Home > Uncategorized > Feeling a Draft?

Feeling a Draft?

We have discussed this before on the radio. Here we are, engaged in an on-going War on Terror, yet no one is really being asked to sacrifice. We depend on a volunteer military force that has been worn to the bone over the last six years.

So isn’t it time we get serious? If we’re going to fight. If we’re going all-out, shouldn’t we have a draft again? It is encouraging to hear President Bush’s new war adviser at least float the idea:

“Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush’s new war adviser said Friday.

“I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,” Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.”

“And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another,” Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a “major policy shift” and Bush has made it clear that he doesn’t think it’s necessary.

Still, he said the repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military.

“There’s both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families,” he said. “And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions.”

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.”

  1. Rich from Paso
    August 12, 2007 at 7:10 am

    Speaking for many in the Armed Forces, I oppose a draft. First, the American public would not stand for just a few people to be selected in order to fulfill miltary recruiting shortfalls. This would create a need for a broader draft. Right now, due to the 1992 drawdown, the US military does not have the infrastructure to absorb all of the draftees that would fill the ranks in a broader draft. Second, the draftees would be second-class citizens in the military. I can tell you that members of the armed forces that volunteered to join would look at those that were drafted differently. It would come out that one was a volunteer while another is a draftee. There is no way to prevent it. Thirdly, the draftee stands a greater chance of having discipline problems because they didn’t want to serve in the first place and being drafted would reinforce that. USAToday has an article that says that only 17% of 17 to 24 years plan to serve right now as it is. Not to say that all draftees are going to be discipline problems, but with the unpopularity of the war, I’m certain their desire to serve after being drafted would not increase. Fourth, there is an issue of fairness of the draft. The 1960’s draft selected from the single, poor, uneducated and unemployed more because of the defirments for rich, college bound kids with families had the deferments. In order for this draft to have true equality under the Equal Protection Clause (and the draft would be challenged under that clause), rich and poor and the uneducated and the college bound and the employeed and unemployed, single and with families and men and women equally would have to be a part of the draft. Finally, there are the entrance standards that preclude many people who would otherwise be serving from serving. Medical fitness is steadily on the decline in this country. Only about 30% of the American public between the ages of 17 to 24 are medically eligable to serve according to the same USAToday article. So, in order to fill the vacancies in the ranks, the draft would have to reach into older demographics to meet the military’s needs.

    What you fail to discuss is the impact that Dawn Legg and her Code Pink cohorts and those like them have done to miltiary recruiting. The possibilities of a draft have actually increased part and parcel due to the aggessive anti-recruiter effort by Code Pink and their ilk. Things like “anti-recruiters” going out and talking kids out of sacrificing for their country. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; you protest against people recruiting for the military thus necessitating the need for a draft because of all of the young people not joining the military after being talked out of joining the military. See how that works? Plus you have the Drive-by media, like Anderson Cooper, showing videos of soldiers getting snipered by terrorists. That all has an impact. The worst thing the anti-war effort did was take up the anti-recruiting effort as a means of protesting the war. Again, like in Vietnam, they made the soldier the object of scorn. The recruiters are assigned the duties of recruiting out of needs to remain viable for promotion.

    So, the liberal media and the Code Pink types have created need for the discussion for whether or not a draft is necessary.

    My final point is this, the issue of sacrifice is a bogus one. What you are telling me, Dave, is you and the rest of America not serving in the military have to be forced to sacrifice by the government in order for sacrifice to occur. That is a sad commentary in and of itself. Why don’t you encourage ALL eligable citizens to join the military instead of giving Dawn Legg so much airtime to rail against the military and military recruiters, which makes the draft necessary?

  2. Marilyn
    August 12, 2007 at 7:18 am

    I disagree with the idea of a draft for the reason that we are not fighting a legitimate war on terror. Most politicians have acknowledged the fact that the war in Iraq was illegal and waged under false pretenses. The question to ask is: if that is the case, why a draft? Should we not be planning a pullout instead?

    A draft is a sign of imperial intentions. The plans for attacking Iran are back on the table. One of the reasons preventing that right now is that we do not have another half a million troops to start another invasion on a much larger and very thriving nation. We will have three occupations going on at the same time. How long can we sustain that and do we really think that occupying Middle Eastern nations will stop terrorist attacks? The few arrests that have been made were due to good law enforcement, not military activity and, despite that, there are still attacks taking place across the globe.

    The only thing positive I can see with the draft is that maybe the American people will finally wake up and say “no more” to the slaughter that is taking place and will resist militarization. It took over a decade for that to happen during Vietnam, but most of the resistance was done by the draftees themselves, not the politicians or the civilians. Most draftees will try to dodge service during war. That is human nature. Most people do not like to fight against their will in a prolonged war. Most people abhor the idea of killing, especially of civilians. Drafts are successful under 2 circumstances:

    1- when they are carried out in peacetime

    2- when one’s own country is under attack

    Most human beings abhor the idea of being forced to carry arms to fight in a strange land far away, especially when they know for a fact that the war is bogus. Most civilians will also assist draft resisters. I speak from experience. Also, despite the claim to the contrary, most draftees will be from the lower income families. There is always a way to avoid the draft or, even if drafted, to obtain non-combat assignments with the right connections.

    There is already quite a bit of resistance among the soldiers and the vets to this war. We have already lost many people. Do we need to lose more and, for what?

    It would be unwise to cut someone’s legs in an attempt to save their lives because then, they may bleed to death.

  3. the ghost of christmas past
    August 12, 2007 at 8:07 am

    Always nice to see an opinion with the enemy’s best interests in mind. Way to go, Marilyn!

  4. Terrorists
    August 12, 2007 at 8:08 am

    Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

    1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
    2. Abu Sayyaf Group
    3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
    4. Ansar al-Islam
    5. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
    6. Asbat al-Ansar
    7. Aum Shinrikyo
    8. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
    9. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)
    10. Continuity Irish Republican Army
    11. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
    12. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
    13. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
    14. Hizballah (Party of God)
    15. Islamic Jihad Group
    16. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
    17. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
    18. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
    19. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
    20. Kahane Chai (Kach)
    21. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, KADEK)
    22. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
    23. Lashkar i Jhangvi
    24. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
    25. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
    26. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
    27. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
    28. National Liberation Army (ELN)
    29. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
    30. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
    31. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
    32. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
    33. al-Qa’ida
    34. Real IRA
    35. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
    36. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
    37. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
    38. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
    39. Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
    40. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
    41. Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
    42. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

  5. the ghost of christmas past
    August 12, 2007 at 8:38 am

    Actually, the MEK are not terrorists right now. When we invaded Iraq, we sued for a separate peace with the MEK. The MEK are Iranians that supported the Shah. They fled Iran for Iraq. While in Iraq, Saddam set up the MEK in Fallujah with facilities and training grounds for them to act as terrorists in Iran. They never went to Iran. The MEK brought their wives and children with them from Iran. Like I said, when we invaded Iraq, we negotiated a separate peace with them.

  6. the tides have turned
    August 12, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Marilyn said…
    “I disagree with the idea of a draft for the reason that we are not fighting a legitimate war on terror.”

    Laughable again. marilyn? Do you say these things to prove your ignorance or to try to be funny?

    This was is as legitimate as it gets! And now that we are winning, (which even the most radical leftists have to agree with i.e.: The Brookings Institute) you islamo facisits want to try and tear down that which is causing us to win.
    A brave, wise and dedicated President, and a 100% volunteer military!
    We will invade and render moot the fascist country of Iran. No insane leader should be allowed to vow the destruction of an entire country and race of people.
    Iran will spend decades licking their wounds from the spanking we will give them.

    Dave said:
    “yet no one is really being asked to sacrifice. We depend on a volunteer military force that has been worn to the bone over the last six years.”
    no one is being asked to sacrifice? Dave? Are you OK? Get your head out of the liberal drive by media and talk to some families of dead or wounded soldiers! You should be ashamed of yourself! ASHAMED!

    tsk tsk tsk! Dave? Do you make these facts up so you can post another blog topic after you and marilyn get squashed on the last one or do you really know some legitimate source that says our brave men & women are “worn to the bone”?
    Sill me to think a radical liberal would take the word of our leaders and generals in military…the patriots, not the cowards pulling a full retirement out of the public trough while bitching about what they did for 30 years!

    The momentum has now shifted and at the worst possible time for the radical socialists in the democratic party.

    It is now official that the USA is winning in Iraq. The surge was and is a success and the polls from the liberal New York Times proves it!

    So you can all cry into your cheerios, but that won’t change the fact that we are winning and we will fight and stay until these islamofacisct animals bow to our will and the will of the free world.

    Bad time to be a liberal…terrorists are losing and so are you!

  7. the ghost of christmas past
    August 12, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    The amazing thing about liberals is that a loss for America is a win for them. Celinda Lake said that the surge is producing positive results and is bad for “our side” meaning the Democrats. The soulless ghouls of the Democrat Party, (you know, the ones that need our servicemen and women to die in order to further their poltical agenda) hate the fact that the surge is working. It is shameful that the Democrats can’t let politics end at the water’s edge anymore. The Democrats deserve to be humiliated as America wins in Iraq for their treasonous ant-Bush, anti-war rhetoric. They also deserve to be humiliated at the polls and driven from the majority afte only two years. The Democrats are going to be hard pressed to say they accomplished anything (minimum wage increase? Attached to the Iraq War Spending bill, not a stand alone success) of note in two years. Hell, they can’t even get Alberto Gonzalez and that guy is doing everything in his power to look guilty. Reid and Pelosi are going to go down in Congressional history as the two biggest buffoons ever to hold their jobs. Incompetence? Reid and Pelosi have cornered the market in it.

  8. terrorist
    August 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Well, Ghost, the Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations is put out by the State Department. You better let them know they have a typo on their web page.

  9. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 12, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Now See the Doctor of Gun Control, an armed citizen and not the police ended this shooting rampage of a nut case.

    3 dead, officer shot on I-35E
    Star-Telegram report

    A man was shot and killed after shooting a Dallas police officer early Sunday, according to an NBC5 report.

    Two other people were killed in the incident near downtown Dallas, according to the report.

    According to a Dallas police spokesman, at 2:15 a.m. two officers reponded to what they thought was a shooting, an accident, or both on southbound I-35E in front of Reunion Arena.

    They found two people sprawled on the freeway in front of a car, and each officer went to help one of the wounded, said Lt. Vernon Hale. One of the officers was then shot by a man sitting in the driver’s seat of the car, he said.

    The shooter was himself shot and killed by another person, Hale said. Neither officer fired a shot, he said.

    The officer, a 17-year veteran, is in serious condition at Methodist hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, NBC5 reported.

    The I-35E service road is shut down between Oak Lawn Ave. and Colorado Blvd. while officers investigate the incident.


    The Ghost of Christmas Past? Let’s see, 1 am, 1:08, 1:38, 7:01, 7:08…..did you have a little too much coffee last night, or meth? LOL

  10. i dare you to read this
    August 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Brookings Institute Endorses Surge
    Dave Price

    Well, this is something. Via Glenn, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the left-leaning Brookings Institute express support for the surge strategy, saying it’s working and should be extended into 2008 — in the NYT, no less.
    Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

    In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

    But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

    In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

    But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

  11. there may be hope for the radical left
    August 12, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    Dick Durbin Concedes Surge Is Working
    August 9, 2007

    WASHINGTON — The no. 2 Democrat in the Senate — the assistant majority leader, Richard Durbin of Illinois — is conceding that the surge of American troops has led to military progress in Iraq.

    His comments make him the second Democratic leader in 10 days to make comments that could open the door for the majority party in Congress to pivot away from its insistence on a deadline for an American retreat.

    Speaking to CNN yesterday while visiting Baghdad, Mr. Durbin said, “We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it’s the first time we’re putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda.”

    Those words are a long way from a statement Mr. Durbin made on the floor of the Senate on May 16. Then, just before voting for an amendment to set a hard deadline for the withdrawal of troops, he said there was no hope for Iraq: “This morning, the White House announced that the president has finally found a general who will accept the responsibility for the execution of this war. Why did four generals before him refuse this assignment? Because those four generals know, the American people know, and this Senate knows that the administration’s policy in Iraq has failed.”

  12. the left is tearing itself apart
    August 12, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Could there be a possibility of the military draft being put back into effect in the US? If it is up to Rep. Charles Rangel of New York then the answer would be yes.
    The Selective Service System says that they are ready and able to respond to any crisis that would involve the need of a military draft.
    However, it seems that Rep. Charles Rangel does not have a lot of support in trying to implement the military draft again.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House Democratic Party will not support Rep. Rangel in his effort to re-establish the military draft.

    So it seems very unlikely that the military draft will be reinstated due to the main fact that “the volunteer service is working”! Also, if there was a major attack on the United States then more people would feel obligated to volunteer which would again make the military draft unnecessary.
    Two examples of situations where there was a major attack on the United States that resulted in a surge of additional volunteers for the military would be the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Therefore, if the volunteer system is working then there is no need to reinstate the military draft and force people to go to war.

    We might not all agree on politics, religion, etc., but that does not mean we are not patriotic towards the US! With that said I believe that the citizens in the US will, if needed, stand and fight to keep our freedom, but let us do it of our own accord!

  13. john kerry blows it
    August 12, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

    This comment ended his political career.

  14. dave is wrong again
    August 12, 2007 at 4:01 pm


    Petraeus: “People realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past.”March 20, 2007 — ‘I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation.” This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been “unthinkable” just a few months ago. “And nobody shot at us,” he added.

    What tactics are working? “We got down at the people level and are staying,” he said flatly. “Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen.”

    More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were “scraping” for intelligence information, they now have “information overload,” the general said. “After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can’t process it fast enough.”

    And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, “have had enough.” Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. “All of the sheiks up there are businessmen,” Petraeus said. “They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it.”

  15. Dave Congalton
    August 12, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    I tag this on to my post. This is from today’s London Observer:

    “Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas – bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda – these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq.

    ‘The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,’ says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the ‘surge’ in Baghdad began.

    They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: ‘We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it’s like we’ve become no more than numbers now.'”

  16. we dont need you to win
    August 12, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Nice try Dave, though a bit desperate! We only need to go to the most radical lefty in America Dick Durbin to hear that things are working in Iraq! You have to go to London…LOL nice try.

    You will slammed on this thread as well.

    Time for another?

    You have nothing left in your liberal arsenal? Articles from London??
    You have no idea what makes a brave soldier tick. Some of wish you would go to Iraq and see for yourself. Much better than copy-n-paste which you are losing by the way.

  17. dems losing grip
    August 12, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    Democrats slowly losing grip on Insurgent victory in Iraq!
    With the report from General Petraeus looming on the political horizon….it seems that the left must now face the “inconvenient truth” that things are going better in Iraq than has been portrayed by the media for so long…..can they afford to continually invest in the U.S. defeat? It doesn’t seem so.

  18. slo resident
    August 12, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    The Democrats have the anchor of Viet Nam hanging around their neck and the deaths of over 3,000,000 innocent people after we left because they pulled the funding for the war forcing our retreat in loss.
    Are they dumb enough to try that again?
    I doubt it, especially now that we are clearly winning with a 100% volunteer military.
    It must be embarassing for them.
    Please tell me why do the Democtars want us to lose so badly?

  19. Dave Congalton
    August 12, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    As anyone with an IQ of over 10 can realize from reading this thread, the vast majority of comments seem to be from the same anonymous person.

    The question is whether or not we need a draft to reinforce our military commitment to Iraq. Our Happy Blogger overlooks the fact that the political process in Iraq is completely stalled. So how do we find the troops we need to stay in Iraq long enough to bring political stability.

    If we are truly at war, then everyone has to sacrifice — from the Bush girls to the five Romney boys. They don’t have to go to Iraq, but they should get into uniform and set an example for others.

  20. we are winning dave
    August 12, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    You are trying way to hard dave! Even your precious Nambla nancy doesn’t support your logic.
    Our military is doing a fine job…and we are now winning. If you want to sacrafice go ahead. otherwise leave the war and the miliatry to us. we know what we are doing.
    and isn’t so amazing all this soorites hate that we are winning?

  21. Rudy McCain
    August 12, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Define “winning.”

    Last time I checked we had 3700 dead soldiers and an Iraqi governor was just killed yesterday. Anyone who thinks we”re “winning” lacks a long term perspective on the region. It’s like a see saw. We may be having a good month, but the situation is far from stable and the entire process can still blow up in our face.

    Colin Powell argued back in 2002 that to win, we needed “boots on the ground.” We still need those boots tp maintain the peace. The draft is probably the best way to bring that aobut.

  22. Chuck from Atascader
    August 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm

    I was just reading an AP analysis of the situation in Iraq. Here are the two points they made:

    “So the current report card reads: Al-Qaida is on the run somewhat, but the militant Shiite side of the equation is keeping the violence high.”

    They also said:

    ” If political inaction and resentment explode into even more chaos – as looks increasingly likely – the hard military and diplomatic work still could be swept away by American voters who just want out of Iraq.”

    This strikes me as being like that old “bang the mle” game at the carnival. You knock one down and another pops up. The only way to keep them all down is to have sufficient troops.

    The article raises an important point. Even if Petrasus is successful with this surge, it might be too late for the American people. They’re tired and they want the war to be over. Bush failed to manage the war correctly and he should be held responsible.

  23. the ghost of christmas past
    August 12, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    New Tone: Just working third shift at a place that provides me plenty of time and access to a computer. Thanks for caring though.

  24. we have it under control
    August 12, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    To the liberals the sky is always falling. I do wonder what it would be like to hate the country you live in and hope for and predict military failure.
    Sad state of affairs, but s typical of spoiled brats.
    We have those dirty nightshirts on the run
    And our 100% voluntary military is doing the job just fine tnhnak you. We don’t need the draft to put idiots into uniform that don’t want to be there.
    Relax! The republicans are in charge and doing well given the circumstances.
    This enemy is a failed and evil theology, but we have em right where we want em…on their own soil.
    In the mean time we will provide security even to the likes of the sorrosites! No charge! That should make all you libs happy.

  25. Joe M
    August 12, 2007 at 10:38 pm

    I’m still amazed that liberals think that the live of soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are more important than the lives of average Americans dying on our highways from drunk drivers or in our inner cities every year. It is safer to be in Iraq, where your chances of dying are far less than inner city Philadelphia. In 2005, 1,719 people died in alcohol related traffic accidents, a senseless, meaningless waste of life. However, 846 soldiers from across America died for their country fighting in Iraq. Yet, Dave and the rest of the left say that the 846 deaths of soldiers nationwide are more significant than the 1,716 that died in California alone. (Marilyn doesn’t count here because she wants us out of Iraq so we will stop killing terrorists). I thought all life was sacred and important… unless you are a liberal and then only the lives of the people that advance your agenda are important.

  26. Dave Congalton
    August 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm

    I am amazed at the line of reasoning being advanced on this thread.

    Do you honestly believe that all U.S. soldiers currently in Iraq want to be there? If so, how do you explain the high AWOL/absence rate. Desertions are on the increase. There are soldiers refusing to go over for another shift. National guard troops didn’t sign up for Iraq.

    And I love these attacks on those of us who happen to lean to the left, that somehow we’re less of Americans than those of you who blindly follow an administration built on lie after lief after lie.

    Joe, so if it’s so safe in Irag, go! Let’s see how long you last there.

    So at the risk of repeating the obvious, the views i express on this blog are held by the majority of Americans. We have a President who misled us into a war that has drained and destroyed the resources that we need to fight the War on Terror.

    I also remind you that it was Bush’s war adviser who is floating this idea of a draft. Don’t you think you sohuld pay attention to what the #1 military guy on Iraq has to say?

    Or is he wrong, too?

  27. Dave Congalton
    August 12, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    This was just posted by the BBC, for all of you who believe we’re “winning in Iraq.”

    Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, has called for a summit of the nation’s main political factions in an attempt to break Iraq’s political paralysis.

    In recent weeks almost all Sunni members of the cabinet have quit. Others are boycotting meetings, leaving at least 17 cabinet seats empty.

    Many of them have accused Mr Maliki, a Shia Muslim, of ignoring their demands.

    A BBC correspondent says the crisis is worrying for the US, which wants to see progress before withdrawing troops.

    “I have called the political leaders for a meeting to discuss the main issues in the political process. The first meeting may happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow,” Mr Maliki announced on Sunday.

    Many Iraqi MPs are not in the Iraqi capital at present because parliament is in its summer recess, which does not end until next month.

    Mr Maliki has been unable to push forward with his plans for national reconciliation without the support of the country’s various factions.

    The so-called national unity government has effectively disintegrated, says our correspondent.

    The main Sunni bloc, the Iraq Accord Front, pulled out on 1 August.

    Last week, another five ministers, loyal to former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, began a boycott.

    And the Shia followers of cleric Moqtada Sadr withdrew months ago.

  28. Joe M
    August 12, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    I would go, Dave, if I wasn’t so damn old. Life has a funny way of timing things. Doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on the subject. The thing is that at least I have the guts to go. You are perfectly content to sit on the bench and bitch about a war that there is no chance in hell will affect you personally. I would be just fine if I went, like the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that have been over there and come home without firing a shot or getting a scratch. If you’re scared to go, say you’re scared to go; I’m not. Like I said, you only care about this war because it advances your hate-Bush agenda. By the way, Charlie Rangel, a Korean War vet I respect, also wants a draft for the purely politcal reason of trying to end the war. General Lute is saying it should be considered. That’s what I have alwats seen the military do is plan and consider things. John McCain has several kids in the military. I guess that makes him the most likely to be president because he backs his words up with his kids? Ridiculous. Face it, Dave, we will win in Iraq and you will be exposed as the rapid anti-american Bush hater you have shown yourself to be.

  29. wake up and smell the coffee
    August 13, 2007 at 12:30 am

    Dave, let me help ya out here…OK?
    They’re freeking muslims! What do you expect?
    3000 years and still no running water nor electricity, and they still treat their women like cattle!
    That’s why we are there Dave!!!!!
    To help them stop destroying themselves and us for the sake of some dumbass named allah.
    Post all the bbc crap ya want! The 2 most radical lefties ya got on your side from one of the most radical institutes say we are winning. You now doubt your own brookings institute?
    C’mon Dave…You can’t hate America that much…or do you just hate being proved wrong?

  30. The left is self destructing
    August 13, 2007 at 12:38 am

    The radical left & Dave are getting a little testy now that their hate has little to hang on.

    In a recent New York Times poll more Americans have shifted their opinions and are now seeing a victory in Iraq.

    Nambla nancy says no the the draft so dave’s comments prove the party is self destructing from the inside out.

    And they can’t stand that their congress is the worst in the history of our nation.

    red faces all around on the left.

    Now that we are winning i swear to all of you that they will spin it that it was because of their efforts…you just watch!

  31. Proud American
    August 13, 2007 at 12:40 am

    Great post Joe!
    God bless you!

  32. Marilyn
    August 13, 2007 at 1:28 am

    I really think old people should be the first to be drafted. They have already lived their life to the full. Let the young ones have a chance in life.

    Isn’t it sad that we always send the brightest, the most fit, and most young to die in war?

    There is something terribly wrong with that.

    I say, if those who are so happy that “it is better to fight them there than over here” want to continue this indefinite war, they should be the first to sign up.

    Makes less food and less expense on the taxpayers when nursing home time comes along.

    Isn’t it a shame that our national guardsmen and women are losing their homes and jobs because of repeated deployments. I say take all the homes from the old people who have nothing better to do than agitate for more violence and who have no regard for the deliberate killing of the young people and give those homes to the returning soldiers and guardsmen and build more hospitals and community centers to take care of those physically and mentally disabled among them because of this war.

    There are many of us who are willing sacrifice to bring those people home, the people we keep asking to give more and more every day. What about their families and their lives? Don’t they deserve to be happy and prosper and partake in the American Dream, or are we going to bash them because they too feed at the public trough because they are civil servants?

    The reality is we have grown too gluttonous and too smug for our good and, I agree with Dave, we need to sacrifice to keep those men and women safe and to stop the slaughter across the globe.

    Tell you what, let’s all donate 10% of our income to make sure our veterans and soldiers are taken care of and, that includes everyone from the poorest to the richest corporation. It could buy many of them homes and help them get health insurance and treatment for their poorly diagnosed disabilities. How much is a debilitating back and knee problem considered in the current military now? 20% disability I hear from some of the soldiers. THAT is shameful!

    It is so twisted to send the young to die while the wealthy and old remain to bask in the privilege of the war spoils.

  33. marilyn said it-not me
    August 13, 2007 at 1:38 am

    marilyn said:
    “Isn’t it sad that we always send the brightest, the most fit, and most young to die in war?”

    Psst? Marilyn…thats what America does…Youe “people” send women and children with bombs strapped to their chest! You coward!

    Marilyn said:
    “are we going to bash them because they too feed at the public trough because they are civil servants?”

    No marilyn, not our soldeirs because they volun teered to do a job and then leave the military. Unlike you that will suck us dry of taxes and then demand we care for you for the rest of your life.
    Huge differance! But then I don’t expect you to get that.

    Marilyn said:
    “Tell you what, let’s all donate 10% of our income to make sure our veterans and soldiers are taken care of.”

    I’ll tell you what marilyn. You donate 10% of our taxes we pay you to those families. But then we all know you won’t! Because you want us to pay…for you and everything you want.
    Well belly up to the bar marilyn, and put your own money where your big mouth is.

    watch this…you will hear silence from marilyn that is deafening!

    Marilyn said:
    “The reality is we have grown too gluttonous and too smug for our good”

    well marilyn, with all due respect your cheeks look a lil chubby in your photo…Will you cut back first?

    Lead by doing, not by insisting I do first.

  34. Marilyn
    August 13, 2007 at 1:49 am

    And another thing, I think we should raise taxes to pay for this war.

    40% sounds like a good number for the poor and the middle class and 90% for the big corporations.

    And let’s send all those “unfit” for deployment to the hospitals and nursing homes so they can take care of the returning vets. There is much that can be done, including feeding those who have no arms and changing the diapers of those who are paralyzed.

    And, for those vets who have alcohol problems and mental disabilities, you can sign up and go do home visits to make sure they are taking their meds on time and that they are not running out of food. You can be Good Samaritans and take them to their doctors’ appointments (did you know that many of them do not go to the doctor because they cannot afford to leave their measly jobs to drive two hours to their appointment to get checked out?). How about people donate money for those two hours so those guardsmen can take a break and see the doctor?

    What you get for a job like that: minimum wage and the everlasting thanks of the people you are helping. After all, that is what good citizenship is all about!

  35. Joe M
    August 13, 2007 at 2:13 am

    Again, it is the left needing laws to force them to do the “right thing” think the rest of us should be doing. There is nothign stopping Madrassa Marilyn from sending 40% of her income to support the soldiers at war. But noooooooo! She wants everyone else to “sacrifice”. You heard it yourself. She thinks she is already sacrificing by trying to undermine our war effort. What a hero you are(n’t), Marilyn. Face facts: you hate all us white men in America, but it from us that you enjoy these freedoms you so cavalierly talk about. I think you need to go back to Lebannon for a while to get your mind right about what country you live in and who really is oppressed in the world.

    Oh, Dave: Again your statements are not supported by the facts. Fact is that if a “vast majority of the American people” wanted us out of Iraq we would be out of Iraq. If that number was real, then the Democrats wouldn’t need to bribe each other with $20 billion of pork and wasteful spending to get them to vote for a timeline for withdrawal. A vast majority of Americans took to the streets to protest the Vietnam War. That is not happening now. Now a vast majority of Americans would rather vote on American Idol than vote for the next American president. Now there are more illegal aliens protesting ICE crackdowns and immigration reform than protest against the Iraq War. Only Santa Barbara college students and Code Pink protest the Iraq War and they are deown out by the Call of Eagle pro-Iraq War crowd. Your statements just make you another DNC mouthpiece for a failed policy of working for America’s defeat in Iraq. Can we get a Howard Dean scream from you, Dave?

  36. line of reasoning
    August 13, 2007 at 2:34 am

    marilyn has the solution we all should follow, but have you noticed she does not one thing she thinks we should…and do it forced by laws.
    Marilyn I am beginning to wonder if that hole you are dighging yourself into has no bottom.
    I agree with Joe. Go back to your lebanon and leave us to the country we love.

    as for dave, of course you are amazed at the line of reasoning in this blog…because it makes sense and there is no copy-n-paste response from your beloved moveon.org., or the bbc.

    Hang in there dave and learn what the real America is all about.

  37. Dave Congalton
    August 13, 2007 at 3:40 am

    Line of Reasoning —

    Reasoning, what reasoning?

    It’s a typical thread for this block. I offer legitimate sources for all the points I raise and the Right (with the exception of Rich) responds with personal attacks on Marilyn, shots at me for cutting and pasting articles (why confuse you with facts, right?), cheap shots, personal opinion, a totally dismissive attitude — totally unwilling to engage in serious discussion and debate.

    So I don’t know where you learned to formulate an argument, but let me remind you the basic equation: Evidence plus Reasoning equals Proof.

    I back up my claims with evidence. I’m still waiting for you to engage in a serious discussion. If you can’t, go visit michaelsavage.com.

  38. open your eyes
    August 13, 2007 at 3:54 am

    scroll back dave and calm down! All the facts are there, you just don’t believe them so you dismiss them. Typical lib!

    As for marilyn, she puts it ouit there and we are allowed to responde to her. She can hide behind your coat tails but it doesn’t fool any of us.

    You want it your way or no way. You copy-n-paste liberal crap from the BBC…
    I quoted nambla nancy, dick durbin and 2 respected libs from the beloved brookings institute. Open your eyes dave…it’s all there if you’d just set aside your hate and anger and read!

  39. Rich from Paso
    August 13, 2007 at 5:10 am

    There is a flaw in your formula, Dave. When you have more reasoning than evidence it does not equal proof. Look at UFOs: the “evidence” of crashes in NM or visual sightings plus the reasoning that they are aliens does not equal proof. Same goes for all of the well-known conspiracy theories like the JFK assassination, Elvis’ death, Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, the hostage release in 1980, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the 9/11 truthers, and all of you that say that Bush lied us into the Iraq War. What you have are observations and personal biases coupled with perceptions to form public opinions, but it is not proof. Facts and evidence plus some reasoning may equal proof. I can find evidence to support every argument made on this blog, doesn’t make it true. There are statements made without evidence and they are proven to be as true than the arguments made with evidence. My point here is that just because some pinhead for the BBC or NYT says something in an article does not in and of itself make it true. Even when they quote people, most quotes are only in the context of the article not the person giving the quote. Newspaper reporters do not have a hotline to God or whatever all-knowing being you want to put in there. I’ll give you that the NYT has more traitors giving them classified information than any other paper, but that doesn’t make everything they write factual. There is always going to be skeptism for everything cut and pasted from the web because, as you point out with the “anonymouse” label, anyone can say or write anything on the web. Please don’t say “But, Rich, this is the New Your Times (or whoever)”. I will be forced to respond with “Remember Jayson Blair?” He is an indictment on the entire professionalism, no matter what you might say to the contrary.

  40. Hoosier21
    August 13, 2007 at 9:53 am

    Over 4000 deserters in 2002 (prior to the Iraqi war) and less than 4000 in 2006. Going up…hmmm. I believe the rates are going down for the Navy, Air Force and Marines which is pretty much balancing out the “increase” by the Army. I will concede it has gone up for the army.
    I beleive Lt Gen Lute said the draft should be considered and has always been on the table. He further states the present method has server exceptionally well.

    I think the only reason MSM has picked this up is because they yearn for days of yesteryear, Vietnam, anti war rallies, etc. They just can’t seem to get things going with an all volunteer army. I believe the left is using this as a political football.

  41. Joe M
    August 13, 2007 at 11:04 am

    Dave is at the misinformation game again. He says that desertions are up. Well, actually they are the same as the were in the years previous to the start fo the Iraq War.

    The Army stated that desertions in 2006 were at 2,543, which is just 30 desertions hight than in 2005.

    The Stars and Stripes states the following line: “Over all, desertions, a chronic problem in the Army but hardly pervasive, now account for less than 1 percent of active-duty soldiers. The current annual rates pale in comparison with the 33,094 soldiers — 3.41 percent of the total force — who deserted the Army in 1971, during the Vietnam War.”

    So that weakest of generations were fleeing the military in droves in 1971, but our new Greatest Generation are staying and fighting for their country.

    I do wish I was able to join them. They inspire me every day.

  42. trying to help dave
    August 13, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    A group of newly released classified documents clearly shows that joe wilson & his sidekick valarie plame lied under oath to further their own personal attack of the Bush administration.

    Watch for perjury charges to be leveled soon.

    The new report went onto say that they did this is a plan to bring down Bush. I say that jail time will be served.

    As for dave. I still think there is hope for him. The pressure of the sale of the radio station is stressful i.e.: his nasty lil comment about joining the Savage Nation.

    dave, you must stop all this copy-n-paste journalism! It serves nobody and only leaves you in a light of compromise.

    The economy is booming, the surge is working even by the standards of the extreme left, the 100% volunteer military is working just fine, our nation is safe yet you keep claiming the sky is falling!

    Be careful chicken little! You may not be able to recover from this foray into that abyss.

    Your unqualified support of marilyn leaves you open to the same scrutiny she is getting. When you post lies and crap you WILL be called on it.

    Conservatives will no longer lay down and die to the lies and manipulation of the MSM, of which you are clearly a member.

    You state you do this balance the conservative talk on your station, and yet it continually bite you in the bottom when you openly support clowns like SM bubba and the likes.

    Rethink this approach. There may be no recovery from it. But that may be inevitable anyway.

    The proof is there dave if you allow yourself to let go of your hatred of anything pro American.

    Listen to the bloggers. And please quit with all your web hunting for tiny scraps of liberal crapola that may support your hate. It will be discovered and disproved like your articles here have been.

  43. Anonymous
    August 13, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    Does anyone know if Rep John Murtha has spoken on a draft?
    He must have some insight on this even though he did call the Marines at Haditha cold blooded killers before charges brought against the heroes. Since then charges have been dropped but Mr Murtha’s fat foot is so embedded in his mouth that he may be unable to speak.

  44. the truth shall set you free
    August 13, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Stranger things have happened!
    In the New York Times today (yes dave’s fav copy-n-paste website) were 2 arti9cles providing “duck-n-cover” for the democrats that are taking fatal blows about leaving Iraq niow that we are winning.
    One was an artcle and the other on the op-ed page stating “We can’t leave Iraq now”.

    That’s right folks! Even dave’s fait haired liberal news rag is caving to public pressure on Iraq.

    I wonder hopw long it will take dave to jump on that ship. We shall see.

    As for these blog topics he’s been taking cannon shots with his flawed ideology.

    Maybe it’s time all the radical libs gave up that hate and revengeful payback obsession and get on board with real Americans and support the troops and this war. or not. Either way they are wearing egg on their red faces.

    Can’t say we didn’t warn you! I told you this would happen.

  45. laughing at the left
    August 14, 2007 at 4:29 am

    I hope you didn’t miss Meet the Press Sunday morning!
    27 minutes of the democratic paty lefties and centrists tearing each other apart!
    It was classic.
    Search your stations for a rerun, it’s worth watching.
    Almost like this blog! as the dems spiral down in flames.
    Precious! perfect! And just in time for 08! There is a God, and he’s republican!

  46. Kevin in Paso Robles
    August 14, 2007 at 5:34 am

    Marilyn throws some big rocks.
    She sounds very angry about my country but somehow does not understand you can and leave here anytime.
    Hint to Marilyn, you remind me of the “Geico Caveman”

  47. Downtown Bob
    August 14, 2007 at 8:08 am

    Okay, so I take off for awhile and all of the sudden the right wing trolls think they are making “points”.

    “Point” one: The “surge” is working. Militarily there is progress being made, but politically there seems to be a one-step-forward-three-steps-back phenomenon happening. Link here to a thoughtful article that makes many salient points about what needs to be accomplished still, and what is still going wrong. This is a Washington Post article that is not pro or con on the surge, but is pointing out how some real world facts are going to influence how effective we can be in Iraq.

    Second “Point” some “liberals” claiming the surge is working. Link here to an opinion piece on the Huffington Post (yes, it is a blog, but also does feature some news) on the notion that those journalists who are claiming that the surge is working were on a “guided tour” of Iraq and were fed exactly what the Pentagon wanted them to witness, encounter and experience. What they saw was very carefully scripted by our military so that those “liberal” media people would repeat the message that the surge is “working”.

    Third “Point” about Senator Dick Durbin. Link here to a Media Matters article about how the New York Sun misled with a headline claiming that Dick Durbin was “conceding” that the surge was working. Read the link, please.

    I applaud what General Petraus is doing, however a military solution will not “fix” how broken Iraq is. A true political solution has to be in effect in order for Iraq to stand on its own. Without political will, there will be no unified direction for the country. Without a political solution, there can be no approach to anything remotely resembling “peace”. Much work has to be done: With over fifty percent unemployment, electrical service so unreliable that Bagdad only receives one hour of electricity on average a day and oil revenues down by over fifty percent, Iraq has a very long way to go before there can be any way it can take care of itself. Either we stay and try to fix the problems and continue to lose American troops lives, or we give the Iraqis a firm deadline so that they take on the political will to make their country work.

  48. Rich from Paso
    August 14, 2007 at 8:45 am

    But you cannot deny that military success provide the Iraqis the time they need to work through the political differences that have been everpresent in Iraq since WWII. To say that since there is no political solution, all hope is lost is a self-fulfilling prophecy. To pull out now as we are now gaining security would seal Iraq’s fate to live in constant chaos forever. You liberals out there should be pressing for the Iraqi government to use the security we are providing to finish the political process and not to leave before that work is done. The fact that al-Maliki is calling for a summit after pressure from Ambassador Crocker shows that we are still engaged in Iraq to see the work completed, not to leave before the work is done.

  49. copy-n-paste this
    August 14, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Bob! Great cut-n-paste! remeber it was your own beloved Brookings institute that wrote the article that said the surge is working. But then we all know that you know more than anyone and you have the copy-n-paste evidence to prove it.
    Relax and have a thought of your own.
    Your party is self destrucing from the inside out! I bet that you would even vote for Sindy Hesheean!
    Thanks for the laugh bob.

  50. black helicopters
    August 14, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    we’re coming for you bob!

  51. Dr Larry Fairness
    August 14, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    Success in Iraq is not a option for the socialist liberal.

  52. hussien obama is out of the race- literally
    August 15, 2007 at 1:30 am

    Well Dave’s boy Hussein obama just ended his political career.
    “we need enough soldiers so we’re not air raiding villages and killing civilians”…OMG! did he really say that?

    “I would invade Pakistan” OMG! did he just say that?

    “I will meet with Aquavelvajihad” OMG! dis he just say that?

    “I will never use buclear bombs” OMG! did he really say that?

    Well he’s all done…washed up. Dave you waisted your money sending it hussein!

    So? Who will Dave support now? Probabbly whoever the “daily kooks” say to!

    C’mon dave! defend your boy! Let’s hear it!

  53. barry in los osos
    August 15, 2007 at 1:38 am

    SMBill is the master of truthiness.
    Very lame, very old.

  54. Rich from Paso
    August 15, 2007 at 1:53 am

    Here is a fact that the smart liberals are coming around to embrace: It will take three years for us to get out of Iraq if they started today. the fact is that at any time, Kuwait can only process 3 BDEs at a time through its ports. I speak from experience that it takes three weeks to clean, inspect and load a brigade combat teams vehicles. The navy only has a few Roll-on/Roll-off cargo ships and the others are contracted (oh, no! not more contractors profiting from the Iraq War!!!) and the vehicles have to be loaded with cranes, which take even more time. Factor in the security aspect whereby Kuwait will have to have increased security because the terrorists will know that our soldiers are totally exposed once their vehicles are loaded. Plus the fighting level in iraq will increase exponentially as the terrorists will know that they have us on the run and will be trying to inflict greater and greater levels of damage on the fewer and fewer American troops left behind. I would hate to be in the last American Brigade left in Iraq being literally chased out fo the country by the horde of terrorists that will flood into the country after whichever Democrat pinhead president declares we are leaving. Oh and let us not forget our friends the British, the South Koreans, the 30,000 Iraqi civilian employees we hired to work for us, soldiers from Austrailia, Denmark, Belerus, El Salvador, Georgia, Romania, Poland, et al. They have to go out the same ports we do or they can go overland through Turkey, if the Turks let them.

    Where did this scenario come from? Fox News, you say. No, it was National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” near the end of July. They are the ones that said it would take three years to leave Iraq. So, any Democrat pinhead presidential candidate that says they would get the US out of Iraq NOW is either straight out lying to you, a total moron ignorant of military logistical realities, or both. When one of these pinhead presidential candidates says they would get US troops out of Iraq NOW, they really mean that they will get US troops out of Iraq 1095 days into their administration with casualty figures that will dwarf the six years of fighting during the Bush Administration. That is the hard, cold reality of a “sudden’ withdrawal from Iraq.

  55. Bob Sr
    August 15, 2007 at 2:23 am

    Checkout the “judge” with his grey beard and blackrobe who let the illegal immigrant murderer loose in NJ the morning he executed 3 college kids.
    Progressive socialist liberals are mentally damaged lunatics who need to be exposed for what they do.

  56. pattuli oil salesman
    August 15, 2007 at 3:41 am

    Rich said:
    “So, any Democrat pinhead presidential candidate that says they would get the US out of Iraq NOW is either straight out lying to you, a total moron ignorant of military logistical realities, or both.”

    the majority from this blog would vote for “both”…
    except hussien obama who would send them to attack a loyal US ally, Pakistan!

    Ya gotta love the libs for not have clue one for how to do anything! And they want to run health care.

    If I laugh any harder I’ll get sick and have to go see a liberal doctor smoking maijuana in his birkenstock sandles and horn rimmed glasses with his john lennon mustache, and mullet hair do!

    Let’s just stick with “Both”.

    ps: when hussien drops out of the race I want the Dick Durbin to run! At least he thinks the surge is working…a glimmer of hope in the pile of pony doodoo!

    libs are pretty quiet now they are wearing egg on their faces!

  57. is there hope for bob jr.
    August 15, 2007 at 3:43 am

    Great post Bob Sr.! I do wish you get some sense into the head of your son!

  58. Downtown Bob
    August 15, 2007 at 7:36 am

    Getting back to the original topic of this thread for just a moment; I oppose the idea of a draft, period. I do not trust this President especially, but even the next President (which will be a Democrat) with the awesome power of a military which has as many bodies it needs to invade or respond in as many theaters as it feels it could. Our Defense Department is bloated, we spend more on our military than ALL OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD COMBINED! Meanwhile, we are told that we cannot afford to inspect food and toys being imported from China or where ever, the federal budget cut funding for the Forest Service (Wild fire season anyone?), that we don’t have enough engineers properly trained to inspect all of the bridges that need to be inspect to avoid any further catastrophes like in Michigan, we cannot protect our borders or inspect cargo or secure our ports, etc., etc.. The draft idea is wrong, period.

    Rich, getting back to your point about how “You liberals out there should be pressing for the Iraqi government to use the security we are providing to finish the political process and not to leave before that work is done.“; We liberals are not in charge of executive branch, we have no influence on foreign policy or the use of the military, so how is that “we” need to pressure the government of Iraq to “do” anything? As for the “success” of the surge, the cost of what is going on Iraq; how about a video clip of Dick Cheney when he was the Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in 1992 explaining why the US did not “go to Bagdad” and take over Iraq: Link here. Watch the video and explain to me which Dick Cheney was correct; SecDef in 1992 saying we should not go into Iraq, or Vice-President in 2002-2003 saying stuff like “We know Saddam has reconstituted his WMD programs…”

    To “cut ‘n paste this”: You are one stupid individual. My previous comment had no “cut ‘n paste”, but instead had embedded links, hyperlinks to be exact, those are the letters you see in blue that if you click on them will take you to a particular web address. Read the comments I just made to Rich in the paragraphs above and see if you can determine which is a “cut ‘n paste” and which is “link”. I doubt that you can distinguish the difference, or that you even care, because you are so blinded by your insecurity that someone may feel differently than you do about political matters and they may be somewhat more technically competent than you are. Whatever, bite me.

    As to those who want to keep repeating the blather that the “Liberal” Brookings Institute is agreeing that the surge is working, one of the men quoted, Kenneth M. Pollack, wrote a book published in 2002 making the case for invading Iraq; do any of you really believe that he is a “liberal”? No way, not in any shape or form is this man a “liberal”. Go back to my previous comment and click on the link (that is the blue letters for those of you who don’t know what that is) and read the case being made that the two authors of the article were shown only what the military wanted them to see. Same thing for the individual who mistakenly believes that Senator Dick Durbin thinks the surge is “working”; click on the link in my previous comment, the “meme” touting Senator Durbin’s admission that the surge is working is patently false.

    To “Bob Sr.” and “there is hope for Bob Jr”: I will address this one more time; my father has passed on; he was a Korean Veteran, he was a lifelong Democrat, a small businessman (owned three different independent grocery stores over a thirty year span), and I loved him dearly. Please stop desecrating the memory of a man who none of you would be worthy of polishing his shoes. He raised five children who grew up to be business owners, (myself, my younger brother and one of my sisters), an investment adviser and a nurse. Two of my siblings are Republicans and two are Democrats.

    One last question for you righties: Someone on this thread mentioned earlier how the left supposedly cheers when one of our military is killed in Iraq- prove it. Provide a link, a cut ‘n paste, a web site or newspaper article. If you cannot provide a source for your assertion, then stop with your innuendoes that anyone “cheers” when a US troop member is killed, it is a horrible notion.

  59. Anonymous
    August 15, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Bob, the problem is that nobody takes your seriously.
    We don’t copy-n-paste either.

    The left hates our military, loves islamo facism, and promotes anything that goes against common sense morals.

    The lot of you are morally bankrupt!

    This weekend your radical liberal hollywood skanks release a movie slamming Mormons. One week after Romney wins the straw poll.

    Why doesn’t hollywood put out a movie slamming those idiots in dirty nightshirts for sending their women and children into the streets with bombs strapped to the chests?

    The left is all washed up. We knew the nation couldn’t take a full dose of your crap for very long.

  60. Bob Sr fan
    August 15, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    Sounds like Bob Sr. had at least 2 good kids.
    We’re working on the others.

  61. Thomas W
    August 15, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    I’m guessing that it’s to late to tell the 200 Iraqi’s killed yesterday that the surge is working. But, we can tell it to the several hundred more that were wounded. Huh.

  62. Bob 2.0
    August 15, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    Truck bombs that slaughtered hundreds in north Iraq were a “trademark al Qaeda event” aimed at turning U.S. public opinion against the war.
    I guess al Qaeda’s strategy can manipulate some people.

  63. proud pissed american
    August 15, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    200 Down…millions to go!
    You may have a soft under belly but the Real America will never forget 9-11. Ever!
    They started this and we will finish.
    Got a problem with that, get on a plane and go help em out.
    Otherwise, shut the hell up and let us win this war…so we can move onto Iran.
    The BS has stopped. They pissed off the wrong country.

    And…If America is so hated world wide…would ya mind telling the millions that still want to move here! We need the help reducing immagration.

  64. Rich from Paso
    August 16, 2007 at 12:02 am

    If you liberals don’t control the executive branch then why do your liberals in Congress spend so much time trying to act like they do with all of these Iraq pullout bills? This line that “we don’t control the executive” is a dog that won’t hunt. The fact is that the Democrat controlled Congress has spent a great deal of their legislative session making abject fools of themselves to the American people by doing exactly what you say they are incapable of doing: controlling the executive branch.

    I have seen the video and to me it is more of liberals looking back to a past that has been written than to a future yet to be formed. So what that Cheney has “flip-flopped” on whether to go to Iraq or not. I will tell you Cheney would tell you that everything changed on 9/11 and the math on figuring who is or is not a threat to America changed with it. Get out of the past, Bob, and join us in the here and now. The surge is working. Democrats like Murtha (of all people) are saying it is working. Please address my point that an “immediate” pullout of Iraq would actually take 3 years to complete. You can search NPR’s archives if you need to hear the report for yourself. Fact is that this “immediate pullout” is just election cycle hot air made to make anti-iraq war zealots from the Democrat base, like yourself, foam at the mouth at the prospect of the next president ending a war you object to. This is a campaign by the Democrats to see who can appeal to you more. As I have stated, it will be 1095 days into the next term before we have completed the “immediate” pullout of Iraq.

    And it’d be a Republican president that would be doing it.

  65. Thomas W
    August 16, 2007 at 12:39 am

    Dear mr proud pissed:
    What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? I feel that a lack of rational reasoning seems to have invaded your thoughts. Let’s concentrate on the terrorists who are still at large and spend less efforts on defending a third rate country that would have imploded without our help anyway. Oh, by the way, the death count is now up to 250 and the injured up over 500. People that had nothing to do with 9/11. Please use some sort of logic when your respond to a blog, not just emotional gobbledo gook.

  66. why not 73 virgins
    August 16, 2007 at 1:28 am

    Nice try TomW
    Here’s your answer though it is beyond your grasp as you sit in the safety we provide.
    The 250 kiled and 500 wounded are muslims. Muslim law says it it is their allah given duty to kill infidels.
    We killed them first…awww too bad! Deal with it.
    When enough of “them” die the rest may just figure it out.
    Doesn’t matter where we fight em. Death to all islam or they can chose to live as members of the human race not as animals.
    As for your argument about 9-11, you are wrong, always will be. You wont believe the truth, you only believe what you are told by your liberal websites. so be it. As for the rest of us patriots those sand dwellers will just get the 72 virgins a lil early…and what can be so wrong with that?

  67. Marilyn
    August 16, 2007 at 2:01 am

    To the “Proud,” “pissed,” “jobless,” and “sleepless” “American:”

    Are you saying you personally are working on killing all those “Muslims” “over there?”

    Who is this “we” you keep referring to?

    Tell you what: tell us your real name and what you do for a living, maybe we can start a campaign to support your efforts to murder all those “millions to go” you are advocating to kill.

    In the meantime, try not “piss” on yourself because people who are constantly “pissed off” are bound to “piss” on themselves at some point.

    Dave, I have a question: does the blog admin have a policy on inciting violence in written speech? As far as I know, inciting violence is not protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, but, I could be wrong. I am amazed at the kind of violent language that is written and tolerated here, especially language that encourages the killing of people for who they are and for their religion.

    Something to consider.

    PP American, don’t ever think that your gems of intolerance will mean anything in the larger scheme of things. Those who live by the sword, usually die by it too and what goes around comes around. It is the law of the universe.

    Maybe if we left Muslims alone for a change, they would leave us alone. Iraq was stable before this administration and the spineless elected representatives decided to invade. Now they’re damned if they pulled out and they’re damned if they didn’t.

    First the Crusades and now this. That is how the Iraqis and the people of the Middle East perceive this endless orgy of murder and larceny.

    The problem is we have always coerced third world countries into doing our bidding by threatening sanctions if they disagree and being marginally kind if they agree.

    Since WWII our wars against other nations were embarked upon when our threats have failed. They have always ended in disaster. We have left every place we invaded in shambles and created internal tensions that were not there.

    I still cannot understand how Bush claims to support the Lebanese government’s fight against “terrorists” and supply weapons to that government while, at the same time, arming Ansar El-Islam in their battles with the Lebanese government.

    And, PP American, do you ever read the real news? Follow the money trail. It will lead you to the real culprit.

  68. the ghost of christmas past
    August 16, 2007 at 3:22 am

    Actually, Marilyn it is “First the Moors at the Battle of Tours, then the PLO murder of the Israeli olympic team, then the kidnapping of the US embassy employees in Tehran for 444 days, then it was the bombings of the WTC in 93, the embassies in Africa in 98 and the WTC and the Pentagon in 2001, and now this.”

    Your heathen religion started this whole thing when the Moors invaded Europe in 732, 400 years before the start of the Crusades. Don’t even try to give your false history that somehow the West started this clash of cultures. The Muslims started this war and the West will finish it in complete self-defense.

    TomW: You tell the terrorists that killed the Iraqi people to stop bombing innocent people. The US didn’t kill them regardless of whether or not the invasion was justified. Try blaming the correct people for a change.

  69. blah blah blah blah
    August 16, 2007 at 4:29 am

    1) Marilyn begs Dave yet once again to help her against all the bad men on this blog! marilyn grow up or blog elsewhere! It’s a blog!

    2) I don’t have a sword. I carry a 357 magnum GP-100 Rueger 4 ” barrle spurless, stainless with glasser bullets. (nobody hase ever lived from an upper body shot with a glasser)

    3) we have left muslims alone…for a couple of thousand years. They have done nothingt constructive and recently started killing americans. Big mistake!

    4) the Lebanese are very busy now killing all their government officials. Read the news! Hezbollah is lebanon is iran is muslim…you connect the dots!

    With your government issue pencil!

    BTW…great post Ghost! unfortunatley the truth is wasted on those from the left that think with diseased minds. But I dug it!

  70. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 16, 2007 at 4:36 am

    Off the subject of Pissing or Urinetown. What a show. Fun for the whole family! Then on to the Pirana and the dong, Jesus and the bong, and the stolen Rouge Voice to add a little buzzzzz to their zzzzz of a paper maybe. That dastardly tall christian!

    Here is an article that made me think twice. I was like “Holy Shit, Dave needs to see this article about how high the suicide rate is in the Army! 17.3 per 100,000 or about 100! Most were female and deployed.

    Suicide story yahoo news

    Then, for the rest of the story I checked out the trusty WHO to see some different Suicide rates for various countries. Seems the Army is a statistically safe place to be if you want to not kill yourself.


    All #’s per 100,000

    Army 17.3
    Australia 21.2
    Cuba 24.5
    Estonia 45
    Finland 34.6
    France 26.1
    Germany 20.2
    Hungary 47.1
    Iran (Not counting suicide bombers apparently) .3
    Japan 36.5
    SWEDEN 19.7
    USA 17.6

    Above are the rates of males, but I have to conclude that the headline could have just as easily read “US Army suicide rate up, but lower that general population.

    And the news is not biased!

  71. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 16, 2007 at 4:53 am

    Here is an even better picture of the overall rates which the other link did not provide. The number per 100,000 in combat for the US Army wis about 19.5

  72. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 16, 2007 at 4:54 am
  73. Bob 2.0
    August 16, 2007 at 5:33 am

    Marilyn is a strange bitter person.

