July 15, 2007

A Case Of Missing Context At The Gray Lady

Nouri al-Maliki may have provided a push for Congress to get more aggressive with the White House over troop withdrawals in Iraq yesterday. However, the Prime Minister sounded a rather contradictory note, expressing confidence in Iraq's ability to secure itself while pleading for more time and pledging more progress on political reform. The New York Times reports on only one of these contradictory statements:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki declared Saturday that Iraqi forces could secure the country on their own “any time” American troops decided to withdraw, his first response to the White House report this week that found his government falling well short of many political reforms and military goals sought by Congress.

Mr. Maliki has been under attack by American officials and many Iraqi politicians for leading a government mired in disputes and unable to make progress on major legislation seen as crucial to stabilizing the country. Support is growing in Congress for an American troop pullout that would leave Iraqi forces that are already plagued with sectarianism, absenteeism and other problems to battle the Sunni Arab insurgents and Shiite militias that dominate parts of the country.

The White House report found that Iraq failed to make satisfactory progress meeting 8 out of 18 major milestones, such as passing an oil revenue-sharing law and ending favoritism in the security forces. Such favoritism toward Shiites, the report found, even included evidence of Maliki advisers in the Office of the Commander in Chief distributing “target lists,” primarily of Sunnis who were to be arrested, directly to lower-level commanders.

“We say with confidence that we are capable, God willing, of taking full responsibility for the security file if the international forces withdraw in any time they wish,” Mr. Maliki said.

Readers who want the whole story have to read the Los Angeles Times to find out what else Maliki said about the Iraqi position:

Maliki, a Shiite, put on a brave face in the wake of the rising demand in the U.S. among Democratic and Republican legislators for withdrawal from Iraq.

He pleaded for time, pledging to achieve the passage of legislation that Washington has demanded as a condition of its continuing support, including an oil revenue sharing law, a revised constitution and the easing of government work restrictions for former supporters of President Saddam Hussein, who was captured, tried and executed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Maliki also said that Iraqi security forces could use more training from U.S.-led forces and needed more weaponry.

Perhaps someone could ask the layers of editors and fact-checkers at the Gray Lady why this got left out of their report. It adds another dimension to the story, a context which shows a politician trying to reassure his constituency that their government can survive an American pullout -- not endorsing one, as the Paper of Record's report implies. Maliki has to make sure that Iraqis do not lose confidence in the government in order to keep the tribes from throwing in with the various insurgencies for their own perceived protection, once we do withdraw.

The real news story is that Maliki has asked the Congress to remain patient. He has not given up on passing reform through the National Assembly, and understands that the US wants to see that reform start as soon as possible. Unfortunately, both papers chose to de-emphasize that part of the story, and in the case of the New York Times, overlook it altogether.

At this point, Congress will likely take the New York Times approach to Maliki's statement. Clearly more Republicans have joined Democrats in looking for an easy way out from Iraq, and a statement of readiness from Maliki will provide an excuse to at least pull out of Baghdad. His pleading for more time will get ignored in the coming weeks by members of both parties just as it was by Richard Oppel, Jr.

UPDATE: CNN reported the request for more time and patience as well:

"We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment, but one in the shadow of huge challenges," al-Maliki said. "So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural."

Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks -- "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."

But he said that if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

The context is a bit different than what the NY Times story suggests, isn't it? Sometimes bias involves what's left out of a story more than what's put into it.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/10527

Comments (54)

Posted by Keemo | July 15, 2007 7:33 AM

Excellent report CE... The great Hugh Hewitt also wrote a piece along the same subject line:

When an elephant shows up in your backyard, it isn't evidence that you run a zoo, it is an extraordinary occurrence that everyone talks about and points to. Please list the examples below or send me e-mails of MSMers posing questions to leading Dems as pointed as this one question posed to Reid. When that list hits 100 good examples in a month, I'll begin to believe MSM has turned a corner. The Dems are running both Houses of Congress and have been given a free ride by the left-dominated MSM. Senators Clinton, Edwards and Obama are also strolling through the long campaign without any serious questioning of their understanding of what will happen if we leave Iraq, or whether military force should be used to stop Iran's nuclear program or whether they believe Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel disappearing in a flash.

Jake Tapper is in denial about the collapse of MSM credibility, just like every other MSMer I have ever interviewed (or been interviewed by.) Jake seems genuinely unaware of what millions of Americans see every day: He and the guild roll over for the Democrats, rarely if ever even offering a tough question much less a series of them. They advance a narrative of Iraq fed by their own prejudices and are oblivious to counter-arguments and facts. Worst of all, they genuinely believe that the debate inside the Beltway matters most of all, when in fact like the products of most closed systems, their interpretive skills are underdeveloped and their biases so deeply embedded as to be unrecognizable by anyone living under the dome. Thus they are surprised by McCain's collapse, the uproar over the immigration bill, and the political suicide being undertaken by Senators Domenici and Smith.

It isn't journalism they practice, but a sort of high-end yodeling: shouting out cliches which, when echoed back, they take for proof positive of their prejudices. It is all very amusing --until you realize that the lives of millions of Iraqis and eventually millions of Americans are imperiled by their collective incompetence. Walter Duranty was knowing dupe of mass murderers, and this generation of MSM dupes are not knowing at all. But their reckless disregard for the obvious consequences of their one-sided approach to the war and politics will be as infamous as Duranty's, and the disdain for their "work" just as deep a generation down the road.

The people are aware of the bias as described; the continuing slide in subscription sales is proof positive; the complete disregard for subjective and accurate reporting has become public knowledge. Hugh asks MSMers (when interviewed) if they have ever voted for a Republican; to the best of my knowledge, not one of them have answered "yes" to that question, and most of them treat the question like "are you nuts"... When polled, MSMers voted Democrat 90%; fair & balanced...

Posted by Keemo | July 15, 2007 7:53 AM

OMT: Bush remains committed to the Iraqi people. While Democrats and some pussified Republicans in Congress play politics with the lives of millions of civilians, Bush has the final word.

I, for one, will not accept anything short of victory in the GWOT; I will not accept another Vietnam cut & run at the hands of a bunch of pussified politicians. We have the best military in the world; these brave men/woman are trained to destroy the enemies of freedom, the enemies of America. It's only when these DC critters (stupid f***ing lawyers) get in the way of our military doing it's job, do we appear to be a bunch of ?????? running away with our tails between our legs.

I'm disgusted with Bush for his love affair with illegal immigrants, and a few other things such as spending like a Liberal; I will always admire his courage following 9/11 and his desire to "take it to the enemy" for having the balls to attack America's homeland.

Democrats message to the world: We will send our men/woman in uniform to your homeland; we will send our war ships to assist you; we will send our war planes to assist you; but we will also cut & run at any given moment and leave your people to be slaughtered... Enter with caution...

Bush message to the world: Attack America's homeland, and we will hunt you down and kill your leaders at will; we will kill your family members; we will cross borders to find and kill you; hundreds of thousands of your people will die... Attack the American homeland at your own risk; enter with caution...

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 15, 2007 7:55 AM

The story also points out that the US seemingly doesn't agree with Maliki:

That seemed at odds with statements on Friday by senior American military commanders that efforts to train Iraqi forces had actually slowed during the five-month-old Baghdad security plan and would need to be widened to allow any large pullout of American troops. There are now just 6 Iraqi battalions able to operate without American support, compared with 10 in March, military officials said.

It also doesn't report on one of his top aide's accusations that US military is engaging in human rights abuses in Iraq and questioning its tactics, saying the US is using Iraq as a "lab." Is that ommision showing bias?

Posted by bulbasaur | July 15, 2007 8:13 AM

"It also doesn't report on one of his top aide's accusations that US military is engaging in human rights abuses"

To leftists, this could simply mean dessert was served late, and when it finally arrived, the creme' brulee was lumpy.

Posted by cali_sun | July 15, 2007 8:18 AM

What is for me the utmost hypocracy is this: Democrats have the gall to accuse the Maliki Govt for not meeting benchmarks. Yet, the dems earns the title 'The Do Nothing Congree', while they govern under a peaceful environment. The Maliki Govt govern under difficult circumstances, and should been cut some slacks. I find the dems assessment of the iraqi Govt quite insulting, and yet they always find ways to excuse their own failure. But then again, whatelse is new for dems. They are obsessed to continue their witchhund against Pres Bush, with the intent to deny him the victory in Iraq maily because believing defeat in Iraq will bring them into power. What a sorry bunch!

Posted by Tom Shipley | July 15, 2007 8:25 AM

bulbasaur,

You should check the expiration date on that joke.

Posted by Keemo | July 15, 2007 8:26 AM

cali_sun,

Good points; all.....

Learning how to run a Democratic government will take years rather than months. History has provided us with dozens of examples of this fact.

What a sorry bunch indeed...

Posted by Continuum | July 15, 2007 9:00 AM

Leaving Iraq?

Not on Bush's watch.

He's in over way over his head, and is completely clueless.

Instead, he'll leave it for the next Prez, be he Republican or Democrat.

On the next Prez's first day in office, he say "WTF do I do now? and, he'll curse Bush."

