I certainly wouldn't expect it in interrogating the terrorists. None of them speak Spanish.

Meanwhile, the scoreboard says we're still catching major players among the terrs, and it's six years and counting since the terrs have achieved any strike anywhere in the United States. Gives a guy some reason to trust the US government over the johnny-one-sour-note naysaying natterers like tw.

I hate this argument, we don't know if Bush's policies helped or hurt because we have nothing to base it off of. It wasn't like we were getting repeated terrorist attacks before 9/11 and Bush stopped them all.

And if you count external attacks, like the Cole, they are now an everyday occurance in Iraq.

Straw man points.

I think I will just make my points via the method I choose.

Name all those terrorists caught trying to attack the US? All zero of them. Wacko extremists are so quick to post half facts. Wacko extremists would also forget another fact. Since 11 September, US government agents are no longer stifled by the George Jr administration. Suddenly Federal agents are permitted to "conduct a criminal investigation"? An exact phrase used by George Jr management to stifle a Federal investigation into 11 September before 11 September. UG routinely ‘forgets’ what does not fit in his political agenda.

Name all those terrorists held in Guantanamo or other secret American concentration camps? Or should we forget hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, held without judicial review for years then released to freedom, who were 100% innocent. UG and other extremists routinely forget facts. If in an American concentration camp, then they must be as guilty as Hitler's Jews. That is the UG mindset – he is that scary.

No wonder those Dominos fell in Southeast Asia. Anything is possible when we rewrite history for a political agenda.

This posted to benefit new Cellar dwellers. Long time residents know UG rationalizes to protect extremism. He conveniently forgets why so many Federal investigations were quashed by the George Jr administration who still was fighting the Cold War and who even tried to create war with China over a silly spy plane.

If one is an immigrant here to pick the crops - and 53% of those farm workers we so desperately need are illegal immigrants - then UG also labels them as terrorists. More wacko extremism. This same UG mentality would justify the Holocaust – and Guantanamo. Wacko extremists are that dangerous. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects one to rewrite history even to justify torture. Others like UG also advocate torture - and love when torture is used on ‘evil’ people. UG is typical of George Jr supporters. Almost 30% so hardcore as to hate this country - to know using a political agenda rather than first learning facts. UG was not the only Cellar dweller who openly approved of torture – and American concentration camps. But others are smart enough to now stay silent.

Iraq was not a threat to anyone. In 2004, 26,500 attacks on Americans only by terrorists - not by patriotic Iraqis? In 2005, 34,000 attacks on American invaders - only by terrorists? According to UG, only terrorists who would otherwise attack North America are responsible for all those attacks. Funny how those 34,000 instead are too stupid to cross the Atlantic. More wacko extremist rhetoric that even worships torture. More wacko rationalization that somehow knows torture provides useful information - when reality says otherwise. After all, Hitler used it in his concentration camps. According to UG, torture must be good.

Fair number of falsehoods there tw. You should really try to stick to facts to make your arguments. In that rant you failed.

Not yet. Urbane Guerrilla has not yet published a history book with those necessary corrections.

Which was NOT the point made: namely that they couldn't get any done.
As is naturally evidenced by their resident king. Or are you so quick to forget that half-truth you were peddling about the C-130J, tw? Fortunately, those of us blessed with normal memory may humiliate you continuously on that point, you ignorant slut.

As a devout Communist (never denied nor refuted, just tacitly accepted -- in view of the evidence, you could do no other, except perhaps to explicitly acknowledge Communist beliefs), you do not and cannot possibly expect anyone to accord you a superior moral position. You cannot take any position here except the immoral and the antipatriotic, because that is what you are at the core of your being, tw. I can see this, and it's hardly invisible to anyone else who has exposure to your posts. You clearly have no accurate idea of my mindset in any case; I'd say I frighten you chiefly through having no fascistocommunist sympathies whatever. I am thus a friend to mankind, and you, it seems, bitterly hate me for it -- and for being thereby so much better a man than your miserable, half-truth-peddling, low-ethics, pravda-hagridden self. I could keep stringing adjectives about your antipatriot mentality from here to the moon; they would all voice disapproval and condemnation.

