Conservatives set to blame war on libs
While I completely disagree with the content of Jack Palmer’s recent letter (“What about Dems benchmarks”), I had an revelation about the messages we can expect from such steadfast conservatives.
For instance, I figured out the expression “cut-and-run liberals” will be the expression used to frame liberals as the architects of the loss of the war in Iraq, despite the fact that these same liberals were marching in the streets in 2002-2003 warning of the catastrophic cost of an Iraqi invasion and how it would result in a bloody quagmire due to sectarian violence.
Back then, these pacifists were marginalized as terrorist sympathizers, yet now that their predictions have come to pass, they are being rebranded “cut-and-run liberals.” See how that works?
I fully expect to see many more conservative missives about “cut-and-run liberals” even though the war in Iraq, for better or worse, is absolutely and completely the work of the modern conservative movement.
Kerry Neuville, Highlands Ranch
You can't be as naive as you write. It took both parties to jump into this war, and both parties to "stay the course". Giving either party and their leaders a pass in this politically inspired and perpetuated fiasco is more than disingenuous at the best, and an outright case of self deception most likely. Quit listening to what the spin doctors on either side are saying and pay attention to their actions. Only sheep following their herder to slaughter should be so blind. We're not going to be out of Iraq in your lifetime regardless of the party in the White House.
Among the political leaders there are no actual liberals or conservatives. Under a surface veneer maintained for the sheep are calculating politicians dancing to the music of global business interests -- that's what gets them into, and keeps them in power. War is good for the global economy and helps implement and maintain control of the varied and many flocks of sheep.
Sit back and have another case of e v i a n.
Posted by on August 22, 2007 12:42 AMCongress authorized and Bush executed the invasion. There was some protest at the time. Not only from the usual suspects but aslo from reasonable people. However at the time, the invasion was generally accepted as a good idea - even in Highlands Ranch.
The invasion was success. Saddam was ousted with little bloodshed and destruction given the circumstances.
Ths handling of the occupation has not been succesful to date and the responsibility for that lies with Bush.
It also has to be said that the effort has been undermined by Democrats who once supported the invasion and now want to turn tail and retrreat without a serious consideration of the consequences. They are responsible for their own fecklesness and, unfortunately, they are becoming the face of the Democrat's.
So it would seem that there is ample blame to go around. But how about instead of playing the blame game, we try to figure out what is actually in the best interest of the Country?
For instance, let's see how Petraeus' surge strategy is working before embarking on the next step.
There will be plenty of time for partisanship soon enough.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 05:29 AMBlair, Bush, Lott, and lard @sse$ Cheney and Hastert, suckered the Congress with WMD lies. I think this band of brothers should tried in an international court of law for war crimes.
Posted by centennialslavebehinddacottoncurtain on August 22, 2007 05:43 AMCongress authorized and Bush executed the invasion. There was some protest at the time. Not only from the usual suspects but aslo from reasonable people. However at the time, the invasion was generally accepted as a good idea - even in Highlands Ranch.
The invasion was success. Saddam was ousted with little bloodshed and destruction given the circumstances.
Ths handling of the occupation has not been succesful to date and the responsibility for that lies with Bush.
It also has to be said that the effort has been undermined by Democrats who once supported the invasion and now want to turn tail and retrreat without a serious consideration of the consequences. They are responsible for their own fecklesness and, unfortunately, they are becoming the face of the Democrat's.
So it would seem that there is ample blame to go around. But how about instead of playing the blame game, we try to figure out what is actually in the best interest of the Country?
For instance, let's see how Petraeus' surge strategy is working before embarking on the next step.
There will be plenty of time for partisanship soon enough.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 05:55 AMOr we can follow the advice of one of the ususal suspects and take the question to the Hague and see what they think.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 05:56 AMIf either of you are right evian won't do. A bottle of very old scotch would be needed, at least for me. And you know what, you're both right.
I've got an idea how to fix the peoblem, get off the finger pointing blame freight train and jump on to the problem solving fix it express which will take you to the Common Sense station. There, take a ethical taxi to the fetid swamp headquarters of political expediency.
Remember what your original intention was, don't get surronded by the lies and deceptions of the legislative alligators and drain the swamp. It might not be suitable for children to see them flopping around in the muck and mud they have made out of constitutional law but, it should be required viewing for taxpayers.
The only thing that can insure freedom is the unending vigilance of We the People and, the only thing required to eradicate oppression is the periodically scheduled draining of the putrid swamp that is the breeding ground of the apathetic disease spreading, politically corrupt, blood sucker insect .
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 22, 2007 06:17 AMAnyone who is so ignorant that they would write the following words regarding our invasion of Iraq should be summarily dismissed from any conversation about where to go from here:
"The invasion was (a) success. "Posted by Charles B on August 22, 2007 06:24 AM
"...these same liberals were marching in the streets in 2002-2003..."
Those very same cut-n-run liberals voted to send our troops into war. Their names are now all too familiar. And since the war began in March of 2003, they sure decided to boogy out of there awful fast. Maybe we should have called these liberals "run-n-cut." After voting to put our troops in harms way, did all these liberals just turn their 3-minute egg timers over at the very same time in order to signal their cut-n-run exit?
Posted by Hank on August 22, 2007 07:20 AMIgnorance in YOUR OPINION Charles - your opinion is not fact in all others mind, your typed opinion doesn't mean that any other opinion should be dismissed.
Good Grief Mr. Allmighty
There were no WMD's. there was no imminent threat. We were lied into this war. It is a Neo-Con disaster and Bush/Cheney CO. should be tried for treason.
Posted by It's True on August 22, 2007 07:25 AMIt's True,
Let stipulate Bush knew there were no WMD and lied to to create a false impression. What is the point?
For instance, would that mean we should withdraw immediately?
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 07:35 AMWeak-willed democrats and even a few republicans in congress initially voted to support the war because they feared the smear job people like Karl Rove and the GOP would do on them if they didn't as well
as the resulting backlash from voters.
Let's be honest here about the mood in this country at the time. 9/11 and the anthrax scares had Americans living in fear and anger. Many of them were feeling powerless and truly scared for the first time in their lives.
