News-Record.com

... kinda puts new meaning on "Support our Troops", huh?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E3DD173AF936A25751C0A9629C8B63

James,
You hit that one square.
The GOP, which has worked tirelessly to convince regular people that they were the party of "Patriotism", have come up short again.

McCain has come up short, much like his twin George Bush.

'Support Our Troops' is nothing but a
slogan to them---A car magnet with no meaning. This denial of a GI Bill to returning soldiers proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
"Support Our Troops" joins, "Mission Accomplished" and "Fight them over there, so we don't fight them here" as hollow phrases meant to manipulate the masses. It worked up until now. Hope it works no more.

James,
Wonder if neo, who glorifies the war, and Dan, who romanticizes the war, will even read the link you provided?

Thanks for it.

I am not surprised that President Bush is opposed to this bill. I’ve thought that the young men and women who were served up in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were considered nothing more than cannon fodder. Their futures were not deemed to be as valuable as the President’s or the Vice President’s. Excluding conscientious objectors, isn’t that the reason behind military deferments? That somehow, you have more options than those who have limited opportunities; so, they go into the service. If every returning veteran wants to go to from undergraduate degree to doctoral degree, the government should be willing to pay. There was a recent story about a 22 year old veteran who recently died during skin graft surgery. In the Iraq War, he was burned over 97% of his body. His job was to go ahead of the convoy and search out IEDs. And now, President Bush and Sen. McCain want to nickel and dime over this new G.I. Bill. I bet that Republican hearts are swelling with so much pride. After the US has left Iraq, Iraq will go back to its old ways and what will it all have been for?

Conundrum,
You have made the matrix of the subject manifest.

I agree with the letter writer and conundrum. They both write depressing and distressful letters. Unfortunately, they are right.

I feel helpless regarding any hope to make a difference but at least I can write a letter of support.

After the election, we, as a country, need to take a serious look at our overall situation which is precarious at best.

I don't think that I mean this but I feel that in the elections ahead, I will vote for whomever is not an incumbent.

Joejoe, I don’t look at the world through rose colored glasses. I am a realist. And the reality of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is that things are not rosy. It’s your prerogative to look at the situations in the light that you wish. But, if my memory serves me well, both Bush and Cheney also had a Pollyannaish outlook for both wars. Don’t misconstrue my earlier post for not supporting the troops. I do. My heart bleeds for the troops and their families. Whenever I watch the honor roll for the dead that is broadcast on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the dead are usually these fresh faced kids from these rural towns. There’s nothing positive or supportive about that. Don’t try to sell me any hogwash about them fighting for our freedom and that they are fighting them over there, so that we don’t have to fight them here. I think that those are phrases that the pro-war crowd uses to assuage their guilt. We were free before and after Saddam came to power. My frustration is with those who sound like GI Joe, but come across like Gomer Pyle.

"Whenever I watch the honor roll for the dead that is broadcast on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer ...

Funny thing Conundrum ... seeing those "fresh faced kids" does not trouble me nearly as much as the 32 year old Sargents (and similar), because I suspect they have left behind wife and a couple small kids ... for pretty much nothing.

All that said .. we probably are stuck with being in Iraq and them thar parts for a hundred years .. or until the oil runs out .. but what a damm waste of young men and women. Perhaps like you what irritates me most is the yellow-ribboned sticker "patriots" that have the same cavalier attitude as those aligned with the PNAC. The PNAC is totally unforgivable and are as close to warranting the firing squad as any I know of in my lifetime ... but I really just don't understand the way many who initially bought their hogwash continued supporting them - for many years and in the face of overwhelming evidence - in their fight for one party control of America.

I'll say this too (long as I'm being an opinionated ass) .. having followed this blog for several years, I saw the above in spades.

I had a fellow in his late forties tell me how great Bush was for going into Iraq and how we needed to "whoop'em" there etc. After he went on and on, I said, "Why don't YOU go over there?" He stammered and then said he was too old etc. I told him how to get to Blackwater and that they'd give him some basic training, arm him, and give him a humvee and a free ticket! I told him to put his money where he mouth is, or shut up. He walked away muttering, which proves my point about neocon, Dan and others who can't bring themselves to fight, but have no problem with people dying for ...what? What is the excuse du jour?
Why aren't Bush's daughters in the USO, at least?