The argument that the de facto if not de jure -- it's not made much difference in their treatment that I can see -- POWs in Guantanamo are getting a raw deal because they aren't being criminally tried appeals only to the specious minds, or to the treacherous "America must at all costs lose the war" set. I belong to neither group: no one possessed of anything like ethics charges POWs with crimes, nor tries them. The ethics-challenged Communist North Vietnamese did try criminalizing POWs -- without trials, at that. Even they could not sustain such a charade, nor the international obloquy that would have been the result. Only a mind as delusional as yours, tw, would have accepted such a thing. Frankly, bub, outpatient therapy would perhaps be helpful in your case: why is it you never manage an idee-fixe that is factual?

"Concentration camps," is it? First concentration camp I've ever heard of where the prisoners put on between eight and fifteen pounds in their first year, I must say. This kind of hysteric misuse of the language clearly indicates an intent to lie, and if caught in the lie, to lie harder. Well, tw, that's why you're an idiot, isn't it? You think you can fool somebody this way. Okay, I know one person you've fooled, and I'm writing, well, at him now. No truth nor enlightenment I have penetrates tw's skull, for he is a wacko extremist and prefers that state to anything an objective observer would say is right. However, everyone else around can draw back from tw and mock him for his insistent and obdurate delusion.

This odd capitalization suggests the ruination of a chain of pizza parlors.

Tw's powers of psychological projection are clearly on display.

A threat of war over the EP-3 collision with a J-811M and subsequent forced landing on Hainan existed only in tw's brain. There is no evidence it emerged anywhere else. It's not been US policy to rattle the sabers over even spy planes shot down over China, and that was active, hostile use of munitions: a good handful of Taiwanese-flown U-2s were shot down before Taiwan gave up the program. More than five, fewer than twelve, if memory serves.

But try telling tw any of this. Tw, dear, the reason you have no balls is because you're hip deep in de Nile, and de crocs took 'em off one at a time because you're a slow learner.

Nope. Not a fact. I've had very very little to say about illegal immigrants, as a search of my posts will show, and a search of tw's fallible memory will not.

In that we understand what a foreign policy should look like, yes. Put simply, not what the Clinton Administration wasted national time and substance doing. Whatever the freckles and warts on the program, Iraq among other places seems to me to be evolving its way out of the Barnettian Gap -- tw tried twitting me about studying Barnett's writing on occasion and is now obliged to be silent on the subject -- and that is what is wanted, however early and tentative and stumbling the steps of this evolution may be.

Tw never actually approves of our doing anything that might actually win us the fight. This is active antipatriotism. He can't even answer the simple question Tw, do you want America to win? The question, asked repeatedly in other threads in Current Events and Politics, hangs tw on the horns of an exquisite dilemma: to reply in accordance with his inclinations would cause every American in the Cellar to turn on him in a fury, while to reply according to what he might think I want to hear would be to dissemble. It's an example of damned foolishness to have gotten into that position. All he can do is pretend he's missed it. Somebody whose forebrain is in better shape than his might essay a "Yes, but..." sort of answer -- but figure the odds here!

Except our friends in the Gulf region like Kuwait, likely eventually Bahrain, and (however qualified) Saudi Arabia, and our friends in Europe, which is practically everybody there. Europe gets quite a lot of its oil from Iraqi sources, and Saddam embarked on two wars clearly in pursuit of petroleum hegemony and the enhanced petroleum revenues that went with it, as a way of covering staggering government debt, with options fading month by month.

We've said since Kissinger that it was a pity that both Ba'athist Iraq and the Iranian mullahs couldn't lose the Iran-Iraq war. Barring this absolute success, we were pleased enough to see that Iran got bled into a weakened condition. Half a loaf...

A tw with a strawman argument, invented by himself that he may the more readily destroy it, is I suppose a happy tw. But then, it is hard to read happiness in tw's prose; it is usually written in a tone of feverish delusiveness and dyspepsia.

The fact is, tw has said far more about this than I have, as a search of our respective postings will show.

