Jorjor, Ive seen you make this comment on several clips. Some of your comments seem to suggest you are a very thoughtful and intelligent, though perhaps a bit misguided, person. I do not see why cannot see that your comment is inane.

If Liberals believe that someone in disagreement with them is misguided, that does not mean the person that disagrees with the Liberal is wrong. It just means the aren't "guided" to the Liberal indoctination. On the other hand, if the Conservative believes he is right - Of course he thinks the opposing view is wrong.

You make the case that Liberals can never be right, person that disagrees with the Liberal is not wrong - He is "misguided". Which requires...

Jorjor, Ive seen you make this comment on several clips. Some of your comments seem to suggest you are a very thoughtful and intelligent, though perhaps a bit misguided, person. I do not see why cannot see that your comment is inane.

If Liberals believe that someone in disagreement with them is misguided, that does not mean the person that disagrees with the Liberal is wrong. It just means the aren't "guided" to the Liberal indoctination. On the other hand, if the Conservative believes he is right - Of course he thinks the opposing view is wrong.

You make the case that Liberals can never be right, person that disagrees with the Liberal is not wrong - He is "misguided". Which requires Liberals to engage in the Trotsyesque "politically correct" camps and intellectual bullying.

An excerpt from a news story: "I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality....

An excerpt from a news story: "I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' If you want to find a source for the quote, just do a serch on "we create our own reality".

Willhelm, as I've said elsewhere, you cannot see nuances. Politics entails the art of compromise, and a person with the inability to see nuances cannot truly practice the diplomacy needed to do the most good for the most people.

There is one thing in this clip I do agree with - Bush and the Neo-Cons derive their power from terrorists and have a vested interest in not getting rid of them.

Or, as John Boardman stated decades ago:

"A conservative is someone who hates for the government to spend money on anything but killing people."

Another few quotes I'm fond of:

"His view, reiterated continually, is that our government, however popularly elected, represents only the large corporations that control it, as they control the media, through which they persuade the voters to support only two parties, conservative and reactionary. Wars fill their coffers, so at their behest the government levies heavy taxes for the purpose of waging unprovoked and undeclared wars: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace lists almost two hundred from 1945 to 2001." -- Edmund S. Morgan...

read more»

Or, as John Boardman stated decades ago:

"A conservative is someone who hates for the government to spend money on anything but killing people."

Another few quotes I'm fond of:

"His view, reiterated continually, is that our government, however popularly elected, represents only the large corporations that control it, as they control the media, through which they persuade the voters to support only two parties, conservative and reactionary. Wars fill their coffers, so at their behest the government levies heavy taxes for the purpose of waging unprovoked and undeclared wars: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace lists almost two hundred from 1945 to 2001." -- Edmund S. Morgan, review, Gore Vidal's "Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson"

"A modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." -- George Carlin, BRAIN DROPPINGS

"Feminists, religious apologists (including "creation scientists"), counterculturalists, neo-conservatives, and a host of other curious fellow-travelers have claimed to find crucial grist for their mills in, for instance, the avowed incommensurability and underdetermination of scientific theories. The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is ... the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time." -- Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism

Come on guys. This whole discussion can be decided by a quick look at the "American Heritage Dictionary"
as follows:

lib·er·al (l¹b“…r-…l, l¹b“r…l) adj. Abbr. lib. 1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 2.a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes. 3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation. 4. Of, relating to, or based on the tra[b]...

Come on guys. This whole discussion can be decided by a quick look at the "American Heritage Dictionary"
as follows:

lib·er·al (l¹b“…r-…l, l¹b“r…l) adj. Abbr. lib. 1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 2.a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes. 3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation. 4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education. 5.a. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.

————————————————————

SYNONYMS: liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded. The central meaning shared by these adjectives is “willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly”: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; a fond and openhanded grandfather. See also Synonyms at broad-minded.

ANTONYMS: stingy.

————————————————————

con·ser·va·tive (k…n-sûr“v…-t¹v) adj. 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. 3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate. 4.a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.”

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be...

In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.”

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Just because there are free markets doesn't mean they don't get monopolized. In a country that currently is about equally divided between the Democratic Party, independents, and republicans it appears that 91% of radio commentary being conservative is not reflective of the marketplace.