This is nothing more than election year pandering from politicians who couldn't give a hoot in hell less about veterans or anything else, except their poll numbers.

"I told him to put his money where he mouth is, or shut up."

I find this hard to believe coming from a coward who lacks the courage to travel as an American citizen to LONDON, for cryin' out loud!

Hey THE LIBERAL CANADIAN, was this guy driving a pickup truck with a 'support our troops' bumper sticker on it and carrying a lunch bucket while last night's supper dribbled off the front of his shirt that you followed into a parking lot and threw down the gauntlet to?

LOFL!!!

As a veteran, son of a vet and father of a vet, I am really peeved at the Republican party for its consistent attempts to cut Veterans benefits. Bush, who never served or at least not in any way that I understand to be military, I can understand HIM wanting to cut benefits...he needs the money to fund welfare for the oil companies that contribute so heavily to his campaign. But McCain is a fellow veteran who is taking a giant crap on his brothers and sisters. He is selling us out to pander to his base.
We had 8 years of Clinton cashing in veterans needs for his pork barrel projects followed by 8 years of Bush escalating the disgrace to a new level. Where are the "Support our Troops", lapel-flag-wearing "patriots" when the stakes are real? NOWHERE. The real truth is that the parties use their phony patriotism to pander to their base...neither really gives a crap about those who serve.

"As a veteran, son of a vet and father of a vet, I am really peeved at the Republican party for its consistent attempts to cut Veterans benefits."

That says it all, and the blame is placed right where it belongs. The GOP loves to talk of lapel pins, patriotism, "Support the Troops" but they come up short on putting their money where their mouths are. Just look at neocon's post above. He can't face the music, but he sure wants your son or daughter to fight in Bush's war. He doesn't attempt to answer any questions just post his childish rants.

Don't see neocon signing on with Blackwater, so that he too, can serve in Iraq.

Oh no.

Those like neocon love to cheerlead for an unjust war, wear the flag on their lapel, keep that ribbon on their car,but when crunch time comes, they are nowhere to be found. Best examples are "Five deferment" Cheney and "AWOL" Bush. Bill Clinton admitted he tried every way possible to avoid going to Vietnam, but Bush and Cheney offer up excuses for their lack of "GOP" patriotism. Cheney said, "I had other priorities at the time".
I'm sure the thousands who died in Vietnam had "other priorities" too.

So, neocon, shut up with your Rambo crap. Why don't you REALLY support the troops in Iraq, by working to get them home??
Didn't think so. You are the real coward here. Blackwater will take you over there after two weeks of training and your age is no deterrent.
Oh, and to make it easier on you, RAMBO, here's the human resources link to Blackwater:

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/human_resources/HMR_hmn_rsourcs_overview.html

Be sure and give us your real name before you ship out. Wouldn't want to miss it in the list of soldiers who won't be returning.

Our returning soldiers should certainly be entitled to more benefits than they currently receive. If we can give free education to people who flagrantly violated our immigration laws, we can certainly give free college to our worthy warriors! You can be certain a combat veteran will take education seriously and return that educational investment many times over, unlike many college students who think college is a 4, 5, or 6 year party.

THE LIBERAL CANADIAN,

MY "Rambo crap"?....MY "Rambo crap"???

You're the one telling tall tails about accosting a "fellow in his late forties"...(how convenient that, btw) and telling him to "put up or shut up" and then with trembling lip, turning and walking away "muttering" something. ROTFLMAO!!!

Too bad we can't see a show of hands here on who believes this. LOL

"You are the real coward here"

I served my time in the military, THE LIBERAL CANADIAN...got my DD214, along with my honorable discharge, in the dresser drawer at the rear of my trailer to prove it.

What did you do, write letters to the editor supporting Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden because they too supported our troops by posing for pics on an enemy anti-aircraft gun that was used to kill Americans?

Or did you spend your time over at the 'animal house' compound of WF, blowing pot purchased with daddy's allowance?

I am no Juan McCain fan. He is a RINO and easily swayed by the liberals into joining them. But, you are not worthy to wipe his ass or clean his boots.
****************************************************
Ned,
This is a great letter and I share your thoughts. As I contemplate another international trip with my family, I am even more disturbed at our standing in the world. While visiting London and France, we sewed Canadian flag patches to our backpacks---it saved us from the ire of many and we met many new friends through that act. I only wish we did not have to do that again.
Thanks again for your letter.
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE | March 20, 2007 9:47 AM

This was written in response to a lte from one 'Ned Cline', liberal has been columnist for the N-R, urging Bush to surrender to the terrorists and start digging their sewers for them.

So THE LIBERAL CANADIAN sews Canadian flag patches to his backpack because he fears the French and Brits, but he collars a "late forties' American male on the street and dresses him down because he wants to "whoop em over thar"... YEAH....RIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!!

BTW, let's see how hot of an issue this GI bill is come the second week of November, if it is still unresolved at that time.

This is nothing more than election year pandering by politicians who needs an issue to club each other over the head with.

I also find it odd that one particular liberal who is all up in arms about Juan not supporting this bill was just a few days ago was telling us what a bunch of thug rapists our soldiers were.

Priorities, priorities. Depends on which agenda one happens to be supporting on a given day, I suppose...

Nice dodge, neocon.
Just like you dodge going to Iraq with Blackwater.
They pay bonuses to folks who have been in law enforcement or have any military service, so you'd have a leg up on some Patriots.

YOU, my dear one, are the real coward here. You lead the cheering section for war but only for someone else to fight it for you.
If it was such a noble cause, one would think YOU would be first in line to help. Nope. You're no different than Cheney, Bush, Rummy or Wolfowitz.
You are a "ChickenHawk".

Spin me anyway you want, it doesn't bother me a bit. Shows your insecurities.
You KNOW you are the coward among us.
'Tis you who bloviates about being Mr. Patriotism, and then tucks tail when he's called out.

So just go back to doing whatever it is you do. If you had any backbone, you would have already signed up with Blackwater.
After all, you do have ALL the answers.

As I've said before, you're rarely right, but never unsure. Go to bed, you clown and take your "yellow stains" with you. No one here ever took you for anything other than a blowhard, but now you've confirmed it.

Oh, is that a flag lapel pin you're wearing??

If you really care, LC, get in touch with Burr and Dole, both of whom support this ridiculous bill.
And get off neocon's back on this one. He's already served and doesn't have to prove anything.

Verlese,
Neocon has consistently called anyone against this war, everything from "unpatriotic" to "limp wristed".

He's a coward, pure and simple because he dodges the issue and has yet to answer WHY he won't sign on with Blackwater--which doesn't care how old he is, or how stupid he is. If he really thinks it's a "just" war, he needs to expedite his bloviating ass over there with all deliberate speed. If he thinks they are "fighting for my freedom" in Iraq, I've got news for him. I was free before the war started, and the Iraqis didn't fire a shot at us on 9/11!

Instead, we get his usual dodging of the issue by talking of "liberal Canadian" etc.
He loves playing RAMBO but he's nothing but a "chickenhawk".

I've written Dole and have met with Burr. Dole is worthless as teats on a man and both are "apologists" for Bush/Cheney. But at least they don't "cheer" for the war like Rambo does.

"YOU, my dear one, are the real coward here"...

Again, I'd love to see a show of hands on this one.

It takes a lot of courage to 'write Dole', 'meet with Burr', visit left wing websites, memorize anti-war/anti-Bush bumper stickers to share here, and accuse anyone who isn't in Iraq and not afflicted with BDS as a "coward"... this is laughable. I try not to laugh, you are such a sad and bitter little fellow, whom I suspect a smile would break your face, it's hard not to laugh at you. Sorry!

Not that I really give a damn about what you think about me but fwiw, I think we (the US...not you and I personally, lest I get accused of heresy) should have been out of Iraq about 4 1/2 years ago. The only American presence there now should be Exxon-Mobil, Ford Motor Co., McDonald's and chain of Cracker Barrels along Ronald Reagan Freeway. But it's pansies (limp-wristed pansies) like you and their elected feminized representatives who don't know how to conduct war that Bush was (is) trying not to step on their toes and offend, is the reason we're bogged down in Iraq now... Not because everyone over 40 and not a Bush hater isn't there.

