« What's new? Nothing. | Main | Holiday time »

May 27, 2004


Dr. Pants

Great website...I'll be visiting more often!!


meanwhile, former Commander-in-Chief of US Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni says:

"And what we have become in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world."

Sadly, this was yet another of my pre-war predictions.


Osama could not have wished for a more incompetent president to help further his own manical cause. The ISS estimates about 18,000 al-Qaeda members and growing steadily because of our freak Middle East policy. The men that blew up the UK Embassy in Turkey in November specifically pointed out that they did it because of the Iraq war.

Thanks for saving me from terrorism, Dubya.


WOW. Has anybody else seen this?



holy cow! guess W's house of cards is collapsing on all fronts now. I guess with the Tories now more popular than Labour, Tony Bliar was finally to do something other than kiss W's ass.
As for Perle, I don't know what to make of him. All of a sudden, reality hits him deadsquare in the face. I must give him credit for being man enough to admit it this time around. But that guy can still _______ (fill in the blank.) He's the one that lied over and over to get us to fight in Iraq. Thanks a bunch.


At least the Iraqi people understand the principle of Forgiveness and understanding.


Gore would be well advised to look at the example
of the Iraqi people rather than going off on a
mindless rant ala Howard Dean. But then that ranting only shows how Liberals will politicize anything for their own purposes and gain.


Chrish, have you been reading a lot of Anne Coulter lately? You used to have valid points to make but have descended into namecalling and baiting. I thought we'd moved past all that.


And on a side note, did you actually read that article you linked to?? Speaking of politicizing everything...it's interesting that only a liberal hotbed like the BBC would print a story about how Al Sadr's followers aren't "evildoers" and "terrorists"--they're poor, dispossesed citizens who have nothing to gain from the US occupation. There's a viewpoint the Bush administration would NEVER admit.


Yes Maryann,

I did read the article and yes I am aware what
Sadr's forces are made up of. Did you read the article? The point is while many were busying about making a really really big issue of the prisoner abuses, not that they aren't a big issue, and Gore's tirade ala Howard Dean the Iraqi's seem to have a better grasp of what
forgiveness and understanding are all about. Apparently you either missed or chose to ignore that point.

No, I have not read Coulter's books and have no interest in reading them anymore than I have an interest in reading her counterparts books. It's right wing vs left wing rhetoric.

And on a side note Maryann, it seems many of you have no problem doing the bait and switch thing,
the name calling but can't handle it when it's returned in kind. More of that double standard?

Be more than happy to return to valid points and
drop the baiting and name calling if it's returned in kind.

Are you of the opinion that Gore's ranting was perfectly acceptable and had a dignified presentation? Perhaps all politician's should behave in that manner?


OK, great, the Iraqis are forgiving people. Good to note.

Actually I didn't see the speech. The press here didn't really cover it (or if they did I missed the broadcast). The transcript looks pretty right on though. Who was Gore supposed to be forgiving, Bush? You lost me there.


The text of his speech doesn't present the manner in which Gore gave it so there's no point in continuing. Besides, your post speaks for itself,
thank you very much....


I read the article that you linked to Chrish and I have no idea what you're talking about. Exactly where does it talk about Iraqis forgiving and how does this relate to Gore?

Also, I think it's incredibly lame to say that ranting and raving is the sole expertise of liberals. Conservatives are at least equally adept at ranting and raving. The problem in this instance is that the liberals have a lot of legitimate complaints!

The occupation is a disaster in lives cost, money, purpose, American credibility, and has probably created more terrorists than we've been able to kill. The only winners are the corporations that got millions in Iraqi contracts. If you were risking your life over there and your leaders were clueless, wouldn't you be a bit peeved?

Consider the link below... the Bush campaign either misleads and sometimes outright lies every time they open their mouths. Kerry has been prone to some exaggeration himself, but it's completely lopsided. I've heard the "Kerry proposed a 50 cent increase in gas tax" line so many times from the Bush campaign and can't believe they have the gall to leave out that he voted for this increase 10 years ago.



First, my apologies to Maryann for my response
as I was under the impression she hadn't read
the link I was referring to; I am sorry Maryann. The problem was I had inserted the incorrect link... Here's the link I was referring to:

Secondly Jeff, yes I do consider Gore's tirade a rant just as much as I consider those on the conservative side who also go into a tirade as ranting..

Let me see if I understand you correctly, on the one hand Bush lies and on the other hand Kerry is
only "prone to some exaggeration"? Why don't you say it like it is they both lie? Besides, that's all politics and everybody knows both sides lie, both sides exaggerate, both sides mix the truth with lies. So what's so new about that? Unprecented? Please, these days everything with the news media is unprecedented, mind boggling, or the most incredulous thing to happen in the history of mankind. And they all have their line of "experts" or "unnamed sources" to tell us just how incredulous the whole thing is in the history of mankind... It's called Sensationalism. You know what I'm talking about. They come on the telly to tell us about some God awful storm of truly Biblical proportion and label it as "S T O R M W A T C H 2004" with all kinds of end of the world graphics. They then turn to some fool out in the field standing next to some waterless creek telling us how it's empty now, it's beginning to drizzle, and how that empty creek is going to turn into a raging wall of unstoppable water. The drizzle stops and "S T O R M W A T C H 2004" is over.... Sensationalism...


wow! Thanks for the link, Jeff. That is really quite extraordinary. Especially since it was the same people who assailed Dean for being so negative.

There is an old saying: "The thing about being on top is that everyone else is always trying to bring you down."
While Kerry is far from being on top, Bush is realizing that he is not on top either and this temper tantrum he and his campaign are throwing are just indicative of how panicky and paranoid they are. Oh well, let them be as negative as they want - it will only turn people off.

Way I see it, Bush has maxed has reached the maximum limit of his popularity - he has nowhere to go from here but down. Kerry on the other hand, still has more potential voters. There are those for Kucinich and Sharpton, who I suspect, will drop out of the race and endorse Kerry before election. Then there are the large number of Dean supporters who have not yet decided if they will vote Kerry or not at all. One thing is for sure, they are not voting Bush. Finally, there is always hope that Nader will do the right thing. So I think that while Bush will hardly get many more voters his way, Kerry still can. And that is what is freaking the Reps out so much. All of this without Kerry even naming his VP yet.


"he has nowhere to go from here but down", yep J.J
he, quite possibly, could also go back up.



I really don't think in these polls that are being taken that some of the possible answers are: Kucinich, Sharpton or Dean. They all may not have officially dropped out, but I think everyone else knows they're done.


Well, Chrish, you're right about one thing, both sides lie or mislead. But I think in hotly contested political battles, this is probably unavoidable (though I would love to see a candidate who is above this type of thing).

However, it is incredible to see the Bush team lying its ass off all the time, particularly on non-Kerry issues. They lied about alumnimum tubes and uranium. They outed Valerie Plume, General Shinseki, and anybody else who brought up now valid criticisms (including Hans Blix). They won't let Americans see pictures of caskets being brought home, supposedly for the privacy of families, when it's to stop us from feeling that Americans are actually dying.

They flew Bush onto an aircraft by fighter jet and lied that the carrier was out of chopper range. They were forced to admit that Saddam has no link with Osama, but somehow every speech links Iraq and the fight against terror (not mentioning that this was caused byour invasion). Hell, they opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission and refused to testify before it until the public demanded it. They even made up stuff about Jessica Lynch's rescue to dramatize it before she came back and said it was false.

As far as media sensationalism, we're all used to that, but look at the stuff that's not sensationalized. No WMD have been found, thus the whole pre-war justification is gone. Our troops are being met with bullets and bombs, not roses... 800 sons and daughters are gone. The blood of probably 20,000+ Iraqis, most of whom were completely innocent is on our hands. The people of Arab nations now hate us so much that they're killing their own people to try and get to us. After the fall of Baghdad, we flew in Chalabi complete with armed posse after paying his group $100 million for defective intelligence, now we raid his office because he's an Iranian spy. On top of all this, the new government of Afghanistan is still very fragile, not a surprise since we've paid them very little attention.

I think your Stormwatch has it backwards. There wasn't supposed to be any and we were supposed to be fighting a just war that vindicate us in front of doubtful nations. It's been just the opposite and if the continuing deaths of Americans and Iraqis isn't a raging storm, then I don't know what is.



My reference to the stormwatch thing was the sensationalism that the news media, here in the US. They were used for a time whenever an alleged huge storm was coming. Really played it up big time. Incidentally my reference to the fool reporter standing by an empty creek with a little drizzle actally happened. I believe that one was called "S T O R M W A T C H 1 9 9 8" or something like that.

The killing of Iraqi's by those so called insurgents and terrorists is for the sole purpose of preventing this handover from occurring or being successful. Their tactics didn't work on the US-led coalition so now they've turned on the Iraqi people to frighten and terrorize them. That's what they do, that's all they know how to do, that's their sole reason and intent; to inflict harm, fear, and terror. How else do you suppose one would subdue a people, or country?
Murder, Fear, and Terror. How else do you think a group like Al Qaeda could coexist with a group like the Taliban? How else would a group like the Taliban coexist with Al Qaeda even to the point of not giving into our demands? They both
existed and survived on Murder, Fear, and Terror.

It's the same tactics that were used in South America by those mongrel dogs WE put in power to Our ever lasting shame. Remember them? They weren't called terrorists they were called Death Squads. Bautista, Somosa, Noriega, and the list goes on.

My hope and prayer is that this handover is successful. That the Govt. of Iraq will rise from the ashes and stand on their own two feet
and the sooner the better. I don't really give a rats rearend about Bush, Kerry, Nader, nor the upcoming elections I am hoping and praying for the Iraqi people's sake the handover is a complete success. Everything else is irrelevant at this point in time.

As regards the landing on the carrier, the lucky bastard... I served aboard a carrier during Nam
and you have no idea how much I had wished, dreamt, and hoped for an opportunity to land and fly off the deck of that ship.... I would have given a year's pay for that opportunity; the luck bastard...

I believe we have found one thing in common Jeff.
Political candidates who would sit down and really tell the truth but, then the news media wouldn't report on it because there would be nothing to sensationalize. We dumb ass American's would stop listening because there wouldn't be anything juicy, scandalous, or senstional.... Is that a Catch 22 thing?

This one's for Chrish

This one's for Chrish:




I guess we are in agreement on a lot of issues, except for one. You assert that the killing of Iraqis by insurgents and terrorists is for the sole purpose of preventing this handover from working. Are you sure? Fact is, I don't think anyone is sure of what the purpose is or who these people even are. Every general that is quoted about this seems to say that they don't know who they're fighting.

Bush wants us to believe that they are ex-Saddam supporters and foreign fighters... anybody but ordinary Iraqis, but why should we take his word for it when his generals say they don't know who these people are? For sure we know that Sadr and the al-Medhi army are neither foreign fighters or former regime powers. Why is he against us and why does he have enough of a following to prevent our very powerful army from just rolling over him?

I think there are a host of other reasons other than the ones that you propose for attacking either the U.S. or killing ordinary Iraqi people. For one, we're occupiers right now and many equate our actions with Israel's occupation, particularly since we side with them at every turn. If we felt that someone was going to occupy us indefinitely and turn us into Palestine, would you not fight them?

Another obvious reason... the war killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, not just now, but also in the first Gulf War. If your parents had been killed by U.S. bombs, might you not consider getting revenge any way that you could? The way you and the Bushies put it, terrorists are just formed out of thin air with the inherent motive to inflict harm. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Virtually every single time that westerners have invaded foreign countries, it has been because of greed. What happened to those great Indian civilizations in the Americas? All are virtually gone. In Asia, most countries have been occupied by western powers and same goes for Africa. Specifically with the middle east, there were several religious crusades. We have to go out of the way to prove that we're different and so far we've done a horrible job.

One last thing... attacking our troops is in fact working. Support for the war and for Bush is at an all-time low. Of course, I'm sure the insurgents want more, but getting American people feeling like our troops should come home and vote Bush out of office is a start.


Jeff, your support for the attacks on the American troops is so sad. Why don't we wipe out Sadr? Because despite what you might think, we'd like to limit killing of innocents and destroyint holy sites - which is why they hide in them.


Cold war follow-up:



Jim, I really resent these wildly off base accusations of yours. Where the hell do I even remotely imply that I support attacks on American troops. Two of my friends are out there in the field. Do you think I want them to die? If that's the kind of rhetoric you come up with instead of coming up with rational arguments to support your views, then you are not worth any time to talk to.


Jim, I really resent these wildly off base accusations of yours. Where the hell do I even remotely imply that I support attacks on American troops? Two of my friends are out there in the field. Do you think I want them to die? If that's the kind of rhetoric you come up with instead of coming up with rational arguments to support your views, then you are not worth any time to talk to.


Oops, hit the post button twice... one more thing, Jim, I suppose the people who attack us are simply evil. They must be evil because we're so obviously good. It doesn't matter why our troops are being attacked and you don't care to ask, do you?

As for why we don't crush Sadr, some of it is to prevent innocent deaths (though that didn't stop us during shock and awe), but even more is that killing him would draw even more to his cause. He's the son of the former Grand Ayatollah, who not only held the top cleric position, but was very popular for his opposition (and resulting death) from opposing Saddam. But this sort of analysis is just beyond you, isn't it Jim?

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003