Home > Uncategorized > Rich on the Radio

Rich on the Radio

Rich from Paso Robles, our most prolific blogger on these pages, comes into the studio Tuesday at 5:30 to discuss all the recent events relating to President Bush and Iraq. As many of you know, Rich served in Iraq and has a real insight into the situation. Of course, he and I agree on nothing, but always glad to provide his perspective and let his voice be heard. As you know from these pages, Rich is articulate, passionate and knows his talking points!

I’m sure we’ll have plenty to discuss. Rumsfeld out the door and Gates coming in. The brand new NEWSWEEK cover story with “Father Knows Best” and photos of 41 and 43 on the cover. It seems to me that between the Dems and the moderate Republicans and some top military leaders, it’s only a question of HOW to get out of Iraq. We’ve rejected this “stay the course” nonsense that W. has been puppeting for months. The President today called for new ideas and everyone is awaiting the upcoming Baker Commission Report in hopes of building bi-partisan consensus.

Me? I’m just glad we finally having a Congress minus Tom Delay and Rick Santorum. Perhaps now we can get some things done.

Advertisements
  1. Rich from Paso
    November 13, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    I should know the talking points since I wrote them.

  2. Anonymous
    November 14, 2006 at 12:32 am

    Rich, good luck. I’d suggest you lube your “you know what” before you go. That way the arse reaming you are going to be receiving won’t hurt so bad.

  3. Rich from Paso
    November 14, 2006 at 12:35 am

    Anonymous, are you blogging from prison or something? Sounds like you have found something you know about. Courage to post a name or even a handle is something you don’t know about.

  4. richiswrong
    November 14, 2006 at 1:14 am

    Just offering a little friendly advice.

  5. JerryDinAZ
    November 14, 2006 at 1:58 am

    RICH,
    YOU WILL DO JUST FINE…IT HELPS WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT. GO GET EM PAL…COUNT THE DAYS TILL THE SORROSOCRATS IMPLODE!
    THIS IS GONNA BE A GREAT 2 YEARS!

  6. Conscience of the GOP
    November 14, 2006 at 2:24 am

    a little mouthwash gets rid of that lingering bitter taste of crow

    just a tip:
    if you mention Pelosi, you’ve blown the interview.
    if you mention djheri, you’ve blown the interview.

    you know your strengths, stick to them. enjoy!

  7. Rich from Paso
    November 14, 2006 at 2:29 am

    OOOOHHH! How cool! I have a fan club.

    Jerry: I’m not sure that the “Soroscrats” will implode. They aren’t stupid and they won’t do anything to overtly to send themselves back to the wilderness. What I want to see is Republicans to start acting like Republicans: smaller government, fiscal restraint, maintianing the low taxes we have right now which will keep this economy, which is doing really well, chugging along. It’s a sad day when Republicans can get outflanked on the right.

    On a side note: has anyone notice just how few seats actually turned over this election cycle? We are THIS close to going from a representative democracy to a representative oligarchy with the wealthy, Republican and Democrat, dictating to the masses what the government is going to do and how the masses will pay for it. The time for my term limits amendment is upon us.

  8. Rich from Paso
    November 14, 2006 at 4:45 am

    (Un)Conscious: If we are talking about the election and it’s net result, I’ll have to talk about Pelosi. Am I going to call her NAMBLA Nancy? Probably not. But she is the presumptive Speaker of the House and thus is fair game. Why would I mention Jerry? I think you have AZ envy or something. You seem a little obsessed with him.

  9. Red Neckersniff
    November 14, 2006 at 5:21 am

    Have fun Rich! The democrat folks have made a lot of talk about bipartisanship, and I hope they are sincere. I just can’t help but look at their history, and also their comments in recent days, especially from their leadership.

    These folks should remember that they only won and oversee by a hair, and some of the ones on their side of the aisle that won are so conservative they are hardly democrat. If some of their key figures bring out their hatred for conservatives instead of being moderate uniters, and start a campaign to discredit and/or impeach, to stall legislation, appoint liberal judges, cut off funding for our troops or our security, investigate everything under the sun, etc etc etc, they will be sent packing in ’08, because they will be seen as deceivers and dangerous to our health.

    I think our side is in the driver’s seat, not their side…democrats have to perform, like seals at a circus, for the next 2 yrs straight, flawlessly, for them to claim that they had it all pegged. Odds are not good. They won’t be able to hold their mud that long.

    The good thing about being at the bottom of a pit is that the only way out is UP. And now that we are going UP, there will be more sunshine coming our way. The numbnuts that caused all the problems are gone, the changes coming up are going to be refreshing for all involved, and put the conservative side back where they’re are supposed to be – with an agenda of less gov, less tax, stronger budget.

    adios Rich

  10. Red Neckersniff
    November 14, 2006 at 6:22 am

    Rich just read your entry in the last post about why terrorists hate us, and why liberals hate conservatives…

    on the latter, couldn’t agree with you more. You are right on the money, 3 point jump shot. Bill Maher leads the pack of hate pundits – remember when the pres spoke at Coretta King’s funeral? all of those haters, including Peanut, were a national disgrace. Two words for all of them: NO CLASS.

    On why terrorists hate us: You got 99% of it re: the Christianity vs. Islam differences. There are a few more differences, the main ones being that Islam came about post- Christ, that Christ is not considered Deity by Islam, was not resurrected, that there is no Trinity, and the biggest one – THAT THERE IS NO PLAN OF SALVATION! Allah is not a god of merciful grace that is only a gift, he is only a god of murder and blood and hate – you convert or you die… and he is not my God, who forces nobody to Him. In radical Islam, the only plan is that the whole world becomes islam or dies (sounds an awful lot like all the rest of the
    radical groups in history). There are numerous other differences, most of which lay claim to Biblical reference which Islam says really belongs in the Koran, such as the Abrahamic covenant, which of course Allah makes with Abraham, not the Judeo-Christian God.

    Of note is that Mohammad was rejected by the Jews early on in his life as a prophet…it was after that when the peaceful coexistence with Jews stopped, and wars were ordered.

    Christianity involves a personal relationship and subsequent voluntary plan of salvation with Christ, Judaism involves following the Old Testament edicts from God (the Torah),Temple worship, and a cleansing of sins in a relationship with God. Islam is simply following the rules in a ritualistic way from as early on as you can until you die, and doing exactly what Imams tell you to do, who speak for Allah. In a Judeo-Christian society, if a Pastor, or Pope or Rabbi told you to go kill, you would not, and you would not be punished for disobedience! Oh yeah they need a reformation!

    This would be a fun discussion but I am taking up too much time. As a disclaimer, I will say for all that I am no expert, I am only relaying that which was taught to me, I am leaving much out, and I am sure I didn’t get it all correct anyway, so fire me.

    And I don’t hate anybody, even Muslims. Maybe radical ones…if they try to cut my head off…or yell at me…

  11. Conscience of the GOP
    November 14, 2006 at 8:21 am

    I just love this!

    let’s review the recent events:
    republigoons gain total control of the country, let corruption run rampant, deplete the treasury, do the bidding of K street instead of the electorate, trash the environment, trash america’s good will with our allies overseas, cut veteran’s welfare, put our active & reserve troops at unneeded risk in reckless warmaking and nationbuilding, etc, etc, etc…

    … then the electorate finally wises up, kicks out a few of the worst offenders, and you guys think of it as the trimming of a few errant geezer hairs, and that it will redeem your party’s unfairly tarnished image, and the party of the noble pachyderm will rise once again to carry the standard of ( cue lights, cue orchestra) conservative american political virtue?

    what century are you talking about?

  12. Anonymous
    November 14, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    News Flash!
    One more face lift and both Nancy and Hillary will have gotees!

  13. Tee Madd
    November 14, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    Rich
    Be very careful because Congalton will look you in the eye with a smile then stab you in the back when he gets a chance

  14. Conscience of the GOP
    November 14, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    OMG, someone woke up the lemmings!

  15. Tee Madd
    November 14, 2006 at 7:24 pm

    (Un)Conscious
    someone needs to smack you in the mouth and do the wild thing to ya

  16. Conscience of the GOP
    November 14, 2006 at 9:32 pm

    well, come on by, and bring your poodle!

  17. Red Neckersniff
    November 15, 2006 at 3:38 am

    Hey Rich let me be the first! Good work on the big broadcast troop!!! You represented the view held by many of us out here extremely well, as I knew you would. I was surprised, however, that the forum stayed within the boundaries of Marcus of Queensbury sparring. I’ve been in the hotseat, and usually, I piss off a liberal in the first 45 seconds, and they start the “liar, liar, pants on fire, Mr. hate monger/sexist/homo-phobe/anti-Muslim!” crap – yeah, yeah…I know that I am biased for the white hats, but to me, the other side had tired arguments, nothing fresh, nothing noteable, just the same stuff…at least Dave throws some (erroneous) grenades, like the bias of Fox, (what-vs. the LA Times…you know you are wrong Dave) the WMD we threw at Saddam being that he used on his own people, of course he tries to spark a good debate – he does it with style! Our side, on the other hand, had compelling testimony! The guy with the Kurdish friend with the doctorate in population (?)studies, re: a federation of states…and the extremely intelligent and probably studly gentleman who called in at the end about the public being impatient and spoiled, and lacking an education about what Iraq is really all about, thank you mainstream media…and that it was a plus that W. DID NOT listen to his advisors to not invade! How many folks would be dead right now only Heaven knows. Anyway, job well done, nice talkin’ to ya. adios.

  18. Red Neckersniff
    November 15, 2006 at 3:44 am

    conscience…somehow I picture you blogging away with a double bourbon sloshing around in a tumbler with ice cubes chattering away…or perhaps between tokes on a huge doobie. Maybe I’m wrong, just a guess, no offense intended.

  19. Rich from Paso
    November 15, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    Thanks, Redneck, I appreciate that. Just to follow up: The Military Times publications are owned and operated by the Gannett News Service and their views are not the views of the Dept of Defense. Also, I would love to see Dave or anyone’s evidence that we sold the munitions that Saddam used on his people. That is an open invitation for Bob to post another link to the Socalist Workers website.

    Anyhow, had fun and I meant what I said: don’t just take my word for what is going on in Iraq, go talk to an Iraq veteran and they will agree with me that we need to stay and finish the job in Iraq. The last thing we need is another 500,000 soldiers and marines feeling that they failed their mission or for their families to feel that their servicemember’s sacrifice was in vain. Didn’t we get enough of that from Vietnam?

  20. JerryDinAZ
    November 15, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    GREAT JOB RICH…BUT IT WAS LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL! THE LIBOCANTS DIDN’T HAVE PREPUBLISHED TALKING POINTS TO COMBAT YOUR FACTS. TRUST ME ON THIS…THEY WILL IMPLODE IN TIME FOR AN 08 SWEEP. THEY HAVE LOST THEIR SOUL AND HAVE NO PLAN FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT TO CUT-N-RUN, RAISE TAXES, AND MAKE IT OK FOR SODOMITES TO MARRY. GREAT PLATFORM EH? LOL!

  21. Conscience of the GOP
    November 15, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    I’ll fill in here quickly for Bob, as we know he’s a busy guy trying to keep a small business healthy.

    this search took about 15 seconds, a feat that I’m sure rich would have been able to do with equal success. If you’ve got more time, you’d be able to find more, likely better, sources.

    The Riegle Report
    U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

    http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html

    also posted at:

    http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm

  22. mikey ray
    November 15, 2006 at 9:39 pm

    Jerry

    Please do us all a favor. SHUT THE HELL UP. You LOST, buddy. The people have spoken. You and all your republicant/repube/repedophiles need to learn the valuable lesson that was provided to you – Don’t lie, don’t overspend, manage the job given to you without needlessly killing people.

    Jerry, you and all your latent, repressed homosexual friends, let us show you how it’s done. Go crawl back under your rock. Loser.

  23. Conscience of the GOP
    November 15, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    red, no offense taken.
    (hic)

  24. Mrs Pelosi
    November 15, 2006 at 11:01 pm

    Jerry

    Barney Frank wants to see you in his office ASAP

  25. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    November 16, 2006 at 2:32 am

    Hey, what the heck are we doing insulting the homosexuals of the world by saying we are repressed! Do you have a problem with homosexuals, like Mark Foley? ABC news has admitted that the receivers of the text messages were 18 at the time. How is that different from Bill and Monica 19?

    Barney Frank had a male escort service ran our of his home and he claimed he did not know?

    Ted Kennedy ran off a road drunk, killing a young woman who he left in a car, and he is never arrested or charged with a crime, and is elected.

    William Jefferson has 100,000 in his refrigerator and is not charged yet?

    Jackass Murtha said he would not take a bribe, right now, maybe in the future or maybe not, and he is elected. Dave when is your show on about Murtha?

    Nancy Pelosi marches with the NMbLA association leader in SF, and where is the outrage over the association?

    Hillary….whitewater….cattle futures?

    The list goes on. Corruption is not a republican or democratic problem, it is just a problem period.f

  26. mikey ray
    November 16, 2006 at 2:59 am

    gee, new tone

    I didn’t know you were gay. Or did you just mis-type? And, I quote:

    “Hey, what the heck are we doing insulting the homosexuals of the world by saying we are repressed! “

    If you are, that sure explains alot.

  27. mikey ray
    November 16, 2006 at 3:01 am

    oh yeah, jerry

    CHANGE YOUR F@#$ING PICTURE _ ITS WRONG!!!!

  28. Rep Henry Waxman
    November 16, 2006 at 4:31 am

    Jerry

    I need to investigate you.Stay relaxed,it could be a deep investigation.

  29. Rich from Paso
    November 16, 2006 at 5:58 am

    (un)Conscious: You’re links were a big red herring. The title may have looked juicy to try to prove your point, but if you had read these websites, you would have seen that the entire site was about investigating Gulf War Syndrome based on reports that the U.S. sold “dual use” chemicals to the Iraqis, but the sites don’t talk in any specifics about what was sold, who sold it and if they knew what uses they would be put to. If there was something in those links that was incriminating, I suggest you just highlight it and post it, otherwise, strike one, (un)conscious

  30. Conscience of the GOP
    November 16, 2006 at 11:01 pm

    rich, I’m glad you took the time to read these websites, but I really only intended for you to use the linked info to help answer your query about sales of dual-use technologies and materials to iraq, by U.S. companies.

    If you expected me to come up with a bill of lading for a shipment, I’m (almost) sorry to disappoint.

    barring that, I think this is a more fruitful point of departure:

    post-Gulf War I, rep. Henry Gonzalez (http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/) was mostly alone in investigating these transfers, made in the late 80s, and the involvement of italian bank BNL, which provided credit for some of these shipments. The Reigle report (linked in an above post) was an outgrowth of Gonzalez’ investigation, and may well have been a way to put a lid on the investigation.

    If you would like to read exerpts from the original material that Gonzalez used, I suggest you browse the (above linked) transcripts from the congressional record, made before congress in 1992. In his testimony, Gonzalez quotes from internal US govt documents, and gives context to the term “dual-use,” including quoting administration misgivings about allowing the transfers, as there was essentially no tracking where the material was transferred to once it was delivered to the original iraqi destination.

    I think this material is interesting because it gives credence and depth to the claims by the current administration that iraq possessed WMD programs, and that it was materially building a nuclear weapons program, well ahead of it’s neighbors. It’s just uncomfortable to concede that corporations, knowing no national boundaries and supporting the political careers of our leaders, just may not have what you or I conceive as a “national interest” that involves the responsible development and transfer of hazardous technologies. It should surprise no one that politicians will provide cover for this activity.

    There were many press reports about this topic at the time, dubbed Iraqgate. if you’d like to see what popular spin looked like, Google the term. the american public didn’t have much of a stomach for another scandal, coming as it did, upon the heels of our magnificent victory in Gulf War I, and it slipped into the shadows .

    The topic jumps back into the light (in 12/2002) when Iraq released it’s report on the full status of it’s weapons programs to the UN security council members.

    a german paper, die tageszeitung, apparently got a glimpse of the unedited version of this 20,000 page document, listing by name russian, european, and us companies involved in supplying iraq with so-called dual-use technology and biological agents in the decade prior to the gulf war.

    just a couple of paragraphs from a Guardian article about the die tageszeitung report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,861902,00.html):

    “… The report also blew apart an unwritten agreement between the UN, governments and industry that companies which contributed, wittingly or unwittingly, to Iraq’s arms build-up should not be named. The UN weapons inspection mission in New York spent several days purging the Iraqi declaration of company names. …

    “… Iraq buried purchases related to its weapons programmes in larger, seemingly innocuous orders from suppliers. It spent vast sums during the 1980s in pursuit of such weapons, said an Iraqi scientist who worked in Baghdad’s nuclear programme for 17 years…

    “… American companies named by die tageszeitung included Hewlett Packard, Honeywell, Rockwell, Bechtel, ICS and Unisys. …”

  31. Rich from Paso
    November 16, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    So what has happened since I was on Dave’s show Tuesday? Let’s see…

    Did you all see how, now that the election is over, that the Anti-Rumsfeld generals have come out against the Democrats plan for “Retreat in Defeat” from Iraq?

    In Dave’s beloved New York Times, there was an article entitled “Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say”. In this article, the following was written:
    “Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it. “The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.” Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.”

    Also:

    “But some current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to consolidate their control of the capital.
    John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.” “There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”
    “Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.
    Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.
    Some military experts said that while the American military is stretched thin, the number of American troops in Iraq could be increased temporarily — by perhaps 10,000 or more, in addition to the 150,000 or so already there — by prolonging combat tours.
    “Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, also argued that a push for troop reductions would backfire by contributing to the disorder in Iraq.
    “If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”

    If the Democrats are able to ‘retreat in defeat’ we should just go ahead and rename Iraq “East Somalia” after the last time a Democrat in power, namely William J. Clinton, wet his pants when American soldiers were killed in a Muslim country, pulled out prematurely and left the Somali people to suffer and die in the cross-fire of the militias and Islamofacsist extremist.

    But wait! There’s more.

    General Abazaid supports President Bush’s old policy of “stay the course” when he testified on Capitol Hill and said the following:
    “I’ve met with every divisional commander, General Casey the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together, and I said, “In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?” And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. They will win the insurgency, they will solve the sectarian violence problem, and they’ll do it with our help. “

    So there you have it: I am right, supported by the anti-Rumsfeld generals, in that pulling out of Iraq will lead to Civil War and more bloodshed of innocent Iraqi civilians, and President Bush was right and Dave, James Baker and all of the “Retreat in Defeat” Democrats are wrong. If the Democrats are to follow their own mantra about “listening to the generals” and actually listen to Abazaid and his generals running the show in Iraq and let them win the reconstruction of Iraq battle.

    Did you all see how “Speaker to be” Pelosi received her first black eye from the Democratic Caucus when they threw overboard Jack “ABSCAM” Murtha for his apparent corruption with his earmarks. Murtha was “swift-boated” by his fellow Democrats. That is so funny! And speaking of corruption, ABC News is reporting that Jack Abramoff dimed out Harry Reid on his way to prison as someone who accepted bribes from him. I wrote about this a few months ago on this blog. Go check the archives.

    This is going to be fun watching the Democrats self-destruct in fits of power grabbing cannibalism. The Democrats floundering around trying to be their normal, socialist selves will ensure that the Republicans retake Congress and usher in the Guiliani/ Condi Rice Administration.

    Jerry and Redneck: Imagine how different things would have been if Rudy hadn’t had his heart attack when he was running for the Senate? What a wonderful world this would be.

  32. Rich from Paso
    November 17, 2006 at 1:21 am

    Un-Conscious: The fact that the document is titled “Investigation of dual use chemical exports to Iraq” does not meant that the document will detail anything about the sale of dual-use chemicals to Iraq. As a matter of fact, the document supports the Bush Administration’s claim that we had to invade Iraq because of all of the chemical weapons Iraq had in its possession during the Persian Gulf War. I guess I have to say it again: Unconscious, that was a worthless link; strike two.

    Your Gonzalez link only had this to say about the sale of dual-use chemicals to Iraq

    “U.S. Customs Service reports dated Sept. 21, 1989, and Oct. 20, 1989, pointed out that BNL was suspected of financing shipments of industrial machinery, military-type technology and various controlled chemicals to Iraq and providing loans `to various U.S. firms for the illegal export to Iraq of missile-related technology.”

    So what you are telling me is that an Italian bank located in the United States means that the United States sold the chemicals to Iraq? The rest or your bogus article goes into detail on the CCC giving Saddam food credits with the Dept of AG. Am I looking for a bill of lading? No, but some evidence supporting yours and Dave’s claim would be nice. I am disappointed though in you wasting this space with your fantasies of America selling Iraq chemical weapons. And let’s be clear here: Dave said on the air that the United States (“we”) sold Saddam the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds. I have yet to see any evidence supporting that salacious claim.

  33. Conscience of the GOP
    November 17, 2006 at 5:46 am

    rich, what can I say?

    I give you my time and the links and the context, and you see what you want to see. well, that’s fine, because that’s how humans are built.

    I’m disappointed that you seem to be incapable of analytical thought and natural human curiosity, yet have the pretense to want to have a discussion that leads somewhere.

    that’s dishonest.

    you give me nothing. you lead me nowhere.

  34. Rich from Paso
    November 17, 2006 at 6:49 am

    What’s dishonest is to claim that you have answers when you provide only questions. You take positions based on inuendo and expect me to do all of the work to prove them false, that’s dishonest.

    Don’t try to lecture me from the porch of your glass house.

  35. Conscience of the GOP
    November 17, 2006 at 8:15 am

    I take positions based on the best evidence at hand, experience and ability to anaylze, and an open mind. I respect good argument. I know that there is no evidence that is perfect, we can never have perfect knowledge, therefore our argument will always be inherently imperfect. If I am shown to have used faulty analysis or judgement, I will respect that and try to do better.

    you, however, seem never to be satisfied with the evidence that your opponents produce. you always have a reason, however tangential or petty, to dismiss it. you show little openness to debate, always demanding more and better factoids instead of focusing on the overall argument, and doing the hard work yourself.

    and I never claimed to have all the answers, or even one small and simple and final answer, because every good answer leads to another question. questioning is a journey, not a destination.

    I provided a direction that I thought would shed light on your question. If you were serious about the topic, I would expect you to dig deep enough until you were dissatisfied, or exhausted, or enlightened.

    lastly, I’m not here to give you answers. I’m here to challenge your assumptions. you find your own answers. It’s called life.

  36. Rich from Paso
    November 17, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    I don’t appreciate some self-righteous individual trying to give me homework to prove or disprove their innane or insane notions. I don’t need to dig to prove you right or wrong; that’s your job in support of your arguments. My positions have been supported by facts and citations when needed. I don’t provide rabbit-hole links for the other side to run down for me. I know you don’t have any answers because if you did you would have provided them. Again, this is a blog not some high school civics class where we get to assign each other homework. If you want to make a point and have credibility, you will do your own research and support your own arguments accordingly with appropriate materials.

    Strike three, you’re out of your mind.

  37. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    November 17, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    I happen to not be gay, but as the gay understanding liberals that you claim to be, how is it an insult to me to say that I am? So what if I were? Just the fact that you try and ridicule me accusing me of being gay shows that you are the true homosexual hater.