It is isn't about the stations and who owns them and as express above the law and the doctrine is pretty clear. The fairness doctrine would not obligate anyone to buy a syndicated radio show that showcases an opposite view. Nobody is forcing (or would be forced) to say Clear Channel "15 of your stations carry Rush, therefore 15 stations have to carry Air America". That is not it, it simply means that if Rush makes a statement on his syndicated show, I can go to my local station and ask for rebuttal time. If anything it encourages open and honest debate, which is why the talk-hate radioheads hate it so much, no dropped calls or cutting off mikes.

It does not affect Rush's ability to spout h...

It is isn't about the stations and who owns them and as express above the law and the doctrine is pretty clear. The fairness doctrine would not obligate anyone to buy a syndicated radio show that showcases an opposite view. Nobody is forcing (or would be forced) to say Clear Channel "15 of your stations carry Rush, therefore 15 stations have to carry Air America". That is not it, it simply means that if Rush makes a statement on his syndicated show, I can go to my local station and ask for rebuttal time. If anything it encourages open and honest debate, which is why the talk-hate radioheads hate it so much, no dropped calls or cutting off mikes.

It does not affect Rush's ability to spout his nonsense but it does those smeared by him to answer back.

Jorjor

The example you provided supporting your original statement was superbly appropriate, clear, and made the case without ambiguity. And it was from "real life", not something made up. You supported your facts with references.

[Article appeared in the Boston Globe, Think reality, not ideology, by H.D.S. Greenway.]

And what you got for it was:

A truly fine remark from someone that cannot present a cogent view.

'Even though that's precisely what you did.

But you know when people can't use reasoning themselves to support their own views (usually because they're not well thought out) they often resort to attacking the person instead. [argumentum ad...

Jorjor

The example you provided supporting your original statement was superbly appropriate, clear, and made the case without ambiguity. And it was from "real life", not something made up. You supported your facts with references.

[Article appeared in the Boston Globe, Think reality, not ideology, by H.D.S. Greenway.]

And what you got for it was:

A truly fine remark from someone that cannot present a cogent view.

'Even though that's precisely what you did.

But you know when people can't use reasoning themselves to support their own views (usually because they're not well thought out) they often resort to attacking the person instead. [argumentum ad hominem] As followed:

And, by the way, I am not a politician so I do not have to compromise my values for your ill-concieved and uneducated (nuanced though they may be) whims.

It's kind of funny, actually.

The author, not having caught the nuance, makes the above statement quite ironic. Not only is the statement an ad hominem in place of reason, but he actually "performs" your original concept!

You were using reason, complete with evidence, while he was insisting (without it) that you're just wrong! This was a perfect demonstration of what you were saying to begin with.

Amazing!

@schreibe, NBC is blatantly left organization, and so is CBS. As for the news, given examples with Blair at NYTimes and Rather on CBS - don't make them anything holy - they aren't. To me the whole thing is very simple - you don't like Rush - don't listen to him. You certainly have the power in your hands.

Well, RecordSage, since NBC and CBS is so blatantly left, I guess us lefty's have won the war of the media. Our left wing propaganda will get out there and I need not worry about Rush Limbaugh. I never quite thought of it that way before. Thanks for the enlightenment!

Right now I'm engaged in looking at the CNN production of the Democratic debate that is live and encompases a l...

@schreibe, NBC is blatantly left organization, and so is CBS. As for the news, given examples with Blair at NYTimes and Rather on CBS - don't make them anything holy - they aren't. To me the whole thing is very simple - you don't like Rush - don't listen to him. You certainly have the power in your hands.

Well, RecordSage, since NBC and CBS is so blatantly left, I guess us lefty's have won the war of the media. Our left wing propaganda will get out there and I need not worry about Rush Limbaugh. I never quite thought of it that way before. Thanks for the enlightenment!

Right now I'm engaged in looking at the CNN production of the Democratic debate that is live and encompases a lot of lefty type questions via "youtube".

You are right..... I don't like Rush! Do you?

Here's what I got to say about the Limbaugh!

I went off the deep end during the 2000 selection fiasco in which George was crowned king by the Supreme Court, after his tremendous 500 vote margin in the state of Florida. (I think he called it a mandate)

I remember walking by the cubicles at Media-One (AT&T Broadband), and having to endure listening to the voice of Rush Limbaugh from almost every one of the cubicles. There was one young girl who used to exclaim in an excited voice every day ...... "Did you hear what Rush said today!" It was almost more than I could endure. Then, I had to hear the comments of people saying "They counted it once, they counted it twice.....etc...