Let the record show it's been two solid weeks since I demanded a source from tw, and he's had four postings in which he might have cited his source.

Nothing.

Hah. Tw, you're still a delusional idiot, and your arguments fail. I dance a jig on your limp Communist penis, you mental maladroit.

ok, that was another joke right?

No.

Tw's communist beliefs and general mental defectiveness are a blot on the Cellar.

The dance continues, as an expression of the revenge of the West upon that which was the ruin of the East.

I don't think tw is a communist. Not even his penis...although that's an interesting thought. He does have a weird view of some things though.

I thought the man was just plain weird myself -- until I noticed his pattern: he sounds exactly like Soviet press releases about US foreign policy back in the day. He sounds exactly like the sort of thing the very Sovietized Sandinistas said about US policy in their day.

I have seen no particular in which he varies from the Communist Party line, particularly that of the sixties and the seventies, in any of the posts he indicates an opinion in.

Figuring tw for a Communist presents a more organized explanation of what you see from him in Politics and Current Events than mere perversity does. I've called him a Communist in public here, and received neither rebuttal nor disproof. I haven't even received reproof from him. I think he knows that I know.

His emotional shortcomings are quite another matter from his red-diaper-baby political tone: he's obsessive, delusional, driven by resentments, petty to a remarkable degree, and never fair when he thinks he can gain an advantage otherwise. If this man was ever married, it was brief. Can you imagine anyone tolerating a life partner of that temperament? Now he's up against someone of better character, much greater emotional maturity, higher ethics, of accomplishments he cannot aspire to, of some foreign experience, and who's wise to him. He'd love to find some way to make me look bad -- just like him -- but as long as he's constituted as he is, and I am constituted as I am, there is no hope of that either.

You're as bad as each other UG. Seriously. you cancel each other out. lol

And you sound like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity had a baby. So Ali's right, you cancel each other out.

But for the record... aside from TW's incredible use catch phrases and sound-bite-type speech patterns, I agree with 90% of what he says...

And communism isn't an insult, it's a form of gov't.

From the NY Times of 12 Oct 2007:
Which brings us right back to the Iraq Study Group - a comprehensive solution that required immediate action by most every part of the US Government. But that required an MBA and wacko extremists to even acknowledge a problem exists and is not being solved. Since so many even in the Cellar remained so quiet, well, now every "Mission Accomplished" alternative is even worse. Denial remains widespread. Just as during Nam, so many of us remain silent - tacitly support even worsing conditions. The overwhelming silence by the American public - Deja vue Nam.

George Jr got exactly what he wanted - just as Nixon did. He got the mess dumped on someone else's lap. George Jr does not care how many he murders as long as his legacy is protected. "Mission Accomplished" was not lost by George Jr.

Estimates now put "Mission Accomplished" at another 10 years. Even the most optimistic numbers are another 6 years. Less only if Americans wake up to the realities. We didn't in Nam because we let wacko extremist propaganda create fear - those mythical Dominos. We even invaded Cambodia and made that country unstable. How long before our wackos call for attacks on Iran or Syria? Deja vue Nam complete with so many even here who are unwilling to grasp the reality of not leaving now. That number well proven in history especially when the invading Army violates every principle of Military Science. At least with a withdrawal, Iraqis have 20 months to decide - or die - complete with the only way to minimize a disaster - the Iraq Study Group.

Stupidity is not limited to "Mission Accomplished". Did you notice today a fundamental warning from Russia that America is slowly pushing the world back into a Cold War? It was no mistake that Rice and Gates were left to sit on their ass for so long. It was a message right to you. Did you hear it?

A long list of top Generals from Iraq (10+ now?), retired, and now publically blame the mental midget administration. No way around these realities. He is making messes well beyond Iraq - and Urbane Guerrilla approves. Things are that bad.

The Marines may have found a way to get out of an unwinnable conflict. They are asking to be deployed only to Afghanistan. Remember that other war where Goerge Jr / Cheney et al all but protect bin Laden? So when are we going after bin Laden? Well at least the Marines will not be fighting where they cannot win.

