One small point. Saddam Hus
April 2, 2007 - 18:42 ET by dahliatraversOne small point. Saddam Hussein possessed and repeatedly employed weapons of mass destruction - on the Kurds and on Iranians.
Conservative method.1. &qu
April 2, 2007 - 15:16 ET by Rupert CadellConservative method.
1. """BAM""" See, he should have stopped funding terrorists. Anyone elase wanna go?
It's unfortunate that conservative approaches to warfare can be summed up (even by a conservative) in a way that makes it seem like a Pro Wrestling pay-per-view event. Bravado and posturing ain't worth beans once the combat part is over.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
Maybe there is something to t
April 2, 2007 - 15:39 ET by NL207Maybe there is something to this conservative style of warfare. It is plainly obvious that whatever libs do for warfare is unsuccessfull. They could not lead s to victory in the Soap Box Derby, much less at war. In fact, to paraphrase one of the most effective military leaders this country has ever produced,
"The bilious Liberals who write that kind of stuff for the New York Times don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking"
It is plainly obvious that
April 2, 2007 - 15:49 ET by Rupert CadellIt is plainly obvious that whatever libs do for warfare is unsuccessfull.
Ummmm......and the Republican-led executive and legislative branches that ran the first 3.8 years of the war have done a bang-up job, that's for sure. Again, they know how to use force; unfortunately, the entire operation after the first 2 weeks has required something a little more nuanced.
"The bilious Liberals who write that kind of stuff for the New York
Times don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know
about fucking"
That has about as much relevance as a locker room taunt. Like BD's nonsense, you're just trying to advance the idea that people who are against the war are emasculated wimps. It's just stupid.
"I'm liberal, but to a degree; I want everyone to be free." -B. Dylan
This war unsuccessful? Huh?
April 2, 2007 - 16:00 ET by BDThis war unsuccessful? Huh?
We have freed Afghanistan from the Tali/AQ.
We have freed the Iraqi's.
We have ejected the ASG from the Southern Philippines or killed 80% of its very bad guys.
We have reclaimed much of Yeman.
We have built relationships in the Horn of Africa and are moving the region away from the AQ.
I THINK THAT IS AN OUTSTANDING RECORD.
much better than what the libs would have done. Example...
1.) Please don't shoot the hostages "Bang" 99 Left.
2.) Please, it is not nice to shoot hostages "Bang" 98 left.
3.) Please, if you shoot anymore hostages I will go to the UN. "Bang" 97 left.
4.) Please, see we have this UN mandate for you to not shootmore hostages. "Bang" 96 left.
5.) Please, the UN will start putting in sanctions if you kill more hostages "Bang" 95 left.
6.) Please, We have held a concert with U2 and The Ditsie Chicks asking you to not shoot more hostages "Bang" 95 left.
7.) Please, we will make a movie about you if you kill more hostages and make you look misunderstood and that society is to blame... "Bang" 94 left.
8.) Ooops, okay we will make a movie that makes you look like a bad guy and supported by evil forporate masters and have Goerge Clooney in it "Bangity-bangity- Bang" 90 left.
That is your friggin Nuanced leftist approach....
Whoa! We have freed Afghan
April 2, 2007 - 17:08 ET by ChumlyWhoa! We have freed Afghanistan from the Taliban?? Not true. They are still in some areas and more people are joining them for lack of jobs.
We have freed Iraqis?? From what? They are less safe now than prior to our invasion and occupation. About 90 percent of them want us out of their country. As do most Americans.
Have you been watching Fox "News"? Or O'Reilly? Or Rush Limbaugh?
THe Tali's and the AQ were ef
April 2, 2007 - 17:33 ET by BDTHe Tali's and the AQ were effectively ejected from the population centers in 2002, most fleeing to Waziristan ahead of US and Northern Alliance forces. THey are now attempting to re-enter the population centers. THey are being killed in droves by disparate elements such as AC-130 Gunship, Predator UAV, and even 5.56MM bullets, a fact that the press seems to not care about.
What we have in Afghnistan is what I would like to call a "Jihadi Magnet" in which the roaches go in, but do not come out.
In Iraq the people are free to make what they wish out of their country, something they have not had before, is this not better?
I always hear Leftists say that frredom is more valuable than security, but it appears Chumly disagrees and would say screw freedom, give me my blanky....
I have been watching the news, I have also been reading my counterparts emails telling me what they think of the current situation. Particular weight is given to my friends on the scene. How about you?
If you cannot see what Patton
April 2, 2007 - 16:22 ET by NL207If you cannot see what Patton's point was, then I submit you simply do not understand warfare.
