Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere's yet to be a solid, point-by-point effort to expose John McCain's pre-2003 views on Iraq, when (along with his neocon advisers and cheerleaders) he led the charge to Baghdad. Barack Obama, so concerned about how to end the war in Iraq, seems to have forgotten the importance of questioning how it began, especially McCain's pernicious role.
In today's Times, under the headline "Broad Response to 9/11 Offers Outline of a McCain Doctrine," appears a sketchy but useful reminder of McCain's pre-2003 irrational exuberance for war. (As a broader piece on McCain's so-called "doctrine," the article falls flat. There are better pieces on that score, including two authored by yours truly for The Nation, one published in 1999 and the second earlier this year.)
Here's the lede of the Times piece, showing McCain in full jingoistic, damn-the-torpedos mode:
Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. "This is war," he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.
"There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked," Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. "It isn't just Afghanistan," he added, on MSNBC. "I don't think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared," he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.
Within a month he made clear his priority. "Very obviously Iraq is the first country," he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: "Next up, Baghdad!"
As the Times notes, "While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall." It adds:
He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi's opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein's supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.
McCain had adopted the neocon doctrine of rogue-state rollback, and he hammered away at that after 9/11
arguing that the United States should go on the offensive as a warning to any other country that might condone such an attack. "These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries," Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure. "We're going to have to prove to them that we are very serious, and the price that they will pay will not only be for punishment but also deterrence."
So much for McCain's good judgment. It's wrong even to imply that McCain's disjointed thoughts amount to a doctrine, unless that doctine is: "Kill them all!" The Times also references McCain's near-psychotic readiness to blame Iraq even for the 2001 anthrax attacks, concerning which he said on TV: "Some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq."
I don't think the majority of McCain supporters fully understand the real reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. If people were told the truth on television, that the people behind this invasion's only objective ever was to slash and burn an entire culture so as to start anew with every last resource in the hands of a Western corporation, yielding a succession of profits. McCain has just as much blood on his hands as any of them, and I don't think his supporters fully get that, because I can't believe that if they did, that those people are truly that cold and uncaring with regards to the innocent humans our corporate privatization plan laid to waste in it's path.
Posted by FcukReagan at 08/17/2008 @ 12:32pm
>>>Barack Obama, so concerned about how to end the war in Iraq, seems to have forgotten the importance of questioning how it began, especially McCain's pernicious role.<<<
I agree 100% with this assessment.
Obama could do MUCH more than what he is currently doing to question McCain's JUDGMENT and TEMPERAMENT as a potential Commander-in-Chief.
McCain's reputation as a "hot-head" needs to be exploited by Obama, as this poses a REAL danger for America and the world with McCain's finger on the button.
Obama needs to portray McCain as "trigger-happy" and "eager" for war. This needs to be put in context of future conflicts, in which Obama should question whether McCain has the temperament to exhaust all other diplomatic possibilities before pulling the trigger.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/17/2008 @ 12:57pm
Too many Americans seem to have no problem with blood-thirsty war mongers, just as long as the war mongers are American, the other side is slaughtered, and their own offspring don't get drafted into the war.
So painting McCain as eager for war might not have quite the broad appeal this piece's author thinks.
Posted by sloper at 08/17/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by sloper at 08/17/2008 @ 1:07pm
I think if McCain's trigger-happiness is LINKED TO ECONOMICS, and our inability to afford more war, the vast majority of voters will respond to the pocket-book aspect of having to pay more taxes, increase the deficit and American debt to support more war.
You can also link his trigger-happiness to MORE TERRORIST ATTACKS on US soil. (e.g., John McCain wants to provoke more terrorists attacks on America because he lacks the temperament to engage in the tough negotiations necessary to reduce tensions around the world).
Posted by Metteyya at 08/17/2008 @ 1:28pm
Simply put...McCain will defend the US to the "Gates of Hell". Obama...not so much.
Posted by Redneck4Bako at 08/17/2008 @ 1:36pm
Simply put...McCain will defend the US to the "Gates of Hell". Obama...not so much.
Posted by Redneck4Bako at 08/17/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by Redneck4Bako at 08/17/2008 @ 1:36pm
If all McCain can do is fight, and is incapable of reducing the tensions that lead to conflict, then he is not much of a leader, and probably should be running for Joint-Chief-of Staff of the military rather than president of the United States!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/17/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by Metteyya at 08/17/2008 @ 1:28pm
Good ideas, but, alas, linking bad wars to economic consequences doesn't seem to work during the war itself, e.g. Nam, when all arguments, including costs, failed to resonate with most Americans. Even when the bills came due later in the 70s & early 80s, most still hadn't a clue that the inflation stealing their money was due mainly to having to print money to pay for the last war.
As for diplomacy, that's for pussy elitists, not redblooded, red toothed Americans. It's just so cowardly.