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 9:14 AM

"Bush message to the world: Attack America's homeland, and we will hunt you down and kill your leaders at will; we will kill your family members; we will cross borders to find and kill you; hundreds of thousands of your people will die... Attack the American homeland at your own risk; enter with caution...
Posted by: Keemo at July 15, 2007 7:53 AM"

"we will kill your familiy members"

you are one sick NAZI fuck dude.

you were born 60 years too late and in the wrong Country.

you "vision" of who and what America is makes me sick.

Posted by Keemo | July 15, 2007 9:33 AM

Not at the least surprising gaffo. How do you think we defeated Japanese Imperialism following the attacks at Pearl Harbor? We crossed their borders; we killed their families; in fact, hundreds of thousands were killed; it's called "war"... Any force or nation that attacks the American homeland, must face the ultimate reality. If the likes of gaffo had their way, the paper tiger theory would apply and hundreds of thousands of Americans would surely die.

Like it or not; the existence of "good vs evil" is a reality that history has proven to us as far back as records have been utilized; the existence of "enemies of America" is a reality that history provides the evidence for. WAR is always a threat to a free society, therefore the need for a strong military. "Peace through Strength" is a proven reality. Strength will be tested by our enemies; a paper tiger we must not become under the rule of Democrats or Republicans.

The Los Angeles Times' cash flow fell 27 percent in the second quarter as advertising continued to decline, the newspaper's publisher said in a memo to employees today.

The result was ``one of the worst quarters we have ever experienced,'' Publisher David Hiller said. Sales slid 10 percent, led by a drop in advertising pages that overwhelmed gains in Internet advertising and ad supplements, he wrote.

The bleeding continues!!! The Liberal media talks about how arrogant Bush is without looking into the mirror.

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 9:36 AM

this is the whole report - i posted it yesterday on the "crossroads" thread:

July 14, 2007
Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without U.S.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:33 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave ''any time they want,'' though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was ''natural'' given Iraq's turmoil.

But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like ''an experiment in an American laboratory.'' He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with ''gangs of killers'' in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Suneid's comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki's inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.

In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.

Thursday's White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government's collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, ''We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.''

But he added that Iraqi forces are ''still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation'' to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.

Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs ''time and effort'' to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks -- ''particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference.''

''These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges,'' he said.

In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the goverment and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.

But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation -- a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday's report ''objective,'' but added, ''this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail.''

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a ''purely American vision.''

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. ''These are gangs of killers,'' he said.

''There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias,'' said al-Suneid.

He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki' government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital's eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.

''This embarrasses the government in front of its people,'' he said, calling the civilian deaths a ''human rights violation.''


this ain't Nam?

then what is it Genius?


sky is green, trees are blue.

up is down, left is right and you are a koolaider.
Posted by: gaffo at July 14, 2007 8:17 PM

Posted by Rom Shouply | July 15, 2007 9:41 AM

Bush is doing the right thing. Giving Iraq a chance to become the first arab democracy in the world. Iraq potentially could become the keystone of the entire middle east--turning from bloody dictatorship to rule by law.

Iran and Syria will fight tooth and nail to prevent this, and will recruit their friends in the NYT and other western media to attack Bush and his plans for democracy and freedom in the middle east.

A lot of bloggers want to help the bloody mullahs of Iran as well. It is a reflexive compulsion on their part. Their hatred of Bush makes them hate the common people of the middle east as well.

Posted by crossdotcurve | July 15, 2007 9:44 AM

Baker-Hamilton lives!

Ah, I remember a year ago when the WingNuttoSphere dismissed the ISG report with a "pffft - it's not worth the paper it's printed on".

It's coming this fall, folks. To a war-torn country near you.

tick...tick...tick...

p.s. - how many new gold-star mothers in the last year while this absurd failure of a surge has been tried?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917.html

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 9:45 AM

"Not at the least surprising gaffo. How do you think we defeated Japanese Imperialism following the attacks at Pearl Harbor?"


by reasonable use of force - not the genocide you love so much.

"We crossed their borders; we killed their families;"


Only inyour wet dreams have United State's armed forces targeted Japanese "families".

"in fact, hundreds of thousands were killed; it's called "war"... "


no shit genius - its called Collateral Damage - and only a NAZI goes out of his way to target civilians.

there are Rules of War and the Rule of Law - I know how much of a bitter taste such phrases must leave in your mouth - one who calls a Fatwa on Families of our enemies.


"Any force or nation that attacks the American homeland, must face the ultimate reality."

and what is that thug? utter genocide of all civilian?

cretin.


"Like it or not; the existence of "good vs evil" is a reality"

No shit! you are living proof of that!

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | July 15, 2007 10:10 AM

As a great American Civil War scholar once said:

"Sometimes good things come from a slaughter".

Add "the end of Islamic fascism" to the long list of evils that will go down at the barrel of a gun.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | July 15, 2007 10:13 AM


by reasonable use of force - not the genocide you love so much.


LOL! The fire bombing of Tokyo was reasonable force? The A-bomb was reasonable force?

Gaffois one confused homosexual.

Posted by Keemo | July 15, 2007 10:36 AM

Hugh,

These brilliant words (gaffo) spoken by the same thing that would have us leave Iraq and allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who dared VOTE in a free election....

You can't make this stuff up; these Liberals are really that dumbed down... It's no wonder why these folks must create welfare states in order to win elections.

Posted by sherlock | July 15, 2007 10:57 AM

"Sometimes bias involves what's left out of a story more than what's put into it."

Sometimes? I would say that omission is a key infowar strategy of the MSM.

Example: I read on another site about a number of mitigating assertions concerning the Libby sentencing. Without assuming they were true, I searched the archives of my local Librag newspaper, and could not find a reference to a single one of them. Note that they did not have to lie - they just ignored, and people who get their news from this source will not be aware that the issues even exist.

It's not that I think internet reporters don't omit - it is human nature to focus on what makes you seem correct. The difference is that on the internet I can find dozens of different sources and assess them for what they leave out and their biases. In the local newspaper, I get one part of the story that is asserted as the unbiased whole story, and they get to pick what part it is.

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 10:58 AM

"by reasonable use of force - not the genocide you love so much.


LOL! The fire bombing of Tokyo was reasonable force? "

That event is still debatable today. what we do know is that WW2 was a million times larger war than what we are in today, and the actions we took were in proportion to the scale and threat that war posed.

We also targeted centers of manufacture to limit war machine making ability of the enemy - not residential areas out of spite


"The A-bomb was reasonable force?"


Yes - actually it was quite reasonable in the context of the times. it limited the death toll by not having to invade Japan by foot (as you should know this simple thing).

also the target was the munitions factories - not civilian home.

"Gaffois one confused homosexual.
Posted by: Hugh Beaumont at July 15, 2007 10:13 AM"


No need for transfurance Hugh cutie - you sexual orientation is your business leave us out of it.

...............

nice to see you and Keemo on are record in publically proclaiming a Fatwah on all Families of our enemies.

Give Himmler my love, cretin.

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 11:02 AM

Keemo - you are the only one around here advicating the "Himmler solution"

you aint too bright are ya?

you proclaim a Fatwah on all our enemies families, and then get all googly-eyed when the thought of the slaughter of Iraqis might become a reality.

you are the one calling for that slaughter!!

tard. you would have made an great SS officer.

Posted by bulbasaur | July 15, 2007 11:04 AM

All that remains is to ask, will libs accept the consequences of surrender?

Will you libs really let the authorities fight the militant-islamic takeover of a major US city with the use of deadly force?

Based on your behavior at present, I don't think you will. I fact, I'm concerned you will volunteer as human shields.

Posted by jr565 | July 15, 2007 11:11 AM

Tom wrote:
It also doesn't report on one of his top aide's accusations that US military is engaging in human rights abuses in Iraq and questioning its tactics, saying the US is using Iraq as a "lab." Is that ommision showing bias?
Well considering they've already written about that, and you've posted that here already it doesn't really display bias.
You see, not every story will also include details of every other story when written.

However if in a single story only certain portions of statement is quoted, then it can potentially show bias. And in this case, we have to at least wonder why the portion where Maliki asks for more training in the eact same conversation was left out. Did the Times reporter run out of space on his tape recorder?

Posted by jr565 | July 15, 2007 12:00 PM

Gaffo,
THe NYT essentially said the other day that they agree that if we pull out of Iraq it very well may lead to genocide in Iraq, but that it had to be done whatever theconsequences. I think that genocide were it to occur would involve predominantly Iraqi families. ANd you and your brethren have been wishing that on Iraqis for the better part of 4 years. In fact, when we weren't at war, you were demanding that they stay under the jackboot of a tyrant. Who's the nazi here?

Also, you show huge ignorance about WWII which is why you come back to Keemo and Hugh's points about bombing japan with a "yeah but it was a bigger war and we only attacked munitions plants" . So, no Japanese families were killed? You justify the fact that it was a war on a much larger scale so things like the A bomb was needed, but of course that's what Keemo is saying about how we'll fight if we are attacked.