  38. JerryDinAZ
    November 18, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    NAMBLA NACY DIDN’T TAKE LONG TO IMPLODE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND SHE ISN’T EVEN IN OFFICE YET! I TOLD YOU IT WOULD HAPPEN! HEHEHE! SHE HAS NOW SPLIT HER PARTY INTO THE MODERATE THINKING DEMS AND THE LOW LIFE SLIMEY SORROSITES RADICAL LEFT…MUST BE EMBARRASING FOR YOU DEMS TO SEE THAT THE ENTIRE RADICAL ISLAMIC MOVEMENT IS JUMPING FOR JOY THAT SOME YOU MADE INTO OFFICE. I’D BE AFRAID TO SHOW MY FACE…BUT THEN I HAVE A SOUL. THIS NEXT 2 YEARS IS GONNA BE LIKE A DAY AT DISNEYLAND WATCHING THE DEFEATOCRATS CRASH & BURN…REMEBER…YOU HEARD IT HERE!

    NEW DEMS SCORE:
    ACCOMPLISHMENTS – 0
    IMPLODES – 1

    HAHAHAHAHA! I TOLD YA!

  39. JerryDinAZ
    November 18, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    PS:
    MY MAP IS RIGHT! WE STILL HAVE THE PRESIDENCY, THE SUPREME COURT, THE MILTARY, AND OVER HALF THE NATION!

    NOW SHUT UP AND GO IMPLODE SOME MORE! HEHEHEHE!

  40. Conscience of the GOP
    November 19, 2006 at 2:47 am

    oh, I see …

    these are the rules that rich makes:

    1) Dave can’t cut’n’paste from NYT, but rich can.

    2) everbody else can post links to help backup their points, but rich doesn’t have to.

    3) when rich posts the occasional link, he expects everybody else:
    a) to visit that site
    b) give that site the same credence that rich does
    c) take at face value the information posted at that that link.

    4) when anybody else posts a link:
    a) rich doesn’t have to visit it
    b) rich can dismiss it because it’s from the MSM
    c) rich can dismiss it because Rush Limbaugh says it’s BS, and everybody knows Rush is GOD
    d) rich doesn’t have to give it any more than a glance, because he’s such a serious blogger, and frankly, expects everybody to just hand him quotes that he can scoff at.

    rich, I’ll try my best to remember the rules.

  41. Rich from Paso
    November 19, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Unconcious, what is problem? I looked at your websites and they held NOTHING to support your claim that America sold chemical weapons to Iraq. You shoot back that somehow I am intellicually lazy because I refuse to run down your rabbitt hole and investigate for you the question at hand. When I tell you that the next batch of website URLs indicated that an Italian bank was busted for trying to sell dual-use chemicals out of their Atlanta branch and was not the AMerican government as Dave had said, you go all pompous and arogant on me as to hwo disappointed you were that I didn’t reseach further into the topic, like you were some sage or something. Well, screw you pal. I don’t need you or anyone to lead me on soem path to enlightenment because you are the one that is self-deluded with regards to Iraq and the past.

    Furthermore, your Rich’s rules” are total bullshit. As a rule I don’t cut and past because it takes so much space todo that. Dave can do it all he wants; it’s his blog. I cut and pasted that time (look back through the archives if you don’t believe me) because I was certain that none of you liberals would actually go to that website because you all are in denial. The testimony of GEN Abizaid and the other retired genrals puts the hypocracy of the left was on full display for all to see. Rush Limbaugh is not God, not even a minor deity in the Norse mythology, but he does has a massive research wing and does post a ton of links. I have read every link that you and Bob have posted and evaluated them on their merits. I only dismiss out of hand those links, like yours, that are posted with misleading titles (again, your “dual use chemicals” link was about Gulf War Illness), or if they are from questionable sources like the Scialist Workers Party website that Bob has posted in the past. I put links in my posts to bolster my points and to provide background to the points I am trying to make not to give me credibility or for someone else to make my point for me.

    By the way, here is a Chronology of Iraq’s chemical weapons history during the 1980’s where the only reference to the United States trying to sell WMD chemicals was one reference to a U.S. company sold a major ingredient of Mustard Gas to Iraq. But the 1980’s were full of European companies sell not only the components but the means of prodcution of chemical weapons, ALso, the website details the uses of those chemical weapons on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War and on the Shia and Kurdish populations of Iraq. If you still persist in the false belief that the U.S. government supplied chemical weapons to Iraq you will have to provide proof to prove me wrong.

    Enjoy.