Liberals' idea of "winning" is bombing Bosnia with no military objective, misusing troops to provide relief assistance as in Mogadishu, spraying crusie missles at Al Qaeda camps, or, as the asinine liberals now propose, sending 'peacekeepers' to Darfur, a place of no strategic importance to the US whatsoever.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want to exterminate Al Qaeda, including the 12,000 Al Qaeda fighters said to be in Iraq.
Quite telling.Have you studie
April 2, 2007 - 15:46 ET by BDQuite telling.
Have you studied Mao? Sun Tsu? Hell, have you even studied George Washington?
Bravado aint worth beans once the combat part is over? Hell, Bravado is usually what leads to success (THat and naked use of force.)
Don't approach George S Patton's grave right now, it is spinning at 4000 RPM.
Everyone hates Ware
April 2, 2007 - 12:05 ET by Chidi NwachukhuMcCain should prove Ware wrong and go walking around Baghdad unescorted for 20 minutes. Anyway, the left also hates Ware because of his reporting on Iran's involvement in insurgent attacks, aling with a few other stories. I tend to believe that if neither political party likes you, you just might be telling the truth.
And it was who Ware scolded t
April 2, 2007 - 12:24 ET by dahliatraversAnd it was Ware who scolded the Democrats for setting a deadline for the US pullout of Iraq. The point here is not whether Ware is balanced in his reporting - he might well be. The point is that he may have crossed a line and stopped being a reporter altogether at this press conference.
CNN's suppressing of this video only lends credence to initial reports of Ware's conduct.
I haven't seen the video, and
April 2, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Chidi NwachukhuI haven't seen the video, and I Drudge doesn't have the story on his frontpage (unless I am blind) any longer. With that in mind, I can only speculate about Ware's reaction. If it is anything like his commentary on McCain last week, I don't doubt that Ware crossed the line. I don't have the link for the video, but Ware was not very pleased by McCain's comments about Baghdad.
That's the problem, no one
April 2, 2007 - 13:06 ET by dahliatraversThat's the problem, no one has seen the video. It was posted on YouTube briefly, then taken down.
Here is the Drudge Report link; took a little hunting to find:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/04/01/20070401_175303_flash.htm
McCain would last longer ther
April 2, 2007 - 16:27 ET by NL207McCain would last longer there than he would in South Central LA or Southeast DC.
We have a firm denial from CN
April 2, 2007 - 13:23 ET by dahliatraversWe have a firm denial from CNN of the whole incident:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_reporter_slams_Drudges_charge_that_0402.html
Looks like the left wing MSM gets a taste of their own medicine
April 2, 2007 - 13:36 ET by Carl KolchakThe left wing MSM sure likes it when they misquote people who aren't left wingers, and could care less about giving them a chance to rebute their claims and defend themselves. I haven't seen the video, so I don't really know and maybe he really didn't heckle. If he is innocent, then his defense should be given plenty of airtime. Did anyone see the other day that James Dobson said his remarks about Fred Thompson were taken out of context as well?
Here is a good link about the left wing MSM not caring if their facts were correct about Dan Quayle. Now for those who want to reply back about what you think about Quayle, I could care less, the point is the left wing MSM just wanted to attack him and didn't care about the facts.
Here is a quote from the link below.
"In April 1989, Representative Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island told a gathering of Republicans that she had recently attended an event at the Belgian embassy, where Vice-President Quayle complimented her on her command of French. Then, Schneider said, the Vice-President added: "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people." Ms. Schneider concluded by admitting that the story was merely a joke, but not all the newspapers reported it that way. Several publications, either through carelessness or a desire not to let the truth get in the way of a good story, reported the story as true. The culprits included such venerable publications as Newsday, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, and Time. The fabricated misquote took hold because it sounded exactly like something Dan Quayle (or, more accurately, the Dan Quayle of public perception) would say, and no amount of correction could dislodge it from the public vocabulary. "
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.htm
"Well I got nothing against the press, they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true" 'Sunday Papers'
That's why we like NewsBuster
April 2, 2007 - 17:08 ET by dahliatraversThat's why we like NewsBusters, Carl. Not because we're all necessarily conservative but because we want to hear the whole story, including especially whatever the msm left on the cutting room floor.
That's absolutely not true
April 2, 2007 - 15:20 ET by rainlillieThat's absolutely not true! He didn't heckle him.
Watch the whole video.http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_reporter_slams_Drudges_charge_that_0402.html
Thank you for re-posting my l
April 2, 2007 - 15:30 ET by dahliatraversThank you for re-posting my link, rainlillie. In case you and others also missed my comment, I said, we have a firm denial from CNN.