Posted by sloper at 08/17/2008 @ 1:57pm
The Global Fight against Terrorism:
Status and Perspectives
02/08/2003
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:24pm
Speaker: McCain, John
Function: US-Senator (Republican), Chairman, Commerce Committee, Arizona
Nation/ Organization: United States of America
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:25pm
Iraq is the test that will determine whether the United States and Europe can rely on the founding charters of NATO and the U.N. Security Council to protect their most fundamental security interests - or whether we have entered an age in which security is pursued by other means. Should great powers determine that multilateral institutions such as NATO and the Security Council cannot protect their interests when they are imperiled, countries will increasingly be tempted to go it alone rather than relying on international institutions that shrink from their mission of upholding international security. The United States might succeed in such an environment, though I hate to contemplate it, but many nations, including many in Europe, will not.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:25pm
Just as some Arab governments fuel anti-American sentiment among their people to divert them from problems at home, so a distinct minority of Western European leaders appears to engage in America- bashing to rally their people and other European elites to the call of European unity. Some European politicians speak of pressure from their "street" for peaceful solutions to international conflict and for resisting American power regardless of its purpose. But statements emanating from Europe that seem to endorse pacifism in the face of evil, and anti-Semitic recidivism in some quarters, provoke an equal and opposite reaction in America.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:26pm
There is an American "street," too, and it strongly supports disarming Iraq, accepts the necessity of an expansive American role in the world to ensure we never wake up to another September 11th, is perplexed that nations with whom we have long enjoyed common cause do not share our urgency and sense of threat in time of war, and that considers reflexive hostility toward Israel as the root of all problems in the Middle East as irrational as it is morally offensive.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:26pm
The evidence of his deceit and defiance is overwhelming, as Secretary Powell, in his statement before the Security Council, a statement that exposed the folly of further accommodation, irrefutably made clear. Saddam Hussein has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill many millions of people in the most horrible of ways, and has placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes. He develops nuclear weapons with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage. Failure to end the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq makes it more likely that the interaction we know to have occurred between members of al Qaeda and Saddam's regime may increasingly take the form of active cooperation to target the United States and Europe with weapons whose use threatens civilization itself.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:27pm
Our regional allies who oppose using force against Saddam Hussein warn of uncontrollable popular hostility to an allied attack on Iraq. But what would really be the effect on Arab populations of seeing other Arabs liberated from oppression? Far from fighting to the last Iraqi, the people of that tortured society will surely dance on the regime's grave. Perhaps that is what truly concerns some of our Arab allies: that among the consequences of regime change in Iraq might be a stronger demand for self-determination from their own people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:27pm
The use of military force to defend vital national security interests must always be the option of last resort. Certainly it is in the crisis between Pyongyang and the world. The United States should lead the Security Council to sanction North Korea for its defiance, and provide another opportunity for multilateral diplomacy to address a clear breach of international peace and security by requiring North Korea to meet its commitments to the world. But if we fail to achieve the international cooperation necessary to ending this threat, particularly from Beijing, then North Korea and other countries in the region should know with certainty that while they may risk their own populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:27pm
Mr. Dreyfuss,
Thanks for the fine post on McCain and his readily apparent unsuitability for the office of the U.S. presidency. Frank Rich's column today in the NY Times echoes the point quite well.
Now, if the so-called mainstream media will get on board, McCain's candidacy should be as dead as a John Edwards campaign would have been --and for far more appropriate reasons.
That's a big if unfortunately.
By the way, I'm just finishing a fantastic new release (August 5th, 2008) from Metropolitan Books invaluable American Empire Project, "The Limits of Power" by the retired Army Colonel and Vietnam vet Andrew Bacevich.
I can't recommend the book highly enough.
The book represents a compact 180 page one-two punch to the American abdomen --squarely where the force is most needed.
The sharply drawn sketch that is developed is one of an America where the political and military culture rapidly devolved in the wake of World War II and during the Cold War into a place where no sacrifices were required of the population or the corporate machinery to ween us off of the lifestyle of easy, cheap imported energy that increasingly wound its way into the fabric of our society.
All the warning signs were glaringly apparent but all too easily dismissed.
Between Jimmy Carter's mid-79 "malaise" speech which nailed the existential reality while getting the steamrolled by the political reality, and Ronald Reagan's March '83 "Star Wars" speech which symbolized the moment that we were self-condemned to a future where our multi-trillion dollar military would seemingly solve all of our existential problems, the trap was set.
The military abroad would enable our uncontrolled consumption at home --to the tune of 1/4 of the total global oil output.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/17/2008 @ 2:28pm
But wait a second, is he the same McCain who is pro life and who believes that life begins at conception? How about being a partner in murdering one million Iraqis? Ah, for McCain life is an American trade mark; American life begins at conception, Iraqi life has no value. This is the hypocrite where 44% of us would like to vote for to be the next president of the United States. I rest my case.
Posted by zziadeh at 08/17/2008 @ 2:32pm
The EVIDENCE of his deceit and defiance is
OVERWHELMING,
as Secretary Powell,
in his statement before the Security Council,
a statement that exposed the folly of further accommodation,
IRREFUTABLY made clear.
Saddam Hussein has developed
STOCKS OF GERMS
AND TOXINS
in sufficient QUANTITIES
TO KILL MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
in the most HORRIBLE OF WAYS,
and has placed WEAPONS
laden with these POISONS
ON ALERT
to fire at his NEIGHBORS
within minutes.
HE DEVELOPS NUCLEAR WEAPONS
with which he would hold his neighbors
and us hostage.
FAILURE to end the danger posed
BY SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ
makes it more likely
THAT
THE
INTERACTION
WE
KNOW
TO
HAVE
OCCURRED
BETWEEN MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA AND SADDAM'S REGIME
THAT
THE
INTERACTION
WE
KNOW
TO
HAVE
OCCURRED
BETWEEN MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA AND SADDAM'S REGIME
THAT
THE
INTERACTION
WE
KNOW
TO
HAVE
OCCURRED
BETWEEN MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA AND SADDAM'S REGIME
THAT
THE
INTERACTION
WE
KNOW
TO
HAVE
OCCURRED
BETWEEN MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA AND SADDAM'S REGIME
THAT
THE
INTERACTION
WE
KNOW
TO
HAVE
OCCURRED
BETWEEN MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA AND SADDAM'S REGIME
THAT
THE
INTERACTION
WE
KNOW
TO
HAVE
OCCURRED
BETWEEN MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA AND SADDAM'S REGIME
may increasingly take the form of active cooperation
to target the United States and Europe
with weapons whose use threatens civilization itself.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:32pm
http://www.security
conference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?id=105&sprache=en&
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:33pm
mccain, 2008
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis.
(Wikipedia)
After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.
(McCain)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:43pm
Our mission in Southeastern Europe is not yet complete and our responsibilities toward Europe's new neighbors on the shores of the Black Sea and across Ukraine are barely understood.
john mccain.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:46pm
History teaches that hard choices deferred - appeasing Hitler, choosing not to deter Saddam Hussein in 1990, failing to act sooner against al Qaeda - often bring about the very circumstances we wished to avoid by deferring action, requiring us to react in freedom's defense.
John McCain's Senate floor speech on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq Resolution, delivered on October 10, 2002
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:49pm
Yet leaders always have choices, and history teaches that hard choices deferred - appeasing Hitler, choosing not to deter Saddam Hussein in 1990, failing to act sooner against al Qaeda - often bring about the very circumstances we wished to avoid by deferring action, requiring us to react in freedom's defense.
john mccain,
The Global Fight against Terrorism: Status and Perspectives 02/08/2003
(actually, the quotes happen the other way 'round)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:50pm
hi bkool.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 2:51pm
Greetings, Frosted One!
I didn't realize you were on such a roll or I might not have interrupted.