"A nightmare with no end in sight." Deja vue Vietnam where the most unAmerican Americans once said if we leave, then it will only get worse. Guess what. It was called, "I see light at the end of the tunnel". That light was a locomotive closing fast. We did nothing - just stayed - and it only got worse. America then created the death of maybe another 1 million. We could not fathom a bad decisions was by far our best alternative. We have to massacre more good men to finally concede reality? Deja vue Nam.

Currently the surge is blamed for a reduction in American deaths. How curious. The same logic also was used after Tet to proclaim America was winning the war. Deja vue Nam.

Just because you don't like the consequences justifies doing nothing? Find me an American commanding general from Iraq who publically supports "Mission Accomplished"? You cannot. That is the brutal reality of a war that cannot be won especially when Iraqis don't even know what they want.

Meanwhile, another bombing just occurred in Kirkuk. As Holbrook (and other people with intelligence) warned, Kirkuk could be the irreversible flash point.

How long is that list of top American generals, all commanding in Iraq and now retired, who are telling Americans to wake up - to be patriotic.

Batiste Newbold Eaton Pace Riggs Swannack Scales Shinseki ... and now Sanchez
Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone How many notice the bombings in Kirkuk. How many noticed American approval among a former topmost ally, Turkey, is now down to 11% according to the lastest German Marshall Fund poll. Why are people now asking when Turkey may invade Iraq?

But things are getting better in Iraq according to a very effective White House propaganda machine. Effective because so many, even here, cannot get beyond the sound bytes - start facing reality.

If we leave, then they will have to take charge of their own lives. If we leave, Iraqis will have 20 months to do it - or inherit the conseuqences. Currently they will do nothing for the next 10 years. Deja vue Nam.

At what point does anyone here say, "Fool me twice, shame on ...".

That form of government is an insult, at least to the free adult humans and nearly as much to the sorta-kinda. S'matter, Queequeger, aren't you a free adult human? Aren't you a free man? If so, tw does not speak in your interest, as a review of his posts will tell you.

Anyone who thinks he could bother me by telling me I sound like either Ann or Sean or both -- is a person with values so peculiar as to be nearly unrecognizable as such. I've got enlightened views; what can I say?

I guess that just depends on your point of view. Ann Coulter doesn't believe that women should be allowed to vote. Ann Coulter believes the reason we have no responsibility to our environment is because of GOD. Sean Hannity thinks that because a member of congress is Muslim, he is 'with the enemy.' They both blither on and on about personal freedoms, but what it amounts to is the strong taking from the weak. Now, if you honestly agree with the minds that think these things up, that doesn't make you enlightened. That makes you an asshole.

The only assumption of criminal incompetence is yours. Sanchez was clearly not ready for the job. But he was the only one that George Jr's administration (apparently) could get. Sanchez now joins numerous others (including me as one of the earliest informed) to declare incompetence at the highest levels in George Jr's administration. Only someone who should remain on the street as a starving painter would disband the army and police. How many years ago was that stupidity even noted in The Cellar? Sanchez also accuses George Jr's administration of creating those problems.

Only a fool would not appreciate 'unity of command' - another simplest concept of military science. A concept violated in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sanchez now publicly criticized the source of problems that were forced upon his by wacko extremists - better called mental midgets. He was even denied 'unity of command'. Who here does not realize that means complete incompetence in Washington DC.

Sanchez "who was too far from ready to have such a command" (note the exact quote) clearly did not have sufficient experience to be the top commander. Does that imply that Sanchez is incorrect about the worst American president in 100 years? Of course not.

Sanchez's mistakes (and lessons he learned) AND balls to make his statement only further proves George Jr and conspirators are that incompetent. Criminally? Well if more Americans supported America rather than political agendas, we would be impeaching both George Jr and Cheney - with extreme bias.

Sanchez was put into a position where success was not an option because his civilian bosses were that anti-American. Are you reading controversy about that in the Army War College in Ft Leavenworth KS? You should. Shinseki was the only top commander to accurately speak out - to defend the military and the American soldier. If you think you know what I am thinking, again don't make assumptions such as "criminally incompetent".

As anyone with basic military knowledge knows: unity of command in theater must exist. There was none because, well, Armitage said it best: Larry Wilkerson was Colin Powell's chief of staff.

None of this is about Sanchez or about what UT misinterpreted. This is about people so corrupt that they should resign as President and Vice President - and then publicly apologize to the world for being so stupid.

But again, who is reading the controversy flaying so hot in KS?

Sounds like you skimmed through Godless, all right. Coulter's remark was more in the nature of an observation than a condemnation, and it was this: "women's issues" have come considerably more to the fore in US government action and policy since 18 August 1920, when half the national electorate was of the feminine persuasion. I'm quite unaware of any refusal by Ann Coulter to vote, in the past or nowadays. Doesn't add up to what you think it does, unless I am very much in error about her.

She believes in our dominion, yes. Says so loudly. That is not the same as believing in "no responsibility." Especially not in this day and age. Remember what sort of people Ann Coulter annoys, and remember these people can't touch her. So they'll tell you all kinds of dubious rumors about her, in hopes of cheating their way back into an opinion dominance they should never have had in the first place.

Certainly it's not the kind of idea I would accept, for dominion, such as it is, must be coupled with stewardship, and intelligent stewardship at that. I don't think you'll find hostility towards stewardship of our globe in Coulter's writing.


I wouldn't know -- and I get quite a bit of Sean Hannity by both TV and radio.


No doubt somebody's told you that's what it amounts to... I've heard them out on these matters in a general way for years now, and can't point to anything indictable as "the strong taking from the weak." I've not only heard Hannity, I've read him, and nothing in his writing raises any Libertarian warning flags, even though he's more a Republican than a Libertarian.

Basically, I'd advise you stop listening to leftists. They don't want a Republic, they suffer from the tyranny of PC non-think, et cetera. Many and deep are their sins.

I gotta tell ya: I don't think you know the material.

UG, have you checked out the philosophy forum today?

If not, you should have a look.

Really? Neato... probably better do it tomorrow night, though. Real philosophy needs careful reading, the good old mark, learn, and inwardly digest. It's late, so late it's early, and I've a busy day tomorrow daytime.

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01...

That sounds kind of like lack of responsibility to me.

Admittedly, Sean Hannity is not as ridiculous Coulter, because she is possibly the craziest person to ever appear on television, but they're both just plain mean people. They care little about the rest of the country, and less about the rest of the earth. You can talk all you want about 'the left' (by the way, I don't just listen to them, I AM on the left), but acting out of compassion is not weak. In fact, it's a little more difficult and complicated than using a 'fuck it, blow it up' mentality.

I don't know who said it, but I fully agree with the sentiment that anyone can use violence. Physical bravery is a lot easier than moral bravery.

Having read all of Coulter's books save her latest rock into the waters -- If Democrats Had Brains, They'd Be Republicans -- I say those two lines are both satirical, and at variance with the body of her work.

Some pundit of her competition has told either Hannity or O'Reilly on their programs on TV that Coulter is no historian. On what evidence, the guy didn't bother to say, and Coulter seems pretty diligent at getting her primary sources right and carefully footnoted, so I am skeptical of the remark. Her work may end up being an aid to historical research of our times at the least.

One thing Coulter isn't is a natural-history scientist. I know enough science myself to recognize her chapters in Godless polemicizing against evolution are worthless; it's too bad she doesn't know this field.

The less you listen to the Left the wiser you'll be -- the record of the last forty years demonstrates this well enough to persuade me. Watching the behavior of the Democratic Party for maybe ten years less -- well, I agree with the book title. The Dems' senior leadership is short on wisdom.

In the interest of complete accuracy, make it If The Democrats Had Any Brains...

And hunting around for excuses to reject Coulter's message... well, that's a fool's errand. Don't run on it unless foolishness is your only mode.

It's Coulter, accuracy, complete or otherwise, doesn't enter into it.

Women like Coulter really piss me off. The battles that our foremothers fought to get rights like voting, and equal pay (still not quite there) and bitches like this do the patriarchy's work for it. Fuck, that annoys me. Frankly, the woman should be surrounded by a mob of angry, liberated, modern women and have her hair shaved off like the collaborators in German occupied France. Fucking traitorous bitch.