Here's what I got to say about the Limbaugh!

I went off the deep end during the 2000 selection fiasco in which George was crowned king by the Supreme Court, after his tremendous 500 vote margin in the state of Florida. (I think he called it a mandate)

I remember walking by the cubicles at Media-One (AT&T Broadband), and having to endure listening to the voice of Rush Limbaugh from almost every one of the cubicles. There was one young girl who used to exclaim in an excited voice every day ...... "Did you hear what Rush said today!" It was almost more than I could endure. Then, I had to hear the comments of people saying "They counted it once, they counted it twice.....etc, etc." I finally confessed my sin of being the only Democrat in the entire complex. I was summarily executed.

I have risen from the dead, and have not tried to hide my political affiliation ever since. In fact, I think I might be driving a few of them Republicans in this little town off the deep end. I hope so!

I think there's a difference... back in those days it was the Americans (none of whom were natives) who fought with the outsiders (who in large part were their countrymen to begin with), but still they were now the outsiders. In all other similar situation it was Americans against the 'others'. Now it seems that it's Americans against other Americans and that's where there's a difference, in my view. Even though I certainly don't subscribe to John Edwards definition of 2 Americas, I have to say that there are clearly 2 Americas now. The bad news is that the people who wished America harm are now out in force capitalizing on that situation, supposedly siding with the left, although I have...

I think there's a difference... back in those days it was the Americans (none of whom were natives) who fought with the outsiders (who in large part were their countrymen to begin with), but still they were now the outsiders. In all other similar situation it was Americans against the 'others'. Now it seems that it's Americans against other Americans and that's where there's a difference, in my view. Even though I certainly don't subscribe to John Edwards definition of 2 Americas, I have to say that there are clearly 2 Americas now. The bad news is that the people who wished America harm are now out in force capitalizing on that situation, supposedly siding with the left, although I have no doubt that if the opportunity presented itself - they'd bury the left along with the right without blinking an eye.

It seems like before (actually not that many decades ago and going all the way back), regardless of pro or opposition to the government - Americans were pro America. Take mafia, as an example, they provided some serious help during WWII, despite the fact that they were as anti-government as one could get. That's the element that seems to be missing in some these days.

I guess it depends on your definitions. I believe the Bush Administration is causing immense harm to this nation with its disregard for the constitution.

Founding father Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Having said that, to imply that Liberals have no desire or no plan to curb radical Islam is basically a falsehood it just comes down to the methodology. A good example is Germany who has programs to protect their country and deal with radical islam but they refer to it as a police action instead of a "War". "War" glorifies the combatants, police actions merely label the op...

I guess it depends on your definitions. I believe the Bush Administration is causing immense harm to this nation with its disregard for the constitution.

Founding father Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Having said that, to imply that Liberals have no desire or no plan to curb radical Islam is basically a falsehood it just comes down to the methodology. A good example is Germany who has programs to protect their country and deal with radical islam but they refer to it as a police action instead of a "War". "War" glorifies the combatants, police actions merely label the opponent as criminals. Bush and his methods have given strength to terrorists and terrorism. The Bush administration has been very unsuccessful, especially when viewed against the resources consumed and the opportunities missed.

I also believe your view of history is slightly skewed due to romanticism of the past. I think people are opposed to incorrect and harmful ideas whether the person enacting the incorrect and harmful ideas is American or a person from any other geographical point on this planet.

You may have missed the recent articles about W's relative Senator Prescott Bush who was all for over throwing the government to enact facism as his preferred methodology of dealing with the depression. Boy the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.

I'm all for Founding Fathers and mostly agree with everything they had to say, but to be totally fair, you can't look at everything stated without considering the reality of the world today. With all due respect to them, having come up with the best environment for people to have a decent life (for huge masses - more than just decent) - you can't really argue with them. However, Ben Franklin never heard of islamists blowing up children for breakfast or blowing up buildings with airplanes, both full of people. So, it's impossible for us to be 100% certain how Mr. Franklin would've responded to these acts nor if he would change his statements or not, based on such knowledge. I'm not trying...

I'm all for Founding Fathers and mostly agree with everything they had to say, but to be totally fair, you can't look at everything stated without considering the reality of the world today. With all due respect to them, having come up with the best environment for people to have a decent life (for huge masses - more than just decent) - you can't really argue with them. However, Ben Franklin never heard of islamists blowing up children for breakfast or blowing up buildings with airplanes, both full of people. So, it's impossible for us to be 100% certain how Mr. Franklin would've responded to these acts nor if he would change his statements or not, based on such knowledge. I'm not trying to negate or diminish his statements one bit, just saying that he was speaking in a totally different time, with totally different set of circumstances and IMO, that should be considered.