As hare-brained and misinformed by our decrepit fawning corporate media (FCM) --thanks to Ray McGovern in "Out Damn Blot: A Letter to Colin Powell"-- as much of the U.S. electorate is, I still believe that McLame is pretty much toast this November.
I trust all is well with you and yours?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/17/2008 @ 3:11pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/17/2008 @ 3:02pm
Eh, that's fine. 70% of the US still opposes it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/17/2008 @ 3:02pm
HAP,
This "the way we fought Iraq" argument of McCain is going nowhere as the vast majority of Americans do NOT think we should have invaded Iraq if there were no weapons of mass destruction or no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we showed up there.
It is a question of JUDGMENT and TEMPERAMENT, as McCain's pre-Iraq invasion actions shows that in any future conflict, McCain will be too eager to pull the trigger and go to war rather than solving the root causes of the conflict.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/17/2008 @ 4:07pm
HAPPY, McCain also said...
"I don't think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared," he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.
Yet what is the one thing he EMPHASIZES he'll "do as President"?...
yep..."catch bin Laden". WHY? If it has little impact on the "threat"?!?!!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/17/2008 @ 4:17pm
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event."
john mccain, september 1983
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 5:06pm
In mid-April of this year, President Bill Clinton embarked upon a trip to Japan and Russia, with a brief stop in South Korea. The images broadcast to Americans of their lately peripatetic president working foreign crowds and impressing foreign leaders complemented previous images of the president abroad: basking in the enthusiasm of huge Irish crowds, wading into a sea of American soldiers in Bosnia eager to shake his hand, and so forth.
With such images, the president hoped to complete on the world stage the public-relations legerdemain for which he is justly renowned in American politics, changing the public's impression of him from the feckless, inattentive, and uncertain foreign policy figure of his first years in office to a newly confident and purposeful leader in world affairs.
john mccain, summer 1996.
(this seems vaguely familiar.......)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 5:10pm
Credibility, that most important strategic asset, has been the worst casualty of the Clinton administration's foreign policy.
john mccain, 1996
hmmmm?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 5:20pm
"Simply put...McCain will defend the US to the "Gates of Hell". Obama...not so much." Posted by Redneck4Bako
He can defend us to the gates of hell all he wants. Unfortunately, we are already on the wrong side of those gates.
Posted by onthehelm at 08/17/2008 @ 5:30pm
Thus far, our resource commitment in Bosnia has been enormous and open ended. One can easily argue that it is out of proportion to its importance to the United States. NATO enlargement is projected to cost the alliance only $1.5 billion in common funding over ten years. The Bosnia mission has already cost the United States alone nearly $8 billion, and we are still far from a permanent solution.
••••• wow, $8billion! •••••
I CERTAINLY DO NOT ADVOCATE A FUNDING CUTOFF IN BOSNIA. THAT WOULD PUNISH OUR TROOPS FOR WHAT IS IN FACT A FAILURE OF POLICY-MAKING IN WASHINGTON. BUT I AM ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE STATUS QUO. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT DONE ITS JOB OF CLEARLY LAYING OUT OUR VALUES, OUR INTERESTS, AND OUR OVERALL STRATEGY. NOR HAS IT DEFINED A CLEAR AND ACHIEVABLE MILITARY MISSION FOR U.S. FORCES. INSTEAD, OUR TROOPS ARE HOSTAGE TO POLITICAL PROGRESS, INCREASINGLY ENGAGING IN CIVILIAN AND POLICE WORK RATHER THAN ACCOMPLISHING A MILITARY MISSION.
john mccain, 1998
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 5:48pm
In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.
joe lieberman, 2003
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 5:59pm
This is a special place for me to talk about the future of our military. I remember well my days serving on the USS Intrepid in the early 1960s. I loved flying off carriers, but there were occasional setbacks -- like the time I knocked down power lines while flying a bit too low over southern Spain, cutting off the electricity to a great many Spanish homes and creating a minor international incident. Not the Navy's greatest moment, nor mine for that matter.
john mccain, 1999
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 6:04pm
First, we must restore our national credibility abroad. Credibility is a strategic asset. The world's only superpower must never give its word insincerely. We should never make idle threats. When we do it ensures that the price we ultimately pay in blood and treasure to defend our security is greater than if we had kept our word from the beginning.
john mccain, 1999
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 6:08pm
after reading all this mccain from many years now,
i must say i am now much more nervous than i previously was.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 6:27pm
Wow! That must have taken you a long time to do. I'd call it, well, fanatical.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/17/2008 @ 6:19pm
i'm just trying to influence otherwise logical people who seem to have lost their minds and are planning to vote for a person who has a violent image of what america should be.
john mccain has always struck me as an affable, if somewhat misguided individual.
but after reading so many of his words i now see him as a dangerous threat to global stability.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
frank, shall i find some of your old posts where you ridicule the saddam-al-qaeda link?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 6:36pm
Damn, you people just don't get it. There was no reason to take Saddam out.
Posted by frankgrits at 10/07/2005 @ 6:35pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 7:03pm
Until alternative sources of fuel can be developed, we have to TAKE the world's oil for the west. That's why we are in Iraq. If you don't understand that then you are, well, a stupid fuck.
Posted by frankgrits at 11/01/2007 @ 10:38pm
13 You shall not murder.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
17 You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 7:08pm
When the investigations are done and the smoke clears away, we will be left with the realization beyond any shadow of a doubt that Iraq posed no threat to us what-so-ever and that our precious sons and daughters were sacrificed for political purposes only. They were used as pawns so the the far right could advance their agenda of intolerance and greed.
Posted by frankgrits at 10/24/2006 @ 1:04pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 7:15pm
The biggest threat to this country isn't from terrorism. It's from the republican party. We are being destroyed from within. The only solution is to plead with ignorant people to stay out of the voting booth until they can get themselves some education.
Posted by frankgrits at 10/24/2006 @ 1:39pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 7:17pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 7:17pm
Let's find out now how he denies it ALL in order to find a way to justify McCain's stance. It's like watching the contortionist at the circus. He bends over backward to try to endorse McCain. He is now pro-Iraq War.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2008 @ 8:12pm
So, what would he have done if he had the same intelligence, CIA that is, as Dubya.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/17/2008 @ 8:40pm
paid $5,000,000 for a letter?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 8:44pm
Ppppeeeaaaccceee mmmaaannnn ......
What the people on the right don't understand dude... is that, like when Obama is elected ....right.. Then, like everybody else in the world will, like get on the same page with this no more wars stuff..
