“War” in Iraq
It’s very tiresome to keep hearing reference to the so-called “war in Iraq", when there isn’t an actual war in Iraq.
Instead, following the illegal invasion of that ruined, but still sovereign country, for more than four years U.S. soldiers have been clumsily trying to enforce a foreign military occupation upon Iraq, unable yet to quell the resultant patriotic armed resistance. The ensuing chaos has prompted the deaths of near a million Iraqis, while creating a desperate flight to refuge by millions more now forced to huddle in neighboring countries to escape the carnage.
Our national discourse is highly confused, as politicians debate ghosts and illusions cynically created by our leaders’ dishonest, inaccurate rhetoric.
The lazy, lapdog media only amplify this unceasing fog of dangerous misinformation.
Meanwhile, we have lost many of our liberties and even some of our Constitutional rights due to a willfully hyped concern over “national security", a hoary justification all tyrants employ while driving to undermine freedom. And our armed forces have been hijacked for essentially partisan purposes, even as they are eviscerated by the President’s craven quest for some elusive “victory".
In reality, our troops have been ordered to fight and die in order to assuage Bush’s neurotic vanity and to enable America’s debilitating addiction to Middle East oil.
This letter has not been edited.
Very nicely said.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 02:08 PMB,b,b,b,b,b,bbut Clinton
Posted by Before Keith gets a chance on September 13, 2007 02:17 PMHold on to your hat! Here comes a swarm of partisans to accuse you of "hating America" for exercising your right to freedom of speech.
Posted by mike h on September 13, 2007 02:27 PMCord, is that you?
Posted by Mike Rosen (just kidding) on September 13, 2007 02:49 PMYou are a pathetic, demented, and very paranoid little person. The perfect kind of swill that Osama (or is that Obama) is looking for in his "caravan". Keep up the enlisting!
Posted by mike h on September 13, 2007 03:08 PMWhere does the figure of "near a million Iraqis" come from? Nothing like streching the
truth, or out and out lying.
Reading this letter reminds me of why Rosen black balled him from his show...not his lefty attitude, but his pseudo intellectual presentation peppered with faux facts to support his thesis. While I consider Rosen less than intellectually honest, dear Cord takes intellectual dishonesty to new grounds.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 03:31 PMHere's a link. 78,000 civilians dead.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Gee, only SLIGHTLY less than the million this moron from Boulder claims.
No mention of the lunatic Muslim fanatics
blowing each other up every day. People like MacGuire claim our presence in Iraq is causing terrorism.
HMMMMMMMMMM..........
The attack on the USS COLE, the first attack
on the World Trade Center, the bombing of
the Marine barracks in Beirut, ect, ect,
ALL happened before 9/11.
Why is it the bleeding-heart cry-babies ignore these things?
Posted by on September 13, 2007 03:36 PMRickyLee - "the deaths of near a million Iraqis" is all the further I got in reading this rant.
When I saw such blatent propaganda being flailed about, reading the remainder of the letter seemed a waste of time.
Posted by KW on September 13, 2007 03:43 PMGotta' beat Hank to the punch as well..."Damned Boulder liberal 'Surrendercrats.' " He's such an icon of originality.
Posted by Don't forget Hank ! on September 13, 2007 04:08 PMAnonymous at 3:36 -
You wrote: "People like MacGuire claim our presence in Iraq is causing terrorism."
While this letter is wrong-headed, I do think Mr. MacGuire could easily say: "No. But I do think our presence in Iraq is exacerbating terrorism worldwide, and causing more people (predominantly Arabs) to become anti-American and anti-Western terrorists."
When you consider that the current CENTCOM commander thinks that the surge was a bad idea, and that General Petraeus is "an a$$ kissing little chicken sh!t" who will do anything to get a promotion, it is hardly only liberals who might agree that our presence is exacerbating the situation, and come to question whether a military solution to this problem in Iraq exists.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Posted by Con Mor on September 13, 2007 04:58 PMHere's a link. 78,000 civilians dead.