  42. Rich from Paso
    November 19, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Unconcious, what is problem? I looked at your websites and they held NOTHING to support your claim that America sold chemical weapons to Iraq. You shoot back that somehow I am intellicually lazy because I refuse to run down your rabbitt hole and investigate for you the question at hand. When I tell you that the next batch of website URLs indicated that an Italian bank was busted for trying to sell dual-use chemicals out of their Atlanta branch and was not the AMerican government as Dave had said, you go all pompous and arogant on me as to hwo disappointed you were that I didn’t reseach further into the topic, like you were some sage or something. Well, screw you pal. I don’t need you or anyone to lead me on soem path to enlightenment because you are the one that is self-deluded with regards to Iraq and the past.

    Furthermore, your Rich’s rules” are total bullshit. As a rule I don’t cut and past because it takes so much space todo that. Dave can do it all he wants; it’s his blog. I cut and pasted that time (look back through the archives if you don’t believe me) because I was certain that none of you liberals would actually go to that website because you all are in denial. The testimony of GEN Abizaid and the other retired genrals puts the hypocracy of the left was on full display for all to see. Rush Limbaugh is not God, not even a minor deity in the Norse mythology, but he does has a massive research wing and does post a ton of links. I have read every link that you and Bob have posted and evaluated them on their merits. I only dismiss out of hand those links, like yours, that are posted with misleading titles (again, your “dual use chemicals” link was about Gulf War Illness), or if they are from questionable sources like the Scialist Workers Party website that Bob has posted in the past. I put links in my posts to bolster my points and to provide background to the points I am trying to make not to give me credibility or for someone else to make my point for me.

    By the way, here is a Chronology of Iraq’s chemical weapons history during the 1980’s where the only reference to the United States trying to sell WMD chemicals was one reference to a U.S. company sold a major ingredient of Mustard Gas to Iraq. But the 1980’s were full of European companies sell not only the components but the means of prodcution of chemical weapons, ALso, the website details the uses of those chemical weapons on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War and on the Shia and Kurdish populations of Iraq. If you still persist in the false belief that the U.S. government supplied chemical weapons to Iraq you will have to provide proof to prove me wrong, otherwise you are a crackpot, Iraq invasion-9/11 conspiracy-type Kool-aid drinker.

    Enjoy.

  43. Bob from San Luis
    November 19, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    Rich: …”The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.” – This is a quote from a Washington Post article from 2002. Link here to the article. I know that it is only the Washington Post, and it is only an article so that does not make it proof that there were chemicals that could be used as weapons, but the article does make interesting reading.

  44. Rich from Paso
    November 20, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Bob wins a cupie doll for finding any evidenc that the U.S. sold chemicals to Iraq. However, if you look at the chronology of the Iraqi CW program, our European “allies” (Germany, Italy, France and even G. Britain) were the ones that started his program six years before the sale was made. Even Richard Clarke (read his book! it’s all there!! READ HIS BOOK!!!), in his book says that supporting Iraq to keep Iraq from falling into the hands of the mullahs or Iran was the right and justified thing to do. He, by the way, was the point man for the Operation Staunch that was referenced in the article. The title “U.S. had key role in Iraq Buildup” I think overstates the level of input the U.S. had on the Iraqi CW program.

    Which leads me to a new point: if we pull out of Iraq now and just take our ball and our boys and girls and go home, guess where we will be in six months? implementing Operation Staunch II in an effort to keep Iran out of Baghdad. Mahmoud Aqua-velva-nijad has said that he prays for the return of the caliphat that will sit in the throne of Babylon, or some such nonsense. If you think for a second that Iran won’t invade Iraq the second our troops are out of Iraq, then you are a fool, pure and simple.

    Second topic: my money is on the “Go Big” plan. You have to understand how a military decision brief is structured. The first point is the one you want, the second point is the one you can live with, the third is to be dismissed out of hand (normally it is the status quo). In this case, the first of the three is “Go Big”. I believe that is the one the military leaders want. They can live with “Go Long” but they dismiss out of hand the “Go Home” plan. I like “Go Big” because that mirrors what I said on the air (coinsidence? hmmmmm)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: