Open Letter to the

[AFTiger 282]

The problem started when Rummy did the job on the cheap. they fired the guy that suggested it would take upwards of 200,000 troops to do the job correctly. Where do we go from here? Well, first of all the Iraq government has serius problems and is all but useless. Heck, I think, six tribal sheikhs were killed today. Given the track record of this administration, I don't believe a word they say. So, for me to solve their problems? You must be kidding. The ripped out my heart in 2000. I have no compassion for them whatsoever.

I have an idea. Let's pull out. War over; we quit. That will show them.

I thought we already won the war?

Wrong as usual, TT.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

The problem started when Rummy did the job on the cheap. they fired the guy that suggested it would take upwards of 200,000 troops to do the job correctly. Where do we go from here? Well, first of all the Iraq government has serius problems and is all but useless. Heck, I think, six tribal sheikhs were killed today. Given the track record of this administration, I don't believe a word they say. So, for me to solve their problems? You must be kidding. The ripped out my heart in 2000. I have no compassion for them whatsoever.

I have an idea. Let's pull out. War over; we quit. That will show them.

I thought we already won the war?

Wrong as usual, TT.

That's just what some of your buddies told me on this forum a few weeks ago. You didn't argue with them. Inconsistent as usual, AFT.

[AUesquire 1]

I had a conversation last week with two guys that have done their tour in Iraq. I have two BILs also that did their tours, one in a tank and the other in an F-18. There's one consistent theme that stands out every time I talk to these guys. And that is, we are dealing with a totally different people from anything we've ever dealt with before.

They think completely different than us. Their values are a complete 180 from what we are accustomed to. They place a totally different value and importance on life than we do. We are trying to reason and be diplomatic with them and it never has and never will work. This comes from literally thousands of years of customs, religions, values etc. and we're trying to invade a country and change them overnight. It's NOT going to happen. My neighbor is a Blackhawk pilot who flew missions on a daily basis. He said you would ride the streets and people would cheer you, offer you food, gratitude, whatever. You would fly a patrol over the same neighborhood that very night and those same people would be shooting at you, trying to blow you out of the sky.

We will not change these people or their way of life. We may remove an evil dictator and help them get to a point where they don't live in AS MUCH fear of torture and reprisals. But we will not change their way of thinking, living and their customs. My humble opinion is to mandate a time line for withdrawal with ample time to allow their new police/army to get as much in control as possible. Then it is time to move on. Formulate a plan, tell the Iraqi's and the world about it and carry it out.

[AUman43 5]

AUesquire, don't tell our politicians in Washington this, because they are experts not to be contradicted with facts of people who have actually been there and involved, and they have a lot of followers.

IMO, as crazy as it sounds, Saddam KNEW how to control those various sectarian groups and their tribal leaders......."behave and get along or I'll kill you." Where he screwed up was with his "saber rattling" and defiance of the world community believing GHWB and GWB wouldn't come after him. Otherwise, he would probably still be in power.

Very seldom do we ever hear an opinion given as to whether the Iraqi people really WANT a democratic system of Government; know how to deal with one; and can maintain one. I honestly believe that the desire for such a government MUST originate from the grass roots upward and not by coersion or force from the outside. You're right; AUsquire, their values, language, INTOLERANT RELIGIONS and customs are so different from ours that we may never understand them. Another interesting thing is the hatred that their religious factions harbor for one another. THAT seems to take precedence over any hope of a democracy. Also, I would really like to know how much of that "hatred and violence" would have still been there following Saddam IF Al Quadi were not there at all!

For those who criticized my open letter to the President, I would point out that my past suggestions to the President has been:

1. Demand accountability from the Iraqi leaders and cite SPECIFIC counter measures or consequences for their not doing so and STICK TO IT.

2. Let them know that our involvement in this conflict will NOT last forever and tie our involvement to private benchmarks. (not public)

3. Develop a policy NOW for what exactly our role in that country is going to be AFTER we leave.

I still believe that we cannot and should not attempt again to occupy a foreign country, ESPECIALLY a Muslim country. If we do, the results are going to continue to be catastrophic. (so much for early propaganda that we would "be welcomed as liberators." For those learned people who still believe OCCUPATION is sane, just read some history books. i.e. Hitlers occupation of Europe, France's occupation of Vietnam, our occupation of Vietnam, Rome's world occupation and domination, British colonialism, etc.