">http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database
Can this clarification really make anyone feel much better about the topic raised by the letter?
This isn't patriotism...its pathology.
78,000 Iraqi -civilians- dead...26 times as many as the American civilians who died on 9/11/01 at the hands of non-Iraqi terrorists, directed by Osama Bin Laden, who is alive and well in Pakistan, six-years after the fact.
What is wrong with you people? How can you continue to support this fiasco, and blithely let more of our solidiers (and Iraqi civilians) die, just for the sake of allowing the current president to serve out his term without muddying his self-image with even the smallest whiff of error.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 07:02 PMCord and you dumbocrates, you just don't have a clue how to fight terrorism. Even Clinton, Kerry, Murtha etc. voted FOR this action against Iraq. But now out of pure politics you want to run away and let the Al-quada rule Iraq and continue killing women and children. That is how they fight. They hid behind women and children. Yet you want the US to lose the war. You idiots are insane.
Posted by Fin on September 13, 2007 08:09 PMSave your breath fin. The dems control the house and senate and what have the done? Nothing. What will they do? Nothing. Just a bunch of whinny wimps.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 08:13 PMSave your breath fin. The dems control the house and senate and what have the done? Nothing. What will they do? Nothing. Just a bunch of whinny wimps.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 08:13 PMConMor, nice quote from a far left wing rag. We'll really take this to heart.
Posted by on September 13, 2007 08:28 PMConMor,
Well, the General in question may well be all that; but what "promotion" can he get with 4 stars already showing on his epaulettes? I doubt even Bush would make a new General of the Army - 5 stars - for Iraq.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 13, 2007 08:46 PMcord,where do all you idiots come from?The number killed is closer to 57,000.Majority killed by Al Qaeda and by Iran back insurgents.It is a totally legal war.In your thinking when a man rapes a little boy it is illegal to arrest him.To you it's not a crime but a life style.We lost freedoms because the incompetent clinton didn't act on a terrorist group that kept on attacking Americans.Allowing Bin Laden to establish cells in this country and 60 other countries.So cord,here some advice,if you are totally ignorant about a subject don't write a post like you think you know about it.Now every educated person knows your an idiot.
Posted by Keith on September 13, 2007 11:12 PMKeith,
Once again, Bush was Pres during 9/11, not Clinton, and Bush still isn't looking for Osama. And I think it has been the Repubs with the little boys. I can't tell where Bush's ass ends and you begin. You are the dumbest MF I've ever seen...
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 14, 2007 12:12 AMCord, et. al.
Bad news - The reason the Petraeus hearings were a non-event this week is that the surge appears to be working.
This would probably be a good time for you to change the subject.
Posted by James Jones on September 14, 2007 06:28 AMBad news - The reason the Petraeus hearings were a non-event this week is that the surge appears to be working.
To the extent the 'surge' was intended to allow Bush to push the mess he created onto the next administration, yes, it has worked, and Petraeus/Crocker this week have both successfully served this end.
But if we go back to the stated goals of the surge and specific benchmarks it was intended to achieve, it is a failure.
This disparity is explained, like so many other 'accomplishments' of the Bush administration, in the disconnect between what the public is told will happen and what is actually intended.
Deception and incompetence appear to be the remaing core values of supporters of this administration, and its irresponsible management of this war.
Posted by on September 14, 2007 06:53 AMThe surge is working so well we might be down to the same number of troops we had last November. Working so well we will only need to keep a prescenec there for a mere 10 years or so.
Petraus and Bush remind me of Edgar Bergan and Charlie McCarthy...tho its hard to figure which one is the true dummy.
More bad news:
Petraeus recommends 5,000 troops rotated out by the end of the year.
In the vicinity of Abu Ghraib, 1,700 men -many of them former Sunni insurgents- have joined the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Security Forces.
Violent civilian deaths have declined 45% in Iraq and 70% in Baghdad.
Car and suicide bombings are down by nearly 50% since March.
Sunni tribal chiefs in Anbar province have switched sides and are now fighting against Al Qaeda. (That means they think we're winning)
Reid and Pelosi will continue to press for a rapid withdrawal, US humiliation and bloody chaos in Iraq. So you guys can still keep the dream alive. You can continue to malign the military as thy battle to save Iraq and pin your hopes on Viet Nam-type American defeat.
But history doesn't always repeat and the fact is Iraq is in a better place now than last spring. If the military policy in Iraq is succesful, then you will find yourselves on the wrong end of the political calculus (again).
So like I said, you should consider changing the subject before it's too late.
We won't have any real idea of whether or not the surge has done more good than harm until some time after we significantly downsize our presence in Iraq.
When you put 30,000 or so extra troops in an area, do you think that violence will go down? Of course it will. Does that mean the bad guys have had a change of heart. Of course not.
The big problem in Iraq is not al Queda. It is the sectarian violence. Since Al Anbar is Sunni and not a center of sectarian violence, it is not evidence of success in stemming that violence. It does not seem to me that there is evidence that the sectarian violence is being permanently reduced. Witness the news that the oil contract may be collapsing.
Without more indication that the surge is reducing sectarian tensions, it is folly to say that it is working since that is its primary goal. Perhaps in the end it will work to some extent, but I don't think there is any evidence of that. And for Bush success may simply mean he gets to hand the hot potato to the next administration.
Car bombings are down because stopping counting them makes the numbers fall
Posted by on September 14, 2007 08:37 AMCon Mor:
IPS homepage (verbatim in toto):
"IPS, civil society's leading news agency, is an independent voice from the South and for development, delving into globalisation for the stories underneath. Another communication is possible."
What the hell does that Mean????????
This is a source?????
Truth,
You're getting a better handle on the problems in Iraq. The current strategy is different in that it is a bottom-up not a top-down approach. That is, enforce order in the neighborhoods and pressure the political class to get it's act together.
However, the true danger in iraq is not sectarian violence as you describe because that ignores the interference of outside influence.
The danger to US interests is that an immediate withdrawal would strengthen the hand of Al Qaeda, aligned with Iraqi Sunnis, and Iran, aligned with Iraqi Shi'ia, in a battle for control and, very likely, draw in other allies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) that would further widen the conflict.
If the only consequence of a US retreat was a wholly internal, civl war then our national interests would not necessarily be at stake. We would however have to ignore the moral responsibility we have to stay to avert the bloodshed that would follow.
The Democrat leadership has always dismissed the moral question out of hand but does have to pay attention to the national security component.
Posted by James Jones on September 14, 2007 08:51 AM Truth: You are probably correct about the sectarian nature of the Iraq situation.
"And for Bush success may simply mean he gets to hand the hot potato to the next administration."
When the democrats have both the executive and legislature. Will they withdraw at once, wait, withdraw slowly, escalate?
Whatever they do, and whatever is the result of that, they will milk it for at least four more years no matter how many die. That is all people like Hillary are thinking about.
That is my prediction.
Al Quada is milking the situation too. they also want the violence to continue.
Care to make a wager on where the situation is in 4 years?
AF
Posted by on September 14, 2007 08:52 AMHoly Reality
MoveOn.org spent nearly $60k and took out a full page ad in the NY Times in the attempt to discredit Gen. Petraeus. The effort was not only a flop - it backfired.
Take a lesson.
If MoveOn.org and the NY times failed with a highly public effort: It's got to be really tough for you to malign the inegrity of line officers by whispering slurs from the shadows.
Posted by James Jones on September 14, 2007 09:00 AMAs you can see Cord has got his talking points from Osama Bin Laden.I am sure he is a Democrat.He says we are losing our freedoms because of the war but Bill Clinton was working hard to take away our Second Amendment way before this war started.Oh I forgot,the Democrats in Boulder do not believe you have a right ot own guns because someone might get hurt [cowards].The rights they believe in are the ones they "feel" we should have and most of them are not even based on the Constitution.As for me, I will take the word of Bush and General Petraeus any day before I will take the word of Cord ,MoveOn.org and George Soros.
Posted by An American on September 14, 2007 10:03 AMYou made good points in your posting Keith.I wonder if the Democrats will understand what you posted.
Posted by An American on September 14, 2007 10:14 AMdemocraps like that meatball karl refuse to accept facts.
Posted by Keith on September 14, 2007 10:18 AMYou folks keep arguing the tiny details - step back and look at the big picture -- "victory" is a code for continued prosperity.
The middle east oil MUST keep flowing - we don't have to own it (oil represents less than 4% of the US gnp) but the oil must keep flowing or ALL the economies of the world will be thrown into a grand funk that would make the 'great depression' look like a picnic. Oil is the single biggest contributor to all the prosperity that exists in the world today - take it away or make a serious shortage and all the world will suffer (many more will starve). The concept of capitalism and the "American Way" is far from perfect but in this imperfect system opportunity abounds. We will do what ever it takes to keep the oil flowing and will not allow Iraq, Syria, Iran or any of the others to upset the economy of the world. Leftists world wide call it 'imperialism and hegemony but it can be no other way unless you want constant upheaval, depression, and revolution and far more poverty than exists today. The US will be imbedded in the middle east for the next 50 years and the oil will continue to flow until we can find a replacement!
Also note that after 50 years of the USA in South Korea that nation is a thriving capitalist center while the Communist North is freezing to death in the dark. And, like Cuba must contain their people with fences.
dem dumocrats make me sick, we should jus kill em all and get it over wid, like our high lord Osama wants.
an american, thanx for the praise in me writings. i am so proud to be your lover. last night was wonderful my darling, i cant wait till i turn 18 so we can announce our special manlove and peeps wont think you are a pedophile for loving me.
Cord calls Mike Rosens show on KOA weekly and always gets his rear handed to him on a platter by Mike. He is a wealthy (thru inheritance, not any work he has done) socialist, with other peoples money that is. Cord go smoke another dooby and stay off the computer fool!
Posted by TIRED OF ENTITLEMENTS on September 14, 2007 12:39 PMHaven't been on Rosen's show since the late '90s, when he banned me forever.
Like Bush, I'm a man with inherited wealth. But, G.W. likes to use other people's (that's your) money for his corporate socialism & imperial wars.
Instead, I want your money (taxes) to finance health care, good pensions, environmental & other programs to ease life for working people.
Oh, and W. smoked pot, too, and he never had a real job in his life.
FYI: I have worked several construction & maintenance jobs, as well as restaraunt/kitchen jobs. I worked for Hearst Co. in NYC in the photo shop. I worked on boats at a marina. I've worked for newspapers, as a stringer/reporter.
And I work hard every day for your freedom.
Posted by cord on September 14, 2007 12:55 PMCord - You say in one breathe you want our money for socialist programs, and then you try and sell me the line "and I work very hard for your freedom."
You obvoiously don't understand what freedom means here in the USA.
Posted by KW on September 14, 2007 01:32 PMCord would you tell us what you have done to protect the Second Amendment? You work hard to protect our freedoms so I would assume you have done a lot of things to defend our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Posted by An American on September 14, 2007 02:17 PMI've never taken anyone's guns & no one's ever taken any guns from you or anyone you know.
I support your right to own guns. I've owned a gun or two, but that was quite awhile back.
I don't agree with those who would ban Americans from owning guns.
Do you agree I also have a right to smoke cannabis at home, if I want to?
Posted by cord on September 14, 2007 03:23 PMOld Grouch -
I agree, there will be no more Omar Bradleys. But there are higher rungs than the Four Stars:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece
Now, Anon may dismiss that as it's from a "liberal rag." True.
Dismiss at your discretion.
Posted by Con Mor on September 14, 2007 03:23 PMCord,
Your name hyperlink failed to work...FYI
Posted by on September 14, 2007 07:40 PMConMor,
What are they?
The 5 Star rank was created in World War 2. Usually, this is known as a "Marshal"; but, the late General George C. Marshal informed the President that he would not be called, "Marshal Marshal". So, the rank became "General of the - for Army & Air Force", and "Admiral of the - Navy".
That 5 Star position has not been filled since the death of the last World War 2 Commander to have been given it.
There are no "higher rungs" in American Militay Service.
Your hyperlink doesn't work, either.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 14, 2007 07:46 PMI am finding a hard time understanding the rationale the Bush Administration is saying about the consequences of leaving Iraq too early.
One is Al-Qaeda. The Shi-ites in Iraq have the majority in Iraq so I am guessing no matter what happens in the long run, they will be running the government. Shi-ites are no friends of Al Qaeda and one would think that they will have no part with them. Even the Sunnis are now hating them, so with no friends, how will it turn to a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
Then there is Iran. The Bush Administration is saying that Iran will "fill the void" if we leave. Our goal is to have the Iraqis govern themselves, and like I mentioned before, it looks like the Shi-ites will have a majority of control of Iraq, like the do now, and will when we leave ( no matter when we leave), won't the Shi-ites of Iraq ( who will run the government) be friends with Iran eventually anyway? They are now, and will be when we leave, no matter when we leave.
So, aren't we just policing a civil war? A civil war where none of the leaders of Iraq seem to want to end or try to reconciliate? Will our troops be there till they decide enough is enough which could take years and years and years?
Posted by on September 14, 2007 07:54 PMTry this link to read about Patraeus' sorry military record:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece
Cord,I missed your answer.You said you work hard every day for our freedom.Can you tell me what you have done to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The Democrats have worked day and night to ban guns and put in laws to destroy the Second Amendment.Are you a Democrat?Have you called your party leaders and told them to stop attacking the Second Amendment? Have you had letters published defending the Second Amendment? This right is under attack more than any freedom in the US.The Democrats under Bill Clinton banned guns and tried to sue the gun manufactures out of bussiness.Bill Ritter is on record saying he wants to ban guns.He supported gun bans in Denver.What have you done to stop these things from happening?
Posted by An American on September 15, 2007 07:53 AM"Like Bush, I'm a man with inherited wealth. But, G.W. likes to use other people's (that's your) money for his corporate socialism & imperial wars.
Instead, I want your money (taxes) to finance health care, good pensions, environmental & other programs to ease life for working people."
Isn't this the hallmark of left-wing thought? We both want to forcibly remove you from your money, but I'm justified because I would use it for my vision of what is good "for the people" and he is a villain for using it for his vision of what's good "for the people. In fact, notice that I don't equate the concepts of "your money" and "taxes". Hey Cord, I have some news for ya. Those of us that have to do something useful to sustain our means of survival, rather than sit around like a fat cat on an inheritance and blog all day, we pay those taxes out of our paychecks which otherwise would have helped to pay the mortgage. The arrogance of those like you and W., who self-righteously assume that your belief in your individual vision of utopia should act as a logical justification for your expenditure of other people's efforts on YOUR vision, is, quite frankly, disgusting. Go look in a mirror and take some time to think about your worldview, when you come to understand that you and George Bush are essentially the same person , you'll have grown a bit.
Posted by on September 15, 2007 08:23 AMAnonymous-
What on earth do you want your taxes spent on, other than programs that would help you & your family? Bush is squandering our national Treasure, borrowing tons of money from his friends in China & Saudi Arabia. Your children & mine will be paying this enormous debt back for a generation or more.
The US dollar's being killed-off by the GOP's reckless spending spree on a wasteful, failed war policy & corporate welfare for job exporting corporations.
Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million
////////////////////////////////
by Tina Susman
L.A. Times
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes50.htm
September 14, 2007
"Instead, I want your money (taxes) to finance health care, good pensions, environmental & other programs to ease life for working people."- cord
"Do you agree I also have a right to smoke cannabis at home, if I want to?"- cord
Yes. I also believe you should have the right to smoke crack, or just plain old tobacco in your home; or, inject heroin, have sex with men, have adulterous affairs with many women, etc...
You see, Cord, not all Republicans want to force their morality on you. Admittedly, many do; but, so do you.
Let's go back to your first statement. You want taxes to finance health care and pensions. What if I want to keep my money? That doesn't matter to you, because you know better than I how to spend my money.
"And I work hard every day for your freedom."
Really? What about the freedom to keep the majority of the money I earn and spend it as I wish? The freedom to give it to the charities I wish? The freedom to blow it all on strippers and booze if I wish? The freedom to leave it to a naive relative who will spend his time calling talk shows and writing letters to the editor, promoting his communist beliefs?
It's hilarious that you complain about Bush "squandering our national treasure" in the same breath that you ask anonymous, "What on earth do you want your taxes spent on, other than programs that would help you & your family?"
I want my taxes spent on appropriate functions of government:
National Defense
Police and Fire Departments
Road Construction and Maintenance
The Court System
Etc...
Not "to finance health care, good pensions, environmental & other programs to ease life for working people."
You're not responsible for my health care and retirement; just as you're not responsible for my shelter, food, clothing, and transportation.
You complain about the appropriate use of tax dollars (the war in Iraq falls under National Defense, so it is an appropriate use even if you disagree with the current method) at the same time you want to use other people's money to try to achieve YOUR version of utopia; by forcibly taking money from one person to give it to another.
This morning's (Saturday, 09/15/07) RMN comic pages have the perfect illustration of Mike's letter in a short, but quite accurate, one strip presentation.
When you have time, go look up the "Non Sequitur" cartoon. Proof of the old saying, that "a picture is worth a thousand words".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 10:46 AMAmerican-
I'm much more worried about Bush stripping away Habeas Corpus & the 4th Amendment than I am over the 2nd Amendment.
It seems that any fool can own a gun, but what about government spooks spying on you without a warrant or disappearing you without charges into some military prison?
Or forcing you to take a drug test without probable cause, just for the "privilege" of getting a job?
Posted by cord on September 15, 2007 10:55 AMOG,
So, I lack compassion? Because I don't want to force you to be charitable; and, I don't want to be told where to 'give' my money?
I hate the term 'compassionate conservatism'. Compassion has no place in government. Taking money from any individual to give to another individual (under the threat of fine and imprisonment if you don't pay your taxes) in the name of 'compassion' is not compassionate at all; it's theft.
I am a very charitable person, OG. I GIVE away a lot of my time and money to causes I believe to be worthwhile. I would never dream of forcing you to donate to those same causes. I will leave that decision to you, since it is your money.
It is the height of arrogance to tell me where I have to donate my money.
But, that description fits you, OG. It fits you, Truth, Charles B, and Cord; because you know better, right? I can't be trusted with my own money. I might not spend it as YOU think I should.
I lose about 40% of my income to various taxes. Is that not enough? How much more should I pay before you consider me to be 'compassionate', 50%, 75%? Does wanting to keep a larger percentage of it make me less compassionate?
My definition of 'compassion' (as it applies to taxation) is letting people keep more of what they earn; and to not keep perpetuating the belief that some people are entitled to the fruits on another's labor.
Posted by Mike on September 15, 2007 11:19 AMMike,
If that's all that you think the cartoon is pointing out - some personal comment on the degree of presence or absence of your own "compassion" - that's fine with me. I'm sure others will read a good deal more out of it than that, just as there is a good deal more in it.
You may, certainly, view yourself as being, somehow, the sole embodiment of the ideas behind the whole cartoon aa such. And of course, you write as if that were so. However, at one and the same time you are also presenting the position, and ideas, of what is often seen to be those of "free enterprise"/"capitalism/"conservatism" in the broad sense as well.
I have no particular interest in where you spend, or give away, or otherwise deal with your money. Which is why I made reference to the cartoon. I don't happen to regard you personally as EMBODIMENT of the position, or ideas, there; just as one more spokes-person for them. Your defensive response merely illustrates the underlying - albeit unconscious - actual arrogance generally present in those who post concerning the position. A "don't criticize the position, or ideas, because you're criticizing me" approach, that isn't there in the first place.
And even the assumption of criticism itself is one of self-defensiveness. The cartoon goes far beyod any particular individual. And my citation was intended to get people to look beyond the narrow bounds of anyone's personal ideas of embodying "principles" that stood above scrutiny.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 12:47 PMOG,
Obviously, the cartoon isn't an attack one me, personally. The cartoonist doesn't even know I exist.
You said that the cartoon was a perfect illustration of my letter. And, yes, I do get defensive when someone as sanctimonious as yourself compares my letter, with my beliefs, to a silly cartoon lambasting 'compassionate conservatism' and those who might espouse the opinion that the free market (and not government involvement) stands a better chance at mitigating some problems in society.
I infer from the cartoon that the cartoonist, and you, believe that conservatives are not compassionate because we don't believe government should provide health insurance, protect people from losing their homes if they can't pay the mortgage, or protect jobs from being 'outsourced'.
I've never had the "don't criticize the position, or ideas, because you're criticizing me" approach that you attribute to me. I strongly believe that all positions should be criticized and defended. That is how we are exposed to different beliefs and maybe take a new look at our own.
My experience with you, however, is that you believe you are above criticism. Maybe that goes along with being an 'Old Grouch'.
Posted by Mike on September 15, 2007 01:26 PMJust as I thought Cord does not care one bit about the Second Amendment.He states"any fool can own a gun".It shows that he has no respect for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.The reason I asked the question "what have you done to protect the Second Amendment" is because I knew he has done nothing.The liberal Democrats like Cord will do whatever it takes to disarm the citizens because they do not trust the people.They claim they care about the other Bill of Rights but just use them to make a phoney excuse to attack Bush.When I tell them the Democrats work hard to turn gunowners into criminals they do not care.The reason is Democrats are cowards and fear the armed citizen.This fear they have is why they are against the war because they are cowards.
Posted by An American on September 15, 2007 06:31 PMI never meant to hurt your feeling, American.
I was using the word 'fool' only in the sense that virtually anyone can own a gun.
Like saying, 'Any fool can post on this blog'.
Cord once again,you say you fight for our freedoms.What have you done to protect the Second Amendment?The Democrats in Washington DC have banned the citizens from owning handguns for self defense.They allow them to own some hunting rifles but the gun must be dismantled and the amunition must be seperate from the firearm.In many states you have to get a license from the government before you can own a firearm.In Denver Bill Ritter pushed a ban on certain semi-auto firearms because of their looks.These guns function like firearms we have owned for 100 years.I think Denver ,if not Denver many cities controled by Democrats,have banned firearms that they call"Saturday Night Specials" these are just guns that the poor can afford to by for self defense.The Democrats wanted to make sure the poor could not exercise their Second Amendment rights.Also when Bill Clinton was in office he put 75% of gun dealers out of business.He banned semi-auto rifles and handguns.He was also a major backer of frivilous lawsuits to put gun dealers and gun manufactures out of business.What did you do to stop this attack on the Second Amendment?There were many more things Bill Clinton and the Democrats have done to destroy the Second Amendment.Bill Ritter just signed a bill to put all concealed carry holders in a date base.There are many more things the Democrat party has done to destroy the Second Amendment but I do not have time to list them.Bush has said that the SA is an individual right of the citizen to own firearms.Bill Clinton has said it is only a right of the military to have firearms.We also have an explicit right to own firearms in the Colorado state Constitution.I think you can at least join the NRA and a State gun group to help in the fight.
Posted by An American on September 16, 2007 04:35 PMI forgot to tell you that a major backer of MoveOn.org ,George Soros is also a major backer of taking away the peoples right to own firearms.Have you told him to stop attacking our right to own firearms?I have read that his two major causes are to legalize marijuana and gun control.Don't you find that strange.
Posted by An American on September 16, 2007 04:46 PM