The administration played on this. Instead of focusing our resources on finding and negating those who were responsible, they chose to take us in another direction - attacking Iraq.
Whether you believe that the administration lied about the intelligence they used to justify attacking Iraq or whether you believe that they were simply fooled by data. The fact remains that they took us into a costly and deadly war on faulty information.
To anyone with a lick of sense and an ounce of integrity, this should be inexcusable.
The president stated that faulty intelligence in his State of the Union and Powell stated it in his testimony to Congress and the U.N.
In doing so, they were blatantly trying to perpetuate the fear and angers many Americans already had in order to manipulate their support for the invasion of Iraq.
Bush intentionally placed ALL of the members of congress between a rock and a hard place with the case he built on faulty data because he wanted that war. Bush wanted to be a war president.
Charles B
Your attempt to silence me will be as effective as Congressional Democrats attempt to force a retreat from Iraq.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 07:55 AMJames the point is that we should try him for treason IMMEDIATELY>
Posted by It's True on August 22, 2007 08:03 AM Bush KNEW. But he and his warmongering profiteer girlfriends also KNEW there was $ to be made off the blood of our GIs.
YES James, they should be shot for treason motivated by greed.
Your right Charles B. Also,an invasion isn't over till its over.. Our presence in Irag is ongoing because we have not acheived victory over the predetermined target of the invasion, ( does anybody really know why we invaded in the first place. Was it WMD'S or Sadam or Oil, I'm still confused ), ipso facto, the invasion is ongoing, Unless, of course it becomes politically expedient to redetermined that our being there is an occupation but, as we all know, that word is verboten and is an anti-politically expedient and politically incorrect usage of the word under the perceived circumstances.
What? I swear, it is only too, too obvious to me that there is not soul I know who can define what we are doing there without using weasel words, political spin and nonsequiturs to do so.
Remember when the political justification for our initial "involment " in South East Asia was to " stop communism at the doorstep ". Remember also what it turned into: A absolute failure that resulted in a debacle that killed untold thousands of civilians and over 50,000 U.S. soldiers and did not, repeat, did not accomplish the intended goal.
This because we did not learn from history ie, Japan's and France's failures. They failed to see there was no way to gain victory in a world where people cared more about security than freedom because of the constant wars and destruction they had indured for thousands of years.
This is the same thing that we face in Irag. The Mideast's history is consistently reflected in the wars that have raged there for thousands of years and the everyday people care not for the reasons why, only about their survial on a daily basis. Add to that, the zelots who actually think sacraficing their own lives, the lives of their children and anyone elses life is justified by there radical interpretation of islamic religious law, and what you arrive at is a design for failure.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 22, 2007 08:24 AMThe prevailing attitude of our boy james and the other war-lovers seems to be similar to that of the British High Command at such places as the Somme,Ypres, Verdun and other meat grinders. If we only just go over the top a few more times and charge blindly into the teeth of the opposition surely victory-whatever that means-will be ours.I'm very glad that none of these guys were in any command positions in my infantry unit during my walking tour of the sun and fun capitol of southeast Asia in 1966-1967. If any of these war-lovers can find me even one instance of where an army of occupation has defeated a popular insurgency I might be more disposed to listen to their opinions. I can see no manner in which our presence in Iraq enhances our national security. likewise I can see no manner in which our continued occupation contributes to our national security. The whole enterprise was a con(pun intended)job of the highest order and we as a nation will be paying the cost for our folly for generations.
Posted by patrick on August 22, 2007 08:30 AMSolution: Leave Iraq IMMEDIATELY. Leave the dozen bases and 100 acre embassy and everything else that can't be carried.
We NEVER cared about the Iraqi people, not before, not now. Unless you are Ward Churchill and deplored our starving and killing of the Iraqi people from 1991 to 2001, don't try and give me your false concern for what will happen to the people.
Big Oil, Pax/Empire America and the Israeli lobby do not want us to leave. That is why the current Congress will not de-fund the occupation/war. Ask Mark Udall why he will not stop funding the occupation/war. Ask the Rocky why they will not challenge Udall. The answer is that Udall( along with all the rest of the Colorado'd delegation) is owned by those 3 groups.
Posted by Dave on August 22, 2007 08:51 AMIt's True, dmz
OK - that's fair enough as far as it goes. My question though has more to do with the conflict in Iraq.
Now that you have impeached Bush, Cheney et. al. and you have them awaiting execution for treason; what does President Pelosi do about the troops in Iraq and, more generally, the War on Terror?
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 08:57 AMThere are always going to be people who need to cling to and be told what to do by others. They are in need of an authoritarian "father figure" to guide them.
The fear and blind allegience makes them prime fodder for this administration. It also makes them fools and enemies of the Republic.
They would gladly give up the freedoms that have been fought for and won over the past 200+ years in the name of "security" from whatever boogie man is brought before them.
You see them all over these boards. No need to name them--you know who they are.
Posted by Fight the Good Fight on August 22, 2007 08:58 AMThe Senate Intelligence Committee is by law 50/50 Democrats and Republicans and has Top Secret clearance. They could have secretly subpoenaed the CIA (including Clinton supporters in the CIA) to answer questions about WMDs. Maybe they did. The Senators are bound by their secrecy oaths. We will never know.
However, it is instructive to note that the entire committee voted for the war. I do know that if all the Democrats on the committee had opposed the war, the Democratic leadership would have stopped Bush.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on August 22, 2007 09:00 AMDave is absolutely right on one things.
We never cared about the Iraqi people.
This was was not about freeing them from an oppressive dictator.
If so, why hasn't Bush done ANYTHING to help the people of Darfur, who are dying in the thousands every day from violence and the resulting pestilence?
Why hasn't he tried to help free the people of Myanmar who have been living under an oppressive regime for years?
Why did any government wait until 9/11 occurred to do something about the Taliban?
Make no mistake...this war had NOTHING to do with "spreading democracy or freedom".
Those were just buzz phrases used to help sell the war.
JJ:
I don't want to silence you. I think you should be ignored.
Posted by Charles B on August 22, 2007 09:01 AMMr. Campbell,
No, the invasion of Iraq is over and in fact ended years ago. We are not currently invading, but occupying Iraq and that is an important dfference.
It is also important to understand that whatever happens in Iraq, the War on Terror will continue to be fought.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 09:01 AMCharles B,
I see where Jonesy's paranoia is showing again. Now he's accusing you of trying to "silence him".. Yesterday, he was hallucinating all over the place about what I was supposed to have written.on a subject.
Poor fellow. His dementia seems to be progressing more rapidly.every day.
But enough agout the Whiz of a Whiz. Up there in his vacuous fantasy land of imagination, he'll go on spinning the same old worn out record, stuck in the same groove, repeating the Right wing shibbolethss over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam; simply because it's all he can do. Comic relief when the serious topic deals with reality.
Allen Campbell,
What you have said is only too true. Sadly, the sensible approach to recognizing the simple fact that NO OCCUPATION FORCE in history has been able to end the religious civil war in the Middle East has been lost in the jingoistic shouts of those who refuse to deal with simple facts.
But, again, this simply goes to illustrate the sad truth that those who don't want to learn, won't. And today's "conservatives" are so totally fixated in the position of already knowing it all about everything as it ought to be, they cannot even bring themselves to the point of acknowledging the reality that there is still much to learn in the area of humaninty's growth and development.
I can only add those trenchent words attributed to Lord Acton: "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Vide: Viet Nam = Iraq = Viet Nam = Iraq. And his other observation: "The only thing we learn from history is, we learn nothing from history".
And then we have the remark from the General, which more or less sums up the "conservative" position: "Shooting people is fun!" Which statement, coming as it does from someone sitting in a plush Pentagon office, back in Foggy Botton, expresses it all quite perfectly, as the "conservatives" see it. Let's you and him fight; but don't show the coffins being unloaded back home.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 09:09 AMIronically, the only person to have "cut and run" in recent years was Ronnie Reagan from Beirut in the 1980s.
And now the majority of people accusing others of wanting to "cut-and-run" are armchair warriors like Un-American and KW who are extremely brave in their living room armchairs.
Posted by drew on August 22, 2007 09:11 AMPatrick,
There are one or two distinctions between the current conflict in Iraq and Somme,Ypres and Verdun which reneders your parallels a sophistry.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 09:13 AMwhat does President Pelosi do about the troops in Iraq and, more generally, the War on Terror?
James: It's not that hard. Get the hell out of Iraq and get back to what we should have never stop doing and that is go after the guy that attacked us on 9/11. Osama bin laden!!!! Remenber him?
Fine James, at least you see that it is indeed an occupation. Did you not get the sarcasm of my wording? I agree, the war against terror should continue. It just that I think we should be in the right place to continue doing it. I dare anyone to justify our occupation of Irag by proving it is the exactly the right place for us to be to insure the defeat of terrorists.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 22, 2007 09:25 AMlarry,
I do remembmer him. I don't know if he has gone off to meet his maker yet or not but I do remember.
Really, all I am asking for is clarity.
What many of you seem to want is for Bush, Cheney and whoever else was in the conspiracy (I suppose the numbers would run in to the dozens anyway) executed and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
So your vision for America is months on end of treason trials followed by a steady stream of executions of high public officials. Now while this prospect makes your heart go pitter pat it does not, of itself, advance the war effort.
So your plan to advance the war effort is to surrender Iraq and allow the local governments (Iran) and terrorists groups (Al Qaeda) a free hand to pursue their own interests.
Great - all I ask is that you clearly explain you positions.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 09:30 AMNow that you have impeached Bush, Cheney et. al. and you have them awaiting execution for treason; what does President Pelosi do about the troops in Iraq and, more generally, the War on Terror?
Posted by James Jones
Well since you asked, President Edwards would go to the UN and explain we were all lied to and that we have the treasonous people in prison for the rest of their lives. We would then negotiate an International peace keeping force to oversee the division of Iraq into 3 different countries. Seems to me we had a regime change in Kosovo that is not costing American lives. Of course that was when we had a competent President.
Posted by It's True on August 22, 2007 09:33 AMIf the democrats would of supported our troops this war would of been over.
Posted by Keith on August 22, 2007 09:35 AMAlan,
There is no exact right place that we can be to inusre the defeat of the terrorists. Iraq is a single theater in a larger war whihc mihgt one day be fought in Syria, Iran or Pakistan.
If we are succussful in Iraq, victory will come sooner. That is what is at stake but we can't afford to get stuck on Iraq.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 09:35 AMIt's True,
Thank you for the clear response.
I hope you will continue to advocate for your position on how to fight the war as in the same straight-forward manner you have explained here.
What I ask is that you take your accustations of treasonous conspiracies all the way through to the logical conclusion you expect to see.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 09:41 AMDrew
"ronically, the only person to have "cut and run" in recent years was Ronnie Reagan from Beirut in the 1980s."
Do forget your two icons:
Carter - Iran, killed men hightailing from an aborted rescue he aborted
Clinton - Somalia I was serving there when your hero pulled the plug over bad PR about being a loser commander in Chief
KCW
Posted by on August 22, 2007 09:46 AMSo James, in realistic terms there is not enough time to go through the Impeachment process. At what point will you decide that the War in Iraq is a fiasco? What would you have us do to stop the bleeding? Do you think we should still be in Vietnam? Apparently, that is the position of the Neo-Cons in the world. What solution do you see for the War in Iraq? Do you believe it was a good idea? Is it something you would support given all that you know now? There was no imminent threat, we did not go to war as a last resort. Just curious, rather than having you tell the Democrats that they need to fix the Republicans mess, I would like you to explain what we should do.
Posted by It's True on August 22, 2007 09:55 AMKCW
An aborted rescue mission can hardly be called "cutting & running" - at least Carter had an objective in mind, ill conceived as it was.
And Clinon left Somalia because of the unrelenting right wing uproar that the man actually had the gall to help people in need - what people like you called "nation building."
Yet when Bush indulges in the most ridiculous, ill-planned, ill-conceived exercise in nation building of all time all the right wingers applaud him while thousands of Americans are killed. Strange.