It's amazing how niave and narrow minded some are when considering our presence in another country. Just ask yourself: How would I feel if our country was occupied by Iraqi's and/or Muslims? Would I fight with liberators to drive them from America? Would I stop until they were gone? When I read where Bush and our "leaders" say things like "we expect to have a troop presense in Iraq for years to come", I simply shutter at their niavity and stupidity.

[AFTiger 282]

The problem started when Rummy did the job on the cheap. they fired the guy that suggested it would take upwards of 200,000 troops to do the job correctly. Where do we go from here? Well, first of all the Iraq government has serius problems and is all but useless. Heck, I think, six tribal sheikhs were killed today. Given the track record of this administration, I don't believe a word they say. So, for me to solve their problems? You must be kidding. The ripped out my heart in 2000. I have no compassion for them whatsoever.

I have an idea. Let's pull out. War over; we quit. That will show them.

I thought we already won the war?

Wrong as usual, TT.

That's just what some of your buddies told me on this forum a few weeks ago. You didn't argue with them. Inconsistent as usual, AFT.

I must have missed that conversation. I remember one about winning the war against Saddam but the war against Al Qaida is far from over. But you never understood the difference because you screaming Bush lied.

You and your fellow Dims are about to make the same mistake you accuse Rumsfield of; no post action plans.

[GalensGhost 0]

the results are going to continue to be catastrophic.

Catastrophic? CATASTROPHIC? You don't know the meaning of the word.

What's happening in Iraq is hardly catastrophic. In fact, it's almost exactly what President Bush warned us it would be from the outset. It was going to be a long, drawn out, protracted, difficult fight -- a type of conflict the world had never seen. It was going to be a war not just for land, but for the minds and hearts of a people unaccustomed to freedom. Too bad the wusses in this country no longer have the character or the fortitude to do what's right or noble. We won the war in Iraq. We removed a dangerous despot who was systematically slaughtering thousands of people to suit his whims. If people like you will shut the F*** up and let the military do its job, there will be a stable Iraq. We will have an ally. And we can continue to hunt and destroy the terrorists who make that region their home.

It might surprise you, because the media won't report it but the vast majority of US soldiers see what's happening in Iraq. They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I hope the president gets your letter. I hope he reads it and gives it full consideration. Then I hope he does with it exactly what it's worth and uses it to scoop dog s*** off the White House lawn.

Disgraceful.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

the results are going to continue to be catastrophic.

Catastrophic? CATASTROPHIC? You don't know the meaning of the word.

What's happening in Iraq is hardly catastrophic. In fact, it's almost exactly what President Bush warned us it would be from the outset. It was going to be a long, drawn out, protracted, difficult fight -- a type of conflict the world had never seen.

Got a link to that fantasy?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

the results are going to continue to be catastrophic.

Catastrophic? CATASTROPHIC? You don't know the meaning of the word.

What's happening in Iraq is hardly catastrophic. In fact, it's almost exactly what President Bush warned us it would be from the outset. It was going to be a long, drawn out, protracted, difficult fight -- a type of conflict the world had never seen. It was going to be a war not just for land, but for the minds and hearts of a people unaccustomed to freedom. Too bad the wusses in this country no longer have the character or the fortitude to do what's right or noble. We won the war in Iraq. We removed a dangerous despot who was systematically slaughtering thousands of people to suit his whims. If people like you will shut the F*** up and let the military do its job, there will be a stable Iraq. We will have an ally. And we can continue to hunt and destroy the terrorists who make that region their home.

It might surprise you, because the media won't report it but the vast majority of US soldiers see what's happening in Iraq. They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I hope the president gets your letter. I hope he reads it and gives it full consideration. Then I hope he does with it exactly what it's worth and uses it to scoop dog s*** off the White House lawn.

Disgraceful.

Wait a minute:

1. "Slam Dunk" - George Tenet

3. Recall May 1, 2003.

THE PRESIDENT: "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030501-15.html

3. "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Unca Dick May 31, 2005

Now, they call the insurgency Al Qaida, but I know it's both. So, when will this end? And since Dubya has direct line to God , why does he ask Him?

[GalensGhost 0]

the results are going to continue to be catastrophic.

Catastrophic? CATASTROPHIC? You don't know the meaning of the word.

What's happening in Iraq is hardly catastrophic. In fact, it's almost exactly what President Bush warned us it would be from the outset. It was going to be a long, drawn out, protracted, difficult fight -- a type of conflict the world had never seen. It was going to be a war not just for land, but for the minds and hearts of a people unaccustomed to freedom. Too bad the wusses in this country no longer have the character or the fortitude to do what's right or noble. We won the war in Iraq. We removed a dangerous despot who was systematically slaughtering thousands of people to suit his whims. If people like you will shut the F*** up and let the military do its job, there will be a stable Iraq. We will have an ally. And we can continue to hunt and destroy the terrorists who make that region their home.

It might surprise you, because the media won't report it but the vast majority of US soldiers see what's happening in Iraq. They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I hope the president gets your letter. I hope he reads it and gives it full consideration. Then I hope he does with it exactly what it's worth and uses it to scoop dog s*** off the White House lawn.

Disgraceful.

Wait a minute:

1. "Slam Dunk" - George Tenet

3. Recall May 1, 2003.

THE PRESIDENT: "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030501-15.html

3. "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Unca Dick May 31, 2005

Now, they call the insurgency Al Qaida, but I know it's both. So, when will this end? And since Dubya has direct line to God , why does he ask Him?

I'm glad you agree with me.

The war WAS a slam dunk.

Major combat actions in Iraq have ended.

The United States and her allies have prevailed.

We still engaged in the process of securing and reconstructing that country. It's not an easy task and those who yearn for Iraq to return to despotic rule -- and they are few but fanatic -- oppose those efforts.

As for the Bush comments, I think it was during his State of the Union speech immediately after 9-11. I'll try to find it for you, but I know it was said. No question.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

the results are going to continue to be catastrophic.

Catastrophic? CATASTROPHIC? You don't know the meaning of the word.

What's happening in Iraq is hardly catastrophic. In fact, it's almost exactly what President Bush warned us it would be from the outset. It was going to be a long, drawn out, protracted, difficult fight -- a type of conflict the world had never seen. It was going to be a war not just for land, but for the minds and hearts of a people unaccustomed to freedom. Too bad the wusses in this country no longer have the character or the fortitude to do what's right or noble. We won the war in Iraq. We removed a dangerous despot who was systematically slaughtering thousands of people to suit his whims. If people like you will shut the F*** up and let the military do its job, there will be a stable Iraq. We will have an ally. And we can continue to hunt and destroy the terrorists who make that region their home.

It might surprise you, because the media won't report it but the vast majority of US soldiers see what's happening in Iraq. They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I hope the president gets your letter. I hope he reads it and gives it full consideration. Then I hope he does with it exactly what it's worth and uses it to scoop dog s*** off the White House lawn.

Disgraceful.

Wait a minute:

1. "Slam Dunk" - George Tenet

3. Recall May 1, 2003.

THE PRESIDENT: "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030501-15.html

3. "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - Unca Dick May 31, 2005

Now, they call the insurgency Al Qaida, but I know it's both. So, when will this end? And since Dubya has direct line to God , why does he ask Him?

I'm glad you agree with me.

The war WAS a slam dunk.

Major combat actions in Iraq have ended.

The United States and her allies have prevailed.

We still engaged in the process of securing and reconstructing that country. It's not an easy task and those who yearn for Iraq to return to despotic rule -- and they are few but fanatic -- oppose those efforts.

As for the Bush comments, I think it was during his State of the Union speech immediately after 9-11. I'll try to find it for you, but I know it was said. No question.

Most Americans don't play the logical gymnastics of concluding that somehow the Iraq war ended successfully, but the "war on terra" is simply bogging down in...Iraq. The fight against terrorism is indefinite. But no one, Bush and Cheney included, expected us to have this many troops fighting and dying in Iraq in 2007. Spin it anyway you want, but you're fooling yourself.

[CCTAU 3,342]

It's a war. It will continue to be a war for those of us who support it. Those of you who claim to care about the lost lives do nothing about the lost lives here in the states every day. So how can you even begin to understand why they are dying. Iraqis are dying every day also. They are joining the Army, the police and other groups that are fighting with al quaida on a daily basis.

The president DID say the things GG quoted. Problem is, until one of your family members are blown to $hit by a terrorist, you can't see it from your house. If we had only addressed naziism in a timely manner, many people would not have died in WWII. This president very well could be saving your sorry ass and you would never even know or acknowledge. There are hundreds of thousand soldiers who go to Iraq AND come home alive. If they are truly the ones doing the fighting, then they know the score on the ground. It's not near as dire as the media would have you believe. Turn their hands loose and watch how that country falls into line even quicker. If they would go ahead and kill off al sadr, things would get better. The sheiks and other leaders are beginning to realize that terrorism is the problem, not the US.

And I'm convinced that there is a timetable for withdrawal. AND IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS WHAT IT IS. He who tells the enemy of our plans is a TRAITOR.

[GalensGhost 0]

Most Americans don't play the logical gymnastics of concluding that somehow the Iraq war ended successfully, but the "war on terra" is simply bogging down in...Iraq. The fight against terrorism is indefinite. But no one, Bush and Cheney included, expected us to have this many troops fighting and dying in Iraq in 2007. Spin it anyway you want, but you're fooling yourself.

You're confused.

The war on terror goes on anywhere terrorists are. What's happening in Iraq is exactly what I said, what President Bush promised and what was predicted. Here it is again for you:

We still engaged in the process of securing and reconstructing that country. It's not an easy task and those who yearn for Iraq to return to despotic rule -- and they are few but fanatic -- oppose those efforts.

It's pitiful that so many people in this country no longer have the guts to do what has to be done. Iraq is a "catastrophe" in your mind because Katie Couric, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Bitchary Clinton and Empty Suit LaBamba say it is, not because it ACTUALLY is. Yes, it's a horrible thing when a soldier dies. Nobody wants that. Unfortunately it's a sad truth of military exercises -- even military occupations like we the one in which we are engaged now. While I would never demean or diminish the loss of a soldier, the fact remains that throughout the entire conflict (easily won) and the longer struggle to help rebuild the country very few soldiers have died in relation to losses we sustained in other wars and confrontations. Compare the entire Iraqi war and subsequent rebuilding effort to the loss of life in a single day at Normandy.

Without the media's ceaseless intrusion, this mission could be accomplished. Had the media intruded during WWII as it does now, the world would be a much worse place. Ever since Vietnam, the suck ass media has undermined the efforts of the military, hamstrung its leaders and defeated our mission before the first shot was fired.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Most Americans don't play the logical gymnastics of concluding that somehow the Iraq war ended successfully, but the "war on terra" is simply bogging down in...Iraq. The fight against terrorism is indefinite. But no one, Bush and Cheney included, expected us to have this many troops fighting and dying in Iraq in 2007. Spin it anyway you want, but you're fooling yourself.

You're confused.

The war on terror goes on anywhere terrorists are. What's happening in Iraq is exactly what I said, what President Bush promised and what was predicted. Here it is again for you:

We still engaged in the process of securing and reconstructing that country. It's not an easy task and those who yearn for Iraq to return to despotic rule -- and they are few but fanatic -- oppose those efforts.

It's pitiful that so many people in this country no longer have the guts to do what has to be done. Iraq is a "catastrophe" in your mind because Katie Couric, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Bitchary Clinton and Empty Suit LaBamba say it is, not because it ACTUALLY is. Yes, it's a horrible thing when a soldier dies. Nobody wants that. Unfortunately it's a sad truth of military exercises -- even military occupations like we the one in which we are engaged now. While I would never demean or diminish the loss of a soldier, the fact remains that throughout the entire conflict (easily won) and the longer struggle to help rebuild the country very few soldiers have died in relation to losses we sustained in other wars and confrontations. Compare the entire Iraqi war and subsequent rebuilding effort to the loss of life in a single day at Normandy.

Without the media's ceaseless intrusion, this mission could be accomplished. Had the media intruded during WWII as it does now, the world would be a much worse place. Ever since Vietnam, the suck ass media has undermined the efforts of the military, hamstrung its leaders and defeated our mission before the first shot was fired.

You're as delusional as any Bammer I've ever met. Do you have this much difficulty recognizing reality and accepting responsiblity in your personal life as well?

[GalensGhost 0]

You're as delusional as any Bammer I've ever met. Do you have this much difficulty recognizing reality and accepting responsiblity in your personal life as well?

All due respect? Based on the things I've seen you post in regard to political issues here, you're the last person who should be preaching about delusion, reality or accepting responsibility.

I see things as they are. I don't rely on John Edwards or Shillary Clinton to craft my opinion for me.

You're going to tell me that if the US entered WWII today and the media took the same stance it has taken since Vietnam that we'd have been able to win that war? No way in hell. No way. We'd never have been given the green light to invade Normandy. When we bombed Berlin people like Bottomfeeder would have posted pictures of little kids next to bloody corpses. People would have been writing sissified calls for withdrawal in open letters to the president. Truman would never have gotten Congressional approval to bomb Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The treaties to end the war would have given all the lands back to the Nazis in appeasement efforts. The European liberation would never have happened. Japan would still be under empirical rule. All the amazing technological advances we've enjoyed over the last 50 years -- including the computer you're using and the Internet we use to communicate -- might never have come about. But that would be okay by you, I guess.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

You're as delusional as any Bammer I've ever met. Do you have this much difficulty recognizing reality and accepting responsiblity in your personal life as well?

All due respect? Based on the things I've seen you post in regard to political issues here, you're the last person who should be preaching about delusion, reality or accepting responsibility.

I see things as they are. I don't rely on John Edwards or Shillary Clinton to craft my opinion for me.

You're going to tell me that if the US entered WWII today and the media took the same stance it has taken since Vietnam that we'd have been able to win that war? No way in hell. No way. We'd never have been given the green light to invade Normandy. When we bombed Berlin people like Bottomfeeder would have posted pictures of little kids next to bloody corpses. People would have been writing sissified calls for withdrawal in open letters to the president. Truman would never have gotten Congressional approval to bomb Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The treaties to end the war would have given all the lands back to the Nazis in appeasement efforts. The European liberation would never have happened. Japan would still be under empirical rule. All the amazing technological advances we've enjoyed over the last 50 years -- including the computer you're using and the Internet we use to communicate -- might never have come about. But that would be okay by you, I guess.

I started to say this was further evidence that you prefer the well-crafted phrase to the well-crafted argument, but your phrases aren't even that interesting on this post. At least play to your strengths!

I doubt we'd have had any problem declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.

The WWII comparisons are incredibly simplistic. But since you're on it, the American people were all asked to sacrifice for that war. It was a nation-wide effort. After 9/11 all Bush asked the American public to do was shop, accept tax cuts and vote Republican.

The "media" were cheerleaders for the Iraq war at the outset. They could not have been less critical or scrutinizing. But it was a bad idea, poorly implemented and that has been increasingly difficult to deny or obscure. Most intelligent, informed people see that now. But you hang in there.

But think about it-- you're conceding defeat and looking for someone to blame instead of those who planned it and implemented it. If that isn't great evidence of a whiny lack of accountability, what is?

[GalensGhost 0]

You're as delusional as any Bammer I've ever met. Do you have this much difficulty recognizing reality and accepting responsiblity in your personal life as well?

All due respect? Based on the things I've seen you post in regard to political issues here, you're the last person who should be preaching about delusion, reality or accepting responsibility.

I see things as they are. I don't rely on John Edwards or Shillary Clinton to craft my opinion for me.

You're going to tell me that if the US entered WWII today and the media took the same stance it has taken since Vietnam that we'd have been able to win that war? No way in hell. No way. We'd never have been given the green light to invade Normandy. When we bombed Berlin people like Bottomfeeder would have posted pictures of little kids next to bloody corpses. People would have been writing sissified calls for withdrawal in open letters to the president. Truman would never have gotten Congressional approval to bomb Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The treaties to end the war would have given all the lands back to the Nazis in appeasement efforts. The European liberation would never have happened. Japan would still be under empirical rule. All the amazing technological advances we've enjoyed over the last 50 years -- including the computer you're using and the Internet we use to communicate -- might never have come about. But that would be okay by you, I guess.

I started to say this was further evidence that you prefer the well-crafted phrase to the well-crafted argument, but your phrases aren't even that interesting on this post. At least play to your strengths!

I doubt we'd have had any problem declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.

The WWII comparisons are incredibly simplistic. But since you're on it, the American people were all asked to sacrifice for that war. It was a nation-wide effort. After 9/11 all Bush asked the American public to do was shop, accept tax cuts and vote Republican.

The "media" were cheerleaders for the Iraq war at the outset. They could not have been less critical or scrutinizing. But it was a bad idea, poorly implemented and that has been increasingly difficult to deny or obscure. Most intelligent, informed people see that now. But you hang in there.

But think about it-- you're conceding defeat and looking for someone to blame instead of those who planned it and implemented it. If that isn't great evidence of a whiny lack of accountability, what is?

Do you even understand what you're writing?

I'm not conceding defeat at all. In fact I said several times that the mission could be accomplished if all the pusses and whiners shut the hell up and let our military do its job as it should. I don't WANT to give up. I want our troops to be given the freedom to do what's necessary without the constant verbal excrement from a**holes like Rosie, from hack columnists like Maureen O'Dowd, from the New York Times, etc. The American people are, by and large, idiots. They no longer have the mental acuity to look at a situation and accurately assess it. They wait for Ryan Seacrest to tell them. They'd rather vote for an American Idol or obsess over who's getting kicked off Big Brother than they would take the time to truly consider what's happening to the political landscape. For that they rely on two-second sound bytes. Bush? He's a dumbass. He's an idiot. War bad. TV say so.

If all you got out of the sacrifices our president asked us to make in light of 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq was that you should go shopping, get more money and be a good republican, you should turn Cartoon Network back on and watch Yogi Bear because you don't really understand anything much beyond that.

The reason the perception has changed is political -- period. It's about trying to get democrats elected and trying to run republicans out. The general welfare of the nation be damned. Clinton was a far worse president than Bush. He dropped bombs on a foreign country in an effort to deflect attention from his own sexual transgressions. He was a thief. He was a criminal. And he was a liar. But you'd never get that from the media that's so far up Hillary's ass they can count her fillings.

Edit: This is going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine. There's nothing you can say to make me change what I think and I doubt I can persuade you. Neither of us have a monopoly on the truth and it seems pointless to continue to bore others with our back and forth. For anyone interested, I'd be glad to post a lengthy diatribe stating my positions on homosexuality (as it relates to society and religion), immigration, class warfare, taxes, abortion, the two-party system, the Clintons, the republican party, Al Gore, Rosie and the liberal artists, the left-leaning media and an assortment of other societal and political issues. All you have to do is ask.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

You're as delusional as any Bammer I've ever met. Do you have this much difficulty recognizing reality and accepting responsiblity in your personal life as well?

All due respect? Based on the things I've seen you post in regard to political issues here, you're the last person who should be preaching about delusion, reality or accepting responsibility.

I see things as they are. I don't rely on John Edwards or Shillary Clinton to craft my opinion for me.

You're going to tell me that if the US entered WWII today and the media took the same stance it has taken since Vietnam that we'd have been able to win that war? No way in hell. No way. We'd never have been given the green light to invade Normandy. When we bombed Berlin people like Bottomfeeder would have posted pictures of little kids next to bloody corpses. People would have been writing sissified calls for withdrawal in open letters to the president. Truman would never have gotten Congressional approval to bomb Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The treaties to end the war would have given all the lands back to the Nazis in appeasement efforts. The European liberation would never have happened. Japan would still be under empirical rule. All the amazing technological advances we've enjoyed over the last 50 years -- including the computer you're using and the Internet we use to communicate -- might never have come about. But that would be okay by you, I guess.

I started to say this was further evidence that you prefer the well-crafted phrase to the well-crafted argument, but your phrases aren't even that interesting on this post. At least play to your strengths!

I doubt we'd have had any problem declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.

The WWII comparisons are incredibly simplistic. But since you're on it, the American people were all asked to sacrifice for that war. It was a nation-wide effort. After 9/11 all Bush asked the American public to do was shop, accept tax cuts and vote Republican.

The "media" were cheerleaders for the Iraq war at the outset. They could not have been less critical or scrutinizing. But it was a bad idea, poorly implemented and that has been increasingly difficult to deny or obscure. Most intelligent, informed people see that now. But you hang in there.

But think about it-- you're conceding defeat and looking for someone to blame instead of those who planned it and implemented it. If that isn't great evidence of a whiny lack of accountability, what is?

Do you even understand what you're writing?

I'm not conceding defeat at all. In fact I said several times that the mission could be accomplished if all the pusses and whiners shut the hell up and let our military do its job as it should. I don't WANT to give up. I want our troops to be given the freedom to do what's necessary without the constant verbal excrement from a**holes like Rosie, from hack columnists like Maureen O'Dowd, from the New York Times, etc. The American people are, by and large, idiots. They no longer have the mental acuity to look at a situation and accurately assess it. They wait for Ryan Seacrest to tell them. They'd rather vote for an American Idol or obsess over who's getting kicked off Big Brother than they would take the time to truly consider what's happening to the political landscape. For that they rely on two-second sound bytes. Bush? He's a dumbass. He's an idiot. War bad. TV say so.

If all you got out of the sacrifices our president asked us to make in light of 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq was that you should go shopping, get more money and be a good republican, you should turn Cartoon Network back on and watch Yogi Bear because you don't really understand anything much beyond that.

The reason the perception has changed is political -- period. It's about trying to get democrats elected and trying to run republicans out. The general welfare of the nation be damned. Clinton was a far worse president than Bush. He dropped bombs on a foreign country in an effort to deflect attention from his own sexual transgressions. He was a thief. He was a criminal. And he was a liar. But you'd never get that from the media that's so far up Hillary's ass they can count her fillings.

Edit: This is going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine. There's nothing you can say to make me change what I think and I doubt I can persuade you. Neither of us have a monopoly on the truth and it seems pointless to continue to bore others with our back and forth. For anyone interested, I'd be glad to post a lengthy diatribe stating my positions on homosexuality (as it relates to society and religion), immigration, class warfare, taxes, abortion, the two-party system, the Clintons, the republican party, Al Gore, Rosie and the liberal artists, the left-leaning media and an assortment of other societal and political issues. All you have to do is ask.

I understand both what I'm writing and what I'm reading. When Americans, including me, supported Bush at the rate of about 91%, you probably thought they were smart, now you think they're idiots. You don't value a free press and you don't want them reporting bad news. You share that view with Vladmir Putin and Hugo Chavez.

We spent $80 million dollars and more years than most wars investigating Clinton and couldn't find an underlying crime, with the possible exception of his lying about his sex life, the media covered it non-stop and yet, in your delusional state, you believe that the media somehow prevented the highly partisan special prosecutor from rooting out all that crime you believe he's responsible for. Frankly, you're getting increasingly whacky. Get some sleep. Football season's coming. It will be a good release for us all.

[GalensGhost 0]

You're as delusional as any Bammer I've ever met. Do you have this much difficulty recognizing reality and accepting responsiblity in your personal life as well?

All due respect? Based on the things I've seen you post in regard to political issues here, you're the last person who should be preaching about delusion, reality or accepting responsibility.

I see things as they are. I don't rely on John Edwards or Shillary Clinton to craft my opinion for me.

You're going to tell me that if the US entered WWII today and the media took the same stance it has taken since Vietnam that we'd have been able to win that war? No way in hell. No way. We'd never have been given the green light to invade Normandy. When we bombed Berlin people like Bottomfeeder would have posted pictures of little kids next to bloody corpses. People would have been writing sissified calls for withdrawal in open letters to the president. Truman would never have gotten Congressional approval to bomb Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The treaties to end the war would have given all the lands back to the Nazis in appeasement efforts. The European liberation would never have happened. Japan would still be under empirical rule. All the amazing technological advances we've enjoyed over the last 50 years -- including the computer you're using and the Internet we use to communicate -- might never have come about. But that would be okay by you, I guess.

I started to say this was further evidence that you prefer the well-crafted phrase to the well-crafted argument, but your phrases aren't even that interesting on this post. At least play to your strengths!

I doubt we'd have had any problem declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.

The WWII comparisons are incredibly simplistic. But since you're on it, the American people were all asked to sacrifice for that war. It was a nation-wide effort. After 9/11 all Bush asked the American public to do was shop, accept tax cuts and vote Republican.

The "media" were cheerleaders for the Iraq war at the outset. They could not have been less critical or scrutinizing. But it was a bad idea, poorly implemented and that has been increasingly difficult to deny or obscure. Most intelligent, informed people see that now. But you hang in there.

But think about it-- you're conceding defeat and looking for someone to blame instead of those who planned it and implemented it. If that isn't great evidence of a whiny lack of accountability, what is?

Do you even understand what you're writing?

I'm not conceding defeat at all. In fact I said several times that the mission could be accomplished if all the pusses and whiners shut the hell up and let our military do its job as it should. I don't WANT to give up. I want our troops to be given the freedom to do what's necessary without the constant verbal excrement from a**holes like Rosie, from hack columnists like Maureen O'Dowd, from the New York Times, etc. The American people are, by and large, idiots. They no longer have the mental acuity to look at a situation and accurately assess it. They wait for Ryan Seacrest to tell them. They'd rather vote for an American Idol or obsess over who's getting kicked off Big Brother than they would take the time to truly consider what's happening to the political landscape. For that they rely on two-second sound bytes. Bush? He's a dumbass. He's an idiot. War bad. TV say so.

If all you got out of the sacrifices our president asked us to make in light of 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq was that you should go shopping, get more money and be a good republican, you should turn Cartoon Network back on and watch Yogi Bear because you don't really understand anything much beyond that.

The reason the perception has changed is political -- period. It's about trying to get democrats elected and trying to run republicans out. The general welfare of the nation be damned. Clinton was a far worse president than Bush. He dropped bombs on a foreign country in an effort to deflect attention from his own sexual transgressions. He was a thief. He was a criminal. And he was a liar. But you'd never get that from the media that's so far up Hillary's ass they can count her fillings.

Edit: This is going nowhere. You have your opinion, I have mine. There's nothing you can say to make me change what I think and I doubt I can persuade you. Neither of us have a monopoly on the truth and it seems pointless to continue to bore others with our back and forth. For anyone interested, I'd be glad to post a lengthy diatribe stating my positions on homosexuality (as it relates to society and religion), immigration, class warfare, taxes, abortion, the two-party system, the Clintons, the republican party, Al Gore, Rosie and the liberal artists, the left-leaning media and an assortment of other societal and political issues. All you have to do is ask.

I understand both what I'm writing and what I'm reading. When Americans, including me, supported Bush at the rate of about 91%, you probably thought they were smart, now you think they're idiots. You don't value a free press and you don't want them reporting bad news. You share that view with Vladmir Putin and Hugo Chavez.

We spent $80 million dollars and more years than most wars investigating Clinton and couldn't find an underlying crime, with the possible exception of his lying about his sex life, the media covered it non-stop and yet, in your delusional state, you believe that the media somehow prevented the highly partisan special prosecutor from rooting out all that crime you believe he's responsible for. Frankly, you're getting increasingly whacky. Get some sleep. Football season's coming. It will be a good release for us all.

What was the tone of the media coverage, TT? It wasn't that Clinton was a criminal. No, it was that he was being persecuted. I had a hard time making the distinction between Clinton and Mother Teresa after some of the puff pieces done to support him.

You can believe there were no crimes if you want. There's a huge difference in what you know and what's legally proveable. Clinton was a crook. And he got off with near impunity. He's resposible for the deaths of far more soldiers and civilians than Bush, but you're not going to hear anybody talking about that either.

I've always said Americans are pretty much stupid. They're opinion poll sheep. They look at what everybody else says and figure, well, that's what I should think too. If you asked the 91% why they supported the war initially, most of them couldn't have accurately told you. If you ask them why they're against it now, they spout what some boob on the tube told them. They spout meaningless talking points supplied to them by Keith Olberman or some asshat on CNN. The crack a Jay Leno joke. Most of the people -- including a lot of the so-called celebrities like Rosie -- don't even understand what they're talking about. The drivel they spout would be called idiotic if it wasn't an insult to idiots. They're sheep just following the herd. They're cavemen. Bush mean. Bush bad. Bush make bad war. War bad.

You're pretty wacky yourself, you know?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

[

You're pretty wacky yourself, you know?

Yeah, I must be.

[channonc 466]

They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I am sorry, but anytime you call anyone that word, I think you are out of line. Sorry, I don't mind a heated political debate, but I am personally offended by you calling any woman by that word.

[GalensGhost 0]

They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I am sorry, but anytime you call anyone that word, I think you are out of line. Sorry, I don't mind a heated political debate, but I am personally offended by you calling any woman by that word.

Didn't call her that.

[channonc 466]

They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I am sorry, but anytime you call anyone that word, I think you are out of line. Sorry, I don't mind a heated political debate, but I am personally offended by you calling any woman by that word.

Didn't call her that.

Well, use that word. Its totally inappropriate.

[GalensGhost 0]

They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I am sorry, but anytime you call anyone that word, I think you are out of line. Sorry, I don't mind a heated political debate, but I am personally offended by you calling any woman by that word.

Didn't call her that.

Well, use that word. Its totally inappropriate.

It's a word. It's not even a word, it's a string of symbols that could mean whatever you wanted it to. And you're not sorry even though you said you were twice.

I don't find it inappropriate in that context at all. I think she deserves harsher language than that. I am, however, sorry that you were offended.

[channonc 466]

They know that what they're doing is making a difference. But their voices can't or won't be heard because of the screaming shills from the left who'd rather shove a microphone up Cindy Sheehan's traitor c**t.

I am sorry, but anytime you call anyone that word, I think you are out of line. Sorry, I don't mind a heated political debate, but I am personally offended by you calling any woman by that word.

Didn't call her that.

Well, use that word. Its totally inappropriate.

It's a word. It's not even a word, it's a string of symbols that could mean whatever you wanted it to. And you're not sorry even though you said you were twice.

I don't find it inappropriate in that context at all. I think she deserves harsher language than that. I am, however, sorry that you were offended.

Its offensive. Regardless of who you were referring to, that word should be off limits in all contexts.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Why can't we all just get along?