You write:
That event is still debatable today. what we do know is that WW2 was a million times larger war than what we are in today, and the actions we took were in proportion to the scale and threat that war posed.
A million times larger? You sure about that. It certainly was on a much larger scale, but a million? Doesn't that then kind of put your "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" rhetoric about Iraq into perspective. We survived WWII which in your words was a million times worse than Iraq, I think we can survive some ragtag terrorists blowing up some car bombs.

Also, you're justifying taking that action in WWII, because of the larger scale, but wouldn't that make you a nazi? Or would you only be a nazi for larger scaled wars? Couldn't you apply the same tactics to win other wars then but on a smaller scale if they were smaller wars? Would that make you a nazi, as opposed to a Nazi?

Considering some dipshit was calling Iraq IRaqnam on this site, if you'd rather compare this to Vietnam that was only a hundred thousand times (if we use Gaffo's math) larger than Iraq and we survived that one too. That war had 80,000 casualties, this war a little more than 3,000. Its lasted as long, but yet the casualty rate is like a million times lower (again using gaffo math). In fact some individual years in Vietnam dwarf the casualty rate in Iraq for its entire war. The only constant is that the antiwar crowd and the dems raised the white flag then too and preached defeat there too. Of course in Vietnam we continuously won every battle and even had a ceasefire worked out under Nixon. Would it have held, we'll never know as the congress pulled out all funding. And then we had Cambodia, which was directly the fault of those seeking to pull out at all costs for "peaces'' sake. I guess if the dems are successful in getting us to withdraw from Iraq and a genocide does occur, us neocons can start calling the "peace" in Iraq after we leave Cambodiraq. Just like some dipshit calls Iraq Iraqnam.

Back to WWII though, there were far more errors comitted in WWII, and individual battles that dwarfed anythign we face in Iraq.

We have to wonder if you were alive then would you and the democrats be preaching defeat there too, we'll never get past this. FDR was incompetent. Look at all the mistakes. Blah, blah. By the way, the antiwar crowd were making the same scurillous charges back then too. FDR knew we were being attacked and let it happen. My quess is Gaffo and his crowd would be Lord Haw Haw wannabes or the modern equivalents of Hanoi Janes. Maybe we can call you Baghdad Gaffo. Not quite as catchy as Hanoi Jane, but then again that war was 100,000 times the scale,so probably would have 100,000 times more imaginative slogans about it.Or not.

Finally, while I agree with Keemo that you fight to win, and if it means taking out the enemy you do so, the fact of the matter is, despite the rhetoric to the country, we never deliberately targeted civilians in this war. I'm sure civilans were caught in the cross fire and I'm sure when the war started some cvilians residences were bombed, but it wasn't a conscious "let's blow up that iraqi residential building over there" decision. Rather, like WWII (but on a much smaller scale) we have to carry out operations on military sites and sometimes a civilan area gets taken out too. It's unfortunate, but that's what happens in war. Even in the peace we are not targeting civilians. That would be the insurgency. Every time you hear on the news that 100 Iraqis died today from a car bomb, that's them, not us. If we are involved in fire fights, its not with local Iraqis who we target out of spite. So that characterization is simply false on its face. However, its in fact the antiwar crowd who is wishing more such carnage on Iraq in their mad rush to withdraw, just as it was the antiwar crowd saying we had to keep Sadaam in power that was supporting the rape and torture rooms.

We also targeted centers of manufacture to limit war machine making ability of the enemy - not residential areas out of spite Yeah, because Hiroshima was one big factory and had no residential areas. Right?
I gotcha. We targeted a civilian area because we needed to show overwhelming force to break Japan's will to continue fighting. So there was a hell of a lot of collateral damage there, and while we certainly didn't set out to bomb civilian targets, due to the increase in scale, we did. Didn't we flatten entire cities with one bomb? Didn't families live there? ARe you completely oblivious to WWII history? In my personal opinion it was in fact a necessary act, and saved lives because it ended the war quicker, though I certainly wouldn't say that it didn't involve killing a ton of civilians.

Posted by jr565 | July 15, 2007 12:19 PM

and to clarify one point, Gaffo when I say "You justify the fact that it was a war on a much larger scale so things like the A bomb was needed, but of course that's what Keemo is saying about how we'll fight if we are attacked." I'm not suggesting that Keemo is saying we should use a nuke on all enemies, but rather that we should fight to win.

Just as you say, vis a vis Hiroshima "
Yes - actually it was quite reasonable in the context of the times. it limited the death toll by not having to invade Japan by foot (as you should know this simple thing).

also the target was the munitions factories - not civilian home."
So let me get this straight. Dropping a huge bomb and inflicting massive civilian casualties is in fact quite reasonable, and it actually limited the death toll by not having to invade Japan by foot? Who's death toll? THe Japanese death toll or ours? In fact, in the long run probably both, but certainly in the short term it in fact raised the death toll considerably for Japanese civilians. Also, you say the target was a munitions factory, and the bomb was an atomic bomb. There's no such thing as an atomic bomb that will only blow up a munitions plant. you know for a fact that if that bomb was dropped whatever the "target" was it would destroy everything around the target for miles. So what does it matter if a munitions plant was targeted. That's just stupid.

The fact is you find dropping an atomic bomb reasonable, considering the circumstances (and I in fact agree with you). But how is that different than Keemo saying we should go in with overwhelming force and kill our enemies. You know that Japans will had to be broken otherwise they would continue to carry out attacks and thousands more would continue to die in a protracted war unless in fact the war were ended. You accept that notion, and even find using a nuclear bomb to do it reasonable. So where do you get off calling people nazis?

Posted by Keemo | July 15, 2007 12:23 PM

jr565,

If gaffo cared to read a post accurately, he/she/it would have read the following:

Bush message to the world: Attack America's homeland, and we will hunt you down and kill your leaders at will; we will kill your family members

Key word here is "your" family members as in the case of "Saddam's sons"...

No where in my comment did I say "target civilians". That was a spin job by the great gaffe-o.

In war, civilians get in the way of the target; simple fact proven by hundreds of years of war data.

Posted by Alec Rawls | July 15, 2007 12:48 PM

Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday just said: "Maliki says he doesn't need us. He says he doesn't want us there." Stinking lying bastard.

Posted by sherlock | July 15, 2007 2:01 PM

"Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday just said: "Maliki says he doesn't need us. He says he doesn't want us there." Stinking lying bastard."

Further to the technique of omission, this is why I wish conservative legislators would learn to not leave the door open to this kind of thing... for example in the many resolutions that have been floated on the Iraq war by Republicans, I recall hearing every time there was a call for the troops to come home, but hardly ever those qualifying words around the need to avoid a genocial massacre.

The media takes what it wants to take and ignores the rest, so it is actually dangerous to make well-qualified statements, because only the qualifications will generally make it to the headlines, and they will do so as the main message, not the sidebar!

There are only two alternatives. One is to make all resolutions unqualified and unwavering. This is not only simplistic, but allows the media to paint your as simplistic, so they win that way too.

The other, and better solution is to quit making resolutions! In the climate of manipulated news we have today, you cannot help aiding the cause of your opponents!

What an unjust mess we are in that does not actually allow information to get to the people for their consideration, but focuses on filtering and spinning it.

How did we get from a press that protected our right to know, to one that knows what is right for us to know?

Posted by Kathy | July 15, 2007 2:03 PM

To leftists, this could simply mean dessert was served late, and when it finally arrived, the creme' brulee was lumpy.

Or, it could mean that gangs of soldiers are raping 14-year-old girls then murdering her and her entire family and burning their bodies. Or, it could mean that gangs of soldiers are reacting to the killing of one of their comrades by going house to house throwing grenades into rooms and then firing off hails of bullets until dozens of women and children are dead. Or it could mean breaking into an Iraqi home without warning, screaming and threatening with guns, pulling out drawers and throwing them on the floor, and after turning the house into total chaos, and not finding anything, saying, "So sorry for the inconvenience; have a good day."

Perhaps, since Nouri al-Maliki is our guy in Iraq and we say we support him, maybe we should assume that he knows what a human rights violation is, and maybe we should take him seriously.

Posted by Kathy | July 15, 2007 2:13 PM

It adds another dimension to the story, a context which shows a politician trying to reassure his constituency that their government can survive an American pullout -- not endorsing one, as the Paper of Record's report implies.

That does not make a whole lot of sense, given that the Iraqi people by an overwhelming majority want the United States out of their country asap. Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave in about the same percentages that Americans want U.S. troops to leave, and in neither case are their wishes being heeded by their governments.

The sense I get is that al-Maliki is caught between the Iraqi public's anger at the continuing occupation and their insistence that it end, and his American masters' equally strong desire for the occupation and the war to continue. Bush does not *want* to leave Iraq. He wants a U.S. military presence there indefinitely. al-Maliki is trying to please both Iraqis and the White House, and it's a razor-thin tightrope.

Posted by Rose | July 15, 2007 2:31 PM

Not asking permission, anymore - the Dictionary is clear - The Gray Lady is guilty of TREASON.

Posted by Rose | July 15, 2007 2:47 PM

You should check the expiration date on that joke.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 15, 2007 8:25 AM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You should check the expiration on the rancid Socialism the Dims are peddling.

And NOBODY is mistaking THAT for a JOKE. Old or not. It's just putrid.

Posted by flenser | July 15, 2007 3:45 PM

That does not make a whole lot of sense, given that the Iraqi people by an overwhelming majority want the United States out of their country asap.

Sadly for you, this is not true. At least if by "asap" you mean "immediately", which is how you are using it.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 15, 2007 4:53 PM

gabbo said:

"We also targeted centers of manufacture to limit war machine making ability of the enemy - not residential areas out of spite"

Ah, gabbo, you're great enteretainment. Clueless, but still great entertainment.

Actually, one of the first of our atomic bombs was supposed to be dropped on Kyoto, due to its being populated by liberal elites like yourself...

from wiki-PS, the "committee" is the bomb target committee at Los Alamos.

"The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 6:46 PM

Jr sayeth:

"Gaffo,
THe NYT essentially said the other day that they agree that if we pull out of Iraq it very well may lead to genocide in Iraq, but that it had to be done whatever theconsequences. I think that genocide were it to occur would involve predominantly Iraqi families."

agreed. it is inevitable now. we cannot stay there indefinately (this is FACT) without destroying our military and our national security should another part of the world explode and threaten us (like China/Korea/East Timor/etc........yes Virginia there is a world beyond the ME and we used to have a "two front" policy of defense - a thing your Boy King is destroying).

" ANd you and your brethren have been wishing that on Iraqis for the better part of 4 years."

lie - as in you are a liar. I do not wish anyone death - including dumb kids who want to become terrorists in Iraq.

I support life over death and that is why I opposed this war of CHOICE based upon LIES from the BOY KING from DAY ONE.

"In fact, when we weren't at war, you were demanding that they stay under the jackboot of a tyrant."


WTF? - no tard, I was demanding we mind our own fucking business. not even remotely the same as "demanding they stay under a boot"

their Nation their problem their business.

GET IT CHUMP?

"Who's the nazi here?"

don't know JR - are you chiming in with the NAZIs Keemo and Hugh and Championing the policy of targeting and killing our enemies families as a legal policy?

- go ON THE RECORD!!

YES? or NO?


Keemo and Hugh are now on the record - they support murdering childrem of our enemies.

Be proud!! JR join them!!

so are you too a NAZI "Sir"?

- Yes or no to killing children of our enemies: check here ____


don't be a puss - make it CLEAR right HERE and right NOW:

Yes? or No?...........check here ____

"Also, you show huge ignorance about WWII which is why you come back to Keemo and Hugh's points about bombing japan with a "yeah but it was a bigger war and we only attacked munitions plants" .

this is a historical fact- prove to me that we did not target munitions factories but rather civilian homes! - give me a credible link instead of talking out your ass.


"So, no Japanese families were killed?"

did i say that liar? - putting words in another's mouth means you got "nothin".

I'm taking note that you are championing the policy of targeting civilian homes here bubba.

" You justify the fact that it was a war on a much larger scale so things like the A bomb was needed, but of course that's what Keemo is saying about how we'll fight if we are attacked. "

no - he is equating 911 with ww2 and so ANY attack (regardless of scale) on the US in his mind is enough to call a Fatwah upon all small children of our enemies.

and in fact you miss the whole fucking point!! - even equating 911 to Pearl Harbor (which is obsurd BTW) the United States did not call a Fatwah upon all Japanese Children.....while Keemo IS!!

Keemo is a fanatical NAZI and he boxed himself into this fact by his own posts defending killing our enemies' families.

THAT is not the mindset of anyone with honour nor is it the american way.

and if you think it is - you are past help, and have no concept of the ideals men and women have died for to defend this Nation chump.

"You write:
That event is still debatable today. what we do know is that WW2 was a million times larger war than what we are in today, and the actions we took were in proportion to the scale and threat that war posed.
A million times larger? You sure about that."


yep. what 50 million died in ww2? - what in this one 25,000 maybe (and most in Iraq which is not even part of the WoT technically).


"It certainly was on a much larger scale, but a million?"

ok 2000 times bigger - happy now?

"Doesn't that then kind of put your "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" rhetoric about Iraq into perspective. We survived WWII which in your words was a million times worse than Iraq, I think we can survive some ragtag terrorists blowing up some car bombs. "


sure we can survive iraqnam - that is why we need to leave it. it just is not a matter of national survival to stay there!! and the cost of staying there for another 20 years is not worth the "victory".


"Also, you're justifying taking that action in WWII, because of the larger scale, but wouldn't that make you a nazi? Or would you only be a nazi for larger scaled wars? "

its simple JR - not rocket science.

in WW2 we did not deliberately target families of the enemy. Keemo is proclaiming to all the world that we must deliberately target families of our enemies.

it is the difference between Hitler and Churchill/Roosevelt, if you cannot see the differnce you are a follower of the former.


"Couldn't you apply the same tactics to win other wars then but on a smaller scale if they were smaller wars? Would that make you a nazi, as opposed to a Nazi? "

Yes I'd be a NAZI if I adopted willfully killing the families of my enemies - as Keemo and Hugh are proclaiming we should do.

"Considering some dipshit was calling Iraq IRaqnam on this site, if you'd rather compare this to Vietnam that was only a hundred thousand times (if we use Gaffo's math) larger than Iraq and we survived that one too. That war had 80,000 casualties, this war a little more than 3,000."

nice that you forget the other 98-percent non Americans chump.

" Its lasted as long, but yet the casualty rate is like a million times lower (again using gaffo math). "


only if you ignore non-American deaths. Are you claiming that non-americans are not worth anything? - care to clearfy?

"In fact some individual years in Vietnam dwarf the casualty rate in Iraq for its entire war. The only constant is that the antiwar crowd and the dems raised the white flag then too and preached defeat there too. Of course in Vietnam we continuously won every battle and even had a ceasefire worked out under Nixon. Would it have held, we'll never know as the congress pulled out all funding. And then we had Cambodia, which was directly the fault of those seeking to pull out at all costs for "peaces'' sake. I guess if the dems are successful in getting us to withdraw from Iraq and a genocide does occur, us neocons can start calling the "peace" in Iraq after we leave Cambodiraq. Just like some dipshit calls Iraq Iraqnam."

Yes indeed - we should still be in Nam slogging it out!! the 50 years war. And how many would be dead now dipshit!!!!!!!!!?

5,000,000 GIs and still a draw?

idiot.

"Back to WWII though, there were far more errors comitted in WWII, and individual battles that dwarfed anythign we face in Iraq."


We ain't talking about "errors" we are talking about POLICY. Errors - fuck ya a shitload of Blue on Blue in Sicily-relivance? none

Keemo is ON RECORD = KILL FAMILIES. this was never the US policy in ww2.

Keemo is in effect applauding the Haditha Massacre - are you?

"We have to wonder if you were alive then would you and the democrats be preaching defeat there too, we'll never get past this. FDR was incompetent. Look at all the mistakes. Blah, blah. By the way, the antiwar crowd were making the same scurillous charges back then too. FDR knew we were being attacked and let it happen. My quess is Gaffo and his crowd would be Lord Haw Haw wannabes or the modern equivalents of Hanoi Janes."


not the former - ww2 was legitimate, but surely the latter.

Nam was a clusterfuck with no just cause and no endgame -so damn straight we'd be with "Hanoi Jane".


"Maybe we can call you Baghdad Gaffo. Not quite as catchy as Hanoi Jane, but then again that war was 100,000 times the scale,so probably would have 100,000 times more imaginative slogans about it.Or not."


call me whatever you want. just don't cry when we tuck tail in Iraqnam and come home. in otherwords don't be a puss about our inevitable Humbling.

some of you pusses still cry about Nam 40 fucking years later. let it go, its unmanly to cry over it after so many years.

SOME of us learn from our National mistakes.

"Finally, while I agree with Keemo that you fight to win, and if it means taking out the enemy you do so, the fact of the matter is, despite the rhetoric to the country, we never deliberately targeted civilians in this war. I'm sure civilans were caught in the cross fire and I'm sure when the war started some cvilians residences were bombed, but it wasn't a conscious "let's blow up that iraqi residential building over there" decision. Rather, like WWII (but on a much smaller scale) we have to carry out operations on military sites and sometimes a civilan area gets taken out too. It's unfortunate, but that's what happens in war. Even in the peace we are not targeting civilians. That would be the insurgency. Every time you hear on the news that 100 Iraqis died today from a car bomb, that's them, not us. If we are involved in fire fights, its not with local Iraqis who we target out of spite."

GOOD THEN!!!!!!!!!....why you buried your defense of your Humanity in the 10th paragraph is beyond me - but it is good to see you clearity that you are not advicating the willfull murder of families of our enemies like Keemo and Hugh are.


"So that characterization is simply false on its face. However, its in fact the antiwar crowd who is wishing more such carnage on Iraq in their mad rush to withdraw, just as it was the antiwar crowd saying we had to keep Sadaam in power that was supporting the rape and torture rooms. "


bullshit. the antiwar crowd does not wish anyone dead (except maybe Bush/cheney).

we just want the troops out - because each one that has died and will die has and will have done so for no cause whatsoever.

and that is a tragedy.


"We also targeted centers of manufacture to limit war machine making ability of the enemy - not residential areas out of spite Yeah, because Hiroshima was one big factory and had no residential areas. Right? "

"if you know anything about history you'd know the target was a torpedo factory bubba."


"I gotcha. We targeted a civilian area because we needed to show overwhelming force to break Japan's will to continue fighting. So there was a hell of a lot of collateral damage there, and while we certainly didn't set out to bomb civilian targets, due to the increase in scale, we did. Didn't we flatten entire cities with one bomb? Didn't families live there? "

We had a list of cities. Kobe was removed from the list due to its cultural importance as the imperial city. the remaining cities on the list were ones with FACTORIES. We targeted FACTORIES bubba.

yes families tend to live in cities - refer to my comments on "collateral damage".

"ARe you completely oblivious to WWII history? In my personal opinion it was in fact a necessary act, and saved lives because it ended the war quicker, though I certainly wouldn't say that it didn't involve killing a ton of civilians. "

did I say it didn't involve killing "tons of civilians"? I SAID WE DID NOT TARGET CIVILIANS - WE TARGETED FACTORIES.

ONLY KEEMO IS ADVICATING TARGETING CIVILIANS.

Shall we add your name to that list?
Posted by: jr565 at July 15, 2007 12:00 PM

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 6:52 PM

If gaffo cared to read a post accurately, he/she/it would have read the following:

Bush message to the world: Attack America's homeland, and we will hunt you down and kill your leaders at will; we will kill your family members

Key word here is "your" family members as in the case of "Saddam's sons"...

No where in my comment did I say "target civilians". That was a spin job by the great gaffe-o.

In war, civilians get in the way of the target; simple fact proven by hundreds of years of war data.
Posted by: Keemo at July 15, 2007 12:23 PM


-----------------------


A terrorist's small child or baby or wife or brother or parents ARE CIVILIANS.

you advicating the killing of them is the reprehensible.

what the f%^k are you anyway? a Mafia Don?

christ.

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 7:45 PM

"dead-checking" if true is clearly a violation of the Geneva Accords and a Capital crime.

"routine" - lovely.

Zig! Heil!


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.html

Posted by Rose | July 15, 2007 8:13 PM

you were born 60 years too late and in the wrong Country.

you "vision" of who and what America is makes me sick.

Posted by: gaffo at July 15, 2007 9:14 AM

***************************

Sounds like it is time to put a var iety of propositions on the BALLOTS and LET AMERICA TELL THE POLITICIANS who "WE ARE".

Now, I guarantee you, we Conservatives ARE NOT AFRAID of putting it on a WELL-WORDED BALLOT.

Since the DIMS and Congress are trying so hard to go the opposite direction - IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TIME TO VOTE about it.

Because you do not have a RIGHT to force the Govt to go the opposite direction of the MAJORITY of Americans.

And you don't know what "SICK" is - but I guarantee you, Conservatives are ready to let you know the full brunt of it.

Posted by Rose | July 15, 2007 8:18 PM

A terrorist's small child or baby or wife or brother or parents ARE CIVILIANS.

you advicating the killing of them is the reprehensible.

what the f%^k are you anyway? a Mafia Don?

christ.

Posted by: gaffo at July 15, 2007 6:52 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

When American soldiers have to choose between terrorists families and American security, the terrorists families are colateral damage, and the MSM and DIMS listing them as CIVILIANS and "INNOCENTS" is them CHOOSING SIDES. THE OTHER.

Get your phrryequeing handcuffs off our soldiers, and back waaaaaaaaayyyyyy off away from our guys.

You are free to stand directly in front of the terrorists.

That you have chosen your side is DULY NOTED on The Books.

Posted by Rose | July 15, 2007 8:26 PM

A terrorist's small child or baby or wife or brother or parents ARE CIVILIANS.

you advicating the killing of them is the reprehensible.

what the f%^k are you anyway? a Mafia Don?

christ.

Posted by: gaffo at July 15, 2007 6:52 PM


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

What the phryeequeing are you, that you dare advocate that our soldiers must value the terrorists' families' lives above their own??? FAR MORE THAN THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES VALUE their own families, or the Soldiers, either???

YOU advocating that our soldiers SACRIFICE THEIR OWN LIVES AND OURS, TOO, for the "SAKE" of the terrorists' families who will be sent out next week with bombs strapped to THEIR bodies, too - by their own husbands, brothers, and imams/rape gangs - to kill themselves attacking US - is so far beyond reprehensible that the only way you can make is right is for you to go live with them - the side you have chosen.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking we "COUNT" you as ON THE SIDE OF AMERICA.

Politicians may be that stupid, your neighbors won't be, when the rubber hits the road.

Posted by gaffo | July 15, 2007 8:43 PM

" that you dare advocate that our soldiers must value the terrorists' families' lives above their own???"

yes - of course.

its called the Rules of War, cretin.

you too were born 60 yrs too late and 5000 miles too far West it seems.

FAR MORE THAN THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES VALUE their own families, or the Soldiers, either???

what they do or think is irrelivant.

that you wish our standards to be on thier level only shows that you are a thug with no concept of American Ideals.

you belong in Russia - you'd fit reich it.

Posted by Carol Herman | July 15, 2007 9:19 PM

Nope. Next up is the speech Bush, "as the Realtor to the Saud's" has been postponing ... but it's up next.

The "two states."

Well, Israel doesn't want to give these people citizenship. Neither does Jordan or Eygpt.

I've given up on the old media. Since we don't get to see what's really going on.

And, it seems there are now dead news stories also littering their floor. Like the Hillary attempt to whitewater canoe into Rudy Guiliani. Didn't work.

And, what does the old media do? They take a video of Osama, from 2001, and they recycle it. Without even giving you a clue that Osama's pink foam, inside a cave on Tora Bora.

You want news? You have to read between the lines.

Posted by Carol Herman | July 15, 2007 9:31 PM

For those folks who don't know it; our police departments, throughout this country, have become much more professional.

And, this is even more true for our soldiers. Unlike the old military equipment, today's arsenal is pin-point perfect. So the kinds of things you think are happening, is not how Americans fight.

Now, on the other hand, if you go and look at that one refugee camp in Lebanon, that erupted against the government; it's been flattened.

And, the Red Mosque, too, found out what happens when you try to terrorize Musharraf.

Now, let me make a recommendation. There are millions of people with opinions. There's no need to engage every voice that comes down the pike. You're not gonna be that influential.

Bulbasaur; I hadn't heard about the lumpy creme brulee; but I'm sure it would upset those on the left, no end.

Creme Brulee, by the way, pablum with a fancy name. Food for the toothless.

Posted by Ray | July 15, 2007 9:32 PM

"it is inevitable now. we cannot stay there indefinately (this is FACT) without destroying our military and our national security should another part of the world explode and threaten us

I heard this same argument when I was stationed in Germany in the mid 80's. Remember, American troops were also being targeted in the 80's by terrorists. I spend many a night on guard duty due to the bombings and assassinations of military and civilian targets in Germany that were conducted by the Red Army Faction (A Left Wing militant origination committed to the end of "American occupation of Europe") and others opposed to American troops, and a lot of people were claiming that maintaining troops in Europe had the negative effect of antagonizing Russia and its allies, like China, which could lead to another war.

Many arguments were made for reducing numbers of troops in Europe so they could be made available "in case" another conflict broke out somewhere in the world and many wanted us to close our bases overseas as they were seen as a drain upon the readiness levels of our Armed Forces and were "too expensive" to maintain and would required an ever increasing military budget which would "bankrupt America."

All those fears were proven, in time, to be false just as the current fears about having troops in Iraq will be proven in time to be false. Face it, having troops in Iraq does not reduce this country's ability to protect it's citizens in any way and actually strengthens our position in the Middle East.

Posted by Keemo | July 15, 2007 9:48 PM

Great thread...

I love your energy Rose!
We learned much today about the great gaffe-o...
I won't bother reading much from that whack job from this point forward. This creature couldn't really be an American; could it?

Geeeez

Posted by Rose | July 15, 2007 11:52 PM

you belong in Russia - you'd fit reich it.

Posted by: gaffo at July 15, 2007 8:43 PM


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You've chosen your side, and it ain't for America - we would be utterly destroyed by YOUR rules of war.

We need a VOTE at the ELECTION HALLS - I read that the DIMS have forced a vote on the Iraq war onto the California ballots in 2008.

Let's see who was born in the wrong time and has a perverted sense of the Rules of War.

Because I guarantee you, where I live, just a few hours from the Mexico border, all the folks HERE would toss YOU over the wall when the enemy is coming at us - so you won't have a chance to open the gates to them while our backs are turned.

Don't you tell US that WE have an obligation to protect the TERRORISTS Family over our own SOLDIERS or America.

WE DO NOT!

WE HAVE NO STALINIST-INSPIRED SUICIDAL tendencies.

THIS IS STALIN'S AGENDA:
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
...
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
...
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

*****************

THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN RULES OF WAR - THESE ARE STALIN'S WISH LIST FOR AMERICA'S DESTRUCTION.

WE OWE YOU NOTING ON HERE UNDER THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

You like the life of wearing BURKHAS, they YOU GO THERE and pay your dhimmi taxes in person.

-------------------------

"New" reports out of the Middle East - Jihadis applying pressure on resistant families for demanding their sons as suicidal bombers by inviting them to a fine meal and then presenting them with their own son BAKED and served with a mouth full of apple or something worse, set on the table before them AND SERVED TO THEM TO EAT.

Sounds like gaffo would thrive in THAT world, just fine.

Posted by Rose | July 16, 2007 12:01 AM

Great thread...

I love your energy Rose!
We learned much today about the great gaffe-o...
I won't bother reading much from that whack job from this point forward. This creature couldn't really be an American; could it?

Geeeez

Posted by: Keemo at July 15, 2007 9:48 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Thanks, Keemo and BACK ATCHA FOR SURE!

This giant clod - no telling where that person lives, maybe in Pakistan - who knows - but they ain't got an American bone in their body - nopw promoting that STLINIST IDEA that we should PREFER to die to killing an enemy who threatens our very existence?????

Not on HIS/HER/ITS life!

His life might not be worth fighting to save, but America is definitely worth fighting for.

What a trogladyte!

Let him pay his dhimmi tax in person!

Posted by jr565 | July 16, 2007 12:07 AM

Gaffo wrote:

agreed. it is inevitable now. we cannot stay there indefinately (this is FACT) without destroying our military and our national security should another part of the world explode and threaten us (like China/Korea/East Timor/etc........yes Virginia there is a world beyond the ME and we used to have a "two front" policy of defense - a thing your Boy King is destroying).

Oh my god. No one wants to stay 'Indefinitely".We want to stay until we stabilize the area and don't leave the room while the patient is still on the operating table. And its not inevitable, just as it wasn't inevitable for example when in the far larger war we actually won despite facing far more actors, on far more fronts and suffered far more casualties, sometimes in on single day that in Iraq in 6 years.

Rather than go through the details of all the mistakes,calamities we suffered on the way to victory, I'll just post this from Victor Davis Hanson.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407160827.asp

If we had armchair generals second guessing every move that was made in an attempt to get elected, I'm sure they could find plenty of blame to go around. But what won the war was our will to win and ability to withstand the setbacks a lesson sadly lost on you.


" ANd you and your brethren have been wishing that on Iraqis for the better part of 4 years."

lie - as in you are a liar. I do not wish anyone death - including dumb kids who want to become terrorists in Iraq.
Sorry, you were the ones protesting the loudest about removing Sadaam and you are the ones protesting the loudest about how we have to get out even though it probalby will result in a huge genocide. Your attempt to stop a war would lead to further death and murder at the hands of a totalitarian thug and your demand for peace before the war is done, whatever the costs will guarantee that there wont be peace and will in fact lead to further destablization and death.

I support life over death and that is why I opposed this war of CHOICE based upon LIES from the BOY KING from DAY ONE.
Except as stated, this left sadaam in power and Sadaam continued to kill his people and the uN continued to kill Iraqis through sanctions,and the UN continued to enrich itself through cheap oil. If that isn't blood for oil I don't know what is. You're fooling yourself into thinking that "peace" meant an absence of killing. It just meant that you didn't have to think about it. Same obtuseness from the environmental community who demand that africa adopt solar power which is expensive for non third world countries, when they don't even have electricity to power their home.

WTF? - no tard, I was demanding we mind our own fucking business. not even remotely the same as "demanding they stay under a boot"

their Nation their problem their business.
Except they had been the UN's business for ten years because of containment. Nice ignoring of history tard. If we are going to contain Iraq and not wage war, like you suggest, then that requires that the world be in Iraq's business. Because that was the terms of the ceasefire that they agreed to after we beat them down after they invaded Kuwait. Funny, this should be common knowledge since Clinton and co. were involved in said containment for two terms in office. What happened,did you sleep through that little bit of history?



don't know JR - are you chiming in with the NAZIs Keemo and Hugh and Championing the policy of targeting and killing our enemies families as a legal policy?

You justified dropping a nuke on a country as rational and to be expected given the circumstances. Are you saying then that the decision was in fact illegal policy. Follow the logic here, tard. If you think it was the right thing to do in WWII and don't question the legality of such an action,thenyou are for the policy of targeting and killing enemies familes as a legal policy. In the case of Hiroshima you're right, because it had to be done to end the war. But you don't drop a nuclear bomb on a country and not expect to kill your enemies familes. ANd not just enemies,but most likely some innocent people too. That's a hell of a lot of collateral damage and one big huge mushroom cloud.

- go ON THE RECORD!!

YES? or NO?


Keemo and Hugh are now on the record - they support murdering childrem of our enemies.

Be proud!! JR join them!!

so are you too a NAZI "Sir"?

- Yes or no to killing children of our enemies: check here ____
Now you're deliving into maudlin demagoguery (can I call godwins law). Of course, it depends on who the children are doesn't it. Sons of Sadaam who are in his army are legitimate military targets. If we were to go door to door and shoot Iraqi babies I certainly would have a problem with that, but the fact of the matter is no one has ever advocate that now or in the past in dealing with Sadaam or frankly even the nazis. No one said hey lets make sure we kill all of Hitlers cousins just to be on the safe side. You kill your enemy though, till he ceases to fight you. Now, not sure if you're aware of biology gaffo, but everyone from a nazi, to a liberal to a terrorist to a quaker has a mom and dad, and many also have relatives. Thus if you get into a war with a country odds are you're going to be fighting people who, because they are from the same country, are related or know each other. Thus if you kill them, you are kiling family members. Is it your contention that we should only wage war with groups that have no relationships and were conceived through immmaculate conception?


this is a historical fact- prove to me that we did not target munitions factories but rather civilian homes! - give me a credible link instead of talking out your ass.
Prove to me that we are deliberately targetingcivilian homes as a policy in this war. We don't do that. However, if you're referring to Hiroshima whenh you say we targeted munitions factories, have you ever heard of a blast radius? You can't target with precision a munitions factory with a nuclear bomb. Even if you have a perfect hit, the blast is not going to simply take out a munitions plant. If you're referring to bombing runs,we didn't exactly have smart bombs back in the 40's. We dropped bombs and tried to take out targets. And munition plants in civilian areas,since they contain munitions make loud booms when they explode and most likely take out many civilians. What with all the munitions in tthem and all. But is it your contention that each plane dropped just one bomb and just took out one munitions plant?

We carpet bombed and took out as much as we could, not because we were heartless,but because that's how planes bomb targets. Nazi planes, japanese planes, american planes. Sorry, but our american bombs weren't more decent and nice than the antisemitic german bombs. The point though is that you seem to not notice the implication that by saying that it was justified dropping two nukes on japan that you're saying you're ok with the result. The result was thousands of civilians dead, and far more than single munitions plant blown up in the huge mushroom cloud. If you can agree that it was the right thing to do, then at a certain point you don't have a problem with kiling mass numbers of civilans if it can achieve a result.


did i say that liar? - putting words in another's mouth means you got "nothin".

I'm taking note that you are championing the policy of targeting civilian homes here bubba.
Excuse me,when did I say that i was championing the policy of targeting civilian homes? Who's putting words in who's mouth?WHat are you talking about?


no - he is equating 911 with ww2 and so ANY attack (regardless of scale) on the US in his mind is enough to call a Fatwah upon all small children of our enemies.

Now you're adding the word small to his statements. WHat's your position on the Hitler youth. If facing them on a battlefield or in a city would they be legitimate targets? Context is everything i'd imagine, but I would say that someone shooting some 12year old german kid because you hate the nazis would be off limits, kililng soeone who's fighting against you who happens to be a preteen but who is perfectly willing to shoot you with a rifle would probably not be off limits, even to you. Therefore, unless you want to make an argument as to how immoral we were to fight wars against the nazis becuase some of those we faced might be children, then you are also perfectly willing to accept the death of the children of your enemies who may in fact also be your enemy too.

and in fact you miss the whole fucking point!! - even equating 911 to Pearl Harbor (which is obsurd BTW) the United States did not call a Fatwah upon all Japanese Children.....while Keemo IS!!
THAT is not the mindset of anyone with honour nor is it the american way.
And we haven't called a fatwah on our enemies children (though terrorists have no such compuntion of either using their own children or targeting other peoples children). SHow me where BUsh said go after all iraqi children. KIll all the first born male children! It never happened. FIrst off, for the past two years the killing being done is being done primarily by insurgents blowing up car bombs killing anyone. We're not targeting children. But family doesn't only mean children,and not all family is little children. I say that only to point out that you are twisting words to suggest that Keemo or anyone is suggesting we should kill peoples children. That's the stuff that Sadaam did, and we know how much your side wanted to keep him in power. There are stories of Sadaam and his henchmen killing the child of his critics by shooting him in the face and then charging the family for the bullets. Now, Not all the stories are true, so perhpas that's an exaggeration, but considering what I've seen documented on tape that was done by Iraqs goons to Iraqis I don't doubt it for a sec. You should look it up online Gaffo.

and if you think it is - you are past help, and have no concept of the ideals men and women have died for to defend this Nation chump. Straw man! Straw man! Funny, I"m supporting our troops NOW who are defending the ideals and defense of this nation, and its your side that is villifying them. They're akin to nazis,t hey're torturers, they're targeting children deliberately. This is the same junk by the way that Kerry spread in his bogus witner soldier investigations and continued in most Vietnam movies put out by hollywood about the atrocities commited by Vietnam vets, so yet again, you and your ilk follow the same tired script of demonizing the troops and the leadership.
"You write:

yep. what 50 million died in ww2? - what in this one 25,000 maybe (and most in Iraq which is not even part of the WoT technically).


"It certainly was on a much larger scale, but a million?"

ok 2000 times bigger - happy now?
Hey I'm happy for you to correct your math. BUt if we faced something a million times worse and 2000 times bigger and suffered casualties infinitely worse,and made mistakes far more more costly, what makes youthink that somehow we can't survive this and not only survive but succeed? Sure its slow going, but then again history always is.


sure we can survive iraqnam - that is why we need to leave it. it just is not a matter of national survival to stay there!! and the cost of staying there for another 20 years is not worth the "victory".
If we can survive it then we don't need to leave it. Now thats assuming that it will be exactly the same 20 years from now and the violence will stay at the current levels. THis is not an insurgency of the masses. These are guys using car bombs against predominantly Iraqis (very often IRaqi family members). They are bound by the exact same rules of war that we are. They suffer losses, become demoralized, suffer setbacks. ONly they are a much smaller group and don't have hundreds of thousands of recruits, or endless funds. Iraq will not be like this in 20 years if we are there. Of course, this ignores a key point that you and your side conveniently ignore. Bush is not a king, boy or otherwise. Even if he wanted to stay 20 years, Bush only controls policy while he is commander in chief. IT's not an endless war, Bush isn't trying to become a monarch, and if democrats win, they can simply end the war.

ONly then they'd have to deal with the consequences,and failure would be on them not on Bush. ITs prbaly not a matter of national survival to stay in Japan either at this point, but we still have troops there. Its certainly not a matter of national survival to send troops to Rwanda, or Darfur and it wasn't a matter of national survival to go into somalia. The point is,destabliizing the middle east andgiving a country to al Qaeda that also has oil reserves, or to destablize the region so that it opens up a war between the Turks and the Kurds or the Saudis and the Shiites or one that causes Iran and Iraq to either resume hostilities or become allies in massacring the Sunnis is not in our long term interest either. And of course what your side is doing is suggesting that if we just get out, we don't have to worry about Iraq any more. Of course, the world doesn't work like that. History doesn't end just because some moron (you gaffo) covers his ears and pretends like nothing happens after causing America to withdraw in defeat. Thats going to impact our dealings with the entire Middle East going forward, ourdealings with keeping Iran in check, our dealings with our allies and our enemies. I can assure you, as soon as we pull out, there will be a tape by zawahiri telling how al qaeda was able to repel the infidel from iraq and will use that for recruitment for years to come,and if you check the leaked NIE estimates after the fact , i'm sure they'd all show an upsurge in terrorism. Because us looking like we can be beaten by car bombs will mean that Al Qaeda adopts those tactics against us going forward.

If Al Qaeda proves their thesis that we are a paper tiger,it will not lessen their attacks against us, but rather increase them, because they would have found the chink in the armore,as well as the means to beat us,not just in Iraq but anywhere going forward. It also defeats the alternative to war,namely diplomacy because countries that recoginze that we will not go to war with them or are not serious about war if it should come to that will recognize we have no leverage when it comes to diplomacy. Beucase you're breaking the stick, which is as necessary in diplomacy as the carrots.


its simple JR - not rocket science.

in WW2 we did not deliberately target families of the enemy. Keemo is proclaiming to all the world that we must deliberately target families of our enemies.

it is the difference between Hitler and Churchill/Roosevelt, if you cannot see the differnce you are a follower of the former.
In wars, as in all wars, we targeted the enemy. We're not going into Iraq and shooting babies. But if for example Sadaams two sons are also in the army and are the enemy and are coordinating attacks with their father, then they are perfectly valid targets. We don't have census data or precision to take out someones sister because we;re pissed,and our assassins aren't out looking for the cousin of some jihadist so he can teach him a lesson. Clearly, soldiers have far too much to do with their time then to engage in targeting somebodys relative. Keemo, I'm sure is talking about a top down approach. You bomb the crap out of the country, you defeat them and crush the will to fight back. I'm sure when you clear the rubble a lot of peoples family end up dead, butthat's not Keemos goal,unless those family members are also say fighting against us.

Yes I'd be a NAZI if I adopted willfully killing the families of my enemies - as Keemo and Hugh are proclaiming we should do.
Again, I bring up HItler youth. They are the family of the enemy. they are the childrenof the the enemy. Is it morally wrong to target hitler youth,despite the fact that they are, er youth. Anyone can claim to have a mother somewhere,so if someone is killed onthe battlefied its impacting on someones famiy.

nice that you forget the other 98-percent non Americans chump. Well your side certainly did. Hey Hey LBJ how many babies did you kill today but once we withdrew and the killing fields started in Cambodia, you could see the tumbleweeds blowing by. THe peace movement must have gone into hibernation. Dont remember Peter Paul andMary in concert withall the hippies talking about the poor Cambodians. Maybe they were too embarassed at what they helped bring about. Or how about the boat people who had to flee vietnam after we left. The left has great track record of being a champion of either the cambodians OR the Vietnames after we left.


only if you ignore non-American deaths. Are you claiming that non-americans are not worth anything? - care to clearfy?Sigh. YOU JUST SAID AT THE TOP OF YOUR LONG POST THAT ITS NOT WORTH IT TO STAY EVEN IF A GENOCIDE IS INEVITABLE. THat doesn't sound exactly like someone who cares. Are YOU claimingthat non americans are not worthanything? Apparently so, considering your glee to throw them under the bus so easily.

Keemo is ON RECORD = KILL FAMILIES. this was never the US policy in ww2.

Keemo is in effect applauding the Haditha Massacre - are you?
Hey what do you have to say about this? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f88_1182453078&c=1
I question whether in fact there was a massacre (not that people didn't die but that it was this repeat of MY Lai) and whether oursoldiers were delberately targeting civilians. If they were,then i certainly have no problem with themfacing jail time, but the whole argument that this was MyLai all over again,sounds very suspiciously like agitprop. Until the facts come out completely, you cahracterizingthe soldiers as deliberately targeting the civilians solely because they were civilans is a slur.

not the former - ww2 was legitimate, but surely the latter.

Nam was a clusterfuck with no just cause and no endgame -so damn straight we'd be with "Hanoi Jane". So define cluster fuck. Was it FUBAR too? Is cluster fuck better or worse than FUBAR? Please elaborate, in militarly terms.

call me whatever you want. just don't cry when we tuck tail in Iraqnam and come home. in otherwords don't be a puss about our inevitable Humbling.
And when we have to deal with Cambodiraq I'm sure you'll be standing in the corner with a see no evil hear no evil sign on your chest. And your head yet again up your ass. At least you're honest though. It's your intent to make us tuck tale and run. Which is what will be written the history books. The libs undermined the war ina deliberate attempt to Humble the US or BUsh. Of course, since Bush will be gone in less then two years and the consequences will last far longer than that we'll definitely have someone to pin it on. The democrats, Weak on national defense.Willing to humble our nation to get elected.

some of you pusses still cry about Nam 40 fucking years later. let it go, its unmanly to cry over it after so many years.
and yet you bring it up and compare it as your sole reference point for this war. You even go so far as to call this war Iraqnam over and over. Because your sole reference is the the sixties, and your sole reference to Vietnam is most likely Platoon and Full MEtal jacket. and Woodstock. can't forget that. If you want others to get over the past how about not referencing it whenever you mention the current war in some childish slogan.
SOME of us learn from our National mistakes. did your side learn antying from the collapse of Vietnam. it seems like it completely slipped your mind. And of course you supposedly learned from your national mistakes.but wasn't clinton sanctioning and containing Iraq for 8 years? Wasn't that you guys?Wasn't it clinton who passed Iraq Liberation act? I forget whatthe rationale for that was. Care to bring us up to speed. For what? Wasn't Vietnam started by a democrat? and hey, i forget,Did George McGovern actually win? You say you learned from your mistakes. Dumbass,two of the frontrunners in the democratic party voted to send us to war, and one of them is the wife of the previous president who was dealing with Iraq under his watch and went so far as to demand a regime change. You learn from your national mistakes? Your side can't even learn to remember the votes passed in 1998 when they passed iraqi liberation act because of sadaams threat to the world. You can't learn from your mistakes when you're like the guy from Memento who cant even remember what your side said five minutes ago. Or more likely, they do remember, they just have their hands int he wind and will say ANYTHING to get elected,even if it contradicted what they said the day before.


bullshit. the antiwar crowd does not wish anyone dead (except maybe Bush/cheney).Does this sound familiar?"it just is not a matter of national survival to stay there!! and the cost of staying there for another 20 years is not worth the "victory"To paraphrase, Hey, if its a genocide screw it, its just not worth it. and anyway we need to humble the US and particularly Bush so its worth it. Man, I am in awe of your humanitarian spirit.It's like We are the World All over.

we just want the troops out - because each one that has died and will die has and will have done so for no cause whatsoever.

and that is a tragedy.
Says you. Somehow think they'd think differently, which is why the majority are reupping every chance they get. Far be it from me to spit on their graves and piss on their effort. It takes a true chump to do that. People like Ted Rall, and Gaffo of course.