  74. Downtown Bob
    August 16, 2007 at 7:11 am

    anonymouse said: Bob, the problem is that nobody takes your seriously.

    What? Did you mean to type nobody takes you seriously? I may not agree with that, but at least I can understand it.

    “The left hates our military, loves islamo fascism, and promotes anything that goes against common sense morals.”

    Okay, you may want to believe that, but how about some proof? Give us a link, a url, a “cut ‘n paste” or a location that gives credence to your claim. Hard evidence only, such as accredited news sites or government sites, and I am asking for proof that these “lefties” are prominent Democrats, known in the public eye, politicians or spokespersons. I am sure that you can find some of the lunatic fringe that might support the aspersions you have cast, just as I can find people who identify themselves as “Conservatives” who do and/or say truly awful things like Fred Phelps, but I know as well as you do that is not a true representative of Conservative principles. So, you want us to believe as you do that the left “hates our military, loves islamo facism and doesn’t have morals”, I say prove it. Don’t forget to analyze the voting record of both Democrats and Republicans on military matters such as funding for the V.A. or providing the best equipment for the troops; if you do you might be surprised to see how many Republicans consistently vote against such bills.

    Rich: Once again, I yield to your military experience about how soon it will take to leave Iraq; I will disagree with you on the political party affiliation that the President will be in 2009 however. Oh, and how refreshing it to see the tried and true “9/11 changed everything” card being played again. The problem about the video of Dick Cheney from 1992 in comparison to the V.P. of 2002-2003, is that what he said in 1992 has turned out to be totally true! Listen again to what he said or read the transcript and tell me where he got it wrong. Link here, again if you want to scroll down and read the transcript. He was spot on then about exactly the problems we are having in Iraq right now. Seems like 9/11 didn’t change everything.

  75. Rich from Paso
    August 16, 2007 at 8:15 am

    Just so everyone knows, I deleted my own comment because I didn’t say all that I wanted to before I posted.

    What I said was, “Yeah, Bob, Cheney’s video bothered me, too, to be totally honest.”

    To conclude: This does call into question about who is making decisions in the White House. Since the start of the administration, all you liberals have been saying that Cheney is the brains of the outfit and Bush has been the lackey following Cheney’s lead. I contend that Bush has been the creator of policy, as the president should, and Cheney has been the ever-loyal servant of the president.

    At least we agree that it will take more than just a few months to get out of Iraq the right way.

  76. right is good-right is right
    August 16, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Bob? really? If you see it on the web it’s gospel to you? How trite!

    I guess that means when you read the koran and it says thet muslims main job in that religion is to kill infidels that that makes it true and honrable?

    Really man…in your anger you gotta re-read what you post. There’s not much room left now since both your feet are in your mouth.

    There is a link to everything bob…everything! That doesn’t make it true.

    The left does hate our military…it’s in everything they say and do.
    Just look at how Dave’s boy slammed the military ending his political career.

    The lefter they are the dumber they sound.

    That’s why it’s good to be right.
    Join your brothers and sisters…leave the dark side bob, shed your hate and anger and join the right side.

  77. Downtown Bob
    August 16, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    right right right wrong: You made the assertion that the left “hates the military”; I called you on it, asking you to prove it. You have only deflected my demand and called me more names. One can logically conclude that you have no “proof” of your claim. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Just because you say the left hates the military does not make it so, even if your “heros” like Rush, Sean, Bill, Michael or whomever says it too. Proof is what I am asking for, from a “respectable” source, meaning a news site or government site. You have nothing but your absolute hate of the left to throw out. Prove me wrong.

  78. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    August 16, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Clinton said that he “loathed the military” in a letter to Colonel Holmes I believe. You only have to know that they banned military uniforms in the White House during their regime. Watch some video of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton walking past the Marine One crews and totally ignoring them.


  79. liberals hate freedom & the miltary
    August 16, 2007 at 8:59 pm

    OK bob, here it is, in A nutshell. But I know you won’t understand it. Liberals think with diseased minds, and they understand the truth if it hit them in the forehead!
    But…against my better judgement here goes…

    “How DARE you imply that we hate freedom?” That’s what red-faced Liberals say, even as they protest against the war for freedom in Iraq and call our President a war criminal.

    Liberals are such hypocrites, and I for one am sick of it.

    Our brave men and women in uniform are fighting and dying on foreign soil, thousands of miles away from their homes, so that these misguided, misanthropic Liberals can exercise their Constitutionally protected rights to whine, moan and protest in public.

    It reminds me of a flashback to the radical anti-war protests of the 1960s and ’70s. These modern radical Leftists might not be wearing their old-fashioned Birkenstocks and tie-dyed t-shirts, but their cowardly, anti-American mentality is the same as it has always been. They don’t want to pay the price for their own freedom, let alone anyone else’s. Their last presidential nominee even threw his own Vietnam War medals away. Yet they assume an obnoxious air of moral superiority because they are supposedly “anti-war.”

    Conservatives, on the other hand, truly love freedom – so much so that when necessary, they are willing to fight to preserve and protect it, as well as to export it around the world and extend it to other peoples less fortunate than we are.

    Let me give you a few examples of how patriotic Americans should support our troops.

    Bill Clinton was one of the worst Presidents in American history. He disgraced the Oval Office, and he spent more time hiding his numerous girlfriends from Hillary than he did working on foreign policy matters – except maybe when he was cutting shady deals that would benefit the Chinese and Indonesians and other foreigners who were making sizable illegal contributions to his campaign coffers.

    Yet when newly elected President Clinton launched his 1993 “nation-building” experiment in Somalia, by turning U.S. troops over to incompetent United Nations commanders, most Conservatives supported our soldiers – even though they disagreed with Clinton’s unconstitutional action and the deadly disaster that it ultimately produced at Mogadishu.

    When Clinton later sought NATO military action in the former Yugoslavia, intervening in behalf of the desperate Bosnian Muslims who were being slaughtered in a ruthless campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Serbs, most Conservatives did not protest – despite the fact that no vital U.S. interest was being threatened in the Balkans. (If you remember, Clinton completely bypassed the UN on this one.)

    When Clinton invaded Haiti with UN approval, supposedly to restore law and order and democracy, most Conservatives didn’t protest – even though the Marxist dictator Aristide was restored as ruler of Haiti through the intervention of our American military.

    Finally, when Clinton decided to bomb Iraq and obliterate its infrastructure with cruise missiles, merely to deflect attention from his own proven perjury and pending impeachment trial, there was no outcry from most Conservatives.

    Why? Conservatives love freedom!

    But when newly elected President Bush responded to the devastating 9-11 terrorist attacks by deposing, first the Taliban’s misogynist mullahs in Afghanistan and later the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the clueless Liberals literally screamed bloody murder.

    Where are the NOW-NARAL feminists protesting against Saddam for his brutal campaign of rape and murder against the women in his own country? Are the feminists thanking President Bush for liberating their sisters half a world away from the Taliban’s rigid repression?

    Where are the Liberal gun control freaks thanking Bush for disarming Saddam’s war machine and for making absolutely sure that no weapons of mass destruction can be exported from Iraq for terrorists to use on American soil?

    And just where were all of these bleeding-heart Liberals during the eight long years when Clinton was carrying out his unconstitutional military misadventures all over the world? If they hated war so much, why didn’t they protest against Clinton?

    The answer to all these questions is simple. Liberals don’t really hate war. They hate freedom. It is time for these misguided, guilt-ridden, hypocritical Leftists to ‘fess up and just be honest with the American people.

    Here’s the hard truth. Liberals are pro-abortion, pro-death, pro-gay, and anti-American. They don’t love our freedoms, let alone the Constitution that guarantees them. And they don’t really mind the State’s using war to advance their utopian goals of universal peace.

    Listen up, Liberals! Why don’t you want the women and children of Iraq to have the same freedoms as you do here in America?

    If you don’t love freedom, move to Cuba. Then you won’t have the rights you now enjoy, and you won’t have to worry about your spoiled, pampered children having to go to war to defend them.

  80. Anonymous
    August 16, 2007 at 9:07 pm

    Great Post! And factually accurate too! Trouble is the libs won’t like it, and will poo-poo it.

    Oh well, I liked it! Thanks.

    Great perspective and history backed with facts.

  81. Pismo joe
    August 16, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    Ya know, every time we study the Bubba legacy the guy gets slimier and slimier!

    Another 4 years of the sex pot in the White House? I don’t think so…and Obama is all washed up now. So who’s it gonna be?

    (is slimier a word? well it is now!)
    yep! it’s a word and it fits sex pot Bubba!

    slim·y (slm)
    adj. slim·i·er, slim·i·est
    1. Consisting of or resembling slime; viscous.
    2. Covered with or exuding slime.
    3. Vile; foul.

  82. the ghost of christmas past
    August 17, 2007 at 12:33 am

    So much for you liberals complaining about holding Padilla without trial. Guilty on all counts. What the liberal attorneys still don’t get is why there is a g’itmo in the first place. Just because Padilla was quiet and well-behaved during the trial is no indication whatsoever that khalid sheik mohammed or any of the other Club G’itmo detainees would be so well behaved. After all these are the same men we are talking about that throw seamen and shit at the guards and have tried to kill the guards (remember these guards are soldiers in the same military you liberals claim to support but not their mission) in well-coordinated ambush attacks with broken fan parts and other make-shift weapons. They are animals and deserve to be segregated from the rest of American society for our own good.

  83. laughing at libs
    August 17, 2007 at 12:52 am

    Ghost said:
    “They are animals and deserve to be segregated from the rest of American society for our own good.”

    Dead is better…but jail works for me.

    Gov’t prisons not Gov’t jobs to the muslim animals!

    The happy days for the libs are over. Ya gotta love to watch em eat crow.

    Now…let’s talk about the worst congress in Amrican history…and who controls it? wait! That’s right! hahahahaha! the libs!

  84. Anonymous
    August 17, 2007 at 2:43 am

    Mr Padilla is another innocent victim crushed from the illegal acts of Bush/Cheney.

  85. Anonymous
    August 17, 2007 at 2:46 am

    Ouch! Somebody busted bob in the choppers!
    Posted at 1:59 and no response from bob yet!
    He must be scouring his radical left websites for some copy-n-paste link infested pack of lies so he can redeem himself.
    But the bottom line is that that cat put the facts in bob’s face for sure!
    Can’t wait for his denila report.
    Man I love this blog!
    It can’t be fun being a radical leftists these days.
    Bob? We’re all waiting

  86. good ol county boy
    August 17, 2007 at 3:01 am

    looks like somebody done took Bob out ta tha woodshed with a switch and whooped him but good.
    Good for him. Some of the America haters need to spanked every once in while.

  87. Bush is the best
    August 17, 2007 at 4:28 am

    “Mr Padilla is another innocent victim crushed from the illegal acts of Bush/Cheney.”

    see? I told ya! Diseased minds.

    What else could connect a convicted criminal to Bush…Clinton maybe because he was a convicted crimal too.

    Bush is and will be lilly white and free of any convictions.

    frustrating to some, true for all.

    ps: no word from bob yet?

  88. Downtown Bob
    August 17, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Yes, yes, yes, no word from Bob yet; what is he hiding? Well, I do have a life; I do run a small business downtown (not a hot dog stand), and I don’t post here until I can make the time to do so, so occasionally it may take a day or two before I can get back here to comment. But I am flattered that you hang on my every word. Okay, now to it. First, New Tone:


    It never gets old watching you all play the “Clinton did it” card. Is Bill Clinton running for office? Is he considered a spokesperson or leader of the Democratic Party, now? I will admit that as President, Bill Clinton did not show the respect due to those men and women in uniform that were in his vicinity. Is that that much worse than the use of men and women in uniform as props and backgrounds by President Bush? While I will agree that President Bush does show a more proper decorum with regard to our uniformed military, I am convinced that he misuses them at times like I said before, as props and backgrounds for speeches and addresses.
    Okay, is that the best you can do?

    Next, “liberals hate yada yada etc:


    And this: Their last presidential nominee even threw his own Vietnam War medals away. Yet they assume an obnoxious air of moral superiority because they are supposedly “anti-war.”
    No, John Kerry did not throw away his medals; read up on it, he showed his medals to a labor representative prior to his first Senate campaign because labor did not want to support someone who could throw away his medals. The labor rep. was satisfied when he saw Mr. Kerry’s collection. I am anti-war; I do not feel that makes me superior. I do not feel superior to anyone else, anywhere, for any reason. Most Conservatives do feel superior to others, and that allows them to feel justified in attacking or vilifying those who don’t “measure up” to their standard. I do understand that there are many who do not consider themselves to be “anti-war”; but does that make you “pro-war”? Is war the best answer? The preferred answer? Money spent on munitions is money that is spent in a most horrible manner, with no “return” on the investment, unless you count the death and destruction caused by their use.

    When President Bush invaded Afghanistan, I for one thought he was doing the correct thing. I even admired that he froze the monetary assets of those being suspected as his very first response. When he farmed out the hunt for bin Laden and started to reposition US forces to invade Iraq, I knew that he was not serious about capturing the man who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Yes, we liberals screamed bloody murder when President Bush illegally invaded Iraq, an action he did not have the authority to do based on the manner of the legislation that was written and passed. Every single justification that was given for invading Iraq has been proved totally, completely, utterly, false. We have broken Iraq; to provide them with freedom seems secondary to providing them with the necessities of life like clean water, electricity, sewer facilities, and the ability to go about their business safely, freedom will be a good thing for the average Iraqi, when they want it.

    Where are the Liberal gun control freaks thanking Bush for disarming Saddam’s war machine and for making absolutely sure that no weapons of mass destruction can be exported from Iraq for terrorists to use on American soil? Would that be anything like not being able to account for a couple hundred thousand rifles and automatic weapons in Iraq by our military?
    As for keeping WMDs from coming into America by a determined well financed terrorist, how about keeping a close eye on Pakistan? Al Qaeda, remote regions and a government being held in power by brute force alone, sounds like a recipe for potential disaster; shouldn’t the US be worried about Pakistan?

    Here’s the hard truth. Liberals are pro-abortion, pro-death, pro-gay, and anti-American. They don’t love our freedoms, let alone the Constitution that guarantees them. And they don’t really mind the State’s using war to advance their utopian goals of universal peace.
    No, that is not the “truth”; that is your opinion. I don’t “like” abortion, but I am not a woman so I don’t feel that it is my business to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. I am against the death penalty, period. I am pro-human; some humans are gay; should they not have the same rights and protections that all Americans have? If not, why not? And how much of an idiot to you have to be to believe that Americans living in America, participating in society, paying our bills, contributing; how can that be “anti-American”? I don’t “hate” freedom; how dumb an assertion.
    As for the women and children of Iraq having the same freedom as we do: Without a functioning government infrastructure in place, how do they have the ability to have freedom? No government, no law enforcement, doesn’t that equal anarchy? And what of “our” type of freedom? Free speech “zones” at political conventions? I thought America was a free speech zone. People being fired for having an “objectionable” bumper sticker or t-shirt on? Or how about having the Secret Service having the function of eliminating anyone from being in an area where the President or Vice-President will be speaking or even strolling through? I like freedom very much, thank you. I would like America to be truly “free”, though.

  89. bob loses the debate
    August 17, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Let’s disect bob…
    1)Is Bill Clinton running for office?

    His freaky wife is and that puts the biggest embarassment to the United States in it’s history of presidents. America wants them both gone for good. Bubba was the worst president ever.

    2)Money spent on munitions is money that is spent in a most horrible manner
    Very weak come back. You failed on this one too.

    3) We have broken Iraq; to provide them with freedom seems secondary

    Bob you are pathetic!

    4) As for keeping WMDs from coming into America by a determined well financed terrorist, how about keeping a close eye on Pakistan?

    Nice try…shift the conversation. Poor response

    5) I am not a woman so I don’t feel that it is my business to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies

    It’s NOT about her body bob! It’s a human life. The babies DNA in the womb is differant from the mother because it’s not her! It’s a brand new life! You lose again.

    6)some humans are gay; should they not have the same rights and protections that all Americans have?

    We all have the same rights bob. You libs just want to change the constitution to pander to those sexually confused and immoral pathagens. You lose again.

    7) As for the women and children of Iraq having the same freedom as we do: Without a functioning government infrastructure in place, how do they have the ability to have freedom?

    You are as dumb as a stump bob! Tha’s why we are there! To provide them with a chance for freedom and human rights.

    8) People being fired for having an “objectionable” bumper sticker or t-shirt on?

    It’s called free enterprise bob! What America was built on. How would you like the government telling you who you had to hire to help sell your hot dogs?

    9) I would like America to be truly “free”, though.

    Bob you are truely a lost cause! You wouldn’t freedom if it smacked you in the face.

    You demanded facts you got em…and you failed to discredit any of those facts, especially about your precious Bubba.

    You see bloggers? There is no Copy-n-paste that can discredit real truth and you just saw it.

    next bob? wanna go for round 2?

  90. Anonymous
    August 17, 2007 at 10:50 pm

    “The babies DNA in the womb is differant from the mother because it’s not her!

    You know I actually never thought it about like that before. Differant DNA. That whichs makes us unique.

    After sex it really isn’t a matter of “her” body as is it The “baby’s” body.

    That puts the entire argument in a totally differant light.

    I have always been pro choice, but wow! This changes everything.

  91. Anonymous
    August 18, 2007 at 2:18 am

    how about a new thread? this one is not even about the draft anymore. Dave! wake up and keep your blog current. Lazy ass

  92. Downtown Bob
    August 18, 2007 at 6:29 am

    Not necessarily round two: President William J. Clinton was the worst President ever? I know that is your opinion, but what basis in fact do you use to pronounce that judgement? If it is your gut feeling based on your concept of morality, fine; that is just an opinion though. If you want to base your supposition on facts like number of convicted White House staffers, aides and Cabinet Members, you better research your facts first. Do you want to judge by poll numbers? You can denounce Clinton all you want, but try and use some facts. You will of course assume that I am jumping in to defend a man that I respected as President; partly right. I respect the office of the President of the United States, whether we are talking about Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. I will not refer to any of them in any derogatory manner, such as “Shrub” or “Bubba” or any-other cute names. How you choose to address former Presidents is your choice, but you are disrespecting the office when you do not separate the man from the job. What Bill Clinton did while in office in regards to being unfaithful to his wife was wrong, period. When he lied to America on camera and wagged his finger claiming not to have had sexual relations with Monica upset me very much. His actions concerning stuff I think is important like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and the further deregulation of media ownership were all things that a corporatist would do to benefit big business, and so, was wrong. His lack of action in response to certain attacks against our military was wrong. But I do not think of him as the worst President ever; the Administration of Warren G. Harding handily wins that distinction, so far, but we still have another eighteen months of President Bush to see if his administration can beat that ranking.
    Give me an example of what good munitions provide besides killing people.
    … to provide them with freedom seems secondary
    you left off the rest of that quote: “to provide them with freedom seems secondary to providing them with the necessities of life like clean water, electricity, sewer facilities, and the ability to go about their business safely, freedom will be a good thing for the average Iraqi, when they want it.” In the context of the full quote, explain how it is that I am pathetic, please.
    WMDs: Iraq did not have them; what was our justification for invading Iraq?
    It’s not about her body: Wow, you want to control what a functioning adult being can do for the sake of potential life form that could only exist outside the womb until after say, the second trimester? And then only with the ultimate medical technology available, but after the baby is born, the Conservative plan does not want to help unless that person lapses into a comatose state (Terri Shiavo ring a bell?) At least the far right Conservative is consistent; if a human life form needs to be sustained with medical help, it needs to be protected. If that person can survive on his or her own, they better be able to “pick themselves up by their bootstraps”, or it is their fault. Explain how I got that wrong.
    Gay rights: I don’t believe the Constitution has to be changed, only enforced. Article Nine: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Look up the definition of the harder words if you don’t understand them; just because a “right” is or is not listed by the Constitution, you are not supposed to be able to deny any rights any other person has. Nowhere does it say anything about marriage having to be between a man and a woman only. Think about that one before you come up with your “witty” reply.
    The women and children of Iraq: Exactly how much freedom have we given them, so far? The freedom to be killed by ethic cleansing? The freedom to be torn apart by car and truck bombs? What is this freedom that we have “given” them? Oh, that’s right, they got to vote for their political leaders who are busy right now on working to unite their country, as soon as they get off of their vacation. Nice.
    People being arrested or fired for wearing a t-shirt or a bumper sticker. It happens. In America. Where it shouldn’t. Free enterprise? Explain how these examples are “free enterprize, please.

    Bob you are truely a lost cause! You wouldn’t freedom if it smacked you in the face. I can only assume that you forgot to type the word know in between “wouldn’t” and “freedom”. Knowing freedom is realizing that I can shout “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater and be arrested for it if there is no fire, or I can be praised for it if there is. Freedom is understanding your responsibility, participating in society and questioning when it seems wrong. Define what “Freedom” means to you, please.
    Bill Clinton is not “precious” to me, whether you call him “Bubba” or President Clinton; he is a man who served our country as President, period.

  93. the ghost of christmas past
    August 18, 2007 at 7:49 am

    As ThomasW was told, you need to blame the right parties when it comes to violence in Iraq. Military analysis has shown that almost 85% of all of the bombings and murders in Iraq are perpetratated by al Qaida. Al Qaida oepratives that have been captured have said the same thing, that al Qaida is creating the illusion of a civil war to get guys like you, Bob, to believe their is a civil war. Well, they have succeeded with you, Bob. The fact is that the Iraqis are betteroff in one regard: Saddam Hussein is dead and is no longer terrorizing them. The foreign fighters that are coming in from Saudi Arabia and Syria and Egypt are now what is causing the bloodshed. The bomb makers and the bomb making materials that are coming in from Iran are now what is causing the bloodshe. No place on the earth grows bombs; they have to be built by people. Nor do they fall out of the sky. The United States Army is not blowing those people up nor is George Bush ordering them to do so. George Bush is also not ordering the terrorists to blow up Iraqis so as to have a reason to stay. The terrorists are doing it all of their own accord and are being aided and abetted by the governments of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Place the blame where the blame belongs. Blame the terrorists because they are doing all of the killing. If they cared at all about the innocent civilians in Iraq they would just leave, never to return. Then we could leave. But so long as the terrorists feel the need to come to Iraq, we have to stay and protect them until they are capable of doing so. If you care about the Iraqi people, you would feel the same.