:shred:

DanaC, you speak in complete ignorance -- read as much of her stuff as I did, then talk. Don't embarrass yourself further in the face of those who actually know. You can find her column via the Drudge Report, for instance.

Bruce, I've never heard anything solid on Coulter being impeached on matters of fact -- frankly I doubt I ever shall. Blather such as you offered make me very very glad I'm too smart to be a leftist. What annoys me is you could be that way too -- yet for some never-explained reason, you're satisfied to not be, instead to be something less.

Now yes, she does earn her bread as an opinion columnist, and should be taken as such -- but she is, happily, an opinion columnist of integrity, and only the blinkered will deny it.

I don't need to read the bible as much as a theologian might, in order to hold an opinion on it. Likewise I do not need to read everthing this woman writes in order to hold an opinion on her, her views, her political agenda.

I have, however, read some of her writings. But I like that you have jumped to the conclusion I am entirely ignorant on this topic.

In terms of embarrassing myself, I am not embarrassed to hold such an excuse for a modern woman in contempt.

I, too, doubt that you will ever hear it. Due to a failure of listening on your part.

Oh, indeed? Why, do you have actual examples? Funny you didn't bring 'em out, isn't it? I'd sure as hell like to see you try and come up with some.

Would there be a point? You wouldn't hear them, any more than you did when you pretended, several times, that the Swift Boaters hadn't been refuted.

Ah, well, what the heck. Here are a few.

1) You yourself impeached her on the issue of evolution.
2) Her much vaunted "footnotes" are full of inaccuracies, misleading representations, incomplete information, and quote mining.
3) She claimed, without source, that "Everyone in Washington knew (Plame) was a CIA agent."

Plus, there are any number of jokes, exaggerations, insinuations, and mudslinging that are both inaccurate and misleading, but can be discounted by supporters as just jokes.

When were the Swift Boaters refuted? Has anyone awarded John Kerry even one Purple Heart, let alone three? Notice that this has not come up in any reputable source I've ever heard of, and unlike some, I'm not the sort to put my fingers in my ears. John Kerry has run true to his form for the past thirty years -- he plumped for the Sandinistas much more than for his own country's interest, or humanity's. That's a matter of public record, and you can look up how he voted: he was consistently one of those voting against our acting in any way in Nicaragua. There was far too much of that kind of Marxist-symp activity going on in Congress at the time. I hardly need mention any party-line breakdown.

An exerpt from John O'Neill, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in June 2005:

1) True enough; but what I had in mind was matters of politics and history.
2) And proof is where? Who says this? The kind of people who're trying to get her silenced? Should they be taken seriously?
3) Such a remark is so strained as not to enter into consideration much: there was a good deal of carrying on like somebody in the White House had committed a felony -- until the matter was looked at more closely, and was found a creature of anti-Republican spin.

And another link, which I didn't get to fit into #877:

Further investigation from JustOneMinute.com

I pointed you to the links at least twice.I made a link.So when she lies, you just discount it as not politics or history, or you pretend the refuter isn't credible, or you say it's below consideration.

I think my point is made. Thank you.

And here's another.

Bold 'em in the future. I do. They don't show up at all well otherwise on my screen.

Okay, so you find MediaMatters convenient to your arguments. Fine. Reading them over, I get an overwhelming scent of "he said/she said." Clearly, look to the primary sources for yourself.

Meanwhile, I'd welcome any thoughtful comments on what I've linked.

She said one thing, her
Said another. That's what "he said/she said" has become these days.

What you linked seems to be a story about how disappointed the right-wing blogs were when Kerry's released records contained nothing incriminating. What few actual claims I could find in the noise were covered in my "here's another" link.

It would leave you in the dark to rationalize ignoring Ann, though. There are a good many people who are desperate to ignore her, and they will seize upon any excuse at all -- it seems the sillier the better. Her observations on the Democrats and mine mesh pretty closely, and she's got more detail. As you can imagine, I've found the Dems an unsatisfactory lot for going on twenty years now. That is a damn long time for a whole party to be so unlikable in a representative republic like ours.

That's because she's as crazy as you are. What a pair.

Considering the inadequacy of the Dems at foreign policy and dealing with antidemocratic totalitarians, what's crazier, rejecting them or following them?

She's got lots and lots of detail, but if you follow her footnotes, you find that they don't support her. She approaches all of her research the same way she (and other creationists) approach science. Put it in a form similar to the one that legitimate research is presented in, and confidently expect that your core audience will not look deeper.

I love it. Those guys buried Kerry.

No bad thing, from what I've seen of Kerry and his voting record.

From ABC News of 4 Nov 2007: Nearly Three-Quarters Say the Country Is on the Wrong Track, Highest in a Decade As the article notes, this is below any other president. But then where is a single George Jr accomplishment?

The terrs haven't been able to touch us since 9-11, and we've been touching them quite hard. Frenetic Republican-haters are the only ones yelling about "what accomplishments has he?" but this comes only out of the most discreditable of all possible motives: anti-Republican bigotry, carried to a ridiculous extreme. You've been carrying a lot of that water, you mule-headed bigot. It will drown you just as it submerges your integrity -- which as is well known is too small and carious to be allowed out alone, for fear the wind would blow it away.

The Democrats will not accomplish winning the war, not for democracy or for anything else; for that we must turn to the Republicans. I think that we, a democracy, should win this war against the democracy-opposers. You never have thought this way for as long as I've known you, and that is why I despise you and why you really don't have friends here.

Your agenda has not, perhaps, been furthered. This is precisely in accord with the needs of our Republic.

First of all, 'the terrorists haven't touched us since 9-11' is ridiculous. When was the previous foreign terrorist attack on civilians before that? 1993 WTC bombing killing 6. Yeah, that was a pretty crazy time before Bush got to office, so many foreign terrorists were bombing us constantly. The US is no more or less safe now than it was before.

To preempt a likely argument, there have actually been slightly MORE terrorist attacks (outside of Iraq) on the US military after 2001 than before. In fact, we're averaging just over one a year, whereas the previous 10 years or so, we had about one every 2 years.

So if you remove September 11th (dear god, no, where will the kneejerk reactions go!?) in the interest of this argument, the civilians of this country are about as safe now as then, and the military is more at risk.

Point: I am not anti-Republican because of some kind of bigotry. I am anti-republican because I disagree with every single idealogical difference between them and the democrats. To claim anyone has some kind of bigotry for political views is a little ridiculous, considering you can't make a post without bringing up how much you hate the Democrats...

Actually, I can, and you are indulging in hyperbole precisely when for the sake of your argument you shouldn't.

Nor is it particularly hatred: it's just that for fifteen or twenty years straight they've been trying to sell what I don't want to buy. In a republic that's a pretty long time to be so totally on the outs with any part of the electorate -- I know full well I'm not alone. I reckon they're wrong for the Republic, and on the wrong side of history also.

For some reason you're not taking into account for the attacks on American targets outside the US prior to 9-11: Marine barracks Beirut 1983, East African embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia. I think these count quite satisfactorily as terrorist assaults. These guys have been trying since 1983 to get a war going with us. After about eighteen years of trying, they got one. And they're losing it. Happy-happy.

Were I a particularly deep thinker as leftists go, I wouldn't associate with the anti-Republican bigots even in thought, for lying down with dogs means you get up with fleas.

And lying down with logs means you get up with trees....

You're right, I didn't include the attacks on the military as a reason to go to war, because no one has ever said that this was for the military's safety. In fact, we almost never go to war for small scale attacks on our military. It has to be a definite and severe attack, because otherwise we'd be at war with 75% of the globe. We all know coming in that we're going to be at significantly higher risk than as a civilian.

If you reread my post, you'd notice that I said that civilians are no more safe now than before, as we can't really address the number of attacks, because it hasn't been long enough. I also said
Which includes every attack you mentioned.

Total terrorist attacks on our military (and embassy employees) 1993-2001: 4.

Total terrorist attacks on our military (and embassy employees not including Iraq) 2001-present: 8.

That's twice as many attacks in just about half as many years. We're safer?

...and the democratic party has been on the outs with the electorate? How did we have a democratic congress and a democratic president? If you don't hate the democratic party, why do you keep labeling them as enemies of the state!? I can't believe.. never mind, I said before I'd give up responding, but I guess I forgot myself. Enjoy your insanity, man.

Again UG lumps them all into one giant international conspiracy. According to UG, we must massacre all Arabs due to attacks on Marines in Beirut, embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 1993 WTC attack, Kansas City, highjacked ships off Somolia, Tehran Embassy hostages, and by the Barbary Pirates.

UG - at what point do you identify each suspect and only go after that suspect. UG never answers this question. "When do we go after bin Laden?" It means we would not have an excuse to massacre so many others.

Instead we should attack Hamas, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Muslims in the Phillippines ... Yea, that will solve all problems. How funny. That is the complete opposite of what UG's recent (and now diposed) idol Thomas Barnett wrote.

UG - still waiting for the publication of "The Pentagon Papers" by Urbane Guerrilla. Clearly history will not be correct until it is rewritten. Thomas Barnett never said that either.

Two letters, tw: BS. You merit no further reply, and you're not talking sense nor truth.

From the BBC of 13 Nov 2007: How curious. Having White House lawyers rewrite science for a political agenda is not politically motivated?

Not bad for a war that would be paid for by Iraq's oil revenues. Not bad for a war that would only cost $2billion. But George Jr's wackos (ie Cheney) did not lie?

The Kuwait liberation did not destroy American standards of living. America did not pay for that war. America was paid to liberate Kuwait. But back then, an American president was not making the world hate Americans.

60% of the US Military equipment is deployed for the glory of Cheney. 50% of National Guard equipment is deployed. How did another lying president do this same thing? He simply lied about the costs in Nam. Deja vue - or why should America's worst president in 100 years be any different. Oh. It does not cost that much? God told him? "Reagan proved that deficits do not matter".

Did your mother say you would burn in hell if you lied? Who believes words from a burning Bush? Only those who believe it must be the word of god. Oh. In god we trust? No problem. George Jr talks to him. Next week the slogan. A vote for George Jr is a vote for god. So god will fix those debts?

Yeph. Sub-prime loan crisis. Falling dollar. Rising oil prices. Rising gold and copper prices. Inevitable tax increases. America for sale to foreigners. So few Americans now technically educated that America cannot import enough immigrants. Katrina. A long list enemies that previously did not exist. God even knocked down two highest buildings and we still did not get the message? Maybe the burning Bush was not his messenger. It only took seven years to figure that out? “Mission Accomplished”.

From the NY Times of 13 Nov 2007: Maybe the good guys are not the good guys? Of course not. After all, everyone in 2003 knew Saddam must have had WMDs. Therefore only Americans are good guys.

How can Blackwater, et al have done wrong? We even made it legal for them to kill anyone they want at any time. They are Americans - not second class people like Iraqis, Germans, and Brits (yes this is what an extremist religious lady and supporter of George Jr was telling me last night). That reasoning was sufficient to even prove Saddam had WMDs. Others who know differently are so silent because they have "weak liberal minds". Considering the so few who speak out here, she must be right.

Good thing we have George Jr and Condi Rice's State Department to protect our heroes in Blackwater uniforms. Blackwater employees cannot be prosecuted even for murder. Also good is that Blackwater takes revenge for what happened to employees in Fallujah. God heil Amerika even though Democrats and so many others who remain silent are so backboneless. Cars were heavily damaged mostly in the rear with few if any bullets entering their front. Clearly all these vehicles were backing up to threatened Blackwater.

No problem. This is what we want. Even our Democrats silently cheer that inferior races are killed. If not, Democrats would be screaming loudly. A majority of Cellar dwellers clearly approve just as loudly. Al Qaeda must exist in Iraq. That's the only way to explain a clearly misguided FBI analysis. We all know the only enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda.

shhh, take your pill. the voices will go away.

From ABC News of 14 Nov 2007: These people represent the American flag in Iraq. Lookout123 approves of this. More dead inferiors means less surplus population.