And I don't believe that liberals have no desire to curb terrorism etc., but their actions and statements certainly provide aid and comfort to the terrorists, because they wind up on the same side as the terrorists, if you were to look at the 2 opposing sides, whether they intend it that way or not. To me the whole defense of America subject should NOT be divided among liberals & conservatives. It should be as it was in the old days, America vs. <fill in the current foe here>. It seems to me that we can argue on whom to elect to be our next President, argue about taxes, death penalty, health care... and any other internal topics, based on our political views, but when it comes to defending the country - there's shouldn't be any split, period. Kind of like when it was on 9/11, 9/12 and a few weeks after. The whole country was in mourning and it was very clearly visible. With that being the case - my question is simple? Why do we have to have thousands of our countymen and women die to have unity? And the follow-up question is...

Why does this unity disappear after a relatively brief period? Are our memories so short? Have those 3000+ people been resurrected somehow?

I disagree with you on treating islamoterror as a burglary. If you remember, Clinton addressed the problem as a law enforcement situation - with less than desirable results (to put it extremely mildly). Germany? I'd like to see what they'd do if they had a 9/11-equivalent attack? There aren't enough and proper resources to have local police or even FBI alone handle 9/11 type situations. You do need to go after people who did the deeds and countries that support them... the problem we had was that we wanted to fight diplomatically, after regular d...

Why does this unity disappear after a relatively brief period? Are our memories so short? Have those 3000+ people been resurrected somehow?

I disagree with you on treating islamoterror as a burglary. If you remember, Clinton addressed the problem as a law enforcement situation - with less than desirable results (to put it extremely mildly). Germany? I'd like to see what they'd do if they had a 9/11-equivalent attack? There aren't enough and proper resources to have local police or even FBI alone handle 9/11 type situations. You do need to go after people who did the deeds and countries that support them... the problem we had was that we wanted to fight diplomatically, after regular diplomacy failed. And there is no such beast. You either fight a war or don't, there's no in-between... at least unless you have no desire to win. It's not a game of chess - there is no tie. If someone doesn't win conclusively - the war never ends... and unfortunately, that's what we have. Leaving the battlefield midplay certainly doesn't solve anything, in fact it'll create a new disaster. The only options are to win or lose, AFAIC.

No, I haven't missed the info about Bush's grandfather. Very disturbing stuff if true, although I'd like to see some more coverage of that, from typically credible and most importantly - politically uninvolved sources. If Bush's army record can be scrutinized as it was, I have to believe these other accusations are much more important and serious to investigate. We do know that Bush Sr. fought in WW2 as a fighter pilot and was shot down and almost killed by the Germans.

There were many misguided people in the USA, take all of the communists, people like Rosenbergs, Oswald, McVeigh to name just 3 of many more. To me you have to look at each person based on their deeds, regardless of their ancestors or their lives. Bush deserves to be blamed for his actions, not for something his grandfather was accused of.

Willhelm,
Liberals are dangerous to this out of control regime.....and for all you religious folks....they are a Godsend to those of us who value freedom, liberty, justice, and the American way.
Try reading the article again....

Think about it. Terrorists are an absolute necessity for furthering the Bush regime’s plans. Without terrorists, they could not justify Afghanistan, Iraq, torture, illegal spying on US citizens, stripping away habeus corpus rights, Guantanamo, outing Valerie Plame, or any of the other debacles they have foisted upon America and the world.

There is only one thing standing it their way, preventing them from doing whatever they think will bring th...

read more»

Willhelm,
Liberals are dangerous to this out of control regime.....and for all you religious folks....they are a Godsend to those of us who value freedom, liberty, justice, and the American way.
Try reading the article again....

Think about it. Terrorists are an absolute necessity for furthering the Bush regime’s plans. Without terrorists, they could not justify Afghanistan, Iraq, torture, illegal spying on US citizens, stripping away habeus corpus rights, Guantanamo, outing Valerie Plame, or any of the other debacles they have foisted upon America and the world.

There is only one thing standing it their way, preventing them from doing whatever they think will bring them more power and wealth.

Liberals.