So like..... dude it's like if we elect Obama dude, then..... well Putin and his buddies and that little dude in Iran well... they'll be like all into chillin' out and peace and stuff.
Russia will like probably destroy all those Mig-29s and like those Mig-31s cause if your country's all into just like getting along... well ... dude what do you need the machines of war for.... dudes...?
This peace stuff is soooooo eeeaaasssyyy.. man .... What didn't someone think about this before now dude? Obama is our only hope.... Hope dude, like hope for Obama's hope....
Later.....
Posted by bleedingheart at 08/17/2008 @ 9:09pm
Until alternative sources of fuel can be developed, we have to TAKE the world's oil for the west. That's why we are in Iraq. If you don't understand that then you are, well, a stupid fuck.
Posted by frankgrits at 11/01/2007 @ 10:38pm
You shall not survive in the twentyfirst century without oil.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/17/2008 @ 9:04pm
do you propose annexing alberta?
gimme, gimme, never gets......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:12pm
None of it as anything to do with this election.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/17/2008 @ 9:12pm
you brought up saddam, not me.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:13pm
I trust all is well with you and yours?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/17/2008 @ 3:11pm
why yes, thank you. reciprocations, of course.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:16pm
Though he certainly intended something quite different, I am thankful for Mr Dreyfuss putting up these McCain quotes.
It re-affirms how much greater a president McCain would be than Obama. Obama like most on the left, still doesn't have a clue about how to deal with terrorism.
I actually feel better about voting for McCain after seeing this thread.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:35pm
well frank,
my solution would have been put into action 30 years ago........
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:35pm
I actually feel better about voting for McCain after seeing this thread.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:35pm
and i am so much more worried.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:36pm
the man speaks in clichés, understanding little.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:38pm
and i am so much more worried.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:36pm
Sorry Frosty, but if you try being nice to a terrorist, you are just likely to get your throat slit or your head cut off as a thank you.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:39pm
what terrorists?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 9:47pm
NEOCONS --- regulation bad, dominion good!
Old testimenters... big time life premise: Dominion over fish, fowl. Free market dominion is good stuff! Believers in the good news rejoice! Dead zones! More than 4,000 WHINERS! SOCIALISTS what progressives call "scientists" from 100 countries... Measure massive ocean die off and dead zones. Some species could be wiped out 100 times faster .. Wildlife extinction rates 'seriously underestimated' ... A Unique Species Goes Extinct Every 20 min...
Biodiversity is for gay weak complainers!
Posted by winyahn at 08/17/2008 @ 11:08pm
Dominion over Brownies of Viet Nam and Iraq. Kill 'em from the air. Then convert the survivors! Dominion over fish, fowl and foul, lesser hominids.
Posted by winyahn at 08/17/2008 @ 11:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/17/2008 @ 9:39pm
Maybe we should stop creating terrorists with rampant militarism? Killing them only makes more of them because of all the innocent women and children you kill in the process. This only proves that right doesn't know how to truly stop terrorism. The only thing you can think of is like primitive man, to use your weapon instead of your mind.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2008 @ 11:13pm
That however has nothing to do with the fact that we've poured all these resources and manpower into the conflict and we are at the verge of an important victory.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/17/2008 @ 8:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Based on whose fantasy? The Iraqi legislature just adjourned for the summer without passing the provincial elections bill.
Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2008 @ 03:01am
Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2008 @ 03:01am
He's deluding himself. This victory isn't important. It's a pat on the back for America. A good job at not another Vietnam. Most of Iraq doesn't like us. This will not stabilize the region. Hell this won't even stabilize Iraq. This has just opened the middle east to more dictators because like during the Cold War with Reagan they don't have someone crazy enough that everyone is afraid of in order to keep the status quo.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 03:36am
There are multiple ways I can pick apart your logic....---Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/17/2008 @ 11:05pm
Then, do it.
No, the logic (based on McCain's rhetoric) holds.
He makes a big deal out of how HE will catch bin Laden. Shows how "tough" he is and how "he knows how to win wars".
Yet he earlier admitted that catching bin Laden is essentially meaningless in "ending the threat".
If so, why not concentrate on the things that WILL end the threat and quit talking about getting one guy???
Reason? Because it SOUNDS good to say you'll "get bin Laden" and it DOESN'T SOUND good to say "No matter what I do as President, the threat will continue on and on."
Ol' Maverick again wants it both ways...sound like he'll "accomplish something" (so he doesn't look like he's going to drop the ball on Osama as Bush did) and keep the war going forever to allow for his "Ol' Blood 'n Guts" image.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 09:06am
BTW...
"This educating you all is making me exhausted."-----Posted by frankgrits at 08/17/2008 @ 9:12pm
Is FG so delusional he actually thinks anybody here respects his opinion enough now to be "educated" by him...or was he just trying to be funny???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 09:27am
FrankG is now just quoting Rush as part of his attention seeking tantrum and it's nice that I can put him on ignore,but could imagine how horrible it would be to have to live or work with him and be forced to be subjected to his tantrum that you know is going to last for the next 4 and a half years?
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 09:29am
Maybe we should stop creating terrorists with rampant militarism? Killing them only makes more of them because of all the innocent women and children you kill in the process. This only proves that right doesn't know how to truly stop terrorism. The only thing you can think of is like primitive man, to use your weapon instead of your mind.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2008 @ 11:13pm
Nonsense.
Terrorism has been a part of Islam since it's inception and will continue regardless of whether the US has a military or not.
You cannot prevent or stop their violence merely by words or "programs". When the only guaranteed way into heaven for Islam is through violent martyrdom, you can count on the continuation of terrorism.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:12am
He's deluding himself. This victory isn't important. It's a pat on the back for America. A good job at not another Vietnam. Most of Iraq doesn't like us. This will not stabilize the region. Hell this won't even stabilize Iraq. This has just opened the middle east to more dictators because like during the Cold War with Reagan they don't have someone crazy enough that everyone is afraid of in order to keep the status quo.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 03:36am
You are the one deluding yourself. Furthermore, like most on the left, the only real freedom you care about is for Americans it seems. The rest of the world is just out of luck as far as the left here believes.
The US is the only country capable of at least attempting to bring freedom to countries around the world. The UN will never do it. They have too many members who want to maintain tyrannies.
Reagan is indeed the model as he set the standard for belief in the role of the US in bringing freedom to the world. The US and the world would certainly benefit from the US having more leaders like Reagan in the future.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:23am
Terrorism has been a part of Islam since it's inception and will continue regardless of whether the US has a military or not----Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:12am
So if terrorism is a part of historic Islam... we're going to have to kill every Muslim....unless they all become "Unitarian Muslims", right?
(BTW, backpedalling may become a new Olympic sport, Larry. You should try out!)
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 10:29am
lvliberty-The right does not care about other countries and their freedom nor can you show that you do.You attacked saddam because you were scared of him and because Iraq has oil and for no other reason.The idea that America can bring freedom to the world by attacking countries that happen to have oil is idiotic as is the idea that America can bring freedom to the world.Freedom is something you fight for yourself because you want it and not something that someone else fights for because then your freedom means nothing to you..
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 10:39am
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 10:39am
LL contradicts himself numerous times, I'M.
He says Islam has terrorism at its roots...yet he wants to "bring freedom" to Islamic countries. He both besmirches Muslims AND tells them that guys like him have their best interests at heart and will change their evil ways.
Even more to the point, he says "Reagan is the model"...yet Reagan's primary focus was not "invading countries and turning them into democracies" (less Grenada) but offering up a military build-up and having SURROGATES (like the Contras or mujeheddin) attack the Soviets.
If we used "Reagan as the model"...we should have armed the Kurds to overthrow Saddam....not gone in ourselves.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 11:56am
"So much for McCain's good judgment. It's wrong even to imply that McCain's disjointed thoughts amount to a doctrine, unless that doctine is: "Kill them all!""
just shows the man knew less than i did about the real political situation in iraq.
shows he was ignorant and just as ready to bloodthirstily and stupidly flail about in search of enemies to destroy in vengeful righteous wrath as the average "lets make uh parkin' lot outta their country" crowd of know-nuthins who voted for bush twice and will vote for flippy mac come november.
if the idiocracy wants a prez that just ain't that bright again...looks like they got their candidate. i gotta think mccain is brighter that bush, but must be on the same level as the stansard neocon original gangsta who overestimates his/her IQ by some 20 - 30 points and damn the consequences.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2008 @ 11:59am
Had the Iraq War been fought the way McCain wanted, and Iraq's situation been stabilized 2~3 years ago, no Demo candidate would stand a chance this Nov.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/17/2008 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
HA HA HA! ah...the what if game!
the repugnant party would indeed be sitting pretty if...
the clique of presidential handlers had listened to the intelligence community (rather than strongarming them to "find" evidence of WMDs and al qaeda in iraq) and concentrated on getting BIN LADEN in AFGHANISTAN...and continued the apparantly successful (and cost/life effective) strategy of containing and isolating hussein...
hell...twenty years of such would have resulted in far less lives lost, far less money blown, far less CREDIBILITY LOSS (which we sorely lack now in our confrontations with russia and china)...and we would still have gotten to lob a few cruise missiles from time to time at ol' saddam's military...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2008 @ 12:14pm
Mask-The pictures of the Iraqis following Saddam's downfall show that they were,already,heavily,armed and the weapons that they had were not just Iraqi military weapons which makes one wonder why they never did anything.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 12:24pm
lvliberty-Another thing that you people forget is that not all people want the type of freedom that we have because they believe that such freedom leads to decadence and immorality and you,simply,can't force it on them because they are too conservative in their thinking and aren't going to change because you attack them.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 12:42pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well - they lived under a secure, secular, orderly hell before. now they live under an insecure, anarchic hell that countenances religious persecution and violence in the name of national unity.
i gotta guess that the close to 2 million iraqi expatriates (many secularists and christians) who now sell their kids into prostitution to survive in iraq's neighboring countries, although no big fans of hussein, might look back with a touch of nostalgia to the good old days before we "liberated" them when they still had lives.
i'm so sick of this homer simpson style "stupid chic" crap. its funny when its a cartoon character, but when its the leaders of the country (and all too many of the supposedly educated voting herd) it aint funny no more...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:12am
If all this is true LVL. Then there is no bringing freedom to these countries. Most of these people not just Osama but even the people we are working with are Islamic. Does that not then therefore mean that there is no brining freedom to these countries? By your own argument they are all terrorists in the end.
I think that the fanatic thing is something the right deludes themselves into believing in order to justify their actions. I think deep down no one in their right mind actually believes that. I think the right uses it as a way to justify the killing of "potential" terrorists and the inevitable killing of the innocents, known as nothing more than collateral damage now-a-days, that occurs during warfare.
The right always builds up this great enemy that we must fear. Why? It keeps the right in power. If Americans aren't afraid of something. They tend to vote left. Now the terrorist "threat" is less of a fear amongst people because they see that there is no real threat. America has been successfully attacked ONCE. There has been one attack that resulted in casualties.
If we left them alone maybe they would leave us alone. Instead we constantly feel the need to stick our nose in other peoples business.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 12:51pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:23am
Also. I am all for bringing freedom to people. But last I checked freedom is not in the barrel of a gun or the fuse on of a bomb. Freedom is hearts and minds. Reagan didn't bring freedom to anyone. He brought fear. Fear is not freedom. If you want to bring freedom it's called winning their hearts and minds. Not killing their children and telling them that's the best thing for them.
If someone dropped a bomb on your children what would you do?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 12:53pm
Although it sounds good to say that we are fighting for freedom or fighting against evil the truth is that no wars are ever fought for these types of abstract concepts.Humans fight wars for pragmatic reasons and never fight for these other reasons.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 1:01pm
The US is the only country capable of at least attempting to bring freedom to countries around the world. The UN will never do it. They have too many members who want to maintain tyrannies.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
oh my.
ok - if we are capable of attempting...are we also capable of succeeding? in the case of iraq sounds like the cure was worse than the ailment.
furthermore we have been more than guilty of countenancing and even abetting tyranny in our geopolitical/economic interest as evinced by our toppling of democratically elected leaders such as allede, mossadegh, and arbenz in favor of pliable tyrants in the past ourselves.
the hubritic patriotic ignorance of the average american to the unpatriotic truth of our foriegn policy is remarkable.
to proactively counter the aspersion that i'm just a grumbling, negativist lefty america hater, let me just say...america has indeed done great good from time to time and there is nothing wrong with looking out for our best interests...
but first - not seeing our mistakes and transgressions is foolish and enables the same.
and second - when you find yourself in a hole - admit it and stop digging.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2008 @ 1:02pm
The NYTimes today has an interesting piece on NYU economist who has called it right for some years ... all by himself.
