Our Friday editorial noted the latest National Intelligence Estimate of al-Qaida, which finds the terrorist group rested, regrouped and ready to attack our homeland once again.
No wonder Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has a “gut feeling” we could face another terror attack this summer.
Contrary to President Bush, the Iraq war isn’t preventing such attacks. It’s helping, by giving al-Qaida a training ground for bombers and a recruiting bonanza.
The continued resurgence of al-Qaida, the report found, is made possible in part by the sanctuary it’s found in the border region of northwest Pakistan, which our “ally” Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to control.
As a result, Osama bin Laden — the person who actually attacked us on Sept. 11 — is sitting pretty in this safe haven, making propaganda videotapes and planning attacks.
It’s past time for American troops to flush out this terrorist stronghold and run bin Laden to ground.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
133 Comments
Gee, dummy, do you thing the terrain might play a role in the process?
And, media traitors like Scholfield are the greatest allies Osoma Yo Mama has.
Pakistan and India were training grounds for the Taliban and were supported by Reagan/Bush when they were doing battle over the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia, Good guys then. Now they and Al Qaida are bad guys since the Bush thugs invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Bush and his clan of thugs invading countries,Iraq and Afghanistan, that could not invade the USA and did not invade the USA has not and is not making peace in the valley. Perhaps bin Laden and his thugs pulled off 9/11/01 due to negligence on the part of the Bush admin but they were largely from Saudi Arabia who also make up a fair number of insurgents/mideast patriots fighting back the GW BUSH/Dick Cheney/Rummy war of choice.
Diplomacy and Peace should be the message of the USA. A stop to placing our military all over the world ,at a cost of 50 cents for every tax dollar, time has come. Our military presence and imposing western thinking on mideast populations is not winning friends nor influencing people.Facism is not democracy.
No comment, it would be too much like saying the sun is up at ten A.M.!
If it were me running things, it would be as simple as this- if they are in Pakistan and Pakistan cannot or will not get rid of them we will do it. Same with Saudi Arabia or any other nation harbouring Ben Laden & Co. You are either with us or with them. Choose wisely. And unlike the idiot, I would actually mean what I say ans say what I mean.
Randy
Pervez is hanging by a thread as a leader. He’s risked quite a lot in giving us what help he has. Pakistan is in danger of being taken over by radicals. And they have quite a few nukes. Do you really want those nukes to be controlled by radicals like the Taliban or al Quaida?
Whether Pervez goes after him or we go after him you risk the overthrow of Pervez and nukes in the hands of Al Quaida. Brilliant.
And Bin Laden is most likely dead anyway.
Well, think about it. The country’s real name is The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It’s 96% Muslim. Pakistan hates our real ally, India. So come on, just because we love ourselves doesn’t mean eveyone loves us.
Yes, hiding in the mountains they are.
Let’s see, if my fighters had been MOAB’d, strafed and generally killed with all types of weaponry causing them to lose everything they owned, I would hide in the mountains as well. It’s a good place for them.
Another thing is that these fighters have to come out of the mountains to do anything.
Their record against the U.S. for “coming out of the mountains” doesn’t appear to be very good.
Actually that part of Pakistan is so tribal controlled, and it has been for so long that not even the Pakistan Government really has any control in that area.
I was listening to NPR and the USA was pressuring the Pakistani Government to get in that region and start flushing out the militants. They did, but when they did, the Pakistani Military lost over 600 men in just few days. They retreated and said forget it.
We were allowed to do a few bombing runs, but only when we were absolutely sure that it was a taliban/al queada hideout or camp.
If we can just get over the political correctness and the civilian deaths scare, we could just go in and just carpet bomb the place, like we use to do against the Nazi back in WWII. The Pakistani government wouldn’t mind. But it isn’t going to happen.
And as another poster made reference to, Pakistani Government is on a teeter totter and the current President is struggling, just to stay on, because he’s on his way down and fast.
Another reason for all Americans, especially Republicans supporters of Bush, to ask the hard questions of Bush and Gang.
That will never happen because there is no answer from Dumb and Dumber. The Iraq War is a farce when Bush says it is about the war on terror. It is about the power of the oil.
if Bush had fulfilled his promise of capturing Bin Laden for 9/11, the rest of the world would have supported us. But Bush had to go off on his own little oil power trip and then wonders why the rest of the free world has turned their nose up to us.
And for all this big talk of going over and just bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan – remember, they have nuclear weapons and they are not afraid to use them. So the guy with the biggest bomb does not necessarily win the war. When will these war mongerers get that through their head?
Ya know, if we had ignored the tinpot dictator in Iraq, and concentrated on finding and eliminating al Quaida and it’s leaders, we might be involved in Pakistan, helping their leader root out the extremists. You know, the ones who attacked us?
Shoot, I forgot for a minute we got the decider running things . . . never mind.
The Republican party has a long history of betting on military dictatorships. For some reason it doesn’t really work out in the end (Iran, Chile, Iraq, etc.)
Here is all the dictators we supported through the years, both Republican and DEMOCRAT administrations.
Abacha, General Sani NigeriaAmin, Idi UgandaBanzer, Colonel Hugo BoliviaBatista, Fulgencio CubaBolkiah, Sir Hassanal BruneiBotha, P.W. South AfricaBranco, Humberto BrazilCedras, Raoul HaitiCerezo, Vinicio GuatemalaChiang Kai-Shek TaiwanCordova, Roberto Suazo HondurasChristiani, Alfredo El SalvadorDiem, Ngo Dihn VietnamDoe, General Samuel LiberiaDuvalier, Francois HaitiDuvalier, Jean Claude HaitiFahd King Saudi ArabiaFranco, Francisco SpainHitler, Adolf GermanyHassan II MoroccoMarcos, Ferdinand PhilippinesMaximiliano Hernandez El SalvadorMobutu Sese Seko ZaireMontt, Efrain GuatemalaNoriega, Manuel PanamaOzal, Turgut TurkeyPahlevi, Shah IranPapadopoulos, George GreecePark Chung Hee South KoreaPinochet, Augusto ChilePol Pot CambodiaRabuka, Sitiveni FijiSalassie, Halie EthiopiaSalazar, Antonio PortugalSomoza, Anastasio Jr. NicaraguaSomoza, Anastasio, Sr. NicaraguaSmith, Ian RhodesiaStroessner, Alfredo ParaguaySuharto, General IndonesiaTrujillo,Rafael Dominican RepublicVidela, Jorge ArgentinaZia Ul-Haq, Mohammed Pakistan
a-Qaeda is not what Bush/Cheney/Rove/Zionist/Neocons says it is, it died in Afghanistan, but Bush resurrected it as a propaganda tool to justify the continued slaughter of Arabs and his insane beliefs.
Bush is not “right-minded” { insane }.
Those people returning to the mountains alongside Pakistan are indigenous to that mountain region and have become a tool for Bush’s propaganda.
After 9/11 and our routing of the Taliban there was a window of opportunity to clean out the ‘hinterlands’ of their remnants. They were in disarray and the US had the support of the world – INCLUDING THE ISLAMIC WORLD – to crush them.
There was essentially no alQuada presence in Iraq – only a small cell in US-patrolled Kurdish area in the north outside bghdad control.
There was no alQuada presence in Lebanon.
alQuada was enemy to both Saddam, to Hizbollah, to Hamas, to Fatah.
Now we have alQuada in Iraq and Lebanon. We have at least alQuada influence in Israeli-occupied Palestine. All of this has taken place since Bush’s elective war of occupation against Iraq.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Gee Ben,
How did Al Qaeda ever committ the attack of 9-11?
If we were to actually believe the crap you Democrats are spewing, apparently Bush is the cause of Al Qaeda now too!
Could it possibly be, that fighting back made them mad? DUH!
Of course Iraq has turned into the front on the war on terror. We have been saying that for the past few years now.
So, finally the Democrats realize that it is the front on the war on terror and somehow figure out that this has made Al Qaeda mad?
DUH!
What is the Democrats solution? Quit! Retreat! Surrender!
Oh yes, what an obvious solution….
Or solution, Nathan, is to stop doing what shouldn’t have been started in the first place.
Our . . . not, or
Good post, Randy.
Clearly, the war backers would rather attack the person who states the obvious than discuss policy.
Typical.
CapnAmerica,
You mean what a clear majority of the Democrats supported to begin with?
So at least you admit, no matter what happened in Iraq or how good things may go, you will oppose it simply because we shouldn’t have gone in the first place?
Yes, Nathan.
It was illegal and immoral to invade a soverign state that posed no threat to us.
That’s why we were so outraged when the Japanese attacked us “in a cowardly attack” on the “date that will live in infamy.”
This time, we were Japanese. And the cowardly sneak attack was ours.
As for how it’s turning out, I still can’t figure out how this ordinary guy in Wichita, Kansas could predict EXACTLY everything that has happened, and all the professional intelligence people were wrong.
I suspect they weren’t wrong. They were right. But Bush wasn’t listening. He wanted to invade Iraq, and he trumped up the case that got us sitting on their oil fields.
Here’s what I wrote before we invaded. EVERYTHING played out exactly as I said–
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/10/23_dubya.html
And this–
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/01_war.html
Capn, fascists never need an excuse to invade a country. Nathan’s hero invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia without justification and that was considered perfectly acceptable. Well, Nathan’s hero did say Poland was harboring terrorists and Czechoslovakia has German hostages so that’s good enough for a fascist I suppose.
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2325563
And that’s why Daily Show viewers are more informed than Fox News viewers. Here’s a good video on the neo-cons getting caught in their lies.
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0707/angryamerican0707.mov
The Daily Show
Cartoon Politics for Democrats, they love it so.
Maybe they’ll have some give aways of kool-aid packets and crayons for them some day.
NO government has EVER really controlled that area of Pakistan.
It’s controlled by the Pashtun tribes, who have been making a living extorting “safe passage fees” from travellers for a millenium or so, when they didn’t just kill them and take everything.
The Brits scooted through the Khyber as quickly as they could, hustling from fort to fort and hoping the fort they were heading for as their next stop was still there, it’s garrison still alive. As one soldier described the region in 1919, “Every stone in the Khyber has been soaked in blood.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250003“In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers of The O’Reilly Factor.Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.”
Annenberg link at page above is old… new link,
“Daily Show” Viewers Knowledgeable About Presidential Campaignhttp://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/NewsDetails.aspx?myId=90
“How did Al Qaeda ever committ the attack of 9-11?”
SIMPLE! They operated out of safe havens in Afghanistan with the support of the House of Saud. NOT The enemy of Saud Saddam helping.
“If we were to actually believe the crap you Pepublicans are spewing, apparently Saddam is the cause of Al Qaeda now too!”
Oh yea, I forgot. BushBots DO believe that!
Sorry still nothing worth commenting on. Every argument for Iraq and against going after the real enemies of the United States is like arguing for not turning on a light to see through the darkness. Try as you might you live only in darkness.
“Of course Iraq has turned into the front on the war on terror. We have been saying that for the past few years now.
So, finally the Democrats realize that it is the front on the war on terror and somehow figure out that this has made Al Qaeda mad?”Posted by: Nathan | July 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM
You REALLY should try to base your opinions on facts, and rational thinking.
The Iraq war has boosted AQ’s recruiting, and “training”. AQ is happy, not “mad”, about what Bush has done.
‘Bush Is al-Qaeda’s Strategic Ally’http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/071907.html
Oh please…
CapnAmerica, we are as bad as the Japanese were during WWII with their attack on Pearl Harbor?
By how we gave Saddam around a year to comply with us before we invaded?
You are twisted it is sad.
If you honestly think garbage like that you have to be deranged.
Cosmos,
Like how our entering the war with Hitler boosted his recruitment too?
Gee, I suppose the solution for Democrats is:
1. Blame America First
2. Do nothing but Blame America First
3. If for some reason we are fighting back, find a way to blame America for everything
4. Demand withdrawl, retreat, surrender!
Seems like the winning strategy to me…
How was Saddam supposed to “comply” by revealing where the WMD’s are when it turns out that he was 100 percent truthful when he said he didn’t have any?
This is what I wrote a MONTH AND A HALF before Bush invaded Iraq:
In a prescient question, Moderator Jim Lehrer asked (in the first debate on October 3), “how would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.” Candidate Bush listed four criteria for committing U.S. troops-
“if it’s in our vital national interests”"whether or not the mission was clear”"whether we were prepared to win”"whether there was an exit strategy.”(cf. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html)
Quick, doctor! check for cracks . . . check for fissures! The pressure must really be building, assuming (perhaps wrongly) that Mr. Bush actually remembers anything he says. Let’s look at those criteria again, with regard to our latest planned military excursion into Iraq.
According to Bush himself, war can only be justified if it involves protecting “a vital national interest” that he defines as a threat to U.S. territory or citizens. The threat of terrorism clearly falls under this rubric after the devastating second attack on the World Trade Center; however, even the administration hasn’t argued for a terrorist threat from Iraq. So where is the vital national interest that the President claims would be his first consideration for going to war? Weapons of mass destruction? Like the nuclear bombs North Korea has?
The “vital national interest” has never been established, so by his own criteria, the Bombs against Baghdad campaign fails point number one. “Liberating the Iraqi people” is in no way a vital national interest (even if we could believe that’s what motivates President Machiavelli to send in the Marines).
Point two of rules of engagement according to Bush is that the mission goals are clearly spelled out, or as he puts it a little less than clearly, “whether or not it [sic] was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.” I think we can translate this from Bushese into standard English: specify ahead of time precisely what the invasion will accomplish and how it will be achieved.
But what are the clear goals for this military action? Topping G.W’s list would be to get rid of the “evil dictator”-with any luck he’ll be easier to find than the last “evildoer” we vowed to rid the world of. But still you come back to the question-begging argument that “we need to take out Saddam because he’s Saddam.” The Bush team can’t keep saying that the Iraqi leader is bad because he’s bad forever. Our “old Europe” allies, who apparently still study logical fallacies at their well-funded public schools, aren’t buying it.
Assuming the Butcher of Baghdad is found and eliminated without catastrophic losses on each side, then what? How to keep peace between the Kurds in the North, the Shias in the South, and the Sunnis in the middle? Will the Kurds suddenly throw down their weapons when an American puppet is installed? It’s more likely that a new government will only encourage more revolt, much to the horror of our “allies,” the Turks, who have a restive Kurdish population of their own.
So the mission as BushCo. lays it out is the antithesis of “clear;” it involves invading a country for an elusive “enemy” that completely blends with the native population, that IS the native population. Sound familiar? The mission is so hazy that it will be hard to say exactly when we have “won”-when Saddam is ousted? When the Baathist party is eliminated? When the country is carved up like a rump roast between various ethnic rivals? When American oil companies install their long lusted after pipelines? The Bush militarists have never explained what victory IS in Iraq.
Since no one knows exactly what “winning” in Iraq means, Bush’s third point -that “we must be prepared to win”-again fails to meet his own criterion. Bush implies by this comment that in past conflicts, like Vietnam, we were not “prepared to win.” That shows a horrifying ignorance of the lesson of Vietnam-America won every important military engagement with enemy forces. What was never won was instituting a political system that could rally and inspire the South to fight for its own independence. After the death of leader Diem, for instance, no one would even run for high office . . . not too surprising considering that our own CIA had him executed.
Lastly, Candidate Bush emphasized that U.S. Troops should only be engaged when “there was a clear exit strategy.” Emerson once wrote that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” I wonder what he would say about no consistency, ever. An exit strategy-good point, Candidate Bush-what is our exit strategy? Let’s look at the “exit strategy” the executive branch came up with in our last imperialistic adventure-Afghanistan: Install as top dog a man with impeccable oil credentials having worked for Unocal, and let the rest of the country revert back to feudal warlordism. Maintain a big presence of U.S. soldiers as a perpetual target for terrorists, and alienate the local population with draconian search and seizures. Promise to rebuild infrastructure and provide medical care and then renege on the pledge, ignoring the devastating effect that abject poverty has on unification and peace. This is an “exit strategy?” It’s the off-ramp on the road to nowhere, more like.
Two years ago, Mr. Bush laid out clear criteria as to when he would send in the troops. His justification for invading Iraq, such as it is, meets none of them. As if that weren’t bad enough, Candidate Bush offered such unsolicited pearls of wisdom that “it’s up for the people in this region [Serbia] to figure out how to take control of their country.” Why then isn’t up to “the people” of Iraq to take control of their country when it too is headed by a despot?
“It was illegal and immoral to invade a soverign state that posed no threat to us.
That’s why we were so outraged when the Japanese attacked us “in a cowardly attack” on the “date that will live in infamy.”
This time, we were Japanese. And the cowardly sneak attack was ours.” -CapnAmerica
Interesting. It is very easy to draw distinctions between the American action in Iraq and the sucker punch of the Japanese. In fact, other than they were attacks, there are very few similarities.
Since they are so different, equating the two was a warped, untruthful, and blatantly un-American thing to say, CapnAmerica.
So what’s new, huh?
Actually, what we did was much WORSE that the cowardly attack at Pearl Harbor.
For the Japanese, bad as they were under their military facism, only targetted our military.
We bombed the heart of Baghdad and any number of other population centers. The invasion resulted in 600 thousand Iraqi dead, most of them innocent people who just happened to be live in a country whose leader we didn’t like.
The leaders of our country are war criminals as bad as Tojo.
The main difference is that American was attacked at Pearl Harbor (bad) but when we attack, it’s always good.
It’s bad when they do it, but it’s good when we do it.
War is peace.Freedom is slavery.Ignorance is strength.
600,000 thousand dead?
From our bombs and military?
Oh my goodness, I could have a better discussion with a 5 year old.
CapnAmerica = getting more crazy by the day.
If I believed like you do Capn, there is no way I could live in that kind of country.
CapnAmerica- “Making things up to trash America and Americans”
Democrats:
Surrender is VictoryPeace is OppressionCowardace is Rightousness
ProudLib is off his meds today.
…or on the sauce.
…or on the sauce.
Republican = I don’t care who raped my dog just get some one to blame. Right & wrong makes no difference; maybe we could make some money in the process
“Oh my goodness, I could have a better discussion with a 5 year old.”
And get some insight?
“Like how our entering the war with Hitler boosted his recruitment too?”
Posted by: Nathan | July 21, 2007 at 03:44 PM
No.
Bush’s preemptive attack on Iraq (that had no al-Qaeda) did nothing to reduce their strength.
It did the opposite by angering Muslims worldwide — so the al-Qaeda got more new members, more revenue, and more “training”.
The way to reduce the terrorist threat is to NOT provide reasons for attacks. And good worldwide cooperation re intelligence is needed to stop the attacks.
Nathan,
You are arguing with History Revisionists. They will skew, omit, trade consequences and generally re-invent history to suit their political agenda.
Their comments are not worth warm spit because they are intellectually dishonest.
Just like CapnAmerica’s howling commentary on the open page about Prescott Bush. He never points out that there was never any charges or evidence of criminal or traitorous activity involved. This is a classic case of omission. He only points out things that lead people to draw wrong conclusions. There have been many studies on Prescott Bush and none led to the same conclusions as CapnAmerica’s squealing waste of screen space.
Or take cosmos commentary: “Bush’s preemptive attack on Iraq (that had no al-Qaeda) did nothing to reduce their strength.”
Had no Al-Qaeda? What about those guys in Northern Iraq of whom the first Al Qaeda leader was sprung? This is a patently false statement.
The other paragraphs are provided without proof of source and effect of his statement are along the same lines of the spew of the DailyKos.
Like I said Nathan, they are re-inventing history according to their own lying Democratic talking points convenience.
Like cosmos is an expert on how to reduce attacks from terrorist organization. What country has hired cosmos for his intellectual prowess in this particular matter?
Anyone? Anyone?
The many-named troll seems to believe that HE knows MORE than the U.S. intelligence community, in the NIE report.
‘Bush Is al-Qaeda’s Strategic Ally’http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/071907.html” “We assess that al-Qaeda will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the [U.S.] homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups,” the NIE said. “Of note, we assess that al-Qaeda will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaeda in Iraq [AQI], its most visible and capable affiliate and only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the [U.S.] homeland.
“In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qaeda to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for [U.S.] homeland attacks.” ”
Also read, at WEST POINT’s Combating Terrorism Center,http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf
And heh troll! Where’s your credible proof about the Sierra Club and the New Orleans levees?
And when were you hired to be a consultant Kansas?
Your opinions are just that – opinons. Not facts and not truths – just YOUR opinion.
What about those guys in Northern Iraq of whom the first Al Qaeda leader was sprung?
You mean the Kurds, OUR ALLIES?
Yeah, there was some dude there who claimed to be Al Qaeda. He was helping THE KURDS, OUR ALLIES, fight Saddam Hussein.
Bush could have taken him out anytime he wanted but leaving him there gave a kernal of truth to the LIE that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked.
Yeah . . . just like WE’RE linked to Al Qaeda because they were here and want to kill us . . .
Nathan–
How many Iraqis have we killed? Innocent Iraqis.
How many babies and children under twelve have we killed?
Because when you invade another country, you have to assume that some of those people are going to get killed?
Are you saying that the United States military under the leadership of Commander Cod-Piece killed NOT ONE innocent Iraqi?
War has killed 100,000 Iraqis: study
Last Updated: Friday, October 29, 2004 | 6:25 AM ET
CBC News
“Nearly 100,000 more Iraqis have died during the American-led occupation than would have been expected otherwise, a study posted on The Lancet medical journal’s website Thursday estimates.”
The Lancet is the best medical journal in Britain.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/28/iraq_deaths041028.html
And check the date . . . that was over two YEARS ago . . .
Those numbers are not the combat deaths caused by Americans nor is it anywhere near the 600,000 you are talking about you drama queen.
Democrats:
Surrender is VictoryPeace is OppressionCowardace is Rightousness
By 2006, we get this:
This week in the online edition of a British medical journal, the Lancet, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Baghdad’s al-Mustansiriya University estimate that 655,000 more Iraqis died of various causes since the U.S. invasion in March 2003 than would have died in a comparable period were there not a war.
The demographers attributed 601,000 or so of the 655,000 deaths to acts of violence.
And what percent of those were killed by insurgents Capn? Got a number for me? No?
Did the Lancet Medical Journal go out and do 100,000 autopsies to determine the cause of death? No?
How about what bullet and who fired the bullets or set off bombs that caused these Iraqis to die? No?
So the Lancet Medical Journal just slaps down some number which they have never fully investigated on what the determining cause of death was, who committed the reason for their deaths and generally totally disregarded any circumstances of death.
Yeah, sounds like a rock solid scientific study to me. (rolls eyes)
Drama queen?
Really.
Let’s say that Mexico feels that Bush is in violation of Mexican law because of the way his country treats Mexican workers.
So they try to arrest him to try him under their law.
Our president refuses.
Now let’s say that Mexico has the biggest army in the world. They spend more on their army than all the other countries of the world put together (like we do).
They invade America to get their guy and succeed.
In the process, they destroy your neighborhood. Your parents and any brothers and sisters you had are dead.
How do you feel about Mexico now, Nathan?
That’s how the Iraqis feel about us.
CapnAmerica,
After you were born apparently 600,000 plus Iraqis have died.
How dare you!
Do you have any understanding of a causal relationship?
The terrorists, Insurgents, and Iranian backed bombs and munitions are killing people. Not us.
Democrats:
Surrender is VictoryPeace is OppressionCowardace is Rightousness
“…Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Baghdad’s al-Mustansiriya University estimate that 655,000 more Iraqis died…”Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 07:49 PM
Example of Capn dragging out disprove stories.
You know how these illustrious investigators concluded 655,000 deaths? That did a statistical extrapolation. That’s right, no body counts, no compliant death certificates, no official Iraqi government cooperation.
They just put some numbers in their calculators and and come up with some figure with calculations like this:
XX people died in this area on this day. The physical size of this area is XXX sq meters. Therefore, we can calculate by extrapolating out that if XX people died in X sq. meters, then XXXX people died in the totality of the entire area in question.
Holy Moly! Talk about junk science! Even a Middle School student wouldn’t make assumptions like that!
This report btw, has been proven absolutely wrong by both the Iraqi government and the Military stationed in Iraq. Their conclusion on how many have died? Less than 50,000 but possibly as low as 35,000. This includes all deaths, not just from acts of violence.
I notice that none of the reich-wing had anything to say about President Bush totally REPUDIATING everything he said as Candidate Bush about when we should use our troops.
“A clear exit strategy.”
F***ing brilliant, Candidate Bush! Now why didn’t you tell President Bush?!
Troll–
You could get a job at Johns Hopkins.
Just tell them, “I’m way smarter than you.”
Heh, then you could get off of WELFARE, dude!
CapnAmerica,
The exit strategy is a little word you Democrats do not understand. The word is called victory.
Of course, I undertand the word victory really means surrender, withdrawl, or retreat to you. I didn’t really expect you to understand.
Bush has clearly said that when/If The Iraqi’s want/ask us to leave we will.
Bush has also siad that when Iraq is able to provide for it’s own stability we will leave.
I know for political reasons you would like to have it narrowed down to day X at time X, but unfortunately, victory is a bit different than surrender, withdrawl and retreat. It doesn’t come right when you demand it too.
Nathan–
If insurgants are killing people now, but they weren’t killing people before we invaded, don’t we bear some responsibility for creating a situation in which insurgants CAN BOMB people?
They weren’t bombing people there before we invaded . . .
CapnAmerica,
“we” being those of us who support victory do take responsiblity. Not for causing the deaths, but for doing our best to prevent them.
You, the democrats and far lefties, do not take responsibility. You want us to leave no matter the consequences.
Bush didn’t say anything about “victory” being an exit strategy, and you know it.
He was criticising CLINTON by saying it. Because you RepubliCONs believed that Clinton had got us into a never-ending committment in the Balkans.
That’s why he said it.
Turns out it was just a LIE, like “compassionate conservatism” and “reaching across the aisle.”
I don’t have to get a job at John Hopkins.
This study has been proven inaccurate by several other foreign studies and the Iraq government.
As I said before, Capn is a Historical Revisionist. He won’t post the conclusion of these events as it doesn’t fit his political talking points.
Capn just spews out some story, leaves out the conclusion which is the major determining factor of making the story inaccurate and hopes the naive or the sheeple of the Democratic side will believe him.
This is exactly what the old Soviet news agency Pravda did.
Capn has that Communist propaganda technique down pat.
Of course, we are now in the information age and this type of misinformation is easily proven wrong.
CLINTON ALERT!!! CLINTON ALERT!!!!
OH MY GOODNESS, HE SAID CLINTON!!!
CLINTON IS NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE, STOP BRINGING HIM UP TO FURTHER YOUR EXCUSES.
WHERE ARE THE LIBERALS TO YELL AND SCREAM…
CLINTON!!! CLINTON!!! CLINTON!!!!
HE SAID IT!
CapnAmerica,
I never agreed with the “compasionate conservative” crap.
It implies that we were not compasionate to begin with. That we needed a special label.
When you see it walking down the street, and you chance to meet
Walk on by
Walk on by . . .
A lame attempt at deflection, Nathan.
Candidate Bush said “exit strategy.” President Bush got us into a situation that has no exit strategy.
Case close.
Your guy f***ed up, big time. And even f***ed up by his OWN CRITERIA of f***ing up . . .
Caught in a lie statement by Capn America – “Walk on by…”
Each time you read that statement, you will have realized that Capn has posted another lie.
We keep whittling you down CapnAmerica.
Democrats:
Exit Strategy is Defeat
Capn still thinks campaign strategy is the same as official policy.
Will someone please get the Capn a “reality pill” and a glass of water.
Okay, well, people don’t want to read bickering, but let the record show:
Nathan refused to admit that the US military is responsible for the death of a single innocent Iraqi.
Nathan refused to explain why Candidate Bush promised the American people he would never put troops in the field without “a clear exit strategy” and then he invaded Iraq with no clear exit strategy.
As for what the TROLL thinks, no one gives a rat’s ass . . .
Oh great, now we get the extreme at both ends argument.
Simply because I am not going to agree with your assinine assertion that we are the cause of over 600,000 Iraqis deaths doesn’t mean I won’t admit that we caused even one death.
Grow up CapnAmerica. Your discussion tactics are weak.
A 1000lb bomb under one arm and a Bible under the other: “Onward Christian Soldier.”
“Nathan refused to admit that the US military is responsible for the death of a single innocent Iraqi.” Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 08:18 PM
No he didn’t.
Capn is putting words into the mouths of others. Appears to be a desperate liar technique.
“Nathan refused to explain why Candidate Bush promised the American people he would never put troops in the field without “a clear exit strategy” and then he invaded Iraq with no clear exit strategy” Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 08:18 PM
Again, Capn putting words in the mouths of others that is totally false.
Capn still thinks campaign strategy is the same as official policy.
Capn just hates to think that a sitting President has infinitely more tools of intelligence and reporting than a Presidential candidate.
The statement by Bush was overly optimistic and without the benefit of a highly organized Presidential staff.
There is nothing to see here folks, really.
I asked and you didn’t answer.
Feel free to chime in whenever the spirit moves, Nathan.
How many innocent Iraqis have the US military killed, in your opinion?
Capn,
How do you determine the innocence of someone?
How do you determine the innocence of someone after they are dead?
Investigation perhaps?
Since all of your investigations that you posted have been shot down Capn, just exactly what hollow wooden leg are you standing on now?
:)
While I’d like to give the Pakistan Government the Finger and move in to bust up Al Qaeda camps their, one important consideration.-Pakistan IS nuclear. The Government, while rogue, has decent diplomatic relations with the US.Should one of the Mulahs gain control of Pakistan (thru US action) and its Nukes, you can kiss at least one major US city goodbye.
Media the likes of this editorial are doing as much to help Al Qaeda recruit as any recent US action. Media reports such as this give hope to Al Qaeda in that they are winning the war against the US from the inside out.
Here’s what I asked Nathan upthread–
How many Iraqis have we killed? Innocent Iraqis.
How many babies and children under twelve have we killed?
Because when you invade another country, you have to assume that some of those people are going to get killed?
Are you saying that the United States military under the leadership of Commander Cod-Piece killed NOT ONE innocent Iraqi?
*****
Nathan refuses to answer that question.
But you can’t blame him, because neither does Commander Cod-Piece.
yeah, true american, we should give up our Constitutional rights every time some piece of sh*t president lies us into war?
I don’t think so . . .
Here’s a question for you ….why do you care?
I am confident the death of any Iraqi came in sparing the life of an American.Rule #1 of being a soldier – Come home alive.Do you have a problem with that?
Rule #1 of the most powerful military power in the world–don’t kill innocent people like the enemies you fight.
Capn could give a crap about Iraqi’s True American.
He’s only in this discussion to boost his ego and political talking points.
Of which, he will omit, lie, disregard answers given to him that tell the truth.
He is a hopeless cause and drowning in his self-made sea of dishonest venom.
What we hated most about Al Qaeda is that they killed innocent people because they believed their cause is “just.”
When we do the same thing, how are we different?
Rule #1 of the most powerful military power in the world–don’t kill innocent people like the enemies you fight.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 08:36 PM
They teach that at War Colleges now Capn? :)
The difference is Capn is that we go after the bad guys. And sometimes when we do that innocent people die caught in the crossfire.
There is nothing new about this Capn.
To use this as your stance is beyond what any reasonable human being would think or even hypothesize about.
Give it up Capn, you’ve lost this talking point purely on your own incompetence.
Ok, so the Dems want America to go to war over another Intelligence report?
Hmmmm……
Ya can blame Bush if no Al Qaeda, Osama, or WMD’s are found.
Ya can give credit to the Democrate Majority Congress if they are found.
Ya can also blame Bush if further attacks on America occur.
I wonder if Hillary/Obama are gonna get all the blame whenever anything goes wrong when he or she is POTUS?
Naaahhhh. Hillary never takes any responsibility for anything.
Hillary every take any blame for so agressively supporting the Iraq war back in 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005?
Who the heck do you think you are comparing what US soldiers are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan to the 9/11 attacks? You freaking hippie jerk. You sound like those unwashed a-holes in the 1960’s spitting on our soldiers at airports, calling them baby killers.
IF innocents die at the hand of US soldiers it is a tragic casualty of war and NOTHING compared to innocents being targeted by Al Qaeda.
Give it up Capn, you’ve lost this talking point purely on your own incompetence.
Posted by: Kansas | July 21, 2007 at 08:42 PM
He’s shown his true colors with that kind of attack on our soldiers.If I were him I’d be minding my manners with the Guberment spying on him and all thru the Patriot Act.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison
My son did a tour in Ramadi.
I don’t have to take your crap, True American.
My nephew is on his third tour in Iraq Capn.
What’s your point?
Nice deflection attempt Capn. Trying to defend your attack on US troops by pulling up a quote from 200 years ago.
“What we hated most about Al Qaeda is that they killed innocent people because they believed their cause is “just.”
When we do the same thing, how are we different?”
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 08:37 PM
How many innocents did your son intentially kill Capn?
“My son did a tour in Ramadi.
I don’t have to take your crap, True American.”
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 08:53 PM
Then how can you compare the service of he and his fellow soldiers to what the likes of Mohammed Atta did on 9/11?
He didn’t kill any.
He served his country when his government asked him to.
He bears absolutely no responsiblity.
The SOB’s who sent him there bear the entire responsibility, for every American’s death and every Iraqi’s.
I guess Capn is saying his son is exactly like Mohammed Atta.
So no US troops intentially killed innocent civilians in Iraq? Or just not your son, Capn?
Dang, must be hard carrying the cross around all the time Capn.
“If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make; when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day, and cry all ‘We died at such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives, some upon the debts they own, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument?
Now, if these men do not die well [for a just cause], it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.”
William Shakespeare, “King Henry V”
Now that was an insane diversion. Going back even further then 200 years for that one.
No troops were responsible for innocent deaths in Iraq, Max.
That is true.
The responsibility is laid entirely at the feet of the war criminals who sent them there.
And the people who backed the war criminals, like you, Max.
Sweet Jebus!
Capn’s pulling quotes from 500 years ago now!
You know if all the US troops are so guilty, according to Capn, we might as well leave em over there to get punished.
It depends on what “we” means.
“What we hated most about Al Qaeda is that they killed innocent people because they believed their cause is “just.”
When we do the same thing, how are we different?
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 08:37 PM
My son did a tour in Ramadi.
I don’t have to take your crap, True American.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 08:53 PM
And the people who backed the war criminals, like you, Max.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 09:08 PM
One can conclude that Capn is calling his son a War Criminal.
Except it’s not a “war crime” when you’re the most powerful military in the world and every civilized country stands in fear of the madness . . .
When Gandhi arrived in London, the jingoistic journalists asked him, “So what do you think of Western Civilization now, Mr. Gandhi.”
He said, “I think it would be a good idea.”
Kansas–
That’s enough.
And the people who backed the war criminals, like you, Max.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 09:08 PM
So that would include 77 Senators, 296 Congress members originally not to mention all the continue to vote to fund the war correct?
We should just talk with Al Queada, Iran, and the Taliban.
“We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”
Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said:
“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.I believe it is peace for our time…Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”Neville Chamberlain 9/30/1938
Yes. The gutless Dems who voted to give Bush the authority to fund the war are partly responsible too.
They didn’t pull the trigger like Bush did, but they gave him the gun . . .
You don’t like it do you Capn.
The stop calling/comparing the U.S. Military in Iraq War Criminals.
You stated that your son dutifully performed the service of his government. He is a volunteer soldier and took the oath of that he swears to protect and defend all enemies of the United States, foreign or domestic.
Your argument is self-defeating Capn and hypocritical.
You calling other sons and daughters of people War Criminals is beyond the pale, it is complicit with the enemies wishes.
Max–
Neville Chamberlin desperately wanted peace because England and France and Germany had just gone through the worst war in history, World War I.
He fooled himself into a fake peace.
Bush desperately wanted war with Iraq, and he fooled (almost) all of us into going in . . .
One mistake does not justify the other one.
And if one is going to err, better to err on the side of not-war than err on the side of pre-emptive UNNECESSARY war . . .
That should read “against all enemies” :)
I do believe they call “not-war” peace Capn.
The U.S. is not the one who broke trust and violated the peace.
Okay, for the last time, let me re-iterate.
None of the soldiers–none of them–are responsible for anything that happens in Iraq.
Because they are simply doing what soldiers do whenever the “dogs of war” are unleashed.
The responsibility lies entirely with the people in positions of power.
And the people who support them.
It’ll be a “black matter” for them on Judgement Day for those who “led them to war.”
He fooled himself into a fake peace.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 21, 2007 at 09:18 PM
Sounds alot like the US post-Gulf War I.And post every terrorist attack against US interests since 1979 for that matter.
“I’m going home on the morning train.”
Listen.
One of these mornings and it won’t be long
You’ll look for me and I’ll be gone
I know my robe will fit me well
Tried it on at the gates of hell
When I get to heaven gonna jump and shout, Lord
Nobody there gonna put me out
Halleluja! Halleluja! Halleluja.
C’mon church. C’mon church.
You better get right.You better get right.
GET RIGHT CHURCH AND LET’S GO HOME!
*****
Oops . . . sorry, listening to GOSPEL music here.
Let’s see…
Violations of the no-fly zone by Iraq.
Illegal shipments of Oil by Iraq which the U.N. explicitly forbade.
Illegal purchase of arms, equipment and supplies from France, Germany and Russia against U.N. Sanctions.
The bribing of U.N. officials and they “buying off” of Government officials and private industrialists willing to collude with Saddam and Iraq, so Iraq could re-power their war machine.
And the Democrats wonder why we didn’t get some Europeans to go with us into Iraq. They were part of the problem!!!
I guess Ten years isn’t long enough for the Capn for the U.S. to say “We’ve had enough of your lawlessness and violation of the U.N. sanctions.”
I guess Capn thinks this decision by President Bush was just something that formed overnight.
I believe it Kansas.And with that Liberal logic Osama bin laden will be spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom in the next Clinton White House.Everyone gets a clean slate.
I guess Capn thinks this decision by President Bush was just something that formed overnight.
Posted by: Kansas or republican or who ever you want to be today| July 21, 2007 at 09:30 PM
No Bush was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11; he just used 9/11As the pretext to enact the Halliburton plan
You freaking hippie jerk. You sound like those unwashed a-holes in the 1960’s spitting on our soldiers at airports, calling them baby killers.Posted by: True American | July 21, 2007 at 08:45 PM
Sigh. You (and a bunch of others around here) need to be more careful, TA.
One of my most memorable memories is of a December night in 1970 (I think), in McPherson, Kansas.
Me and a bunch of underage buddies were desperately without 3.2 beer, and we stopped by Kenny’s 81 out on Woodside and old US-81. It was one of those weird Kansas nights when 6″ of snow produces fog like who laid the chunk. Me, being the most likely to appear 18 and having successfully procured some Coors-branded cereal malt beverage by displaying the appropriate bravado as recently as the weekend before, well I was the guy. So I got out of the car parked a couple hundred yards down the packed sand road leading to this infamous Kansas roadhouse. Can’t see a thing, it’s foggy as hell and cold to boot. Just as the neon light of Kenny’s sign begins to brighten up a patch of the gray night, I hear a very odd sound. It’s “thud, grunt, scrape” repeated over and over again. Thud. The sound of a guy grunting. An odd scrape.
So I get there and you know what it was? There was an old drunk skinny greaser, the kind of hard-case that Augustus Stupidus takes such great pride in being, who was dressed all in black. He had a long-haired hippy guy wearing army fatigues laid out flat on his back on a little snow promenade maybe 25 yards from Kenny’s front door. He had this guy, who was obviously unconscious and flat on his back, by his ponytail. The guy’s head was turned to me, to his right. If he’d been conscious, he’d been looking right at me as I walked up. The guy had his ponytail in his right hand so he could dropkick him in the head with his right boot (he was wearing those old-fashioned black cowboy boots that come to a pencil point).
Thud – he kicked the hippy’s head, and I swore there was a chunk of the hippy’s face that flew my way. Grunt, he was drunk as all hell (his eyes were dead, totally blank like a lizard’s as I passed – I’ll never forget the dead look in that drunk greaser’s eyes). Scrape, as he pulled his cowboy boot back over the ice to kick again.
I have no idea what happened to that guy. I was just a kid, and I never read the newspaper. All I remember is that the unconscious guy had his left eye laying out on his left cheek, and the greaser didn’t look like he was gonna quite anytime soon. When he kicked the unconscious hippy’s head, the dude’s optic nerve kept his eyeball from flying off the guys head.
Sigh. It was a very bad time in America’s history.
I passed this thinking “so what are they gonna card me,” and I’ve felt guilty about it all my life since. There was so much odd stuff happening back then, procuring beer was my only concern. And Kenny sold me my beer, but because I was so scared of what I’d just seen I headed up toward 81 highway and took the long way back to our car. No way did I want to see that drunk greaser’s eyes again. It was only later that I thought about the unconscious hippy, and what ever happened to him.
So. You want to take it easy when you talk about dirty hippies and the Vietnam War. You sound way too young to know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to what things were like then.
Ten years later, btw, a friend of mine was impressed by the way I handled a bar fight in Ellsworth, Kansas, and asked me to bounce in his C&W bar. I accepted. I was very, very good at it, too.
Like they say, if you spout off here it’s best to limit your spouting off to whatever you’d say to anybody’s face, straight up. Which is fine. Just remember, when (or more likely, if) you meet me you WILL do one of two things:1) Fail to repeat this slander on hippies of whom you know jackshit, or2) Have to engage in fisticuffs, in public, with an aging old bouncer. I guarantee public humiliation for one of us, but you might keep in mind that I still get 225lbs up and down for 3 sets of 8 reps each. And I LOVE it. In fact, porno images of shaved pussy and the motivation that I get from imagining I’m defending my family sometimes pushes me to 10 reps. Which I freaking love.
Believe me, friend. That was a big deal to me. You repeat the kind of crap you said above, to my face, and we’ll have issues. The issues we’ll have to work through will revolve around shit, shinola, and your empirical knowledge of the difference.
Peace.
Pedant – I will add a memory from that time to you. Los Angeles; around the same time. I witnessed a gang of thugs beat a paraplegic VietNam vet in his wheelchair. The reason – the vet was a member of VVAW. The thugs – Los Angeles finest – the LAPD. Obviously so-called “True”’s favorite kind of thugs.
You said what I was thinking Pedant.
And damn, you write well for former bouncer.
I have nothing but respect for the people who answer the call.
But I have no respect for the Washington Chicken-Hawks who sit in their undisclosed locations and make millions in stock options funneling money to cronies . . .
Surrendercrats offer 50 MILLION DOLLAR REWARD for Osama.
Like THAT is going to work. He is LAUGHING HIS BUTT OFF!!!!
Hey democrats, who do you THINK is going to turn him in for the money?
If you want him so bad, have to courage to GO GET HIS BUTT. Instead, you offer paper money for someone ELSE to do your dirty work.
Al Q is laughing at you. They have a big celebration planned for your your withdrawal.
Celebrate Good Times, “COME ON!!”.
da-da-da dump da-dump da-da!
You didn’t respond to this on the open thread, EagerSneak.
You mean like the “liberal” George W. Bush did:
“In 2003, the Bush administration paid a $30 million reward — $15 million each for Uday and Qusay Hussein — to the informant who provided the tip that led U.S. troops to the home in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul where Uday and Qusay were hiding. They died there in a firefight with American forces.”
Al Qaeda is laughing at us because we invaded Iraq instead of kicking their ass in Afghanistan.
Outsourcing the job to Islamic militants didn’t work so well . . .
It’s past time for American troops to flush out this terrorist stronghold and run bin Laden to ground.Posted by Randy Scholfield
July 21, 2007 in Terrorism | Permalink
Why Randy, is that a declaration of war? You wanna invade Paki? Terrain is much tougher than Iraq. They got them thar nukes. But that’s not ever going to be an issue. Because when Hillary/Obama are elected, the US will never wage war anywhere.
They don’t have the stomach for it.
It’s past time for American troops to flush out this terrorist stronghold and run bin Laden to ground.Posted by Randy Scholfield
July 21, 2007 in Terrorism | Permalink
Why Randy, is that a declaration of war? You wanna invade Paki? Terrain is much tougher than Iraq. They got them thar nukes. But that’s not ever going to be an issue. Because when Hillary/Obama are elected, the US will never wage war anywhere.
They don’t have the stomach for it.
Sorry about the double, don’t know how that happened.
BTW Randy, Paki was a A Q, way before 2007. President: Pervez MUSHARRAF, the general, was supporting the Taliban and A Q, up until 911. I believe when Bush made the statement, “You are with us or against us”, he was talking to Paki.
I think we gave Musharraf an ultimatim: You either stop your shi- and allow us to use your territory for our Afghan adventure, or we go to war. The general had a choice to risk it all, and in world opinion, ally himself with the 911 terrorists, and admit complacency – or buddy up to the bar with the USA.
Smart move by Bush at the time. Don’t bite off more than you can chew, and allowed us a base of operations to conduct the Taliban kick-ss operation.
But, 12 billion dollars in aid later, we probably need to rethink this relationship. But it is probably way too late for that.
History is about to repeat itself, the little general is about to be killed (or flown to the USA), and the extremists are going to overthrow his dictatorship. Sorta like IRAN, all over again.
And again the USA will look like crap, the muslims will dance in the streets and burn American flags and effigies of President Bush. But that’s O.K., we have Americans burning Bush here at home so we are used to it.
Anyway, Pakistan was safe haven way before Bush got involved. And please don’t make me laugh that the democratic leadership in Congress or the next White House will do anything.
They might lob two or three missles at an outhouse or two. But that would be as effective as Clinton was after he did the same following AQ bombing an American war ship.
Thanks for the lovely post Pendant. You are Capn’s hero.
Pendant shall now forever be known as the defender of hippies.
Wow Pendant, 225 lbs. How much of that is beer belly? And you get up 3 sets of 8 each when you take a crap 24 times a day. Very impressive.
Peace, man.
keep in mind that I still get 225lbs up and down for 3 sets of 8 reps each. And I LOVE it. In fact, porno images of shaved pussy and the motivation that I get from imagining I’m defending my family sometimes pushes me to 10 reps. Which I freaking love.
Believe me, friend. That was a big deal to me. You repeat the kind of crap you said above, to my face, and we’ll have issues. The issues we’ll have to work through will revolve around shit, shinola, and your empirical knowledge of the difference.
Peace.
Posted by: Pedant | July 21, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Couldn’t Happen to a Nicer ‘Feller’
The Bush bunch of neocons needs a strong Al-Qaeda. Without a strong Al-Qaeda Bush has nothing to really scare the American people with, that is the few who still who don’t know what he’s up to.
American television is full of Al-Qaeda this and Al-Qaeda that, anything which will keep the name out in front of the American people.
The “terrorism thing” has become threadbare, due to having been so overused and misapplied, as to become meaningless.
Bush has flat run out of reasons to keep killing Iraqis and without a viable “slogan,” Bush’s “war-thing” is sinking by the bow. Bush is so desperate, it shows in his speeches. Even polls among soldiers shows their support is down below 25%.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer “feller.”
Ed Friedemann, Texas, published 20 July 2007