BTW, I'm well beyond my 'late forties' but believe me you, if some birkenstock liberal with love beads accosted me on the street and demand that I either join the hate/Bush hate/Cheney crowd or go to Iraq myself, I wouldn't "walk away muttering something". LOL!!!

verelse, kudos to your son. (and you)

"But it's pansies (limp-wristed pansies) like you and their elected feminized representatives who don't know how to conduct war that Bush was (is) trying not to step on their toes and offend, is the reason we're bogged down in Iraq now."

I do not think that is true. Bush relied exclusively on Rummy and Cheney and Bolton and Perle and Armitage and Wolfowitz and .. whew what a Super Group !

... and that super group was super wrong ... and they knew it ... but then didn't know what else to do especially since the '04 election was comming up quick so they Stayed the Course with a little help from Rove.

Having dodged that bullet, they then tried to divert attention to Social Security while someone .. anyone .. came up with a solution. Maybe Condi, with all her experience, could do miracles where limp-wristed Powell had failed.

Two years later, America had enough of "Staying the Course" ... and we're on a better track now but it'll be a very long haul and I hope those bastards listed above rot in hell.

Your milage may vary - but I think the above will stand the test of history.

==

Interesting how Neo wrote " ... we're bogged down in Iraq now." .. this after literally years of blaming the lame stream media for not "reporting the good news", to list one of his milder rants.

These are the limp-wristed pansies (and their elected officials) that I spoke of that intimidated Bush, not your old pnac bogeymen.

While your mileage will vary, many say this 'super group' was the reason for America's defeat in 'Nam and is now hell bent on repeating the process in Iraq:

http://www.zombietime.com/iraq_war_fifth_anniversary_protest/eccentric_is_the_new_normal/

Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over, huh?

Hey, THE LIBERAL CANADIAN, is that you sporting the Yasser Arafat T-shirt?

You need to come up with some actually connection, Neo, between the "limp-wristed pansies" you linked to .. and President Bush .. 'cause as far as I can tell he is so freakin' isolated, he doesn't even know the price of a gallon of gas.

I await your learned response.

so here's the deal, my friend:

I can draw a very thick and ultimately solid line between my list of responsible pansies and the Iraq .. what was your phrase .. ah yes .. "bogged down"

If you cannot draw an equally credible line between your list of responsible pansies and .. what was your word .. ah yes .. bog .. then I will save this post for all to see, and you may swim fast.

If you can, you may save this post for all to see, and I will swim fast.

"Bog": to sink as if in a wet, spongy ground with soil composed mainly of decayed vegetable matter .. unfit for cultivation.

"Bog": a lavatory; bathroom

"Bog": A quagmire ... where a heavy body is apt to sink ... ... to sink and stick.

"Bog": a morass (any confusing or troublesome situation, esp. one from which it is difficult to free oneself; entanglement).

" he doesn't even know the price of a gallon of gas."

This is a "learned response"? No this is BDS, pure and simple.

"You need to come up with some actually connection, Neo"

Wrong. I don't "need to come up" with anything. I gave my opinion about the situation in Iraq and why it was taking so long. It should have been over long ago. Bush is to be commended for taking the fight to the ragheads, but he has farted around too long with installing an 'American friendly' Iraqi government. We should BE the government, not propping up some puppet regime that will revert back to the 17th century mentality when our troops pull out.

Your pnac bogeyman routine is getting a little stale. You need a new shtick. pnac states as, it's goal, this:

“What we require is a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America
has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite
challenges to our fundamental interests."

Naturally, you bleeding heart, blame America first liberals will interpret the reference to a "strong military" and "global responsibilities" as "pnac's ultimate goal is global domination"...(especially of the world's oil fields, of course because Cheney needs the money to...to, well, anyway, he needs the money)

I'm not saying pnac is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Personally I could give a shit less about them, but they are not the root of all evil in the world you try to portray them to be. Had they suggested to Bush that when he went into Iraq to carry a very big hammer and dominate the battlefield to the point where there would be no 'insurgents' left to drug women and send them into crowds of innocents to wreak havoc, I'd have a different opinion of them.

So, I suggest Carol Dunn as the one most likely to be in awe of your bogeyman. I'm not impressed.