In the absence of a functioning media to inform the public, liberals and progressives are the only thing standing in the way of a complete power grab by the neo-cons. This makes them far more dangerous than terrorists.

Terrorists aren’t a threat, they are a critical tool… a prop… a crutch.

Liberals, on the other hand, are the most dangerous thing in the world.

@schreibe, let's assume for a second that your notion and what the clip suggests was the case... how do you explain the fact that when asked who America (ie majority) would rather have in charge at the time of crisis - it's conservatives, not liberals who rise to the top?

And while you're pondering that one - here's another one. If one was to follow your 'logic' - if terrorism is a 'prop', a 'critical tool' for conservatives - why would they fight it? They could easily adopt Bill Clinton's approach (not the cigar part) and do almost nothing, except an occasional missile shot here or there for kicks. The terrorism would continue to flourish and they'd continue to be in power, if that's th...

@schreibe, let's assume for a second that your notion and what the clip suggests was the case... how do you explain the fact that when asked who America (ie majority) would rather have in charge at the time of crisis - it's conservatives, not liberals who rise to the top?

And while you're pondering that one - here's another one. If one was to follow your 'logic' - if terrorism is a 'prop', a 'critical tool' for conservatives - why would they fight it? They could easily adopt Bill Clinton's approach (not the cigar part) and do almost nothing, except an occasional missile shot here or there for kicks. The terrorism would continue to flourish and they'd continue to be in power, if that's the motivation for everyone. Yet that's not the case - why?

Outside of liberals assisting the terrorists, perhaps not physically, but certainly verbally, where exactly are they helping this country? Where is "the American way"? In bashing Bush or hoping (at least in blogs) that Roberts dies? That's the American Way?

It appears that Sage missed the results of the last election.

Is the Bush really fighting the so called "War on Terror", which in its self is a ridiculous concept? With only 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and relying on its allies to do the dirty work ain't much.

Is using a crayola(tm) color coded system (or for that matter relying on Chertoff's gut) fighting terror?

Is exploiting the threat from terrorist to turn the Constitution into toilet paper and create a Unitary Executive(tm) fighting terror?

Is starting a war based on lies, deceit, misconceptions and Imperial ambitions fighting terror?

Is posing for the cameras in a flight suit/cod piece combo fighting terror?

Is torturing, murd...

It appears that Sage missed the results of the last election.

Is the Bush really fighting the so called "War on Terror", which in its self is a ridiculous concept? With only 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and relying on its allies to do the dirty work ain't much.

Is using a crayola(tm) color coded system (or for that matter relying on Chertoff's gut) fighting terror?

Is exploiting the threat from terrorist to turn the Constitution into toilet paper and create a Unitary Executive(tm) fighting terror?

Is starting a war based on lies, deceit, misconceptions and Imperial ambitions fighting terror?

Is posing for the cameras in a flight suit/cod piece combo fighting terror?

Is torturing, murdering and kidnapping hundreds if not thousands of people around the world the equivalent of fighting terror or is it in fact an attempt to imitate them?

Of course the answer to all of the above is no. But the War on Terror has a purpose, it keeps you terrorize, willing to support anything this Administration spits out in the name of defense. The last six years have been an unmitigated disaster on all fronts, politically, diplomatically and militarily. And thats something that the dead-enders in this Administration can not and will never admit. They are already reviving the old Myth of the Stab in the Back, which will surely lead to the next war of Imperial aggression.

No, I didn't miss the results... since I voted in it.

It's funny how you say that all of those points (which are all BS to me) are supposed to keep 'YOU terrorized'. If so - how come you're not so terrorized? You figure you're the only one? Or you're the only one who can see what's really happening?

Everyone with a brain and some knowledge of America should be able to figure out why so many Iraqis are dying. It's not a big secret - they're killing each other. Somehow, with all your wisdom, you keep missing that point and dumping on your own fellow Americans as somehow they make the IEDs and they blow up markets etc. Utter garbage. You want to see what real Americans are like - watch...

No, I didn't miss the results... since I voted in it.

It's funny how you say that all of those points (which are all BS to me) are supposed to keep 'YOU terrorized'. If so - how come you're not so terrorized? You figure you're the only one? Or you're the only one who can see what's really happening?

Everyone with a brain and some knowledge of America should be able to figure out why so many Iraqis are dying. It's not a big secret - they're killing each other. Somehow, with all your wisdom, you keep missing that point and dumping on your own fellow Americans as somehow they make the IEDs and they blow up markets etc. Utter garbage. You want to see what real Americans are like - watch the footage in Minneapolis' bridge collapse yesterday. That's what real Americans are like... and the same ones, only more disciplined and trained, are in the Armed Forces. You can't have it both ways - they can't be murdering raping lunatics in Iraq and at the same time good samaritans and heroes at home. Doesn't work like that.

As for your 'next war of imperial aggression' (everyone who's terrorized - duck! if you were terrorized by Bush, now you're really going to be terrorized) - the next election is in a year. You think you've shown everyone in the last election the people to elect (although somehow, with the overwhelming non-support of the War and very low ratings of Bush - that very same Congress has even lower ratings... lowest in history perhaps... that doesn't quite add up either, does it), now a new President will be elected.

Here's your chance to 'take the country back' (i.e. make it Clinton country again). If such tragedy happens - we'll revisit this topic and see how well things go then.

In the meantime - enjoy the sun... while you can still see it (without any dark smoke concealing it).

True, you can blame us for letting them vent their thousands years old hatred and yes, al qaeda was certainly instrumental in flaming the problem, but in the end it's them killing each other. That's the reason so many of them die. They were dying before we got there, of course, also in large numbers, and also at the hands of their own, although at that time it was their leader.

The point I'm trying to make is this shrill of US killing Iraqis is non-sense, yet that's all you hear from various sources.

And if Iraqis don't have enough brains, given this golden opportunity, and want to insist on killing each other - that's their perogative. We've certainly lost way too many people on our si...

True, you can blame us for letting them vent their thousands years old hatred and yes, al qaeda was certainly instrumental in flaming the problem, but in the end it's them killing each other. That's the reason so many of them die. They were dying before we got there, of course, also in large numbers, and also at the hands of their own, although at that time it was their leader.

The point I'm trying to make is this shrill of US killing Iraqis is non-sense, yet that's all you hear from various sources.

And if Iraqis don't have enough brains, given this golden opportunity, and want to insist on killing each other - that's their perogative. We've certainly lost way too many people on our side and spent way too much money trying to help them, not unlike the rebuilding of German & Japan after WW2. The difference is that those people were astute enough to accept the help and do something constructive and these don't seem to want to do so. Add to that the al qaeda meddling and Iran and you have what you have.

It's not the Administration that failed, it's the Iraqis and their inane and stupid insistence on killing their own without any sane reason. Neither Bush nor anyone else on this planet could've done anything differently. We went to Iraq to get rid of sadam and potential threat he could've been. That's been accomplished without a hitch. Then we wanted to help the Iraqis put a new infrastructure in place, with democratically elected government etc., thinking that they were normal and reasonable people and with assistance could get back on their feet. It turned out that we were wrong on that account. They're not normal & reasonable and would rather kill their own than improve their lives. So, we have what we have as the result of trying to do something good there. The moral is - don't try to help someone who doesn't want help.

As for the election... you got to be kidding me. With all of the crap and insults (to put it mildly) coming from everywhere, with Hillary saying during the last debate that she was sorry that he got elected, in fact it was her understanding that someone else got elected. You have this kind of rhetoric out in the most public view possible, and you're telling me they can't stand up to the Chief? Come on!

They have the majority, if they wanted to - they could've stopped the funding, which would've stopped the war. They don't need his permission for this to happen. Yet they don't. Why is that? Because they're afraid of him? I highly doubt it. Although I'm sure they're afraid... they're...

As for the election... you got to be kidding me. With all of the crap and insults (to put it mildly) coming from everywhere, with Hillary saying during the last debate that she was sorry that he got elected, in fact it was her understanding that someone else got elected. You have this kind of rhetoric out in the most public view possible, and you're telling me they can't stand up to the Chief? Come on!

They have the majority, if they wanted to - they could've stopped the funding, which would've stopped the war. They don't need his permission for this to happen. Yet they don't. Why is that? Because they're afraid of him? I highly doubt it. Although I'm sure they're afraid... they're afraid of us, the Americans, who would NEVER forgive them for cutting the funding for the troops, regardless of their motives, which btw are nothing more than political. Vast majority of these newfound legislators voted for this war. They're just as guilty, if you want to use such word, as anyone who supported it, which was majority of the country and the Congress. Now they want to backpedal because the public is tired of the war, they simply don't have the stomach for it, and so there's an opportunity for people to capitalize on that for their political well being, which is terrible, IMO. Regardless of the circumstances, those people should ALWAYS put their country before their political agendas and ambitions, yet vast majority of them doesn't. And that's both parties, btw.