"if you know anything about history you'd know the target was a torpedo factory bubba."

So the only building that was blown up all of WWII was one single solitary torpedo factory? And they only needed one single plane to do the job and that plane only dropped one single bomb which landed with pinpoint accuracy on said torpedo plant? Hmm, never knew bombing runs were so precise especially back in the 40's prior to the advent of precision guided missiles. Good to know. So i guess the deaths in world war II due to bombings from planes numbered in the dozens.

We had a list of cities. Kobe was removed from the list due to its cultural importance as the imperial city. the remaining cities on the list were ones with FACTORIES. We targeted FACTORIES bubba.
Wait a minute, we're now talking about a LIST of factories. I thought it was the one factory. Now we're talking multiple factories. Luckily for us the Japanese didn't put factories in their cities near any civilian areas.Cause then some of the japanese might have been like targeted.

Do you think it never crossed anyones mind that maybe some of the bombs might hit civilians who happen to work near the factories or in the factories? Or would that mean that they knew that they were targeting civilian areas with highly imprecise bombs and knew that a whole lot of civilians would die BUT made the moral calculus that they needed to take out said factories to win the war.

See, im not going to call anyone fighting in WWII a nazi for going on a bombing run and dropping bombs (note plural) on a city to take out factories, knowing that civilians were going to die. Because that's how war works.


did I say it didn't involve killing "tons of civilians"? I SAID WE DID NOT TARGET CIVILIANS - WE TARGETED FACTORIES.

ONLY KEEMO IS ADVICATING TARGETING CIVILIANS.What if keemo said we should bomb our enemies back to the stone age? Is that too Nazi for you? What if he said we should bomb them back to the stone age AND destroy all their factories too? Is that better?

and Keemo said we should kill our enemies. Now you're saying hes advocating kiling of civilans. Are the civilians in question our enemy? Woudln't the fact that they were civiliians distinguish them from our enemy by the fact that they were civilans?

Posted by Rose | July 16, 2007 12:12 AM

gaffo

Eternity stretches out endlessly before you - glad to see you stomping forward on your chosen destination very determinedly, and decisively, forthrightly, with all diligence and without the slightest equivocation.

Nothing at all like ending up PRECISELY in your own CHOSEN destination, and NOT landing somewhere else TOTALLY BY ACCIDENT.

Once there, your life here on this earth will seem as nothing, the slightest vapor, whisp - NOTHING.

And your new, rich life of abundance will envelop you with a richness of texture and solidarity such that will make life on this earth seem nothing but a hazy sureal dream.

I love seeing a human being with complete and utter assurance that where they are going is the right destination FOR THEM.

Thank God for your sure decisions.

Posted by Rose | July 16, 2007 12:14 AM

you belong in Russia - you'd fit reich it.

Posted by: gaffo at July 15, 2007 8:43 PM


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You've chosen your side, and it ain't for America - we would be utterly destroyed by YOUR rules of war.

We need a VOTE at the ELECTION HALLS - I read that the DIMS have forced a vote on the Iraq war onto the California ballots in 2008.

Let's see who was born in the wrong time and has a perverted sense of the Rules of War.

Because I guarantee you, where I live, just a few hours from the Mexico border, all the folks HERE would toss YOU over the wall when the enemy is coming at us - so you won't have a chance to open the gates to them while our backs are turned.

Don't you tell US that WE have an obligation to protect the TERRORISTS Family over our own SOLDIERS or America.

WE DO NOT!

WE HAVE NO STALINIST-INSPIRED SUICIDAL tendencies.

THIS IS STALIN'S AGENDA:
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
...
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
...
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

*****************

THESE ARE NOT AMERICAN RULES OF WAR - THESE ARE STALIN'S WISH LIST FOR AMERICA'S DESTRUCTION.

WE OWE YOU NOTING ON HERE UNDER THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

You like the life of wearing BURKHAS, they YOU GO THERE and pay your dhimmi taxes in person.

-------------------------

"New" reports out of the Middle East - Jihadis applying pressure on resistant families for demanding their sons as suicidal bombers by inviting them to a fine meal and then presenting them with their own son BAKED and served with a mouth full of apple or something worse, set on the table before them AND SERVED TO THEM TO EAT.

Sounds like gaffo would thrive in THAT world, just fine.

Posted by Rose | July 16, 2007 12:23 AM

I swear, if the Democrats had witnessed the events of Numbers 16 for themselves, as personal eyewitnesses, I know that first thing the next morning, they would have been at Moses' tent door, demanding another earthquake on the other side of the camp, taking the same number of those who represented the opposite viewpoint - in the NAME of FAIRNESS AND BALANCE.

Posted by Rose | July 16, 2007 12:32 AM

gaffo wants to claim that going to war and bombing Nazi-held cities is EQUIVALENT to BEING a NAZI who stuffs human beings into cattle cars for death camps and stuffs them into gas ovens by the millions.

So using deadly force to stop a Nazi makes one a Nazi or WORSE than a Nazi - to stop one from their deadly intentions.

Using Deadly force to stop any other DEADLY ENEMY is now EQUAL TO BEING A NAZI.

Because we don't accept the MASSADA COMPLEX offered to us by STALIN, so we just DIE OFF and hand our total wherewithall to our deadliest enemies, THEN WE ARE WORSE than our DEADLY ENEMIES.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA

And gaffo expects us to so hunger after his/her/its OPINION OF US that we all run out and KILL OURSELVES and spare our deadly enemies the BOTHER.

SO LOL!

Well, I don't see gaffo showing us how to do it!

Posted by kindaskeptical | July 16, 2007 4:09 AM

I find the weirdest part to be all the words put into people's mouths that aren't their position or what they are arguing. Pussy Republicans say this, Democrats say that. So much bogus hyperbole. I'm not as squeamish as gaffo, but:

"Bush message to the world: Attack America's homeland, and we will hunt you down and kill your leaders at will; we will kill your family members; we will cross borders to find and kill you; hundreds of thousands of your people will die... Attack the American homeland at your own risk; enter with caution...
Posted by: Keemo at July 15, 2007 7:53 AM"

The problem, Keemo, is that when al Qaeda did that, and everyone in the world was behind us doing what you wish the president had done (including Democrats and pussy Republicans), the president didn't take our attackers seriously and moved troops out of where al Qaeda was, and attacked a country that didn't it attack us, nor had the ability to do so. Would that we had a president who didn't waste our resources on political nonsense that ought never to have diverted our resolve, our treasure, and the lives of our best, brightest, and most honorable.

The article Capt. Ed refers to is all about the political will of a foreign government that may or may not deliver, but which wasn't a threat, and and didn't attack us. Not the USS Cole, not the bombing of the Trade Center, and not on 9/11.

However, the strategy of making a neutralized country into an ally of Iran, who also attached us, albeit at our embassy in Tehran, is sheer genius of a sort we didn't need. What a waste of time, resources, and blood.

Posted by Kathy | July 16, 2007 6:46 AM

Sadly for you, this is not true. At least if by "asap" you mean "immediately", which is how you are using it.

In September, 2006, a poll conducted by World Public Opinion.org showed that 70 percent of Iraqis wanted U.S. troops to *commit* to withdraw from Iraq within one year. Note the date of this poll again.

This same poll revealed that 60 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S. military forces. This percentage was not accompanied by any significant support for Al Qaeda. It was the result of Iraqis' strong belief that the U.S. is building permanent military bases in Iraq (which it is), and would refuse to leave Iraq no matter what Iraqis wanted.

The only area in which the majority of Iraqis were positive about U.S. troops was in the context of a non-military role; i.e., training Iraqi security forces and helping with community projects -- although they also said the U.S. was doing a very poor job in these areas.

There are many other polls, some much earlier than this one, showing Iraqis want Americans out of their country, and some more recently than this poll, showing the same thing. I can get them for you if you wish.

I know it's hard for you to believe that there could be any country in the world that would not want to have America occupying their country, it really is true. They don't. It's also not at all uncommon for world powers that have achieved the status of empires to belive that their military forces are in other countries "at the invitation" of the other countries' people.

Posted by Keemo | July 16, 2007 7:13 AM

Since we all know that the truth (facts) will not show up in the MSM (most certainly not @ the NYT), here is the truth and an update on the surge:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071207/content/01125106.guest.html