The forecast: unavoidable, inevitable decline, thanks to US policies & interests now firmly in place.
So the real Q isn't who's leading in the latest US summer poll, or who's whose VP choice ... but how does the US handle decline?
Like a cornered rat?
Or more rationally, more shrewdly?
This is the challenge for future US presidents & Congresses.
Preparing the US for the least hard landing possible.
Not a happy choice for the We're Number One faithful.
Posted by sloper at 08/18/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:23am
This SHIFTING RATIONALE for invading countries - from WMD, creating democracy, to freeing people from "backward' religions - is absolutely ridiculous.
What if some Islamic country said it was OK to invade America to "free Americans from materialism and greed"?
You simply can't impose through force your values as a country on other nations. This is what the colonial powers did, and you are essentially arguing for neo-colonialism in which America will colonize the rest of the world in its own image.
This attitude is VERY OFFENSIVE to other nations as it completely disrespects thousands of years of culture and tradition.
How about this, LVL, if "freeing the Iraqi people" is the latest rationale for invading Iraq, why don't we respect the will of the vast majority of Iraqi people and get the hell out of their country?
Posted by Metteyya at 08/18/2008 @ 2:49pm
Terrorism has been a part of Islam since it's inception and will continue regardless of whether the US has a military or not----Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:12am
So if terrorism is a part of historic Islam... we're going to have to kill every Muslim....unless they all become "Unitarian Muslims", right?
(BTW, backpedalling may become a new Olympic sport, Larry. You should try out!)
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 10:29am
As long as a percentage of Muslims (whether that is 10% or 50%) continue to hold to these beliefs, their war of jihad will continue whether or not you liberals want it or agree with it.
Despite the rhetoric by many on the left, this is not a war of choice. It has been thrust upon the world by these jihadists, and they have no desire to cease from it.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:10pm
Not to jump to conclusions, but wonder if LL will show back up on this thread?
Or if he will, will he answer DIRECTLY the questions asked by me or others...especially concerning his view of the "inception of Islam" and how that fits his claim that he (and those like him) want to 'bring freedom and democracy' to people...
who have a religion that LL thinks is based on terrorism?!?!??
(BTW, to others, it's the classic paradox the neo-cons, especially Christian fundy neo-cons, put themselves in...at the same time, they attack Islam as a religion of violence (in accordance with their fundamentalist views) but they also claim that "their way" is bringing freedom and democracy to people whose religion they insult and BY THEIR OWN CLAIMS about it, the people who adher to it are INCAPABLE of freedom and democracy.
of course, they don't see that contradiction or try to backpedal away from their previous statements when confounded with it.)
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 3:14pm
LvLiberty-If we had gone into Iraq in order to free Iraqis then we would not have invited jihadists to come there and kill Iraqis so we can fight them there instead of here.We had,as always,pragmatic reasons for attacking Iraq that had nothing to do with the battle cry of freedom for Iraqis.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2008 @ 3:32pm
>>>Despite the rhetoric by many on the left, this is not a war of choice. It has been thrust upon the world by these jihadists, and they have no desire to cease from it.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:10pm<<<
So you believe America is in some sort of "HOLY WAR" with Islam? Some sort of NEW CRUSADE?
Well what would your Jesus Christ have to say about that, LVL? Don't love your neighbors like you would love yourself, KILL THEM UNLESS THEY BELIEVE AS YOU DO!
This is the irony with fundamentalist Christians - they believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, but shit all over his Commandments, including The Greatest Commandment concerning loving your neighbors.
The classic case of this hypocrisy was a video I saw of an Afghani who was supposed to be cheering for the freedom America has given him by routing the Taliban. He was holding up a pornographic card of a naked women while exclaiming, "I am now free".
I wonder what Jesus would have thought about this new found "freedom" brought about by "Christian" liberators in his name?
Posted by Metteyya at 08/18/2008 @ 3:39pm
Gotta say my favorite RIO BLABBO/RED SOVINE post is still this one-
"Obama "Can" Govern as a Progressive" No arguement with that statement as the his policies should resemble those of the "third reich" and "totalitarian communism" which are embrace by the highly selective authoritative minority rule so favored by "regressives"!
The only questions any voter should have is "Who gets to play the part of the Jews and other society undesirables this time around?" Maybe conservatives and christians?"----Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/28/2008 @ 4:20pm
Where he claims Obama will be Hitler AND Stalin and the poor outnumbered "conservatives and christians" get rounded up!
ROFLMAO!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 4:30pm
Although most RIO/RED posts can be summed up with...
" "Grrrrr....arrrghhh.... "Demoncrats"....mnnnhhharr... rrrarllrgarl...."Alibama".....mrrrghhhhrr..... dddrrraaggglll.... "secular regressives" .....mmarrrrrh....grrrrrrrrrr...... slather...drool...."Hillary Rotten (Satan's favorite daughter)..... grrrrrrrrr.....arrrggghhhh.... "I'm an independent!"
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 4:32pm
I'm still amazed every day that I find one of these people actually exist. It's like finding out Santa Clause is real, if Santa Clause ate children.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/18/2008 @ 5:43pm
Ali Bush and The Seven Thieves?
1: Scooter Libby
2: David Savafian
3: Lester Crawford
4: Brian Doyle
5: Claude Allen
6: john Korsmo
7: Achmed Chalibi
Could we have known this would happen?
Ali Bush's Convicted Felons hired early on;
1: John Poindexter; Poindexter was convicted in 1990 on five felony charges of conspiracy, making false statements to Congress and obstructing congressional inquiries.
2: Elliot Abrams; Abrams pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress
Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2008 @ 6:00pm
Hee heee
Reagan! haha!!
Yep, he really showed Iran and those Syrians by pulling out of Lebanon. And boy oh boy, did he show Qaddafi the back of the US hand. Till Chimpy started using Rio's tax money to fund Qaddafis country.
gosh, if only Reagan had invaded Iraq in 1984, instead of supporting the Islamic radical group Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, we would have been safe from Terrorism forever. I think Reagan called them "freedom fighters".
but, no...wait... that might mean that one Reagans freedom fighter is another Bush's terrorist!
bzzzztt.... bzzz....neo-conundrum....
Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2008 @ 6:13pm
"History teaches that hard choices deferred - appeasing Hitler, choosing not to deter Saddam Hussein in 1990, failing to act sooner against al Qaeda - often bring about the very circumstances we wished to avoid by deferring action, requiring us to react in freedom's defense."
John McCain's Senate floor speech on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq Resolution, delivered on October 10, 2002
Unless, of course, they are your largest ally in the "coalition of the willing" then ignore and desert them completely...since their oil doesn't come directly here....fairweather friends....mcbush's straight-talk express....bs
Posted by jrs112 at 08/18/2008 @ 6:22pm
mcbush...restarting the Cold War for the next generation.......so they can be paupers like the last generation....sacrifice for the rich...that is mcbush's motto!!!!!
Posted by jrs112 at 08/18/2008 @ 6:24pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:10pm
Well, wait a minute LVLIB...is it 10% or 50%? Pretty wide range there.
See, here's where you start getting "vague". You (and I) KNOW the answer you REALLY want to give.
After all, if AS YOU SAID, Islam had terrorism as part of it since its inception....that figure should be pretty high.
But if you claim that, you instantly announce that 500 MILLION PEOPLE are "likely terrorists" and since you have ONLY one option for dealing with them...i.e. a smart bomb or maybe something more "clustery"....
it means you have to kill half a billion people. Or is it just 10 million (10% of Islam)?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 7:09pm
BTW, what does it say about McCain's "leadership"...
that he has to wait to see "what kind" of Veep OBAMA picks, before picking his?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 8:18pm
Is FG so delusional he actually thinks anybody here respects his opinion enough now to be "educated" by him...or was he just trying to be funny???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 09:27am
delusional.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:52pm
That however has nothing to do with the fact that we've poured all these resources and manpower into the conflict and we are at the verge of an important victory.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/17/2008 @ 8:58pm
The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event."
john mccain.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:54pm
Despite the rhetoric by many on the left, this is not a war of choice. It has been thrust upon the world by these jihadists, and they have no desire to cease from it.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 3:10pm
and where were all these jihadists say, 40 years ago.
why now?
why?
have you ever asked yourself "why"?
why?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:56pm
when the commies were going to eat your children you never even heard of "jihadists".
but now that the commies make your tupperware, you've had to find a new target for your fear.
fear.
fear fear.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:57pm
What if some Islamic country said it was OK to invade America to "free Americans from materialism and greed"?
Posted by Metteyya at 08/18/2008 @ 2:49pm
!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 8:58pm
What if some Islamic country said it was OK to invade America to "free Americans from materialism and greed"?
Posted by Metteyya at 08/18/2008 @ 2:49pm
i think the current account deficit will take care of that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 9:01pm
Reagan is indeed the model as he set the standard for belief in the role of the US in bringing freedom to the world. The US and the world would certainly benefit from the US having more leaders like Reagan in the future.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:23am
reagan did back room deals with iranian thugs in order to arm right wing thugs in central america.
is that your ideal?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 9:09pm
Reagan is indeed the model as he set the standard for belief in the role of the US in bringing freedom to the world. The US and the world would certainly benefit from the US having more leaders like Reagan in the future.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/18/2008 @ 10:23am
reagan doubled u.s. debt and increased the size of the bureaucracy.
a hero.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2008 @ 9:11pm
NEOCONS --- regulation bad, dominion good!
Domination
BombBombBombanation!
Jim Hensley was a bombardier
Dominion over fish, fowl.
Dominion over FIRST WIVES
He was injured and sent to a facility in West Virginia to recuperate. During that time, while still married to Mary Jeanne, Hensley met another woman -- Marguerite Smith. Jim divorced Mary Jeanne and married Marguerite in 1945.
Yep, in ARIZONA, Nicholas Portalski is a BROKE firefighter and emergency medical technician looking for work.
Wife's sis Cindy's written him off, and he's not even brown.
Posted by winyahn at 08/18/2008 @ 9:24pm
Wife's sis Cindy MCCAIN's written them off, and he's not even brown.
C'mon give 'em a handout, a house maybe? You'll still have 7.
Posted by winyahn at 08/18/2008 @ 9:28pm
NEOCON Cindy's Dad ditched wife 1
NEOCON Cindy's NEOCON hubby ditched wife 1
NEOCON Cindy ditched democrat sister 1
NEOCON CINDY SAYS SHES "AN ONLY CHILD"
Posted by winyahn at 08/18/2008 @ 9:37pm
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/18/2008 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well...
never thought about it like that!
how ya doing, you old evil excusing/decency smearing cuss?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2008 @ 9:58pm
the link you refer to makes no reference to where the attacks occurred, nor by whom the attacks were committed.
for example, the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 in 1976
or
the bombing of the montreal stock exchange in 1969
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 12:51am
Michelle Duclos is a resident of Quebec, Canada and a supporter of the Quebec sovereignty movement.
While employed as a performer on CFTM-TV in 1965, and a member of the Rassemblement pour l'Indépendance Nationale, she became involved in a plot to bomb the Statue of Liberty in collusion with the Black Liberation Front, a militant Black Power group based in Harlem.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 01:16am
Thomas "Tommy" Bernard Clark Brigham (d.1993) was an elderly American war veteran convicted of planting a bomb in Central Station in Montréal, Canada on September 3 1984, killing three French tourists and injuring 30–47 other people. He was widely believed to be protesting Pope John Paul II's impending visit to Canada later that week, although he said that he had nothing against the Pope because was "going to be our ambassador against the Communists".
see, rio?
it's not islam. it's people.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 01:17am
said Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and foreign policy adviser to the Obama campaign who has hosted dinner parties for Mr. Saakashvili in Washington.
great.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 01:33am
They were very busy little boys and girls! Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/18/2008 @ 11:05pm |
Let us apply this standard to the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
so, RioKoresh, bring your pillow, you could be the next big winner in Git-mo-fear!
[Army of God In 1998, letters were sent to news organizations and law enforcement claiming the Army of God carried out several of the attacks attributed to Eric Rudolph. The Army of God is considered a violent offshoot of Christian Identity[citation needed], a white supremacist religion considered anti-gay, anti- Semitic and anti-foreigner. An independent group utilizing a sort of leaderless resistance, not really an organization which holds meetings and large numbers of subscribers, the Army of God dates back more than 20 years and is linked to an underground movement whose members are trained to evade surveillance and to use violence as a method of protest including opposition to abortion.[8][9] Army of God members have records associated with numerous acts of violence including bombings, shootings, and killings.[10] The Army of God is an anti-abortion terrorist organization which holds that their activity is lawful and theologically justified: using deadly force to end abortion in the United States.[11] In 1985 Rev. Mike Bray, the "chaplain" of the Army of God,[12] was convicted of destroying seven abortion facilities in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, causing damages of over $1 million. Rev. Paul Hill, an associate of the Army of God, shot and killed Dr. John Britton in Pensacola, Florida in 1994.[13]:11 James Kopp, a member of the Army of God, shot and killed Dr. Barnett Slepian in 1998.[14] In 2001, at the height of the United States anthrax scare, more than 170 abortion clin
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 07:43am
In 2001, at the height of the United States anthrax scare, more than 170 abortion clinics and doctors offices in 14 states received letters containing white powder and the message "You have been exposed to anthrax. We are going to kill all of you. Army of God, Virginia DARE Chapter."[15] In December 2003 Clayton Waagner was convicted for these attacks.[12] Waagner had entered the home of antiabortion militant Neal Horsley, tied him up and held him at gunpoint, and then made a taped confession. Ann Glazier, director of clinic security at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that during the trial Waagner had "repeatedly bragged that he had been the most wanted man in America and that he was a terrorist. It was unbelievable."[12] Salon magazine reported that whilst the press had generally called Waagner a terrorist, they "studiously avoid use of the word 'Christian'".[12] Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, said "If Waagner had been a self-identified Muslim terrorist instead of a Christian terrorist, he'd have been lynched by now...But if it's fair to say if we can see the religious motivations in the Taliban, we ought to be able to see them in Waagner or Eric Rudolph.
...according to records compiled over a period of twelve years by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and besieged clinics which included 123 cases of arson, 37 bombings in 33 states, and more than 1,500 cases of stalking, assault, sabotage and burglary, a large portion of staff time was devoted to routine women's reproductive health care - pap smears, teaching and supplying birth control methods, and treating sexually transmitted diseases – not to abortions. Some of the clinics targeted did not provide abortion services but were subjected to violence
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 07:49am
Tsar Lazar Guard The Tsar Lazar Guard is the paramilitary wing of the Movement of Veterans of Serbia. Its president Željko Vasiljevi? called it the "first uniformed Christian militia squad, comprised of war veterans from all over Serbia".[78] The group was officially formed at a swearing in ceremony at the Lazarica Church in Kruševac on 5 May 2007. The group is said to have 5000 troops.[79] The United Nations and NATO have classed Tsar Lazar's Guard as a terrorist group.[79] Tsar Lazar's Guard threatened to attack United Nations and NATO troops if Kosovo declared independence, and have stated their desire to detonate a nuclear bomb in Kosovo
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 08:01am
Albigensian Crusade, 1208 Jonathan Barker cited the Albigensian Crusade, launched by Pope Innocent III against followers of Catharism, as an example of Christian state terrorism.[100] The 20 year military campaign led to an estimated 1 million casualties.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 08:04am
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/18/2008 @ 11:05pm
Wonder how Red/RIO classifies all the stuff done by....
the Klan....
well before anybody ever heard of an "Islamo-fascist"???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/19/2008 @ 09:16am
Tsar Lazar Guard is almost twice as large as AQ.
Certainly that calls for a new Gulag in Sweden/Cuba!
Posted by crabwalk at 08/19/2008 @ 10:21am
It took Senator McCain several years to figure out that Rumsfeld had to go after he had pushed for the war with Iraq. It took him 25 (?) years to ascertain that it was proper to have a MLK holiday. Had he listened to Congressman Lewis 25 years ago he could have been right on Civil Rights sooner. We don't have 25 years to wait for Senator McCain to learn that his first instincts aren't always right.
Posted by lindabahlman at 08/19/2008 @ 3:23pm
McCain is an interesting war hero, possibly marking a bit of a shift in ideas of heroism. He wasn't an Ace flier, shooting down a number of enemy planes (North Vietnam and the NLF didn't have much in the way of air power). Nor do we hear of the SAM sites McCain took out or the bridges or factories he destroyed. Briefly, we don't hear about the harm McCain inflicted upon the Vietnamese--not in apology, not as a boast--but what he suffered and endured. So McCain's heroism is in the tradition of the Hero, but a little marginal. Gen. George S. Patton reminded his troops that their job wasn't to die for their country but "to make some other poor son of a bitch die for his": more generally, not to suffer harm but to inflict it has been the job of the military hero, the conqueror. Tragic heroes suffer, feminine heroes, martyrs, Christians imitating Christ. McCain in Hanoi did act bravely and followed part of the Heroic tradition. Still, it is odd if he's celebrated by the macho sorts who admire Gen. Patton, if they've heard of Patton: macho heroes "don't take no shit"; McCain took a lot of shit.
Posted by ErlichRD at 08/19/2008 @ 5:00pm
Apparently this anus like Kerry's style of killing Vietnamese better. What a hypocrite.
Posted by ReverendWrithe at 08/19/2008 @ 5:09pm
When last Saturday at Rick Warren's church McCain was too quick to candidly confess that his "greatest moral failing" had to do with his affair with his current wife while still married to his first wife (a wife who waited years for his return from Vietnam?) his confession speaks volumes about the soul (or the lack of soul) of McCain-- a man who was thrilled to bomb, napalm and strafe Southeast Asian peoples in the daytime and drink it up in Saigon in the nighttime or whenever possible. Besides employment with US Navy terrorUSt$ and the US Senate militarUSt$ has the forgery of a soul known as John McCain ever had any other occupation?
Posted by mcgregor at 08/20/2008 @ 03:24am
everytime mccain says he doesn't know about something, he "surges"...i.e. the economy, mcbush flat out stated he knows nothing about the economy on meet the press and face the nation, yet now he is "surging" on MSM polls such as CNN, because of economic fears resulting from eight bush years, so now people would like more of the same, since it apparently hasn't gotten bad enough....
please anybody explain the mental processes (or lack thereof) to explain this disconnect...for an informed voter, it is mind-boggling that people would be so gullible and it affects all of us, intellectually curious americans who know our current empire-building experiment is a failure and has to change as well as Cold War era mental midgets such as bush/mcbush....
stop this madness america......
Posted by jrs112 at 08/20/2008 @ 09:55am