And if Iraqis don't have enough brains, given this golden opportunity,
and want to insist on killing each other - that's their perogative.
We've certainly lost way too many people on our side and spent way too
much money trying to help them, not unlike the rebuilding of German
& Japan after WW2. The difference is that those people were astute
enough to accept the help and do something constructive and these don't
seem to want to do so. Add to that the al qaeda meddling and Iran and
you have what you have.

Thats right, always blame the victim. And what golden oportunity would that be, exactly? The smae golden oportunity the Brits gave the Iraqis after WW1 or the Soviets gave A...

And if Iraqis don't have enough brains, given this golden opportunity,
and want to insist on killing each other - that's their perogative.
We've certainly lost way too many people on our side and spent way too
much money trying to help them, not unlike the rebuilding of German
& Japan after WW2. The difference is that those people were astute
enough to accept the help and do something constructive and these don't
seem to want to do so. Add to that the al qaeda meddling and Iran and
you have what you have.

Thats right, always blame the victim. And what golden oportunity would that be, exactly? The smae golden oportunity the Brits gave the Iraqis after WW1 or the Soviets gave Afghanistan during the 1980s. Simply put, you invade a country, it becomes your responsability. Nice dodge, no go....

The golden opportunity was to take the country into their own hands and do something productive with it, like improve their lives and the lives of their children. They were victims under saddam, they couldn't do much, other than tow the party line or be thrown into a wood chopper head first, and that's on a good day. So, yes, they were certainly big time victims when he was in power. Then their moment came, they got their Constitution, elected their government, financial, physical and military assistance from the US and what did they do with all of that? Resumed killing their neighbors as they did centuries ago. They don't qualify to be called victims under these circumstances. The we...

The golden opportunity was to take the country into their own hands and do something productive with it, like improve their lives and the lives of their children. They were victims under saddam, they couldn't do much, other than tow the party line or be thrown into a wood chopper head first, and that's on a good day. So, yes, they were certainly big time victims when he was in power. Then their moment came, they got their Constitution, elected their government, financial, physical and military assistance from the US and what did they do with all of that? Resumed killing their neighbors as they did centuries ago. They don't qualify to be called victims under these circumstances. The were given a choice on a golden platter and they blew it.

And if you actually compare this with Soviets/Afghanistan - you're hopeless... I can't even imagine what kind of thinking brings this kind of analogy as anything semi-serious.

Simply put, you do what's right to defend your country and its citizens.

Thats pretty naive of you. The war in Iraq was not about liberating the Iraqis, it was a simple power play, get Saddam out, put another proxy in (the neocons favored Chalabi). The U.S. had no intention of just taking Saddam out and then leaving. Super embassies, major military bases and the whole of the CPA shows that it was another operation like in Panama or in countless other countries the U.S. has operated in (so did the Old Soviet Union as well, different dress, same game). Saddam murdered thousands of his own people and the U.S. care not a wit, in fact it gave him more money, more arms and more support after that. Saddam's only sin, in the eyes of Washington was that he dared bit the h...

Thats pretty naive of you. The war in Iraq was not about liberating the Iraqis, it was a simple power play, get Saddam out, put another proxy in (the neocons favored Chalabi). The U.S. had no intention of just taking Saddam out and then leaving. Super embassies, major military bases and the whole of the CPA shows that it was another operation like in Panama or in countless other countries the U.S. has operated in (so did the Old Soviet Union as well, different dress, same game). Saddam murdered thousands of his own people and the U.S. care not a wit, in fact it gave him more money, more arms and more support after that. Saddam's only sin, in the eyes of Washington was that he dared bit the hand that fed him (he invaded Kuwait) and then did not go quietly into the night when his forces lost in 1991. Had he not invaded Kuwait he would probably be the U.S. biggest ally in the region.

Whatever Constitution the Iraqis made, it would be under American "guidance", in fact the U.S fought tooth and nail not to have elections or had over power, had the Shiites not pushed the issue (under Sistani) the CPA may still be in power. Same thing happened in Cuba a century ago, the Americans "liberated" the Cubans only to impose their will on them (why do you think Guantamo exist, eh). Same thing happened 20 years ago in Panama, one bully bit more than he could chew and off with his head.

