WE Blog

Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don’t hate
* Don’t use language you wouldn’t use with your mom
* Use “Report Inappropriate Comments” link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details

February 2008

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=02

The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy

William Tucker
Journalist

William Tucker is a veteran journalist. Educated at Amherst College, his work has appeared in Harper’s, the Atlantic Monthly, the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, the New Republic, Reader’s Digest, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. His articles have won the John Hancock Award, the Gerald Loeb Award, the Amos Tuck Award, and he was a finalist for the National Magazine Award. His books include Progress and Privilege: America in the Age of Environmentalism; Vigilante: The Backlash Against Crime in America; and The Excluded American: Homelessness and Housing Policies, which won the Mencken Award. His forthcoming book is entitled Terrestrial Energy: How a Nuclear-Solar Alliance Can Rescue the Planet.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on January 29, 2008, during a conference on “Free Markets and Politics Today,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

——————————————————————————–

There have been a host of debates this year between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Many of these candidates believe that among our top priorities is to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions. All or most seem to agree that decreasing America’s energy dependence is another. Yet few if any of the candidates have mentioned that nuclear energy—or, as I prefer, terrestrial energy—could serve both these ends.

Right now there are 103 operating nuclear reactors in America, but most are owned by utilities (which also own coal plants). The few spin-offs that concentrate mainly on nuclear—Entergy, of Jackson, Mississippi, and Exelon, of Chicago—are relatively small players. As for a nuclear infrastructure, it hardly exists. There is only one steel company in the world today that can cast the reactor vessels (the 42-foot, egg-shaped containers at the core of a reactor): Japan Steel Works. As countries around the world begin to build new reactors, the company is now back-ordered for four years. Unless some enterprising American steel company takes an interest, any new reactor built in America will be cast in Japan.

This is an extraordinary fate for what was once regarded as an American technology. France, China, Russia, Finland, and Japan all perceive the enormous opportunity that nuclear energy promises for reducing carbon emissions and relieving the world’s energy problems as reflected in recent soaring oil prices. Yet in America, we remain trapped in a Three Mile Island mentality, without even a public discussion of the issue. As folk singer Ani Di-Franco puts it, the structure of the atom is so perfect that it is “blasphemy / To use it to make bombs / Or electricity.”

It is time to step back and question whether this prejudice makes sense.

Fossil Fuels
All living things exist by drawing energy from their environment and discarding part of it as “waste,” so there is nothing inherently shameful about energy consumption. Almost all our energy derives ultimately from the sun. Plants store solar energy by transforming it into large carbon-chain molecules (the process we call photosynthesis). The entire animal kingdom draws its energy from this process by “eating” this stored solar energy. About 750,000 years ago, early humans discovered that they could also draw solar energy from a chain reaction we call “fire.” When heated, the stored energy in carbon chains is released. This heat energy can break down other carbon chains, which causes combustion. Fire has been the principle source of energy throughout most of human history. When historian William Manchester wrote a book about the Middle Ages called A World Lit Only By Fire, he was describing the world of only 700 years ago.

All this began to change about 400 years ago when human beings discovered an older source of stored solar energy—coal. Our most common fossil fuel, coal is the compressed remains of vegetable matter that covered the earth 300-400 million years ago. Coal is superabundant and we will probably never run out of it. It was the fuel of the Industrial Revolution, and it is still the world’s largest source of energy. It is also the most environmentally destructive substance ever utilized. The EPA estimates that it kills 30,000 Americans each year through lung diseases (and in China it is doing far worse). It is also the world’s principal source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Oil, another fossil fuel, is rarer and is believed to be the remains of organisms that lived in shallow seas during the age of the dinosaurs. It was first drilled in 1859, but was used only for lighting and lubrication until the invention of the automobile. Now it constitutes 40 percent of our energy consumption and is perhaps the most difficult fuel to replace. American oil production peaked in 1970 and is now declining rapidly—a fact that explains much of our subsequent foreign policy. The Arab oil embargo occurred three years following the peak, when the producing states realized we were vulnerable. The question now is whether world production will reach a similar peak and decline. As Matthew Simmons has written: “We won’t know until we see it in the rearview mirror.” If it does come, it may not look much different from the quadrupling of oil prices we have witnessed in the last three years.

Natural gas is generally considered the most environmentally benign of the fossil fuels. It gives off little pollution and only about half the greenhouse gas of coal. Natural gas was put under federal regulation in the 1950s, so that by the 1970s we were experiencing a supply shortage. Deregulation in the ,80s led to almost unlimited supplies in the ,90s. Then we began the fateful practice of using gas to produce electricity, resulting in a price crunch and the loss of many gas-dependent industries, such as fertilizer and plastics factories, which have since moved to Mexico and Saudi Arabia to be near supplies. Now American gas production seems to have peaked and we are importing 15 percent of our consumption from Canada. Huge gas supplies have been discovered in Russia and the Middle East, but will not do us much good since gas cannot be easily transported over water. Thus China, India and Europe will be able to buy pipeline gas much more cheaply and are already out-competing us on the world market.

Alternative Fuels
Given the precarious state of these fossil fuels, people have begun talking of “alternative” and “renewable” fuels—water, sun and wind. The term “renewable” is somewhat misleading: no energy is “renewable” insofar as energy cannot be recycled (this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The term “renewable” usually describes tapping flows of solar energy that are supposedly “free.” But coal and oil in the ground are also free. It just takes work—and energy—to recover them. So, too, solar “renewables” can only be gathered at a cost. They are often limited and may require extravagant use of other resources—mainly land.

What about water? Hydroelectricity is a form of solar energy. The sun evaporates water, which falls as rain and then flows back to the sea, creating kinetic energy. Rivers have been tapped since Roman times and, beginning in the 19th century, dams were built to store this solar energy. Hydroelectric dams provided 30 percent of our electricity in the 1930s, but the figure has declined to ten percent. And all the good dam sites are now taken.

What about wind? Wind energy has captured the imagination of the public and is touted by many as the fastest growing energy source in the world. All of this is driven by government mandates—tax credits and “renewable portfolio” laws that require utilities to buy non-fossil sources of power. The problem with wind is that it is completely unpredictable. Our electrical grid is one giant machine interconnected across the country, in which voltage balances must be carefully maintained in order to avoid damaging electrical equipment or losing data on computer circuits. Wind irregularities can be masked up to around 20 percent, but after that they become too disruptive. At best, therefore, wind will only be able to provide the 20 percent “spinning reserve” carried by all utilities. In addition, windmills are large and require lots of land. The biggest now stand 65 stories tall—roughly the height of New York’s Trump Tower—and produce only six megawatts, or about 1/200th the output of a conventional power plant. In the East, most are sited on mountaintops, since that is where the wind blows strongest.

What about the sun? Solar energy is very diffuse. A square-meter card table receives enough sunlight to run only four 100-watt electric bulbs. At best, solar could provide our indoor lighting, which consumes about ten percent of our electricity. But keep in mind: gathering and storing solar energy requires vast land areas.

Sunshine can be harnessed directly in two ways—as thermal heat or through photovoltaics, the direct production of electricity. In the 1980s, California built a Power Tower that focused hundreds of mirrors on a single point to boil water to drive a turbine. The facility covered one-fifth of a square mile and produced ten megawatts. It was eventually closed down as uneconomical. Last year, when Spain opened an identical Power Tower in Seville, U.S. News & World Report ran a cover story hailing it as a “Power Revolution.” That facility, of course, is completely subsidized by the government.

Photovoltaic cells have more promise. They are thin wafers where solar radiation knocks the electrons off silicon atoms, producing an electric current. At present, an installation about half the size of a football field could power one suburban home—when the sun shines, of course. The problem is that photovoltaics are enormously expensive; using them to provide one-quarter of an average home’s electricity requires investing around $35,000. Their greatest benefit is that they are able to provide electricity precisely when it is most needed—on hot summer afternoons when air conditioning produces peak loads.

Nuclear or Terrestrial Energy
There is one other form of alternative energy often mistakenly grouped with solar: geothermal energy. Geothermal is produced when the natural heat of the earth comes in contact with groundwater. This can produce geysers and “fumaroles”—steam leaks that are now being harnessed to produce electricity.

Where does this heat come from? Temperatures at the earth’s core reach 7,000 degrees Centigrade, hotter than the surface of the sun. Some of this heat comes from gravitational pressures and the leftover heat from the collisions of astral particles that led to the formation of the earth. But at least half of it (we don’t know the precise percentage) comes from the radioactive breakdown of thorium and uranium within the earth’s mantle. This is “terrestrial energy,” and a nuclear reactor is simply the same process carried out in a controlled environment. In order to harness terrestrial energy in the form of uranium isotopes, we mine it, bring it to the surface, concentrate it, and initiate a chain reaction that releases stored energy in the form of heat—the very same process as that used to harness solar energy from coal.

When Albert Einstein signed the letter to President Roosevelt informing him of the discovery of nuclear energy, he turned to some fellow scientists and said: “For the first time mankind will be using energy not derived from the sun.” This possibility emerged in 1905, when Einstein posited that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing and that energy could be converted to matter and matter to energy (as reflected in the famous equation E = mc2). The co-efficient, c2, is the speed of light squared, which is a very, very large number. What it signifies is that a very, very small amount of matter can be converted into a very, very large amount of energy. This is good news in terms of our energy needs and the environment. It means that the amount of fuel required to produce an equivalent amount of energy is now approximately two million times smaller.

Consider: At an average 1,000 megawatt coal plant, a train with 110 railroad cars, each loaded with 20 tons of coal, arrives every five days. Each carload will provide 20 minutes of electricity. When burned, one ton of coal will throw three tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We now burn 1 billion tons of coal a year—up from 500 million tons in 1976. This coal produces 40 percent of our greenhouse gases and 20 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

By contrast, consider a 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor. Every two years a fleet of flatbed trucks pulls up to the reactor to deliver a load of fuel rods. These rods are only mildly radio-active and can be handled with gloves. They will be loaded into the reactor, where they will remain for six years (only one-third of the rods are replaced at each refueling). The replaced rods will be removed and transferred to a storage pool inside the containment structure, where they can remain indefinitely (three feet of water blocks the radiation). There is no exhaust, no carbon emissions, no sulfur sludge to be carted away hourly and heaped into vast dumps. There is no release into the environment. The fuel rods come out looking exactly as they did going in, except that they are now more highly radioactive. There is no air pollution, no water pollution, and no ground pollution.

Objections to Nuclear Energy
What are the potential problems with nuclear power?

First, some fear that a nuclear reactor might explode. But this is impossible. Natural uranium is made of two isotopes—U-235 and U-238 (the latter having three more neutrons). Both are radioactive—meaning they are constantly breaking down into slightly smaller atoms—but only U-235 is fissile, meaning it will split almost in half with a much larger release of energy. Because U-235 is more highly radioactive, it has almost all broken down already, so that it now makes up only seven-tenths of a percent of the world’s natural uranium. In order to set off a chain reaction, natural uranium must be “enriched” so that U-235 makes up a larger percentage. Reactor grade uranium—which will simmer enough to produce a little heat—is three percent U-235. In order to get to bomb grade uranium—the kind that will explode—uranium must be enriched to 90 percent U-235. Given this fact, there is simply no way that a reactor can explode.

On the other hand, a reactor can “melt down.” This is what happened at Three Mile Island. A valve stuck open and a series of mistakes led the operators to think the core was overflowing when it was actually short of cooling water. They further drained the core and about a third of the core melted from the excess heat. But did this result in a nuclear catastrophe? Hardly. The public was disconcerted because no one was sure what was happening. But in the end the melted fuel stayed within the reactor vessel. Critics had predicted a “China syndrome” where the molten core would melt through the steel vessel, then through the concrete containment structure, then down into the earth where it would hit groundwater, causing a steam explosion that would spray radioactive material across a huge area. In fact, the only radioactive debris was a puff of steam that emitted the same radiation as a single chest x-ray. Three Mile Island was an industrial accident. It bankrupted the utility, but no one was injured.

This of course was not the case in Chernobyl, where the Soviet designers didn’t even bother building a concrete containment structure around the reactor vessel. Then in 1986, two teams of operators became involved in a tussle over use of the reactor and ended up overheating the core, which set fire to the carbon moderator that facilitates the chain reaction. (American reactors don’t use carbon moderators.) The result was a four-day fire that spewed radioactive debris around the world. More fallout fell on Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, from Chernobyl than from Three Mile Island. With proper construction such a thing could never happen.

Another objection to nuclear power is the supposed waste it produces. But this is a mischaracterization. A spent fuel rod is 95 percent U-238. This is the same material we can find in a shovel full of dirt from our back yards. Of the remaining five percent, most is useful, but small amounts should probably be placed in a repository such as Yucca Mountain. The useful parts—uranium-235 and plutonium (a manmade element produced from U-238)—can be recycled as fuel. In fact, we are currently recycling plutonium from Russian nuclear missiles. Of the 20 percent of our power that comes from nuclear sources, half is produced from recycled Russian bombs. Many of the remaining isotopes are useful in industry or radiological medicine—now used in 40 percent of all medical procedures. It is only cesium-137 and strontium-90, which have half-lives of 28 and 30 years, respectively, that need to be stored in protective areas.

Unfortunately, federal regulations require all radioactive byproducts of nuclear power plants to be disposed of in a nuclear waste repository. As a result, more than 98 percent of what will go into Yucca Mountain is either natural uranium or useful material. Why are we wasting so much effort on such a needless task? Because in 1977, President Carter decided to outlaw nuclear recycling. The fear then was that other countries would steal our plutonium to make nuclear bombs. (India had just purloined plutonium from a Canadian-built reactor to make its bomb.) This has turned out to be a false alarm. Countries that have built bombs have either drawn plutonium from their own reactors or—as Iran is trying to do now—enriched their own uranium. Canada, Britain, France and Russia are all recycling their nuclear fuel. France has produced 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power for the last 25 years. It stores all its high-level “nuclear waste” in a single room at Le Havre.

Conclusion
The U.S. currently gets 50 percent of its electricity from coal and 20 percent from nuclear reactors. Reversing these percentages should become a goal of both global warming advocates and anyone who wants to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil (the latter since a clean, expanded electrical grid could anchor a fleet of hydrogen or electric cars). Contrary to what some critics charge, this would not require massive subsidies or direct intervention by the government. Indeed, the nuclear industry has gone through an astounding revival over the past decade. The entire fleet of 103 reactors is up and running 90 percent of the time. Reactors are making money hand-over-fist—so much so that the attorney general of Connecticut recently proposed a windfall profits tax on them! The industry is poised for new construction, with proposals for four new reactors submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and almost 30 waiting in the wings.

The rest of the world is rapidly moving toward nuclear power. France, Russia and Japan are not only going ahead with their own nuclear programs, but selling their technology in the developing world. America, which once dominated this technology, is being left behind. The main culprit is public fear. Nuclear technology is regarded as an illegitimate child of the atomic bomb, a Faustian bargain, a blasphemous tinkering with nature. It is none of these. It is simply a natural outgrowth of our evolving understanding of the universe. The sun has been our prime source of energy throughout human history, but energy is also generated in the earth itself. It is time to avail ourselves of this clean, safe terrestrial energy.

School’s out forever … for NC illegals
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=122582

“A North Carolina-based immigration organization is commending state Attorney General Roy Cooper for ruling that the North Carolina Community College System should bar illegal immigrants from attending its colleges.

“[Cooper] said his understanding of federal law is that it is illegal to put illegal aliens in colleges at all, even if you charged them full price or out-of-state tuition. [He] came out and said his interpretation of federal law is that there should be no illegal aliens admitted to college at all,” Gheen explains.

Cooper’s ruling, according to Gheen, is the strictest in the nation, and he hopes other states will follow. “And it’s something that we hope people will carry to their states and say, ‘I want my attorney general and governor to follow the lead of North Carolina and keep illegal aliens from attending college,’” Gheen adds.”

Not that I care at all if ‘individuals’ attend college, it’s not personal, but as a policy allowing illegals to do so is simply adding to the magnet effect drawing illegals, encouraging more illegal entry, and the breaking of our immigration laws.

Fat chance of that in Kansas with a DemLib, right down the democratic party line, Governor who won’t even protect the integrity of vote in Kansas by requiring identification to vote.

Well, well, well, Happy Memorial Day weekend to you all – while dodging raindrops and tornadoes as you try to barbecue this weekend, take a minute to remember what this holiday is all about – to memorialize those that fought and died for us.

The World War II generation is dying out, slowly but surely – if you know a WW II vet, make a special effort to thank them, it may be the last opportunity.

With that, drive carefully, don’t drink and drive and enjoy the time with your family and friends.

Tomorrow (with no rain hopefully) I will be at the grill making a traditional Memorial Day feast for my family and a few friends – burgers, potato salad (okay, I’m not going to grill the ‘tater salad) and corn on the cob, followed by my granddaughter’s favorite dessert, s’mores with ice cream.

Enjoy you all, but remember the meaning of the Holiday.

Junk Science: Global Warming’s New ‘Consensus’

There’s a new global warming consensus in town.

It’s too bad the once-level-headed but now chicken-hearted Bush administration already has skedaddled, perhaps leaving our standard of living at the mercy of Barack Obama and his high regard for the international hate-America crowd.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”

Eminent theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson is among the many distinguished signatories.

The OISM petition represents a direct challenge to the Al Gore-touted notion that a consensus of scientists has determined that catastrophic manmade global warming is real and that any debate over the science is pointless.

You might think that the Bush administration — which has been viciously attacked by Al Gore and the greens for pulling the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol and being generally skeptical of the science underlying global warming alarmism — would have embraced the new petition as support for its resistance to mandatory greenhouse gas emission caps.

But you’d be wrong. When given the chance to embrace vindication at a White House press briefing this week, deputy press secretary Dana Perino couldn’t run away fast enough.

A White House reporter asked Perino: “WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 PhDs, now signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth’s climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 scientists?”

While Perino could have responded with something akin to either “Yes, we know about the petition and we’re looking into it” or “No, we didn’t know about the petition but we will certainly look into it,” she instead dismissed the question with an abrupt, “I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What’s your next question?”

When the reporter tried to follow up with “That’s all?” Perino seemed to insist on remaining oblivious to the petition and its import by stating, “That’s all I’m going to say.”

…
Since that is the case, the 31,000 scientist signatories assembled by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine would seem to trump the 600 or so in the alleged IPCC consensus. Sadly, the White House has taken such a beating over the years on climate that facts no longer matter.

cont’d at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html

I never quite looked at it that way, Monkey Hawk, but I agree with your assessment.

Between ballgames, hockey matches, car races and barbecues, we all need to remember the occassion in context.

er Memorial Day originated…

Interesting article, American.

And given the pollution problems that we face, I am no longer opposed to more nuclear energy production.

HOWEVER, some of your article’s post were incorrect–For instance, “What about wind? The problem with wind is that it is completely unpredictable.”

First, if you build enough wind generators in enough locations, the wind will always be blowing somewhere.

Second, wind towers are quite large and expensive. But unlike coal or nuke plants, the land underneath them is still usable for crops or grazing.

Three, the estimates of one home needing “half a football field worth of solar collectors” is ridiculous. Habitat-for-Humanity homes are being built right now that generate more energy than they use with a couple of solar panels on the roof and solar hot water.

By conserving energy, using solar and wind, and some new nuclear, we could easily reduce our use of coal to a third of what it is now.

But it will take gov’t programs to move the market. Energy production is not a capitalistic system, as Enron showed beyond doubt. Nothing major is going to happen without gov’t leadership developing alternative energy and levelling the playing field for new technologies and their implementation.

* Use “Report Inappropriate Comments” link when necessary

Right Angle–

Where is this link? I don’t see it.

BTW, that would be a really good idea. Every post should have an “alert” link following it, so troll posts can be flagged for moderators to pull.

“Predestined” asks –

If Memorial Day is set aside for those who fought (and died?) to protect our freedoms, why do we have Veteran’s Day too?

As noted, Memorial Day pre-dates Veterans’ Day.

Started as a day to honor Civil War veterans, it evolved into what my Grandmother used to call “Decoration Day,” time to clean up and tend to the graves not only of veterans but all passed loved ones.

Veterans’ Day used to be “Armistice Day,” commemorating the end of “The War to End War,” on November 11th, 1918. Once that didn’t work out, the name was changed to honor all veterans.

It’d also be nice to the still-living Vets if we’d stop making more dead Vets.

Number of Americans soldiers killed for nothing in Iraq–4080.

BTW, last month’s death toll of 52 is a pretty typical pre-surge average.

The surge had an effect . . . right up until it didn’t . . .

What about McCain?

He’s against it too.

Unbelievable.

‘Flawed Oregon Petition Rises Again’
21 May 08
Climate “Science” by the Pound
http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again
“A climate change petition started in 1988 by the tobacco industry’s favourite scientist (Federick Seitz), has just been re-released with a reported 31,072 signatures of “scientists” – some of whom are reported to actually work in the field.

The Oregon Petition was originally started by Dr. Seitz (formerly the principal adviser to the RJ Reynolds medical research program) and by Arthur B. Robinson, a lapsed biochemist who now operates the one-man Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Robinson himself was quoted recently saying that a survey was an inadequate way to pursue science. “The numbers shouldn’t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them.”

But that turns out to be an overstatement. Seitz, for example, died in March.”

RightAngle
Posted May 24, 2008 at 8:15 am | Permalink
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don’t hate
* Don’t use language you wouldn’t use with your mom
* Use “Report Inappropriate Comments” link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
=======================================

Where did you find that?? Or is that wishful thinking as to how it ought to be??

I’m wondering the same thing too, Chas.

Especially the “report inappropriate comments” link.

Anybody know where that is?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-24-miracle-marine_N.htm

Miracle Marine Dies

The Associated Press

The young Marine came back from the war, with his toughest fight ahead of him.

Merlin German waged that battle in the quiet of a Texas hospital, far from the dusty road in Iraq where a bomb exploded, leaving him with burns over 97% of his body.

No one expected him to survive.

But for more than three years, he would not surrender. He endured more than 100 surgeries and procedures. He learned to live with pain, to stare at a stranger’s face in the mirror. He learned to smile again, to joke, to make others laugh.

He became known as the “Miracle Man.”

******

Thank God, thanks to Bush, we won’t have to see his casket on TV . . .

That should be most interesting, Monkey :-D

Ben,

The petition package OISM mailed to me was “fun” reading.

It has a slick 12 page collection of BS by Arthur and Noah Robinson, and Willie Soon.

A reprint from the prestigious science journal, the Wall Street Journal, written by Arthur and Noah Robinson, Jan 2000.

The petition card still uses the odd phrases “foreseeable future” and “catastrophic heating”.

And the note “We urge you to sign and return…” ends with,

“Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University”

For some reason, they did not include the statement made almost two decades ago, by a senior executive at RJ Reynolds:

“Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”

OBAMA’S MUSLIM CONNECTION

By Jon Christian Ryter

January 16, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

When Obama broke onto the national political scene in 2004, not only did he attempt to erase all traces his Islamic childhood, but he also tried to erase the nature of his relationship with Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ. (When your country is at war with Islamic extremists being a Muslim is not the shortest route to the White House.) Obama has told the media his reason for shielding his pastor was because “…he respected Mr. Wright’s work for the poor and his fight against injustice.” In reality Dr. Wright’s work was to denounce the United States as a white racist nation. That’s not good press for an African American candidate who needs to win a majority of the white vote to win the office of President.

On Dec. 22 at the Smoky Row Coffee Shop in Oskaloosa, Iowa, the locals asked Obama about his Muslim roots. He said: “My father was from Kenya. A lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn’t practice Islam. Truth is, he wasn’t very religious.” That was a lie. Obama’s father and stepfather were devout Islamics. Both faithfully practiced their religion. His stepfather, who had a much greater impact on Obama’s upbringing, was a radical Wahabbi Muslim. “My mother was a Christian from Kansas.” That was also a lie. Obama’s mother, his material grandmother and grandfather were all atheists. “They married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian. The only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country. But I’ve never practiced Islam…For a while I lived in Indonesia because my mother was teaching there. And that’s a Muslim country. And I went to school—but I didn’t practice Islam.” Another lie. Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro, a Wahabbi extremist who lived in Indonesia. When Obama’s mother moved to Indonesia—before she married her second Muslim husband—she enrolled her son in Francis Assisis Catholic School. He was enrolled as a Muslim because he was a Muslim. The enrollment form required each student to choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when enrolling: Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or Protestant. Had he been a lifelong Christian, or even a recent convert, he—or his mother—would have circled Protestant.

When confronted with this information, Obama said he couldn’t understand how such an error could have happened. Los Angeles Times reporter Paul Watson, who dug into Obama’s allegation of error, said “…his former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade school teacher as childhood friends, says Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. The registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion classes. The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque.” (Something else Obama claims he never did.) “…Obama’s younger sister, Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only ‘for big communal events’ not every Friday.” Obama, who belongs to a church that teaches that the Muslims of the world were wronged by both Israel and the United States, cannot afford to be labeled as a “Muslim” by voters who expect the United States to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where their sons and daughters are being killed by Muslims.

Jim Wallis, a Christian antipoverty community activist and a friend of Obama’s said Obama comes from a very secular, skeptical family. His faith is a personal and adult choice. His material grandparents—who were professing atheists—had previously been Baptist and Methodist. His mother’s tutelage leaned towards Islam only because her new husband was an ardent Muslim—and he demanded it.

She was not, however, the docile Muslim housewife most Muslim men expected. Obama’s half-sister Maya admitted that her “…whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.” Because religion of any type rubbed his mother the wrong way, when he was 10, Obama’s mother sent her son back to Hawaii to live with her parents.

In 2005 Obama met his paternal step-grandmoher (whom he calls his grandmother). Sarah Hussein Obama, 85, who lives in Kenya. She told the New York Times that she is “…a strong believer of Islamic faith,” adding that she still rises at 5 a.m. to pray for an hour before tending to her crops and the three orphans she has taken in.

A camera which caught Obama on the political stage during a fund raiser for Sen. Tom Harkin in Iowa with presidential candidates Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton shows his lack of respect to this nation during the singing of the National Anthem. Angered that the photo was released (and because the reporter erroneously stated the photo was taken during the Pledge of Allegiance rather than the singing of the national anthem, Obama said: “This is the classic dirty trick. This was not the Pledge of Allegiance. The woman was singing the Star Spangled Banner.”

As a sign of respect to their nation, many Americans place their hand over their heart when the National Anthem is played as well as when they recite the Pledge. In his case, Obama said “…I was taught by my grandfather that you put your hands over your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. The Star Spangled Banner, you sing.” Only, when you look at the photo, its very clear that neither Obama nor the others on stage are singing. It was, however, the singing of the national anthem.

All the time he was around either his father or stepfather, Obama was either in Hawaii or Indonesia. Thus, neither his paternal grandfather nor the father of his stepfather would have tutored him on placing his hand over his heart during the US Pledge of Allegiance, nor the singing the American Star Spangled Banner. Rest assured that Indonesian homes don’t recite the Pledge or sing the US national anthem. And while Hawaii had been a State for three years before Obama was born, logic suggests its not likely an atheist mother and an Islamic father would teach him to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the Star Spangled Banner.

In his teen years Obama moved back to Honolulu where he lived with his maternal grandparents. In his rebuttal, you will recall, Obama claimed his grandfather had taught him to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge, and to sing the national anthem. History has a problem with that on both sides of the family. Like his mother who was an atheist, so were her parents. Obama’s grandmother, he said in interviews, “…was too rational and too stubborn to accept anything she couldn’t see, feel, touch or count.” His maternal grandfather was also an atheist who “…had an innate rebelliousness and a complete inability to discipline his appetites…who…experimented with marijuana and cocaine.” An atheist is not going to teach his grandson to respect the Pledge of Allegiance which pays homage to God.

In a wave of violence aimed at protesting what they call the illegal election of newly-elected Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, a group of Christian women and children—some entire families—barricaded themselves in a church. Muslims, inflamed by Odinga’s men, torched the church and burned to death everyone inside. This is the man Obama campaigned for in Kenya, and sang the praises of. This is also the man who claims that Barack Obama is a close, personal friend. Christianity would be outlawed.

The American people need to be asking Barack Obama a whole different list of questions when they attend his political rallies on his quest to become the leader of the free world. They need to ask the man who he really is because, up to this point on the campaign trail, he has lied to them. The American people need to find an honest candidate. Barack Obama is not that man.

All of that drivel diatribe has been debunked MANY times…. But Regular chooses to fan the Flame!! SHAME on Regular!!

Also,

Can anyone explain to me WHY this new GI Bill is needed?

What were the downfalls with the current system and how is this new bill going to fix those?

Seems to me that you liberals are more interested in using this as a sound bite rather than actually doing anything which makes sense.

Nathaniel posted May 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm

“Bush didn’t hurt that man, those we are fighting against did.”

And there would not be fighting there, if Bush had allowed the inspections to continue, instead of invading.

Wow, “Nathaniel,” when you ask –

“…WHY this new GI Bill is needed?” you echo Thomas Frank’s thesis that ideologues in Kansas tend to vote against their own personal interests in pursuit of some deranged political bias.

You ask, “What were the downfalls with the current system….”?

Which raised the obvious question why you, “Nathaniel,” weren’t stop-lossed after your service in Iraq. Apparently the Marines decided they’d be better off without you.

But with military recruitment now depending on lowering standards — now accepting ex-convicts and high school drop-outs when they wouldn’t take such reprobates before the Shrub Administration — the opportunity to get a GI Bill-financed education might attract better quality recruits seems self-evident.

So Nathan was passed up in favor of excons and high school dropouts?

Hmmm…I have often wondered why Nathan was so concerned about a test to reveal whether or not a person was gay.

Were you “found out” Nathan?

KansasNative,

I have served one tour in Iraq already. I continue to serve in the Reserves.

What gives you the audacity to question my service to this country?

Nathan,

Please list the WMD’s that were found after the March 2003 invasion, over five years ago.

………………..because, marine-boy, the alleged WMD’s were the reason your savior bush gave for invading another nation.

Apophis,

The same reason that almost every major Democrat was using in 1998 to attack Iraq and the same reason that nearly every Democrat used to support Bush in going to war as well.

Your point?

……….again marine-boy, your ignorance is showing.

List the Democrats who voted for your “war”?

There has been no declaration of war since 1941 gun-nut/fundamentalist.

The resolution that Congress passed in regard to Iraq was based on the bush lies.

A resolution is not a declaration of war.

There is no legal difference between a “joint resolution” and a Bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both Houses of Congress, and both must be presented to the President and signed by him (or repassed over his veto) to become a Law. Laws enacted by virtue of a “joint resolution” are not distinguished from laws enacted by a Bill.

(wikipedia)

Yeah cosmos, the Commanders on the ground screwed that one up.

What would you like me to do about it? I’ve heard this before and over and over.

Screwups happen in war. So what is your point cosmos? Yes, “some” were used by Iraqi insurgency.

Are you still cheerleading the cause for American deaths when such things happen so you can score blog points?

Or are you writing such things just because you hate the men and women that serve in the military?

Which is it?

Well Apophis, if there were lies, then many Democratic members of Congress repeated them and emphatically stated that they read the intelligence reports, including Senator Edwards.

If there were lies, then how come no one has been impeached or put on trial?

Come on Apophis, there must be a reason why. Tell us what the lies were and why no one has been prosecuted for “lying.”

Or was it faulty intelligence? The same intelligence that was inherited from the Clinton administration.

………….what you call “faulty intelligence” is where the lies are hidden.

Once the criminal bush mis-administration is removed from the White House in January, the real investigations will likely begin. It is highly probable that many members of the “bush team” will be prosecuted.

Don’t blame the members of the Democratic Party for the republic lies.

March 7 2003 | New York, USA
Statement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began.

Pentagon officials declined to comment on the allegation that the CIA’s information had been ignored. But Defense officials did claim that the HMX and RDX might have been spirited away from Al Qaqaa by Saddam’s minions before the war, or that much of the material was blown up by U.S. forces who visited the site near the end of the war.

Appears that sources differ cosmos. Some say that the Pentagon was brief about it and that some high explosives were in fact blown up when they were found.

Just in case you were tempted to believe the spin that the HMX, RDX and PETN explosives at Al-Qaqaa had already disappeared when our troops arrived:

Dick Cheney:

It is not at all clear that those explosives were even at the weapons facility when our troops arrived in the area of Baghdad.

Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel:

The weapons were not there when the military arrived, making John Kerry’s latest ripped-from-the-headlines attack baseless and false.

Tom Brokaw:

Last night on this broadcast we reported that the 101st Airborne never found the nearly 380 tons of HMX and RDX explosives. We did not conclude the explosives were missing or had vanished, nor did we say they missed the explosives. We simply reported that the 101st did not find them.

For its part, the Bush campaign immediately pointed to our report as conclusive proof that the weapons had been removed before the Americans arrived. That is possible, but that is not what we reported.

Associated Press, 5 April 2003 (emphasis mine):

Closer to Baghdad, troops at Iraq’s largest military industrial complex found nerve agent antidotes, documents describing chemical warfare and a white powder that appeared to be used for explosives.

UN weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al Qa Qaa complex, most recently on March 8. But they found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 40 kilometres south of Baghdad.

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant’s stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (emphasis mine):

RDX stands for Royal Demolition eXplosive. It is also known as cyclonite or hexogen. The chemical name for RDX is 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine. It is a white powder and is very explosive.

You or I will probably never know the truth cosmos. Let me give you an example.

At a base I was stationed at overseas, it was always denied that there were nuclear weapons stored there.

However, we had periodic exercises where we practiced “bent spear/broken arrow” responses. That is, when a plane goes down carrying a nuclear weapon crashes and the nuclear weapon is damaged.

So one has to ask themselves, “Why practice for an event for a weapon we are not supposed to have?”

:)

One can also find stories about ‘elvs and witches’ in the Library of Congress as well David B. :)

There’s a good reason for an ‘ice cap’ to break up. It is subject to winds and stormy weather, as the bulk of the ice cap rests on water. :)

Polar ice packs are large areas of pack ice formed from seawater in the Earth’s polar regions, known as polar ice caps: the Arctic ice pack (or Arctic ice cap) of the Arctic Ocean and the Antarctic ice pack of the Southern Ocean, fringing the Antarctic ice sheet. Polar packs significantly change their size during seasonal changes of the year.

In spring and summer, when melting occurs, the margins of the sea ice retreat. The vast bulk of the world’s sea ice forms in the Arctic ocean and the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica. The Antarctic ice cover is highly seasonal, with very little ice in the austral summer, expanding to an area roughly equal to that of Antarctica in winter. Consequently, most Antarctic sea ice is first year ice, up to 1 meter thick. The situation in the Arctic is very different (a polar sea surrounded by land, as opposed to a polar continent surrounded by sea) and the seasonal variation much less[citation needed], currently 28% of Arctic basin sea ice is multi-year ice[1], thicker than seasonal: up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick.

Annual growth and retreat of the polar ice packs from SeaWiFS imagesThe amount of sea ice around the poles in winter varies from the Antarctic with 18,000,000 km² to the Arctic with 15,000,000 km².[citation needed] The amount melted each summer is affected by the different environments: the cold Antarctic pole is over land, which is bordered by sea ice in the freely-circulating Southern Ocean
wiki

Sorry for your losses cosmos. But demonstrated contempt all the time defeats your argument every time.

You have contempt, because you are contemptuous.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-explosives.htm
“An ABC affiliate with KSTP-TV in Minneapolis/St. Paul, embedded with the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 push towards Baghdad recorded footage taken at the Al Qaqaa site.

The footage, taken on April 18, 2003 and thus after the capture of Baghdad and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, depicts bunkers still filled with explosives at the time the troops arrived at the facility.

“cosmos_originally” alleges –

“…all that ‘Regular‘ has is lies.”

That’s so not true!

“Regular” also has name-calling and sock-puppets!

Sorry “Regular” I meant to address that to “Republikhan.”

My bad.

Wait! I meant “Kansas” not “Republikhan.”

My bad, again.

‘Regular‘ posted,

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/mccain%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98respectful-disagreement%e2%80%99-on-same-sex-marriage/#comment-355702

“The moment one of the Lib hoodlums start up, I’ll going to rip a new asshole out of someone or someone(s). It’s really that simple.

This is why I came on the blog in the first place, to rid the blog of the likes of Clark, Junior, CapnAmerica and MonkeyHawk.”
——–

You are not doing a very good job, are you ‘Regular‘, ‘JM’, ‘Republikhan’, (stolen) ‘JM Walker’, ‘blank’, ‘** K H A N **’, ‘Republican’, ‘Kansas’, et al… ?

Interesting how liberals combine their pretend respect and honor for those service men and women who went before us with political bashing.

You support the troops, but abhor at the war they served in.

What kind of honor is that?

So, I expect more of the same, a Memorial Day Weekend stocked full of dribbles about Bush and the monetary cost of the Iraq War.

All with the small admonition, “but I respect our troops.”

More BS.

“You support the troops, but abhor at the war they served in.”

Yeah. Are we “required” to support the Bush War of Choice on Iraq in order to honor the troops?

If the answer is no then you are truly un-American, because it is our right as Americans to oppose the war.

Hypocrite.

“WSClark
Posted May 24, 2008 at 10:51 am | Permalink
Well, well, well, Happy Memorial Day weekend to you all – while dodging raindrops and tornadoes as you try to barbecue this weekend, take a minute to remember what this holiday is all about – to memorialize those that fought and died for us.

The World War II generation is dying out, slowly but surely – if you know a WW II vet, make a special effort to thank them, it may be the last opportunity.

With that, drive carefully, don’t drink and drive and enjoy the time with your family and friends.

Tomorrow (with no rain hopefully) I will be at the grill making a traditional Memorial Day feast for my family and a few friends – burgers, potato salad (okay, I’m not going to grill the ‘tater salad) and corn on the cob, followed by my granddaughter’s favorite dessert, s’mores with ice cream.

Enjoy you all, but remember the meaning of the Holiday.”

Sounds like you will have a great Holiday.

I concur completely with your above.

Have a Happy and Safe Memorial Day. Don’t forget to put out your flag!

Thanks to everyone for the clarifications on M-Day and V-Day.

Have a lovely evening! We’re off to the movies to see Indiana Jones 4.

Have fun at the movies, PreD!!

“American_Way” asks –

“Can’t you show your respect for our troops without bringing politic’s [sic] into it?”

No, damnit!

And here’s why:

Because the men and women of the armed forces are quintessential professionals, honorable in their service and dedication to the missions they are charged with. (The vast majority of them, anyway.)

My sister and brother-in-law lived for several years in Junction City and I’ve had dinner and cocktails and conversations with dozens of military personnel. I have many friends who are veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Dumbya Dumbya Two. And almost to a man (and woman), they have been among the most impressive, professional, and thoughtful people I’ve ever encountered.

Quite UNLIKE the political rhetoric spewed (mostly) by Republic Party chickenhawks, these honorable people have shared how they approach their profession. Yeah, they’re probably more “patriotic” than most of us, but the core of most of them is personal honor and esrit de corps — standing with their colleagues who’ve been thrust into the situations politicians have gotten them into.

I was a kid on the cusp of the Vietnam-era draft in the 1970s when decorated Marines came back from Southeast Asia and advised, “The only-est thing you need to know about ‘The ‘Nam’ is you don’t wanna go.”

I bought beers a few nights ago for a kid just back from his third tour in Dumbya Dumbya Two (his words) who said, “I’ll go back again, but I don’t wanna. It’s a f*ckin’ mess.” I’ve spent hours as a guest at the local Legion hall, watching the Budweiser clock spin ’round and ’round with guys who still suffer from PTSD (nee, “Shell Shock”) who still can’t drive by a Chinese restaurant because “It smells like Korea.”

As many times as I’ve locked horns with, say, “Nataniel” on other issues, my entreaties to him to seek psychological help aren’t really based on his politics or religious bigotry… it’s based on my very real perception he needs to address what politics has likely done to him.

My grandmother’s favorite brother was killed in September, 1918, and she never quite recovered. She lived in the house where she (and he) were born and she kept his bedroom exactly as he left it ’til the day she died. Preparing for the estate sale after she died felt almost like desecrating a grave site.

Politicans decided “The War to End War” wouldn’t end until the almost poetic “11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month” of 1918. Politicians couldn’t reach an armistice in Korea until what? 1954?

Politicians dilly-dallied about the shape of the table in Paris while good solid citizens, some of them I knew personally, died in Vietnam.

Politicians (including Dick Cheney) decided George HW Bush’s multi-national coalition shouldn’t take Desert Storm into Baghdad in 1991. Politicians (including Dick Cheney) sent Rumsfeld’s “the army you’ve got” into Iraq in 2003 to… to…. Well, nobody’s exactly clear yet as to the “why.”

The professional military people I’ve met are the honorable people who would nuke Dodge City if ordered to, but only after advising against it (Shrub fired those types leading up to March, 2003), and would walk into the Jaws of Hell for America if ordered to, even if every rational military or moral or political reasoning was against it. Because the military’s power is ingrained in their being; they know the potential power they can wield and they don’t do it as haphazardly as mere politicians.

So, no, “American_Way.” I can’t blithely support the troops “without bringing politic’s [sic] into it.”

Far too many brave American citizens have died due only to political interests.

Would that there would be no more American military graves to honor next Memorial Day.

Ain’t gonna happen, alas.

Thanks to the politicians.

That’s why.

Hawk — excellent post —–

Viet Nam and Cold war vet

Dog

By his actions and writings here I do not believe Nathan lives up to what we (and other Marines) expect from our professional soldiers.

He shows little repsect for others, has been caught in lies here and has threatened the lives of people here — as I’ve said before he’s a pretender —- a weekender …

Those European defense companies are just so squeaky clean compared to boeing, not.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080524/bs_nm/bae_usa_court_dc_1

“LR2″ –

Thanks.

Not for the cyber flowers about my post upthread, but for what you did and why you did it.

I so admire and respect the guys just a few years older than I who found themselves in The ‘Nam and got back, never for a minute forgetting those who didn’t.

I mean, it really didn’t take all that much “patriotism” to fight in WWII, albeit that was one helluva fight.

You guys went there for the only-est patriotic reason there is: because your country sent you there.

It is a sin of America and a stain against America that such sacrifices took place.

But, damn! The ‘Nam vets answered the call and stood up for America when, frankly, America probably didn’t deserve such a commitment.

When I visited the Vietnam Memorial I surprised myself when I saw the names of people I’d known, even of people I didn’t particularly like, who answered the call of their generation.

The decorated Marine who told me “The only-est thing you need to know about ‘The ‘Nam” is you don’t wanna go there” probably committed suicide (he was a a firefighter after he came back and “inexplicably” fell beneath the duals of a pumper truck in Erie, Kansas) because he never quite figured how he’d survived such a cluster-fuc# in Southeast Asia.) I’ve visited Sgt. Henry Wagoner’s grave every Veterans’ and Memorial Day since he died.

Times like this “holiday” make me weep still. At the loss. At why it’s so wrong he died too early. And the irony; I think he thought he died too late.

He was wrong, of course, on that point.

But he still lives in my heart and in my soul.

As do all you Nam vets. Whether you agree with me on other issues or not.

I’ve never known (for that matter, I’m at a loss to think of anyone I’ve ever known of) a better American.

LR2,

You must not have been in the military very long not to realize as there are as many opinions as there are men and women in the military.

Using opinion only to measure a person is a weak sistered approach to evaluate a human being.

I respect Nathan for who he is, his convictions, his service, his duty in Iraq and the fact he is a fellow American.

In fact, if I were on active duty and looking for someone to perform, someone to follow an order and to work with minimal instruction, I would call on Nathan first because I know he could do it and do it without complaint.

I’m sure you have had your shining moments as well. To encapsulate a person from what you see here cheapens the human experience.

I don’t know about you, but every time I was in uniform, I stood a little taller, kept my focus a little longer and knew for a fact that I could depend on the guy next to me.

Making an evaluation on the whole ‘man’ from a blog is short-sighted and lethargic in terms of the American Military Fighting Man. It’s lazy inuendo.

BAGHDAD — The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that Al Qaeda’s network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.

Ryan Crocker’s comments came as Iraqi forces have been conducting crackdowns on Al Qaeda militants in the northern city of Mosul and on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra. Thousands of Iraqi forces also moved into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad last week imposing control for the first time in years.

But truces with the powerful Mahdi Army militia that have calmed violence in Basra and paved the way for the Sadr City deployment have been strained in the past two days.

Supporters of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who heads the Mahdi Army, accused al-Maliki on Saturday of seeking to eliminate their movement and warned that “dark clouds” hang over the truce.

Al Qaeda fighters or other Sunni insurgents struck back in Mosul on Saturday. A roadside bomb in the city’s Sumer neighborhood hit an Iraqi army patrol, destroying a vehicle and killing four soldiers, a police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

cont’d at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358002,00.html

Is this the last of the last throes?

“and the fact he is a fellow American.”

Unlike your fellow Americans, some of the liberal persuasion, that you attack and demean on a regular (pun intended) basis.

But then, we are just liberal scum in your eyes.

Cry baby.

Insurgents aren’t necessarily Al Qaeda as I understand it.

What Cheney said was ‘bone-headed’, but I find using a statement like that to mock is in a category much lower than ‘bone’headed.’

I meant it as total and complete and pure frustration! How can we believe anything that comes from someone who represents this administration? Talk about mockery, they are experts at that! So don’t toss out unwarranted criticism. I surely have enough areas where you could find justification for criticism, but not believing something from bushco is reality. I’ll accept that you live in a different reality.

As far as what the call the various factions of “enemy,” that changes as more and different are brought in doesn’t it? Terrorist was how we started and then that was difficult to quantify so they’ve evolved in the terminology.

weren’t present= weren’t pleasant

btw, I fully believe cheney deserves mockery and much worse. Jailed without possibility of parole would seem fair to me. That way he wouldn’t even be able to enjoy the extra millions he has earned from his part of the Iraqi occupation at the expense of innocents. So many have paid so much; it seems he should bear some of the cost.

I find him and his indefensible!

I keep hearing about the millions that Cheney has earned since being Vice President, but have yet to see any proof for it.

Proof that is, that is not from some third rate Website.

Do you have any lindainks or is it just Internet gossip?

“My point is made by WSClark, a constant whiner who never grew up.”

Still want to accuse me of sexually abusing my granddaughter, McLiar?

Still want to deny your own child, McLiar?

Still want to denigrate ‘Nam vets by claiming that you are one of them, McLiar?

Still want to deny your multiple nics, McLiar?

Still want to continue your campaign of lies and deceit, McLiar?

Still want to deny that Mississippi wasn’t your chosen locale, McLiar?

Got anything to defend your lies, McLiar?

Hey cosmos_originally,
Your post of May 24, 2008 at 8:21 pm was appreciated. Seriously!
You did not retaliate a rather pointed jab at you but responded with interesting information. Sorry, but that seems rather unusual, but certainly welcome.
I will look at what you posted closely.
Thanks,

PS: cosmos, I didn’t say I’d accept it…I only said I’d look at it for now. Okay?

Boxlock,

Okay. Thank you.

I’m giving you credit here. Don’t be insulting with feigned ignorance.

Fair enough. I’ve read many reports from all sides on this matter about Cheney and Haliburton. It’s illegal for Cheney to benefit from a contractro like Haliburton of which he ran.

If there was anything illegal or Cheney was gleaning profits from Haliburton, it would be front and center in front of Congress and the Justice Department.

So lindainks, just where are those reports from Congress and the Justice Department that conclusively prove Cheney reaps profits from Haliburton?

Thanks for the invitation WSClark, but have other plans the next two days.

Let me offer my apology for my remarks about your granddaughter and your relation with her.

I have no reason to suspect that you are anything but a loving grandfather to her.

I offer my humble, sincere apologies to you, to your granddaughter and to your daughter.

I was wrong and rightfully chastised by you for making the remark.

With that, I got to do a few things before tomorrow, good night.

Linda, I see Bush as the puppet, but somebody else as the puppeteer pulling the strings… And my hunch is, that is Cheney.. And then, if it all goes bad, they can all bail out to spend more time with family, and leave Bush to twist in the wind… Sound familiar??

Ummm that would be may 25 & 26

I stand corrected, “Chas.”

WE Blog is a “Regular”-free zone May 25th and 26th, by his own reckoning!

As I said, we’ll see…

Re Cheney,

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/ethics.html

“Let me offer my apology for my remarks about your granddaughter and your relation with her.”

Whoa, the man does have an ounce of decency in him after all.

Well done.

CapN — You sure that was Regular?? Hmmm???

To all you liberals who say you support the troops:

How can you claim to support the troops in one sentence and in the next use my service as a Marine to attack me?

I have served a tour in Iraq. I have been all around the world training with Marines and other soldiers. I have served both active duty and Reserves. I have been a Marine for 12 years.

Yet you pretend to care about us in one sentence and mock my service in the next?

The majority of those in the Marine Corps have served on average about 2 tours in Iraq. Only those rare and extreme individuals in highly needed fields have been 4 to 5 times.

While I was in Iraq last year, about half of my Battalion was on their first tour. About 40 percent of the others on their 2nd and the last 10 percent on their 3rd or 4th.

You sit here pretending like you know something about serving when in reality you have no damn clue.

If you really want to act like you care, then you would simply say Thanks for your service, not, why are you not in Iraq again?

How Nathan differs from other “Young Republicans”: I watched a documentary that was coverage of a convention of young Republicans. It was a college level meet-up and those interviewed were totally supportive of the Iraq war and lambasting of those opposed to it.

One question stopped them cold, “If you believe so strongly in the Iraq cause, are you going to join up and volunteer to go there?”. They faces flushed and the answers were in stumbling speech about having a medical condition. Of feeling they could do more for the cause and the country by working behind the scenes. They planned to go into Government, they had other plans, They thought the fighting will be over by the time they graduate from college.

They felt strong enough to have other fight and die for the cause just not enough for them to even risk it themselves. They were not even willing to be reservist in any branch little a lone in the branch that is often the first in. In the branch that depends more on being the best rather then being in mass.
So I put little value on those Young Republicans opinion, it is weightless and hollow in conviction.

Nathan may sound very much like those Republicans who’s opinions I do not agree with.
But his opinion has weight as he has as stated served one tour in Iraq while those young Republicans have to look at a world map just to know where it is. He is subject to being called up with a unexpected phone call. The only unexpected phone call they are subject to is being invited out for Pizza.

I wondered once his tour was over if his opinion would change after seeing the conditions on the ground.
They did not and that too show how strongly he believes in his opinion. We will argue about Bush, the Iraq war and politics in general. And he may not have much of a chance of changing my opinion. But I will give his more weight then other whom share his. He is too partisan and at times too abrasive, but he stands above those Young Republicans I watched that day.

Nathan, did you kill any civilians while you were there?

It is a fair question to ask any soldier.

It goes to the true heart of the matter.

Without the truth we really don’t know who you are and what your moral values are.

It’s OK if you choose not to answer as well. No harm.

I have NEVER killed anyone. My conscience is clear in that regard.

What a bunch of old busybody women KansasNative (CapnA) and Apophis are. Sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong.

Respect. Learn some.

Outlander…

there are murderers walking among us…it’s documented how mentally ill many of our returning soldiers are.

It is a fair question to ask of any soldier.

Or do murderers get a pass under the Republican new world order?

And Outlanders there are murders walking among us. That doesn’t say anything about our returning veterans. Look at the last murders caught and convicted in Wichita. Two teenage boys and a drugged out junky needing money for his next fix. Or how about the hispanic who beat and killed his drug customer for ratting him out. He buried her under the basement floor. I could go on but surely if you stretch your mind you will get the point.

No veterans among them.

I hear all of the time on this blog about letting all of the drug offenders go so we can jail the real criminals. Not to logical to me.

Is this how you liberals show your support for the troops?

“there are murderers walking among us”

Is that what you call our brave men and women who are serving in the military?

WS for anyone to assign the name of murderer to our brave troops is a reminder of the return home of our VN troops. Sorry if you don’t see the comparison here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Are you a veteran by chance?

“WS for anyone to assign the name of murderer to our brave troops is a reminder of the return home of our VN troops.”

Contrary to popular right wing opinion, the vast majority of return Viet Nam vets were welcomed with open arms and were treated very fairly.

Even though I actively protested the War during those years, I never was disrespectful to a vet and I never saw or heard anyone else behave in that manner.

As for my status? As I said, I was actively against the war, so it would have been hypocritical for me to volunteer. I was draft status 1-A and drew a 202 in the lottery.

I give respect where it is due. When a soldier returns from duty and is an asshole he no longer deserves my respect. Service to one’s country doesn’t give any person a free ride for life. I can separate what should and shouldn’t be respected.

Ms Linda it seems like you give yourself a lot of credit in discerning a persons real self. Maybe they think the same of you and just are to polite to show it.

That doesn’t take away from their service to their country and they should never be called names on this blog or in any other venue because of that service.

Some of those who are openly hostile, don’t show the ability to be polite and do call posters all kinds of names ARE VETERANS. They don’t get a pass from me for their poor behavior, and that doesn’t make me disrespectful of their service to their country.

“I am not in support of “war.” I think war is awful.

I am in support of what we are doing in Iraq and I am in support of winning and not quiting. I believe that sometimes force is needed to protect life. Simply because I support the Iraq war doesn’t mean I relish “war” in it’s self.”
=======================================

I think I ned a new waffle iron!! :-)

Chas,

What did you not understand?

Let me break it down a bit more for you:

-I do not like war just to like war. However bad war might be, it is sometimes needed to protect others or our National interest.

“-I do not like war just to like war. However bad war might be, it is sometimes needed to protect others or our National interest.”

Iraq’s oil = “our National interest”.

“sometimes needed to protect others or our National interest.”

How was invading Iraq in our national interest?

I want to be clear that my opinions are mine, I don’t have any need of another poster agreeing because I’m very capable of forming my own opinions irrespective of what another person thinks. My opinions are as good and as useless as any other!

btw, I’ve NEVER questioned anyone’s service to their country and never will. I have stated that service to one’s country doesn’t give them an automatic pass to behave poorly. Doesn’t matter how many good and noble deeds a person has accomplished, they still should be held responsible and accountable for those that are less than good or noble.

My heroes come as complete and whole people — warts and all!

okobserver says: “My heros don’t come with removeable tags.”

NO tag would ever be adequate to describe my heroes fully and none would choose to be limited to any “tag.”

And once again,

Objective opinions are based on some fact or lack there of.

If your opinion is a statement of fact or based on a fact then it is not as good as or as useless as anothers.

An objective opinion can be wrong, dumb, foolish, bright, silly, questionable, sad, true, or any number of things.

Claiming that they are all just as good as another is absurd. That is definately your subjective opinion, not a statement of truth.

I am not governed nor do I believe in your God Nathan.

I stood up for you earlier, when I thought you were bullied and treated unfairly.

But the fact is? That is who YOU are here. You are a mean and nasty bully. And you do not care if the truth gets in your way.
“and then you pretend like you are holier than thou.”

We’ve been posting here three years Nathan. If there is another poster who claims to speak with the voice of God more than you?

I don’t know who that is.

“As long as no one disagrees with you Linda then you are fine.”

Well, linda does not claim to speak for God. She does not claim his divine guidance as you do Nathan.

And if you can catch linda in a lie do it. Because you have lied here.