That's absoluely not true!
So are you saying, CNN doesn't deny the incident?
Feelings
April 2, 2007 - 17:23 ET by acumenFeelings, nothing more than feelings.....
Mohammed Gets It
April 2, 2007 - 17:18 ET by acumenI've been reading a great deal of opinion on this thread about the war on terror and the Iraq war being two seperate things, with some confusion on the war in Afghanistan and no mention of the many, many silent battles fought in the war on terrorism our children will only find out the truth about at some future date - that is if America does not capitulate.
I won't offer my opinion - again. Instead I offer the opinion of one Iraqi who speaks for many if not most Iraqis.
His name is Mohammed and he blogs on Iraq The Model - Mohammed's opinion:
The real front in the war on terror.
"When The Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell young men waited in lines to get a haircut and when Saddam fell barbers became targets."
My father offered this simple example during a discussion we had about war on terror the other day. Although the example is very simple but the idea behind it is deep and aims at identifying the change of the main battleground for war with terror.
I wanted to talk about this because recently we've been watching the debate in America about redeployment of troops and identifying the real front we must focus on.
I see that al-Qaeda and terrorists in general didn't hide their position in this respect—despite the fact that they still operate in many parts of the world, they are clearly redirecting most effort and resources to the war in Iraq.
The war here has a lot that to do with drawing the future prospects of spreading religious extremism and this in turn is connected to the agendas of countries that have mutual goals with al-Qaeda in spite of the difference in ideology. This collaboration is complex but it clearly shows the priorities of the terrorists and rogue regimes and in turn suggests what our strategic priorities should be.
There are greater examples than killing barbers of course so I'd like to include some more to remind those who try to naively oversimplify the issue in the context that the commanders of al-Qaeda are hiding in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan far away from civilization.
Al-Qaeda and its supporters are using most of the capabilities of their propaganda machine to cover their effort in Iraq, and so is the case with financial resources. All evidences indicate that most of the money is used to support the terror activity in Iraq.
Let's not forget recruiting networks that are discovered constantly in many European and Arab countries; we rarely, if ever, hear that those networks were sending recruits to Afghanistan because recruits are being sent to Iraq all the time. Even more telling, some of the prominent lieutenants of al-Qaeda left Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. One example I remember was Omar al-Farouk who escaped from Bagram to be later captured in Basra!
Al-Qaeda itself boasts about the great "sacrifices" of more than 4,000 "martyrs" to emphasize the importance of the war here. And the hundreds of suicide bombers preferred to blow themselves up in Iraq than anywhere else should remind us that if al-Qaeda considers this the main war then why talk about redeployment?
Walking away from the main war is not redeployment, it's quitting.
But why Iraq became the main front?
Iraq can simply not be equated with Afghanistan which the bulk of al-Qaeda largely abandoned after few weeks of battles—that doesn't sound like al-Qaeda!
Iraq, weak after a war that toppled the regime but rich-relatively-with resources and scientific base is a greater temptation than Afghanistan, and at the same time the possibility of a democracy arising in Iraq posed a great threat to the ideology of caliph state. Therefore al-Qaeda and whoever is backing it directly or indirectly felt they had to move the front to Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan.
Let's imagine that the world left Iraq alone before the country is able to defend itself and let it fall in the hands of extremists, what would happen then?
Can we compare the opium fields with the massive oilfields of Mesopotamia? Can we afford to leave these resources in the service of the terrorists?
The other point is scientific infrastructure, especially when it comes to military technology such infrastructure almost doesn't exist in Afghanistan while Saddam celebrated 17 years ago in launching a rocket to space. The same "accomplishment' Iran claimed to have made just days ago.
This infrastructure, while still humble compared to advanced countries, could be very dangerous if captured by terrorists.
An Islamic state in Iraq whether to be led by al-Qaeda or one of the local extreme religious parties would be an enormous threat to the security of the region and the world and a turning point that might encourage fence-sitters to join the terrorists…the tide would be much more difficult to stop then.
It's true that what's happening in Iraq doesn't meet the ambitions of Iraqis or Americans and everyone admits that many mistakes were made.
I agree that the Iraqi government should be pressed to speed up the effort to establish rule of law and achieve reconciliation. And I also agree that the American administration needs to revise the way it's been handling and planning for this critical war.
But abandoning this front or failing to recognize its priority is a terrible mistake that can lead to disastrous consequences to all of us.
Posted by Mohammed