Oh, and JDR, I've already seen your link that "proves" Rummy, Wolfowitz & Co. had the Iraq war all planned out since the end of civil war, but that letter they signed and sent to slick willie (the one that 'scared' Ms. Dunn so) was simply trying to get the president to zip his fly long enough to take care of the business at hand of dealing with Saddam...the same Saddam Hussein that many democrats were huffing and puffing about having weapons of mass destruction, but lacked the backbone to address.

whatever ..

bottom line ... I have a direct line .. you have a fantasy.

Bottom bottom line...you dwell on how terrible things are in the world, especially Iraq, and spend a great deal of energy raging against your perceived bogeymen invented by liberals who hate Bush, write books and/or host government funded TV/ radio 'news' shows. This is as near to fantasy as anything I've suggested.

Show me one credible document (liberal authors'/commentators/'journalists' interpretation not allowed) where pnac states as one of it's goals is world domination of the oil fields and I'll eat my words.

While the signers of that famous pnac letter to slick willie meant well, they were too damned stupid to realize that Clinton would turn it over to his buddies in the press and...well as the saying goes 'the rest is history'.

Oh, and "credible document" does not include major news outlets that keeps the fires of BDS stoked to a fever pitch such as this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/27/205559/973/1018/444438

Jesus Christ you DO live in a fantasy world, Neo.

" .. the signers of that famous pnac letter ... were too damned stupid to realize that Clinton would turn it over to his buddies in the press and ... "

Yea .. that's why "that famous pnac letter" is still posted on their website .. along with the quote you used above to show how macho they are.

I repeat .. you live in a fantasy world - you are phobic Neo .. I'm serious.

==

I never said it was about "world domination of the oil fields" ... but there is plenty of documention that they (and others) had (and have) legitimate concerns about Saddam (and / or Iran) clogging up the Strait of Hormuz .. that's why we are concerned about the nuc's .. not because they can deliver one here but because one in those waters would disrupt the oil flow for decades.

... but many others have come out and said that "Iraq War really is largely about oil" - including those limp wristed liberal faggots over at the John Birch Society:

http://www.jbs.org/node/5639

"I'll eat my words" Enjoy the meal, dude.

Alan Greenspan? from a blog???

BUZZ!!

Try again.

BTW, LOFL!

... try reading again ...

The Investor's Business Daily insisted "the Iraq War is not about oil" .. the IBD said it was not as Greenspan had written, "largely about oil" ... but the John Birch Society agrees with Greenspan.

The John Birch Society says " ... there is plenty of evidence out there to support the charge that the Iraq War really is largely about oil."

On this, the John Birch Society backs Greenspan all the way.

==

I'm sure while you're rolling on your floor .. laughing at yourself ... you are getting ready for that big meal.

ps . that's not a blog .. that is official JBS position.

Sorry, while I did do a small eye roll, I'm not ready for that big meal.

Odd how the John Birch Society suddenly develops credence to the point where they are worthy of "proof" that pnac's goal is the domination of the world's oil fields.

You forgot the rules: (liberal authors'/commentators/'journalists' interpretation not allowed)

I quoted directly from pnac's charter their goal of a 'strong military and global responsibilities' and asked you to show me where in their stated goals was 'domination of the world's oil fields' and I'll eat my words.

You have directed me to commentary fueled by speculation and cherry picked quotes from Brian Farmer. (Who is he...an old pnac insider who has decided to turn on his brethren?) Commentary entitled "The Master of Obfuscation Makes Himself Perfectly Clear" is a pretty clear indication that what follows ain't exactly unbiased opinion. (and even if it were unbiased, we're still talking opinion)You can find the same 'proof' on the daily kos, moveon, and a host of other left wing websites that are terrified of America's strength and it's role in global politics.

Again, I'm no fan of 'pnac' and I may be wrong, but I believe they are now a defunct organization, but they are not, nor were they ever, the root of all evil and corruption in the world you dark conspiracy theorists paint them to be.

You asked “Show me one credible document (liberal authors'/commentators/'journalists' interpretation not allowed) …. “

I assumed the JBS would not be subject to a claim of “liberal … interpretation”. I guess I was wrong; yea, that’s it, your rules may be re-apply as you chose to save face.

You asked “Show me … where pnac states as one of its goals is world domination of the oil fields … “

OK - here’re some quotes direct from PNAC’s web site, starting with the top secret “Letter to Clinton” that “leaked” – actually it was published in the Washington Times (a great bastion of liberal mind-speak Clinton had on speed dial):

The top secret “Letter to Clinton” urges “a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.” What the heck do you think our “interests” are, Neo?

More from that letter: “ .. if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction .. the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.” Of course the irony is that due to the foolhardiness of these pundits turned Power Mongers, all that happened with Saddam NOT acquiring the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Did you see within the above: “ … a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard …” How more direct must it be, Dude?

Elsewhere from PNAC – “…pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests”. Tell me what “vital American security interests” there are in Iraq other than Oil?

Elsewhere from PNAC – “We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf” Tell me what are “our vital interests in the Gulf” if not Oil?

Elsewhere from PNAC – “we are now headed toward a result in which Saddam Hussein will .. deter the U.S. from exercising effective leadership in the region.” Tell me what “effective leadership in the region” the US should be exercising?

Elsewhere from PNAC – “the overwhelming power that the United States has … to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq ... to control the largest oil field in Iraq .. “

==

Did they expressly use the words “world domination of the oil fields”. No, but they repeatedly mention “vital American security interests”. You can weasel .. you would anyway .. but you’re playing with words. Just enjoy your meal and shut up; btw you’re dripping catsup on your tie.

I never said PNAC was the root of all evil. I did say President Bush swallowed them hook line and sinker into his
Administration, and the policies developed in 1996 by PNAC was a bunch of closeted thinkers were put fully into action once they achieved power - without consideration of world changes or consideration of broader views or newer knowledge.

These policies quickly proved horrifically wrong – apparent very early on like by the summer of ‘o3 when the coalition went scrambling. I said then these policies were horrifically wrong – you and yours called them Patriots. For nothing but political advantage they held on to the foolishness – staying the course for 4 years. I called them evil bastards, you and yours were too busy LOL’ing.

I still call them evil bastards .. that does not mean they are the root of all evil, but it does mean – defunct or not - they were a very significant contributor to the world’s current problems, including but far from limited to the ongoing threat from “Islamo-Fascists” – one of many really stupid terms they came up with to sway the cowering American people.

==

On a different subject.. you were blaming Carter for all the troubles in the Middle East? Well he didn’t even get honorable mention on July 30, 2001:

“The Bush administration has continued and actually surpassed its predecessor’s display of timidity in the Middle East. The
possibility of terrorist attacks recently prompted the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. Marines from military exercises in Jordan and hastily move ships anchored in Bahrain, the home base of the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf. Likewise, pistol-packing FBI officials investigating the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, decided to scoot .. when they thought a terrorist attack might be imminent.”

… speaking of the Cole: “Usama (sic) bin Laden and his terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, scored an impressive victory by nearly sinking the Cole, yet Washington still has not responded. Our fear is pure oxygen to Islamic militants.”

… and “Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to yank the Marines out of Jordan is, when viewed from the mud-brick and cinder-block ghettos of the Middle East, an extraordinary triumph, further proof that the martyrs of the Cole attack died gloriously.”

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010730.pdf

.. but it’s all Carter’s fault .. yea, that’s it.

Like I said, Neo – you live in a fantasy world.

"if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction .. the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard."

"and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard"...

Part of the equation?...sure, as it should be. But to 'dominate the world's oil fields' in order to enrich Cheney and his cronies as the liberal anti-Bush/Cheney zealots claim?...Puleeeeze.

Your affinity to the noodle spined peanut farmer is touching.

No, I don't live in a fantasy world. I just don't see evil and greed in everything American and I don't think America is the world's problem. I think liberal apathy towards our enemies is the biggest threat to the country at this time...just as the noodle spined peanut farmer's apathy toward a 17th century minded religious zealot is one of the main reasons we have such turmoil in that part of the world today.

Define "dominate"

Like I said you are playing with words.

Hey - didn't Bill Clinton do that too?

==

If you think Clinton leaked the PNAC rhetoric - as you said above ...

If you think Carter is solely responsible for the worlds Islamic Fundamentalism problem - as you said elsewhere ..

... then you do indeed live in a fantasy world.

==

I don't see evil and greed in everything American, but America is not without complicity. If your unbased theory about Carter is accepted, then you must agree with that statement.

I too don't think America is the ONLY problem in the world - but if your unbased theory about Carter is accepted, then you must agree America is not without complicity.

.. ya can't have it both ways, Neo.

==

Liberal apathy towards our enemies may be a threat to the country - I do not disagree .. but the asshole moves by the Neocon movement has also clearly contributed to the issue .. in fact the asshole Neocon's have done NOTHING to reduce and much to exasperabe the threat. If you accept were making progress in Iraq, note the progress is POST the Neocon movement - did you say they were defunct?

==

The 17th century minded religious zealot was WAY far away from the world stage ... and a quiet Saudi citizen ... when the noodle spined peanut farmer's was being apathic.

==

btw - How was Dinner tonight?

One more thing .. "

" to enrich Cheney and his cronies "

is really different than 'dominate the world's oil fields' .. something that could be a reasonable goal by the worlds #1 oil user, America (I think we're #1, we're at least close) .. and 'dominating the world's oil fields ... as America did for the first 100 years ... is not a bad idea, it's just not a clever long term strategy.

"Define dominate"...

"A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power."
.......Christopher Bollyn, liberal 'investigative' reporter.

"This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination".
........ Michael Meacher, liberal British member of parliament and honorary kook in good standing with America's left.

New York City ---"With a stroke of the pen and a hail of bombs, President de facto Dick Cheney has swept away the highest standards of personal wealth of the 20th century and seemingly raised the bar for many decades to come! Move over Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and make way for the World's First Trillionaire!"

Upon tailoring an agreement as President de facto with a subsidiary of his former company, Halliburton, Mr. Cheney laid the $900,000,000 groundwork for his trillion dollar fortune! Now, with the $36 trillion in reserves in the oil rich regions of Mosul and Kirkuk in Northern Iraq in the gunsights of Cheney's forces, the 60 something, balding, heart patient has become the world's first trillionaire!
.....By YASO ADIODI, Pulitzer prize winning 'journalist' and member in good standing with the kook left.

This is what I meant by US 'domination' as defined by the blame America first crowd. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not...good for you.
************************************************************************

As I read through some of these kook left wing rantings, I was struck by the many similarities in their points and the ones made by you, here on this blog. Many of them quote from the same bible, 'The Assassins' Gate', and it's author, George Packer is revered in these circles of conspiracy theorists. Not making any accusations, just an observance.

You take the wackiest folks you can find, and you assign their beliefs to everyone that does not 100% agree with you.

First you were talking about dominating oil ““world domination of the oil fields” ..

I showed fairly decisively the PNAC wanted to “dominate" the world’s oil fields .. which is not necessarily a bad idea if done with a little finesse where the oil holders would want to work with the US. PNAC used the words “vital American security interests” ... but only a dummy would think they ar enot tlaking about oil and only a dummy would think that a bad idea.

Like the “kooky left wing” you love to hate, you have confused the clear need to protect “vital American security interests” with their heavy handed and just plain stupid execution.

In my humble opinion, the PNAC Administration earnestly were seeking to protect “vital American security interests” .. but instead they gave us heavy handed and just plain stupid execution. They screwed it up big time .. you have yet to even hint at a defense of that failing, but you are quick to jump on me when I point that out. You prove how hard it is to defend the indefensible but how easy it is to type a LOL and a ROFL.

You shift the topic to “dominating” the globe through military power … again not necessarily a bad idea if done with a little finesse. Instead the PNAC Administration has spent the US forces, and you again prove it hard to defend the indefensible but easy to type a LOL and a ROFL.

You are now struck by the similarities between in “kook left wing ranting” and the point ones made by me. Maybe some of what you read doing your homework was actually accurate .. imagine that because you have not disputed the reporting of George Packer .. we had that discussion.

But rather than dispute my points, you again shift to some totally unrelated Trillionaire conspiracy theory – and you try to paint me with saying “enrich Cheney and his cronies as the liberal anti-Bush/Cheney zealots claim.” Well here’s a LOL and a ROFL back at you .. I wait for the connection .. if I can stay alive long enough ‘cause that’s how long it will take you to find what I have not said.

There is no “Trillionaire conspiracy” beyond clear cronyism. There is instead the well documented ineptness of these “leaders” who used decade old data to mucked things up pretty bad .. all with a LOL and a ROFL response from you.

==

I can be no clearer nor more correct than this:

President Bush swallowed PNAC hook line and sinker into his Administration and policies that had been developed a decade earlier were then put fully into action - without consideration of world changes nor consideration of broader views nor even an interest in updating these policies with knowledge that was 10 years newer .. vast and broad knowledge that was available to them when were “promoted” from closeted thinkers to the highest levels of access to the entire strength and might of the USA.
Their policies quickly proved horrifically wrong – yet for nothing more than arrogance and hubris and ultimately political advantage they held on to the foolishness – staying the course for 4 years .. burning American citizens and burying reasoned thought. The PNAC was not the root of all evil, but they have proved ruthless and evil bastards .. a very significant contributor to the world’s current problems.
The freaking end.

"you have yet to even hint at a defense of that failing"

From my May10, 10:31PM post:

"Personally I could give a shit less about them, [pnac] but they are not the root of all evil in the world you try to portray them to be. Had they suggested to Bush that when he went into Iraq to carry a very big hammer and dominate the battlefield to the point where there would be no 'insurgents' left to drug women and send them into crowds of innocents to wreak havoc, I'd have a different opinion of them."

I'm not here to defend pnac. It is you, my friend who is doing the switching. From McCain's GI bill comes Usama(sic), pnac, Jimmy Carter, "Super Group", etc. And when I respond to your points, you say I'm 'dodging' and changing the subject'.

You also said "define dominate"...and I was giving you a few choice quotes and examples of the context to which I was speaking of, and you say I'm 'going off on something totally unrelated'.

I was poking THE LIBERAL CANADIAN in the eye for accosting a 'late forties man' and dressing him down for not signing on to Blackwater, and you come along and pick out a sentence I had written about the limp wristed pansies that has the inept Bush Buffaloed and make a major case out it with your 'super group' comments.

Have a nice life dude, if that's possible for one of your demeanor.

I'll take my last word:

I picked the sentence from your dressing of TLC to highlight that is was not the wacky folks in San Francisco that mucked this up .. I have seen nothing to imply Bushy pays them any head at all but a lot to implicate PNAC. If you want to believe decades of wacky hippy types influenced American towards a more liberal view, I will agree .. but they had absolutely NOTHING to do with screwing up the invasion of Iraq.

NOTHING.

They also have little to do with me, or my posts. You're assigning of their beliefs to everyone that does not 100% agree with you is as wacky as they.

btw - I heard back from the John Birch Society - I had sent them a note asking for clarity on that post I provide earlier .. They said:

"What appears on the PNAC website is not propaganda, but an expression of the neocon world view. The neocons knew that most Americans would not go along with a war for oil, so, they used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq, under the guise of enforcing UN resolutions re weapons of mass destruction. That’s the neocon propaganda that IBD is swallowing and then regurgitating to its readers."

Remember, as they use to say in California: today is the first day of the rest of your life !!

(thought that would curl you breakfast, just for fun !) See ya Neo.

All your sources, all your 'proof' that Iraq was planned from the get-go by the bastards who make up your 'super group' without exception boils down to speculation and opinion pieces, usually written by one person, or is a group effort of liberals with an agenda.

"What appears on the PNAC website is not propaganda, but an expression of the neocon world view."

Opinion. Nothing more...nothing less. Your subscribing to that opinion makes it carry more weight in your view, but in the end, you're just agreeing with someone's opinion.

I have seen no proof of pnac's plan for 'world domination' as spewed by the left and their cadre of 'journalists', college professors, and former administration officials with axes to grind.

I'm not defending pnac or your 'super group'. If they are the ones who advised Bush to tip-toe into Iraq and the citizens will be waiting with open arms and waving American flags, then they are as inept as Bush.
Within 90 days of entering Iraq, it should have been over and in the cooling off phase. There should be no 'gitmo' or 'war tribunals', or mock trials for Saddam, or 'insurgents'. Iraq should be nothing more than a sand pile by now.

And I really hate to spoil your day, but I don't eat breakfast.