Posted by drew on August 22, 2007 10:06 AMSeems like if Bush #1 had not "cut and run" back in the FIRST war on Iraq...we wouldn't be there today.
You remember that war, don't you? The one where we actually had a valid reason and the support of the world and even other middle eastern countries for attacking Iraq because they had invaded a soverign nation, Kuwait.
Bush #1 left Saddam in power...which left the door open for his retarded son and his cronies to go back in 2003.
So, don't give me this crap about democrats cutting and running. Bush, Sr. could have prevented this war by taking out Saddam back in 1991, but he chose not to.
In his book, "A World Transformed", written with Brent Scowcroft, Bush concluded that overthrowing Saddam would have fractured the alliance the U.S. had created with middle eastern countries and was not worth the cost in lives or money.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Hmm...but then just a few years later...Vice President/Halliburton former CEO and still major shareholder Dick Cheney had some different ideas, didn't he?
Posted by Thomas on August 22, 2007 10:18 AMCharles B
Again, you do not make sense. The invasion WAS a success. How is that ignorant? We attacked, we are there. How was the invasion not a success???? The war is more ambiguous. The U.S. Won the war. Sadam is out of power; we hold the key ground. What we are losing is the ability to govern Iraq and insure peace there. An Impossible task.
AF
drew
Bush was a fool to invade Iraq. But, it's only to be expected that you would defend Carter and Clinton -- even blaming the vast right wing conspiracy in his defense -- for their foibles; they represent all that is of pure motive and intent to you. Whereas, you crucify anybody not a Democrat as being of unsound integrity and hidden agendas.
Doesn't it get old parroting a party line that has been no more virtuous in governing this country than the other. That was pretty much a rhetorical question. You needn't bother spewing more talking points back at me.
KCW
Posted by on August 22, 2007 10:40 AMThomas, your posts are consistently great. I am sorry so many Democrats voted to give Bush authorization to invade. Yes they were afraid to be left behind if this succeeded.
They were fearful that the right wing of the Republican party and the right wing pundits would turn on them. It was awful to watch. I hated the invasion idea from the first, but I watched on tv as it happened and I noticed there was no army meeting our troops. I also watched Telemundo and saw the same thing. No real war here, it seemed to good to be true. No planes overhead, no battle lines.
Then came the looting and the complete break down of civil order. I still had a minute amount of hope it could be turned around but that never happened.
The list of cowards who supported this for personal gain includes the Generals who speak out only after they retire and , sorry to say, Powell as well.
Not to make light of this, but Mexico could have pulled off this "invasion". All the rest has gone horribly wrong.
Women were being treated worse than animals in Afghanistan and Bush didn`t care, then just before that invasion, which was a good idea, he starts talking about the poor victims of the Taliban.
The man will say or do anything to justify his desires. He didn`t need to buff up the reason for that war, but he thinks that way. Justify, justify etc.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 22, 2007 11:12 AMThe war is won. The peace is not. This is not about Bush or Clinton nor should it be about which party is in power. If we do not secure the peace, we will be responcible for a civil war or another extremist muslim state. History will state whether or not the war was a correct action. What is wrong, is abandoning Iraq to the aforementioned fate. We should finish what was begun and leave. To do so prematurely is an act that renders meaningless the lives that were lost. Unlike some, I believe that Arabs are able to live in a democracy. We are in this mess, so let's clean it up.
Posted by Tom on August 22, 2007 11:39 AMKCW,
Actually the spewing and parroting of "talking points" on the right is what I was referring to - whereby anyone wanting to consider getting out of this unholy mess in Iraq is crucified as wanting to "cut and run."
And you say:
"you crucify anybody not a Democrat as being of unsound integrity and hidden agendas." No, just this administration.
I think Reagan was right to get out of Lebanon - just funny how people like you don't define that as "cutting and running." I guess only Democrats do that, eh ?
Posted by drew on August 22, 2007 11:59 AMI think Mr. Neuville is kind of acting like Chicken Little with his letter. Of course the conservatives will try to portray Democrats as responsible for all that is wrong in Iraq.
f the democrats would of supported our troops this war would of been over.
Posted by Keith on August 22, 2007 09:35 AM
What Mr. Neuville doesn't get is that these tired attacks have lost all of their magic powers. Nobody except Keith believes that if Democrats had quit pointing out the blunders of the Bush Administration the magic fairy would have waved her wand and these centuries old antagonists would have become pro-American buddies overnight. The conservative smear tactics will be trotted out like they were in 2006 with the addition of illegal immigration instead of homosexuals as the social fear factor but the outcome will be the same as 2006. Soccer moms, Hispanics and Independents now understand that conservatives govern for only one purpose, staying in power. They can sing cut-n-run all they want but at the end of the day, they are going to have their DC condos up for sale. Nobody but Keith is buying this war as a wonderful experience.
Posted by Wes on August 22, 2007 11:59 AM40 acres/Tennant/Centennial expresses himself and I agree: try them for war crimes. while as usual Keith says the dumbest things. Bush has been in total control from day one and even today he is getting his funding from the democrats.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037yahoo Risen ape/Deicide. Intelligent enough to be atheist but lack courage. on August 22, 2007 12:13 PMKCW - I'd listen to what drew has to say about parroting talking points.
He's a pro at it.
Posted by KW on August 22, 2007 12:46 PMWhat a bunch of no nothing idiots with to much time on your hands. Get a job. Better yet offer a solution. Hug a tree.
Posted by on August 22, 2007 12:57 PMIt's true,
I will assume that you were not serious about your questions on Viet Nam and so on.
I thik I answered your serious questions in my original post at 529 am.
Let me know if that is not the case.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 12:59 PM"The war is won".
Really?
Then why are we still there.
Why are our men and women in uniform still in harm's way...many being killed and maimed?
We're not maintaining the peace. Scores of people are being killed every day.
We aren't rebuilding the infrastructure so that the people there can have some semblance of normal life. The reason for that just might be that many of those posts were filled by political appointees who had no qualifications for the jobs other than their connections to prominent GOP'ers.
A detailed article about this very subject was written some time ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html
The only answer you can possibly give is that, in your opinion, the war is over..and we are now just occupiers - the very thing that this administration said we would not be.
From Bush's speech to U.S. Army War College...back in May 2004:
The June 30th transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs, just as we would. After decades under the tyrant, they are also reluctant to trust authority. By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation.
The full speech, in case you're interested in reading more broken promises.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html
Posted by Thomas on August 22, 2007 01:04 PMIf the democrats would of supported our troops this war would of been over.
Posted by Keith
Keith, I think you have proven the letterwriters point.
James Jones, it seems to me that your advice or belief is that we should stay the course. I don't see that as a recipe for success in Iraq or for the GOP in 2008.
Thomas
Hmm...but then just a few years later...Vice President/Halliburton former CEO and still major shareholder Dick Cheney had some different ideas, didn't he?
You are ignoring the fact that 9/11 occured a few years later. This decision didn't come out of the blue.
That attack changed the dynamics.
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it with my own eyes.
I knew hillary had began acknowledging the great progress being made in Iraq, but I didn't realize she not only supported the surge, but could she actually be advocating increasing the surge by another 30,000 troops to bolster our successes?
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.
"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term,"Posted by KW on August 22, 2007 01:21 PM
If one of you ignorant liberals would read the definition of treason you would know only kerry,kennedy,pelosi,reid,obama,clinton,leahy,durbin,boxer,among other liberals fall in that catagory.So shut up and find out the facts before you write your idiotic post!
Posted by Keith on August 22, 2007 01:29 PMIt's true,
Why don't you see if you can hang tough for a few more weeks until we get the Petraeus update in September?
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 01:32 PMJJ
Read what Trinity said about his personal observations and experiences in Iraq when working there. He said what is going on is not accurately reported in the media and that real progress is being made. He expects US Troops to be done with the day to day fighting in a few months but that we'll never leave Iraq alltogether. Its under the Bring Troops Home From Iraq letter. He says the surge is really working.
CA
Posted by on August 22, 2007 01:40 PMI do like the one about the "invasion being a success". It's so very typical of the "conservative" approach to reality.
The leader is marching along, and comes upon a sign reading, "Qicksand Ahead." But the leader, being all wise, fearless, and a Great Decider, informs all and sundry that HE can, and will, transform quicksand into a new and stable road to the future. Whereupon he promptly marches straight into the quicksand.
Now, floundering around to just barely keep his head above the quagmire - having shown the whole world that his Mommy raised at least one damn fool - the leader seeks to rally his damn fool followers with the cry of: " I said I was going to go into the quicksand, didn't I? And here I am in the quicksand! So, going into the quicksand being just what I said I was going to do makes it a success."
Yes, For Sure! The "invasion" is a success, too!
But the damn fool Great Decider is still stuck - up to almost the eyeballs - in the quicksand; and it still ain't been transformed into a new and stable road to the future. Except, perhaps, in the imaginations of those who think that floundering around in quicksand is wonderful, that is.
The good old, approach of, "Just flounder around a little harder, and somehow it'll all come out right. And, if it doesn't, you can always blame those who suggested ways to get you out, because they didn't appreaciate what a 'success' you are".
Posted by Old Grouch on August 22, 2007 01:43 PMChill out. I'm retired; I don't work. I don't need to look for work, besides, I'm not employable. Let me have this forum as the inevitability of death is not far away. If you had the balls to attach your initials, at least, I could point the finger at you for you pointing it at me. Permit Keith and Hank their opining: Where else can I find such profound expression? Thanks.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037yahoo Risen ape/Deicide. Intelligent enough to be atheist but lack courage. on August 22, 2007 01:52 PMCA,
Thanks for the tip. Trinity is a good read.
Our best hope is that the forces on the ground can change the parameters of the debate.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 02:00 PMThe little green feathery one, KW, squawks up, right on cue. Guess Bush's 500th speech this afternoon on giving the surge "a chance" must be over.
Don't worry - no one needs a transcript - just read KW's posts & you'll get the idea. But if you're expecting KW to "surge" off and help in Iraq you've got a long wait ahead - he'll be there about the same time as Keith and the Bush twins.
Posted by drew on August 22, 2007 02:01 PMI see reports on clintons era C.I.A. is finally reaching the liberal media.I knew all aboit this in the 90's.The report said the C.I.A. did basicly nothing to combat Al Qaeda during the clinton years.clinton was responsible for gutting the C.I.A. and our military.clinton was responsible for blocking reports about Americans getting attacked.So richy grimey one repeating liberal lies when the facts have been out there for so long is dumb.
Posted by Keith on August 22, 2007 02:10 PMConservatives --
OK, I admit it. Democrats are partly to blame for the horrible mess in Iraq.
Now will you admit that Republicans are partly to blame too?
And after that, will you drop the party allegiance for a few minutes and actually work with your enemies (the Democrats) to try and come up with some viable solutions to our problems?
The Democrats only have a one-vote majority in Congress, and the president can still veto anything he wants with the security of knowing that it can never be overturned.
It's gonna take some teamwork and cooperation to actually make progress on this.
So Conservatives, what do you say? Can't we drop all the partisan rederick and focus on the issues for a little while?
Who knows? Maybe we can even come up with a great plan, based on non-partisan consensus, intelligent discourse and good old fashioned common sense.
Posted by Tree Hugger on August 22, 2007 02:26 PMHey Tree Hugger!
Screw you, hippie!
Posted by Republican Guy on August 22, 2007 02:29 PMHey Reuplican Guy!
Screw you redneck!
Again, Biden has a plan. Maybe you all should read it.
Of course, by now things may have changed.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 22, 2007 02:51 PMTree Hugger
Ths handling of the occupation has not been succesful to date and the responsibility for that lies with Bush.
It also has to be said that the effort has been undermined by Democrats who once supported the invasion and now want to turn tail and retrreat without a serious consideration of the consequences. They are responsible for their own fecklesness and, unfortunately, they are becoming the face of the Democrat's.
So it would seem that there is ample blame to go around. But how about instead of playing the blame game, we try to figure out what is actually in the best interest of the Country?
For instance, let's see how Petraeus' surge strategy is working before embarking on the next step.
There will be plenty of time for partisanship soon enough.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 05:29 AM
The willingness to work together has been in this thread from the foutset. The trick is to ignore the distractions.
Charles B.
Dear Sir,
I am truly sorry that you are suffering a hemorrhoid flair-up. Perhaps a nice salt bath?
Dubya says that to leave Iraq now would lead to disaster. He is right. It already is a disaster. The disaster began when Bush lied us into the place in 2003.
A video of Cheney has resurfaced and is all over the place now of him describing in 1994 how going into Iraq would be a quagmire and a disaster.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Funny how his thoughts on the matter did an about face once the poisonous Bush administration began. Sure, say it's because of 9/11 - that would be the Coulterish, fatuous conclusion. Face it, it's about OIL. Oil and crooked Republicans.
Posted by Dirk on August 22, 2007 04:51 PMMan I'm getting old and mentally slow. I finally "got" the reference to Evian in the first damn post! Evian spelled backwards is naive -duh!
Of course while theres been some good talk in this line, there has been a lot of Evian offered and drunk.
And the parring and thrusts to see who can call the other a worse insulting name is a little distracting too. Maybe they took Allen's advice early and started on the 20 yr old scotch.
Ken G
Posted by on August 22, 2007 05:44 PMTrinity said what is going on is not accurately reported in the media and that real progress is being made.
CA
Posted by on August 22, 2007 01:40 PM
I think that this talking point was originally in the Rush Limbaugh playbook. That darn liberal biased media isn't reporting the "good" news about the surge. Trinity must be the pseudo name for Baghdad Bob.
If you want to actually discuss facts regarding the situation in Iraq you could start with the op-ed piece in the New York Times written by sergeants from the 82nd Airborne. They don't express as rosy a picture as Baghdad Trinity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Then there are those nasty things called facts.
The 1 in 10 Iraqis who have fled the country are mostly the middle class professionals who can afford to leave. They are the intellectual and economic strength of Iraq and are gone.
There is 50% unemployment in Iraq
Electricity in Iraq is still below pre-war levels.
Oil production is belove pre-war levels
There has been no progress in meeting the political benchmarks that would indicate that the Iraqi government is making progress towards reconciliation
The number of dead bodies in Baghdad continue to turn up everyday in about the same numbers as before the surge
The deaths of American personnel for the Summer is higher than all the previous Summers.
The bombing in Northern Iraq last week was the highest number of killed from a suicide bombing since the war began.
Baghdad Trinity must have some really good inside dope to prove these other statistics are wrong. It could also be that Baghdad Trinity like Jim Jones has been drinking the Kool-Aid again.
Posted by Wes on August 22, 2007 07:24 PMWes -
No I don't support Bush or anything he's done in Iraq. I'm not a Republican or Democrat as I think they're both hypocritical pockets of of incompetence and corruption.
If you had read my commentary of what I saw and what I believe is going on you would seen that I'm not addressing the statistics you seem to base all of your opinions on. Rather, I talked of living as a civilian with the Iraqi people and the experiences and beliefs I received from them. I'm neither condemned nor supported the war. Nor did I opine a position based on anything other than my own personal experiences.
Before you go off on labeling someone as pro or con anything,blindly "drinking the kool aid, etc.", I submit you might find out a little bit more about the person and thoughts that you are attacking before making baseless accusations.
But, by all means, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your positions you are free to continue your ad hominen attacks without concern of response beyond the above statements.
Posted by Trinity on August 22, 2007 08:01 PMWes,
"If you want to actually discuss facts regarding the situation in Iraq you could start with the op-ed piece in the New York Times written by sergeants from the 82nd Airborne"
No, that's not called fact it's called opinion. In fact if you look at the word on the top of the page above the ariticle you will see it reads OPINION.
And the aurthors are not members of the 82nd but they are member of something called
"Veterans Against Iraq War is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation."
Who at least have the integrity to identify their purpose honestly.
But that's OK Wes. You keep telling yourelf whatever you need to so you can keep your dream of America's defeat in Iraq alive.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 08:11 PMWes:
you are obviously someone who likes to twist what others say to make it look like it supports you. You are dishonest and slander people without knowing what you talk about. You're as bad as the Unhinged One, aka,An American. People like you 2 are disgusting and only detract from any attempt at an intelligent thoughtful discussion. We'd all be farther ahead if you two crawled off to a hole together.
CA
Posted by on August 22, 2007 08:48 PMIn Jimmy Jay's fantasy world:
"...the aurthors are not members of the 82nd"
Yet in the op-ed he apparently didn't read or comprehend:
"As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day."Posted by Charles B on August 22, 2007 09:20 PM
Charles B
True or False?
The authors are members of Veterans Against Iraq War.
I will not be grading on a curve.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 09:58 PMKW :
wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it with my own eyes.I knew hillary had began acknowledging the great progress being made in Iraq, but I didn't realize she not only supported the surge, but could she actually be advocating increasing the surge by another 30,000 troops to bolster our successes?
From the Washington Post:
[ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025.html ]
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday."My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term,"
KW - have you ever cited an article correctly? The part you highlighted was from Obama, not Hillary.
Posted by CL on August 22, 2007 10:28 PM"KW - have you ever cited an article correctly? "
Not that he can ever remember. ;)
It’s all part of that “research techniques” thing he has a blind spot with.
Jimmy said "The authors are members of Veterans Against Iraq War."
So evidently a conjunctive problem for JJ to solve.
What does he do if the authors are both from the 82nd and members of the VAIW?
Simple, Jimmy deals with cognitive dissonance by simply dropping one of the facts and ignoring it.
Brilliant strategy, just sometimes makes him walk into large brick structures and on occasion wipe his bum instead of his mouth after dinner - but then nobody is perfect, are they?
wes,you are a total idiot,another"child left behind".Shouldn't your counselor be putting you back in your cage.
Posted by Keith on August 23, 2007 12:46 AMWell, my, my and oh dear me, just what are we going with you children. You know what, I have an idea, why don't you all just try to get along? That might work or----------------,
Get your idiotic juvenile heads out to your asses! drop all the school yard name calling! Try, no matter how difficult it might be, to use you alleged minds and see if you can understand that this insiped, inane and wholy non productive ping pong game your playing about who is to blame is just yet another example of why not one of you can come up with anything that resembles a workable solution to the very real problem we have. All our elected government officials, republicans or democrats, left or right and all those in between combined are the problem.
Do you really need to ask why? I swear by all rights it should not be necessary but, for those unable to see it and in the spirit of unity, I will make one more attempt at an astute observation of the obvious to aide you.
The representative government of this republic was instituted to insure government of the people, for the people and by the people would endure as the foundational corner stone of our democracy. By the people is the salient point. Our system is based on one major tenet. Because a true democracy, one man, one vote is fine in a small group of people but, an organizing nightmare in a country huge both geographically and population wise.
Therefor we adopted a system whereby we elect people to represent us and trust them to manage our business and do what is in the best interests of We the People who are the government. All this sounds like it should work, a mutual trust between the people and those they elect to represent them and it does, like a bomb, as long as that trust is maintained.
Almost immediately after this system was set up, a new strain of humankind was contrived by private big business to represent their special interests, today we know them as as lobbyists. This was the begining of the usurping of that sacred trust formed between the people and their elected representatives.
The evolution of our system has gone through many and varied changes but, that history is available elsewhere. The point is that lobbyists and special interests and greedy and corrupt politicians have all but destroyed the honored and sacred trust contract we had with those we elect to represent us.
To day our elected officials have no idea what the people want or the problems we have and it would seem they don't want to know and don't care. Even when polls indicate people want changes that are needed t, that they want their voices to be heard, they are ignored if they don't agree with the wants and needs of the politicians.
And it is We The People who allowed the demise of that sacred trust which is the foundational corner stone that made this country unique in it's recognition of the rights of mankind and a becon to all those who languish under tyrranical and oppressive rule.
If we don't pay attention, if we sit silent, caught up in apathy and uncaring, we may well wake up one day to that which we present our country as a safe harbor from, tyranny and oppression.
Bango Skank,
"Simple, Jimmy deals with cognitive dissonance by simply dropping one of the facts and ignoring it.
Brilliant strategy"
No Bango, you're confusing the issue. Propagandizing is not that complicated.
The authors are the members of both a large group (the 82nd) and a smaller, sub-set (VAIW).
The sub-set has specific ideas and goals which may, or may not comport with the ideas and goals of the larger group. In this case the probably don't. It is likely that the views of the sub-set represent the views of a minority of the larger group e.g., most members fo the 82nd do not belong to the VAIW.
So these are not two, separate but indistinguishable groups. They are two separate, distinguishable groups.
Consequently, a false impression is created when the authors are identified with the larger group but not identifed as members of the samller group.
Had Wes been interested in candor, he would have identifed the authors as members of VAIW.
Wes is not interested in candor. He is a propagandist. That's why he identified the authors solely as members of the 82nd.
You rush to the defense of cretins when you think it offers you the opportunity to insult me because I disagree with you on a host of issues.
In your efforts at revenge, you set the obvious truth aside in the pursuit of falsehood. And in doing so become just another sycophant on this page.
Posted by James Jones on August 23, 2007 06:44 AMJimmy tried to change the subject as usual:
"Charles B"True or False?
The authors are members of Veterans Against Iraq War.
I will not be grading on a curve."
I would answer if it had anything to do with my post, which was a response to you saying:
"...the aurthors are not members of the 82nd"
Which is irrefutably false. Will this be the first time on record that you admit you're full of it?
I won't be holding my breath given your history.
As I've said before Jimmy, after the first time you admit fallibility, it gets easier.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 07:26 AMCharles B,
As usual, JJ admitted nothing. He merely went on to fantasize that his ommission of one fact was subsumed in his pointless ramble about propaganda. With which he is, of course, most familiar, since nearly all his postings consist of nothing more than propaganda, facts to the contrary be damned.
When Jimmy boy imagines it, that's what IT IS. He, himself, has posted his own position concerning presentation of contrary FACTS as being nothing more than "semantics"; right along with his admonition to use IMAGINATION, rather than deal with reality.
But then, he is the Whiz of a Whiz! And he keeps right on proving it, over and over and over and . . . .
Read his letter in the RMN today. I thought I was reading a press handout from Karl Rove, until I saw the name at the bottom. You ain't about to catch Jonesy actually dealing with facts! We all know better than that.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 08:03 AMCharles B,
"And the aurthors are not members of the 82nd but they are member of something called"
Should have been
"And the aurthors are not just members of the 82nd they are also members of something called"
That was my mistake. it has, howedver nothing to do with my point which i wnet into some detail above at 6.44 am.
I stand by my point. Wes is a propagandist.
Charles B.
Since most of your posts yesterday were arrogant, condescending, and with the dame tone, I thought I was making a point by cutting and pasting the same reply. Sorry if my obviously sad attempt at wit was missed by someone of your soaring intellect.
Before I get dinged, I meant to type same, not dame.
Posted by Christian Conspiracy on August 23, 2007 08:46 AMCB, Bungo - Thanks for catching that.
So Hillary says the surge is working and Obama echoes those words of confidence and advocates sending another 30,000 troops.
Yet you feel this damages the fact that even your dem heroes understand the surge is working and we're making great progress?
Are there any other pointless critiques you wish to make?
Posted by KW on August 23, 2007 09:20 AMBango Skank :
"KW - have you ever cited an article correctly? "Not that he can ever remember. ;)
It’s all part of that “research techniques” thing he has a blind spot with.
I've been wondering if KW has some sort of reading disorder or if he is being intentionally deceptive. But when I look at the quote he attributed to Hillary:
"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term,"
and look at the article and it says:
"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "
It's pretty hard to to imagine it being a reading disorder when KW cut exactly at the space before "Sen. Barack Obama" - that looks more like an act of deception to me.
Posted by CL on August 23, 2007 09:24 AMKW -
Yet you feel this damages the fact that even your dem heroes understand the surge is working and we're making great progress?
No, and they aren't my "dem heros".
Are there any other pointless critiques you wish to make?
KW there is a point being made here that you either don't get or (more likely IMO) you choose to ignore:
You repeatily misrepresent the artlcles you cite
The fact that you continue to do this after I have pointed out your misrepresentaions several times now seriously questions both your credibility and your motives.
THAT'S the point
Get it?
Charles B,
Wonder of Wonders! Jonsey inserted a modifier in his latest; and that takes care of everything. It doesn't change his mis-statement in the first place any. Nor does it change his defense of that mis-statement as not existing. Nor does it change his opinion of "Wes", as that opinion was founded upn the mis-statement. BUT! He did - long ex post facto - decide to insert a modifier.
Oh! What a whiz of a whiz he is!
He gambols and bounces all over the place,
With hiis hoof firmly planted right in his face.
OG:
Small steps I guess...
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 10:57 AMCL - Why do you whine so? Is it because you can't bear the thought of some success actually happening in Iraq?
The words of the people I quote speak for themselves no matter how you or any other buchbashers wish to reinterpret it.
Would failure in Iraq vindicate your position of that the war was a mistake? That would make you a cynical opportunist, wouldn' it?
I just wish I could take comfort in your agonizing over the change in outlooks by the top democratic runners for the highest office in the land. But unlike you I don't seek to fill my inner void with vendictictive yet meaningless blather.
Now, do you have anything constructive to add or is this the best you can do?
Posted by KW on August 23, 2007 11:09 AMI stand by my point. Wes is a propagandist.
Posted by James Jones on August 23, 2007 08:24 AM
I guess it takes one to know one eh JJ. What probably drives you crazy about my posts is I cite statistics where you cite gut feelings.
True or False
Electrical output in Baghdad after four years of occupation is now at 24 hours/day seven days a week?
OK that was a trick question. We both know that the electrical grid in Iraq isn't functioning at pre-war levels but because I bring it up you have the balls to call it propaganda. Isn't it more likely that you who loudly proclaimed how great things were two years ago and how the media wasn't reporting all the good things happening in Iraq are the one who can't distinguish fact from fantasy.
All the "good news" about the surge is centered on the supposed reduction in violence around Baghdad but the whack-a-mole problem persists as the deadly bombing in the north shows. Nobody is laying down their arms and embracing their enemies. The hatred is temporarily suppressed but the underlying problems haven't been addressed.
As far as the your nasty attacks on our troops in Iraq who disagree with your rosy propaganda why do you hate our men and women overseas? If you had bothered to read the article you would have read that one of the men had been shot in the head. They are a lot closer to the action then you are and their observations are that the "surge" won't bring about Iraqi reconciliation and it won't produce a stable Middle East. What a little person to hate the troops who are being used in George Bush's folly.
Posted by Wes on August 23, 2007 11:43 AMKW -
CL - Why do you whine so? Is it because you can't bear the thought of some success actually happening in Iraq?
I hope for success in Iraq and am encouraged by news that the surge is doing well. No whining there (from me anyway).
The words of the people I quote speak for themselves no matter how you or any other buchbashers wish to reinterpret it.
Reinterpreting quotes - now that is rich in irony. This is what, the fifth time I've shown you to have either screwed up a quote or make something up entirely.
I would ask you to quote me mentioning (not to mention bashing) Bush, but given your record on quotes I'd probably have to correct you on that.
Would failure in Iraq vindicate your position of that the war was a mistake? That would make you a cynical opportunist, wouldn' it?
And have you quit beating your wife yet?
The war in Iraq isn't over and I hope it doesn't turn out to have been a mistake.
I just wish I could take comfort in your agonizing over the change in outlooks by the top democratic runners for the highest office in the land.
I'm not agonizing over anything, I don't even like Hillary and I'm not sure if I care for Obama either.
But unlike you I don't seek to fill my inner void with vendictictive yet meaningless blather.
Nah, just fabrications.
Now, do you have anything constructive to add or is this the best you can do?
I've added more to this forum than just exposing your deceptions.
Are you done whining now?
CL - I acknowledged the misattributung of adding 30,000 troops to Hillary. I stated that very clearly and thanked you for pointing out that it was Obama that made the statement. I even included the word "echoed" yet you came back as if I had misrepresented these peoples comments AGAIN.
Talk about reading disorders. You my friend get top billing in that department. We have several remedial classes available after school if you're interested.
And since you're only contributions to this thread, or any others I've read, are nothing more than nitpicking and insults, I'll just place you in the same catagory as Charles B.
It's a special rank that calls for a special love...
Like a cat loves a bird.
Posted by KW on August 23, 2007 12:50 PMKW - if it was just this one instance, it would simply be a mistake as everyone is prone to make. However you displayed a habit of not just misattributing quotes, but complete fabrications. You know this because I have pointed them out to you several times in other threads and at one point even listed them.
CL - I acknowledged the misattributung of adding 30,000 troops to Hillary. I stated that very clearly and thanked you for pointing out that it was Obama that made the statement. I even included the word "echoed" yet you came back as if I had misrepresented these peoples comments AGAIN.
My post on 9:24 I didn't say you did it again, I was responding to Bango's "research techniques" comment wondering if you had a reading disorder or were being intentionally deceptive.
And since you're only contributions to this thread, or any others I've read, are nothing more than nitpicking and insults, I'll just place you in the same catagory as Charles B.
Remember this thread:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/08/bridge_failure_tied_to_abuse_o.html
CL - Why are you and I on the same page about this?Stop it, your scaring me!
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 09:34 AM
If you don't like being embarrassed, then don't keep making stuff up.
I remember trying to show you we can agree on issues despite our differences CL And do you remember your response to me?
You were quite the a** and you still are.
Now go play with Bango or something. You both seem to have deeply hidden axes to grind and I don't care to be your therapist today.
Posted by KW on August 23, 2007 04:31 PMKW - that thread and your response to me are evidence that when you wrote:
And since you're only contributions to this thread, or any others I've read, are nothing more than nitpicking and insults, I'll just place you in the same catagory as Charles B.
you were knowingly lying.
Since I don't take kindly to liars, your calling me an a** just tells me I hit the mark. Live with it.
Posted by CL on August 24, 2007 06:56 AM