Similar situation in Vietnam, tried to give their South Vietnamese proxies some breathing space, but they where not up to the job (spending to much time with hookers and firing squads), and after 58,000 lives, it merely delayed the inevitable. In fact the reason why the Russians invaded Afghanistan was that while it was a nominal ally of Moscow, they felt that it was getting to close to Washington, so they invaded, went well at first then, 10,000 lives later the goverment fell to forces unleashed by the invasion.

I am sure a lot of those boys "over there" mean well, I know a few of them, they are family, but please don't be naive, the Brits tried to pull this of the same thing nearly a century ago and had similar results.

The most interesting thing which happened during this week was a performance by the R.A.F., a bombing demonstration. It was even more remarkable than the one we saw last year at the Air Force Show because it was much more real. They had made an imaginary village about a quarter of a mile from where we sat on the Diyala [(Sirwan)] dyke and the two first bombs, dropped from 3000 ft, went stra...

I am sure a lot of those boys "over there" mean well, I know a few of them, they are family, but please don't be naive, the Brits tried to pull this of the same thing nearly a century ago and had similar results.

The most interesting thing which happened during this week was a performance by the R.A.F., a bombing demonstration. It was even more remarkable than the one we saw last year at the Air Force Show because it was much more real. They had made an imaginary village about a quarter of a mile from where we sat on the Diyala [(Sirwan)] dyke and the two first bombs, dropped from 3000 ft, went straight into the middle of it and set it alight. It was wonderful and horrible. They then dropped bombs all round it, as if to catch the fugitives and finally firebombs which even in the bright sunlight, made flares of bright flame in the desert. They burn through metal, and water won't extinguish them. At the end the armoured cars went out to round up the fugitives with machine guns. "And now" said the AVM wearily, "they'll insist on getting out and letting of [sic] trench mortars. They are really no good, but the men do love it so that I can't persuade them not to." Sure enough they did

That was the British in the 1920s...

And then you have this... not as eloquent, but they seem to share the same feelings. And probably end up with the same results.

Well Chalabi proved to be a non starter since different branches of the U.S. goverment could not agree on his installment (the State Department hated him and Brenner was not about to give up a good thing), instate an old CIA asset, Mr. Allawi came to the forefront.

As for the Constitutions, that was the plan (and still is if you look at Iraqi's proposed new oil law), but lo and behold, the Shiites did not prove to be the perfect proxies the neocons planned or hoped (problem with proxies, they are not that reliable). The Kurds wanted independence all along, so any Constitution that would install a strong central goverment was a no go (after 12 years of near total independence, they did not w...

Well Chalabi proved to be a non starter since different branches of the U.S. goverment could not agree on his installment (the State Department hated him and Brenner was not about to give up a good thing), instate an old CIA asset, Mr. Allawi came to the forefront.

As for the Constitutions, that was the plan (and still is if you look at Iraqi's proposed new oil law), but lo and behold, the Shiites did not prove to be the perfect proxies the neocons planned or hoped (problem with proxies, they are not that reliable). The Kurds wanted independence all along, so any Constitution that would install a strong central goverment was a no go (after 12 years of near total independence, they did not want to turn back the clock on their long held ideal of freedom and a Kurdish homeland), and the Sunnis wanted a strong central goverment with them back in charge.

As for comparing the two, the only real difference is that the Soviet did not create a false Rubicon, they could be as brutal home as at abroad. But make no mistake about it, U.S. policies abroad (and in some of the colonial dependencies) have been particular brutal. They just practice Pontious Pilot rule, let someone else take the fall for their decisions. You got to love willing and corrupt Imperial proxies. If anything Dubya and his cohorts simply did away with the niceties and go betweens and decided to exercise direct Imperial power. The results, six dark and long years.

Thats what happened, if you want to ask Bremer about it, I'm sure that he will give you a few moments to answer your questions.

As for the situation on the ground, there are reports that a) the success of the surge is overblown and b) without a goverment to take over after the American push, its a moot point.

And what are these efforts, you mean hiring fresh graduates whose only experience was paying their dues to the Young republicans and voting for Bush? Was that actually good enough to rebuild a nation torn assunder by three wars, sactions and a dictatorship? Or maybe exiles who had spent decades away from the country with little or no contacts inside a nation ruled by Saddam where goi...

Thats what happened, if you want to ask Bremer about it, I'm sure that he will give you a few moments to answer your questions.

As for the situation on the ground, there are reports that a) the success of the surge is overblown and b) without a