    Gay Marriage: You said a while back that marriage is a license you get from the State. If that is all marriage is, then what is wrong with giving a homosexual couple a license to have a civil union. Why does it have to be a marriage? If a civil union provides the same benefits of a marriage, both legally and financially, then why would anyone object? I agree with Chris Rock when he asked why should gay people be spared the pain and suffering married straight couples have.

    Worst Presidents: We are all too close to these past two presidents to objectively rate them. People in 1952 said that Truman was the worst president ever because of the Korean War, a true quagmire. So, I think historians 20 years from now may have a different opinion of Bush and Clinton when time provides a better context for their actions. But maybe Bush is genetically predisposed to be considered the worst president. Robert Wuhl, on his HBO show, did a very thorough analysis of Franklin Pierce, the 14th president. Wuhl’s analysis came to the conclusion that Pierce’s policies did more to lead America into the Civil War than any other politician before or after him. What does this have to do with Bush? President Bush is a direct decendent of Pierce… on his mother’s side.

  94. Anonymous
    August 18, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    A conservative could say here that 2+2=4 and bob would ask him to prove it.
    Your life is small time bob because you are small time.
    And you love the attention you get here. Acyually you crave it.
    You got the facts but you can’t understand them becuase you think with a diseased mind.
    Go back to copy-n-paste you’ll be happier. Real debates are way over your head.

  95. downtown bob
    August 18, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    2+2 does not always = 4. Read my copy-n-paste below and find out that you are wrong…again!

    In capitalist schools, we are taught that two plus two always equals four. But Marxism, and science in general, points to a different, more dynamic result, one that more accurately reflects reality. The difference can help us better assess economic statistics and the world as a whole.

    Let’s take a simple example. What do we get if we combine two two-quart containers of water? “Four quarts!” we may have learned. But water, like everything else in the universe, is matter in motion. Some of it is constantly changing form. Even as the two containers are combined, some water will evaporate. Accurate measures will repeatedly, positively indicate that adding two quarts and two quarts of water does not yield four.

    For cooking purposes, the difference may not be critical. For scientific purposes, the difference can be critical. Even for cooking, if the water is left to sit a while, enough evaporation will occur as to possibly affect a recipe’s outcome. And let the container sit long enough, and two plus two quarts of water will equal zero. On the other hand, add two plus two measures of some radioactive minerals, and the result can be a whole lot more than four, if critical mass is exceeded.

    Let’s apply some of that lesson to economic statistics. For most capitalist economists, gross domestic product — the dollar value of all goods and services produced in a country — is the best, most general indicator of an economy’s performance. The Commerce Department reports that U.S. GDP was $9,872.9 billion dollars in 2000, rising to $10,208.1 billion in 2001. But household income fell and unemployment rose between 2000 and 2001, as did child poverty, hunger and imprisonment rates. Doesn’t add up.

    In both 2000 and 2001, over $300 billion was spent on pervasively-damaging tobacco products, plus several hundred billion more on health care required as a result of smoking and chewing. Both expenditures were added to GDP. Shouldn’t they have been subtracted? The cost of existing housing rose, and was added to GDP — shouldn’t it have been subtracted? Or consider that the U.S. government now spends over $1,000 billion every year on arms, wars, union-busting, and prisons — shouldn’t these be subtracted, not added to GDP? We think so.

    In a welcome development in China, the state today is experimenting with “Green-GDP” accounting. Environmental and some other costs of production are being subtracted from GDP. This points the way to more accurate social accounting, and a rejection of the profoundly misleading GDP arithmetic that the U.S., World Bank and IMF have tried to impose on China.

    Or consider the fable that a dollar is equal to a dollar. A corporation’s capital, for example, is defined as its stock plus its debt. Through pension funds and mutual funds, workers’ savings are largely channeled into corporate stocks or risky debt; the leading Wall Street families prefer to hold capital in the form of “senior” debt, which has priority over all other company’s obligations.

    If the corporation runs into problems — and that happens all too often these days — the pension fund’s holdings can evaporate overnight, and the worker’s dollar is suddenly worth a dime. Wall Street’s dollar, on the other hand, gets repaid with interest, or at most suffers a minor trim. A dollar is not a dollar.

    Behind the teaching that a dollar is a dollar, or that two plus two equals four, lies the idealist assumption of absolute values. But there is no such thing. Both physical and social reality consist of ever-changing, ever-contending forces. The more scientifically we assess those contending forces, the better we can point the way for the working class to change reality in its interest, and that of all oppressed

  96. Downtown Bob
    August 18, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Ghost: A morbid parallel to your assertion might be: which came first, our invasion or al-Qaeda, in Iraq. If as the right likes to claim, al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, why did it take almost two years or so before they started their campaign of terror bombings against the Iraqi population? I believe that you are correct that most of al-Qaeda’s Iraqi terrorists are coming in from other countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia. So, the important question remains; If we can’t seem to seal the borders to keep al-Qaeda from importing more equipment, supplies and personnel from flowing into Iraq, would al-Qaeda persist if we were not there? I do realize that one of the stated goals is to establish a caliphate of radical Islamic nations across the region, but do you suppose the Iraqi people would allow that to happen if we weren’t there controlling how they police themselves? Please believe me when I say that I don’t necessarily believe that is the case, I am just asking a hypothetical question here as a topic of discussion. There is every possibility that I am way off base on this premise, but it does seem like a possibility.
    Gay Marriage: IF there is no difference between a civil union and marriage, what is your problem with calling a gay union marriage? It seems to me to be a case of “separate, but equal” which is unConstitutional and has been struck down repeatedly by the Supreme Court.
    Worst President ever: History does have an odd perspective sometimes, it will be interesting to see what is recorded twenty or thirty years into the future.
    Anonymouse: So, I can either cut ‘n paste and be ridiculed, or I can attempt to debate but since in your opinion I have a “diseased mind” my arguments somehow are not valid. There is the far right justification for believing what and how you believe in a nutshell. You acknowledge that I have some facts, but you will dispute my assertions simply because you don’t agree. At least I think I understand your world view a little better now. Good luck with that.
    Let’s expand the Ninth Amendment argument a little further if you will: Since the amendment states that we can’t deny or disparage any right, whether or not it is enumerated by the Bill of Rights, why can we limit what kind of surgical procedures that women can have, but not what kind men can have? Yes, I am asking about abortion; what is the legal justification in restricting access to something that men cannot do. Can you give me a logical explanation, without getting too emotional?

  97. is bob a nazi
    August 18, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Orwell had used the concept before publishing 1984. During his employment at the BBC, he became familiar with the methods of Nazi propaganda. In his essay Looking Back on the Spanish War, published four years before Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell wrote:

    Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.
    In the view of most of Orwell’s biographers, the main source for this was Assignment in Utopia by Eugene Lyons, an account of his time in the Soviet Union. This contains a chapter “2+2=5”, which was a slogan used by Stalin’s government to predict that the Five year plan would be completed in four years, which for a time appeared widely in Moscow.

    However, Orwell may also have been influenced by Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who once, in a debatable hyperbolic display of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, declared, “If the Führer wants it, two and two make five!” In 1984, Orwell writes:

    “ In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?

  98. Rich from Paso
    August 19, 2007 at 2:40 am

    Bob: You have defered to my military ‘expertise’ in the past, please do so here again. Al Qaida was in Iraq in October 2003. My Brigade battled an al Qaida cell 1 kilometer outside my camp near Ramadi for four hours. They were well armed and extremely well fortified. Al Qaida was there before we got there because we arrived on that camp in September. They just didn’t spontaniously spring into existence in September when we arrived; they would have needed time to prepare. Yes, it did take them a while to ramp up attacks and what not, but they were there none the less. We may have created the weakness in Iraq to allow more al Qaida fighters into Iraq. I think that it is pretty much a settled debated that Bremer fucked up in a colassal fashion by disbanding the military. Regardless, they were there before I got there in 2003 which debunks your assertation that they didn’t arrive until 2005.

    On the subject of al Qaida and what will happen if we leave Iraq… What communique, what video pronouncement, what literature, what public or private statement gives any rational person the belief that if we leave al Qaida would leave? There is NONE. Al Qaida has publically stated since before 9/11 that their goal is for a caliphate across the Arab world. The latest post on this blog has a letter that scoffs at the notion of al Qaida “following us home” if we leave Iraq. He’s got it backwards: we followed them home to the Middle East. We are fighting al Qaida on their turf, in Afghanistan and now Iraq. Al Qaida has chosen to fight us in Iraq, not the other way around. We have chosen to fight al Qaida in Afghanistan, nto the other way around. Al Qaida is the most brutal and ruthless foe the United States has ever fought. They profess to be adherents to the most conservative version of Islam, yet they do the most inhuman and dispicable acts to other Muslims. They desecrate bodies of Muslims (against the tenets of Islam), they use children as bombers, and they bomb innocent civilians with the sole purpose of inflicting greater and greater body counts. They blew up Shia Islam holy sites, for Christ’s sake! Have you forgotten that al Qaida blew up our World Trade Center? You can’t tell me that there is any person in al Qaida that is trustworthy enough or even rational enough to negotiate terms for them to leave after we leave. To believe anything else proves that you are not a credible source of opinion on this subject.

  99. Anonymous
    August 19, 2007 at 3:40 am

    Rich, nice post! Well organized and very accurate. Thank you. It’s lost on the libs due the diseased braines they think with, but preaching to the choir is allowed here!

    I liked your time estimate as well on the days it would take to bring the majority of soldiers home. If ther started now it would be mostly done on the watch of the next president.

    If the libs yank us out it will be on their heads as are the 3 million killed in Viet Nam when they yanked the funding for that war.

    A second Viet Nam would kill that party. Thats why the moveoners are redesigning a new leftist party. Watching the dems self destruct will be the most fun I have in a long time…and good riddence to them! at last!

  100. Downtown Bob
    August 19, 2007 at 4:14 am

    Rich: If you state that you fought a well entrenched al-Qaida cell when you were in Iraq and you believe that they were already there, so be it. I don’t believe that I said anywhere that al-Qaida would leave Iraq; I was asking if al-Qaida would be allowed by the Iraqi people to accomplish their stated goal of their vision of a “caliphate” in the middle east. My question was further positioned by the point about how the Iraqis would function if we were not there policing them as well as trying to protect them. So, Rich, what is your opinion of how the Iraqis would handle al-Qaida in Iraq on their own. Do you believe that al-Qaida would over run the country and take over the government, or would the Iraqi people rise up and fight back to remove the threat of al-Qaida in Iraq?

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: