Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Cheney whips the Silky Pony…

…Relevant debate moments.

OK, As with the last debate –I wasn’t going to post on it. It was obvious to anyone who watched that Edwards got whoopped. BUT…the SPIN…the SPPPPIIIINNNNNNN….is killing me! Last week seconds after the Bush/Kerry debate Joe Lockhart (top Kerry campaign official) said the debate was a tie…A TIE. Last night the Kerryombies (this is my new word since they don’t have one –the Kerry Zombies) were saying how the last debate was a disgrace for the President…gee, another flip –or was it a flop, I’m not sure. So, in reverence to the very honorable Dick Cheney…I thought a small recap was in order…

Silky Pony begins by touting Republicans…I thought this whole election was about proving the Republicans have it wrong…hmmm…. Note to self…write nasty letters to John McCain (again), Richard Lugar, and Chuck Hagel (even though he’s cute and looks like Tom Barringer).

SP avoids ‘Would Saddam still be in power’ question completely. Says they would have taken more time (to administer the global test?) and let inspectors find what we know now…no WMDs…So the answer is a resounding YES –Saddam would still be in power.

Cheney, “Freedom is the best antidote to terror!”

SP avoids ‘global test’ question…it sucks that Cheney can’t shove Oil for Food in his face…grrrr…France…Russia….

My question to the Pony is …what is more important –American safety or global credibility?

Sp uses the false $200 billion number.

Cheney, “Maybe you are quoting the wrong number because YOU WERE NOT THERE TO VOTE ON THIS BILL…actual number is $95 billion.”


*1st highlight*
Cheney lists all of Kerry’s ‘wrong side of defense’ votes (reiterate: Cheney is listing Kerry long record)
Silky Pony replies by saying, “A long resume doesn’t equal good judgement!”
Yes! Exactly! That’s what Cheney was saying….

Cheney doesn’t even give Halliburton comments the respect of an answer –except for –Americans check at least one damn thing for yourselves…you lazy, lazy people…
(aside: the website is actually –the Democrats seized on this immediately, purchased and it sends you to George Soros’ website…)
Pony touts GB 41’s great coalition from Gulf war ’91 (that John Kerry STILL voted against) –avoiding question of plans to internationalize being naïve.

Cheney, “Troops wouldn’t have what they have today if you would have gotten your way.”

Whip that Pony!

Cheney, “Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you ‘Senator gone’ –you have the worst attendance record in the Senate…I am there every Tuesday and the first time that I met you was when I walked on the stage tonight”.

Boo-ya! Is that momentum I hear?

Cheney, “Kerry’s senate career shows a 98% record of voting for tax increases. YOU (that would be you Silky) said during the primaries that ‘John Kerry’s economic plan would drive us deeper into deficit'…”

Ouch, that hurt. Spank ‘em Dick! (that didn’t sound right…who the hell would name their kid Dick?...)

Cheney, “You weren’t there to vote for tax cuts for the middle class.”

Pony says that Bush has called for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage…wrong. Bush said he would support one if judges keep pushing the issue. Pony says many times that he and Kerry think marriage is between a man and woman –gay base releases a collective groan.

As Silky rubs his smooth and callous free hands together he says, We don’t just value wealth, but work…” (closing down the Meals (translation –mills) that his father worked in?)

*highlight #2*
Cheney, “You used a loop hole to divert $600,000 and not pay your Medicare taxes.”
Hot Damn! Whew…The Pony is flustered and shakes his mane…

Something I learned last night…
Silky keeps talking about Medicare increase…Cheney explains that this has nothing to do with the Bush Administration and this bill for the gradual increase was signed in 1997 buy Slick Willy…and KERRY VOTED FOR IT…

Oh, I wish Americans actually paid attention…Is everyone watching the damn Yankees game?

*highlight #3*
Freudian slip?!
The Pony says that the American people want three things in a President and VP…1)Keep them safe 2) Good judgment 3) tell them the truth. He goes on to say that he and Kerry will always tell the people the truth. Full stop.
So he is admitting they can’t keep us safe and Cheney demonstrated they didn’t have good judgment…you can’t slip things by me Slick Pony. He them repeats that a long resume doesn’t mean good judgment.
Laughing….I guess Kerry is a hard client to defend –he can’t wheel him out in a wheelchair…

*highlight #4*
Cheney, “I have no further political aspirations for myself…my only agenda is the President’s agenda”.
Can you believe this man actually ran for President with only one term in the Senate –which he had the worst attendance record…and the fact that he was going to lose the seat in this election anyway…Senator Gone…

Wow…he hasn’t mentioned the Meeeal (mill) yet….

I will give the Silky Pony credit for one thing…having the nerve to put the idea of three strikes and your out for lawyers. It’s BS since most of their money is from lawyers –but I was surprised he even said it.

Interesting fact:
Kerry campaign keeps denying that Kerry is afraid to talk about his reference, but last night Silky made approximately eight references to ‘Thursday night’ for the American people to look at to judge Kerry…and not ONCE to his Senate record… We are not that dumb…who cares what he says…like he says –a man with no deeds…I want to see your DEEDS for the past 20 years!

Cheney, “I can think of lots of words to describe John Kerry’s position, but consistent is not one of them!”
Cheney, “49% increase in education with No Child Left Behind…they voted for it and now they’re against it.”

He just said MILL…he never disappoints…my little pony, my little pony(singing)…

I kid you not, the commercial just came on while I was writing this...

Cheney, ‘This is the task of our generation” (That was Tony Blairesque wasn’t it…)

Damn, someone call DHS…the Pony is exploiting those little kids of his again...does he know what time it is!?


cheeky monkey said...

Ahhh, Ala, I always can count on you for insane quantity and poor quality. Who's been inhaling plastics again??!!

So many points to defeat but here's one, since the dubya camp of stupid mean and evil seem to be drum rolling on the supposed global test. Here are the actual words. Amend, repent!!@!
"But if and when you do it, Jim," Kerry said to Jim Lehrer of PBS, the debate moderator, "you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Clearly, Kerry meant that a President must be able to demonstrate to the world that the preemptive war is being waged for legitimate reasons, not that foreign governments must provide "permission."

In fact, Kerry said the exact opposite at another point in the debate. In his very first answer of the night, the Democratic candidate said, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security."

I'M BACK!! Missed me????

scarlotta62 said...

ALa - This was brilliant! Thanks for the laugh. Silky Pony - I love it. I loved watching SP's eyebrows going up and down every time he didn't know how to make a comeback!! We TIVO'd the debate, and would play those precious moments in slow motion for added viewing pleasure.

ALa said...

...right...the global test --what happens if you can't demonstrate that the war is being waged for legitimate reasons (translation: -other countries are on the take from the very despot you oppose and will never join you because they will lose money)?...what then becomes more important -American security or global approval? Whatever way you spin it -he believes in the global I said to TWD, I don't give a crap what he says now...I am looking at his HISTORY -at his ACTIONS and at his VOTING RECORD that you guys are trying to avoid!
Cheney Rocks!!!!!

leftyjones said...

Cheney does NOT rock.
He has you say...."rocked"

Jericho Brown said...

Whatever reason do we non-Right-wingers keep coming back here? I'm beginning to believe it's because you, in a desperate attempt to mirror your hero Sean Hannity, have baited us here to be your Colmes so that you guys don't feel like you're just preaching to the choir. I get so pissed at myself for continuing to take the bait because no matter what rationale you are presented with, no matter the evidence, it's either completely ignored (ALa has yet to answer why she hasn't taken a stand against the genocide happening in Sudan, and yet the Iraqi "liberation" is a supreme act of U.S. kindness to Iraqi children, according to the latest reason (the 23rd, I believe, but who's counting) the administration has offered for invading a soveriegn country with O, ZERO, NIL, NADA, weapons of mass destruction) or completely glossed over. How are you going to gloss over this one? Cheney straight LIED when he said that he never met Edwards before the debate. They met on least three separate, documented, photographed occasions. There were witnesses. There's no question about it. Fuck, even Drudge had it as a headline. So there's another fact you guys can conveniently ignore. Please, no one respond to my comments here. As if I needed to ask.

Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologist said...

You guys on the left need to stop swallowing out gnats and swallowing camels. The Veep carved the pretty boy like those meat slicers at Nathan's New York Deli. Edwards looked like cheap bologna when the whole thing was over.

Now you may want to follow someone like that into battle, but not me. With Kerry and Edwards in the lead UBL would be frothing at the mouth for a chance to charge. And your heroes wouldn't know what to do in response. Maybe they could wave paper at him, a la' Neville Chamberlain.

leftyjones said...

you must've brought some of that mean-green back up from N.C. when you were down there because it's about the only thing that explains your last post.
Are you kidding me?
Mr. Burns proved to America last night that he can come out from his undisclosed location when necessary. That's about all he proved.
The man has been a Washington insider for around 25 years and he couldn't even win the debate.

Now of course, with your edited commentary he did....but in actuality. Nope, nada, un-uh

However, I do now understand where Fox News gets it's stupid slogan.
If I insert the words.......
Compared to Blond Pompousity.....we are fair and balanced. Then yes, I guess I would have to agree with Fox.
All you need to know about last night was to listen to Cheney's FIRST response, when he ran around the question and avoided it for two whole minutes.

THAT technique, summarizes the last four years.

ALa said...

Jericho...I HAVE talked about the genocide in Sudan on numerous is one of my main points in denigrating your beloved anti-semitic United Nations and the almost-as-corrupt-as-John-Street-and-Jim-McGreevy Koffi Annon. It's despicable, but now you see why the US alsways has to 'go it alone'. Because the rest of the world sucks...remember Rowanda....?
But keep defending the UN -that upstanding institution that is now hiring Hammas members and saying they don't descriminate against political organizations....

As for Cheney's 'lie', PLeeeeeaaaase. Is that all ya got? That's called writer's license --yes, he attended one or two social functions that Edwards happened to be attending also, BUT the point was that he never MET him in an official capacity on the floor of the Senate WHERE HE WAS BEING PAID TO BE... BUT NEVER WAS...

Jericho Brown said...


You've made my point about... everything. Lefty, TWD, Cheeky, I beseech you guys, let's boycott ALa for just one week and see how fast they descend into an utter, complete delusory state (though I doubt it could get much worse). The battle lines are drawn and nobody is going to budge. Seriously, folks. During the debate Cheney could have removed his faceplate to reveal the intricate circuitry beneath and ALa & Co. would've said he always showed robotic sensibility, that what this nation needs now is a being completely logical and without remorse in order to effectively lead. That's basically what they've been saying all along anyway.


ALa said...

Jericho -if you are seriously going to get upset about that maybe we should press charges against John Kerry since he brought A PEN (which he illegally removed from his jacket) to the first debate. This was clearly against the rules he signed that which were legally binding...
Please, get a grip! and brace yourself for four more years...but at least your kids will be alive to be smitten by the rising college costs....

ALa said...

...and of course (in true liberal fashion) aboandoned the serious part of the conversation -the corrupt ineptness of the UN and the mass murder of Christians at the hands of Muslims in the Sudan.... for the ridiculous part...

back to my new book....'How to Talk to a Liberal...if you must'....

this we'll defend said...

Jericho: of course we aren't going to change their mind. and they aren't going to change ours. But I enjoy the conversation nevertheless.

This quote for me gives the difference b/w Bush and Kerry. ALa71 says "what happens if you can't demonstrate that the war is being waged for legitimate reasons?" She says it then becomes a choice between national security and "global approval" - that is, making Europe happy.

Of course this is the opposite of what Kerry said, and the opposite of what he meant.

It apparently never entered her mind that if a president can't demonstrate a war is legitimate to his own countrymen then PERHAPS IT ISN'T LEGITIMATE? Illegitimate wars don't help our national security, they harm it.

She assumes that any time a president feels a war is justified he is right to think so. But this war is a case in point: no WMDs, no connection to 9/11, no al queda connection, in fact, the CIA said today that it appears there is no proof of any terrorist connections at all - not even the tenuous links Cheney has used to show a connection b/w Zarqawi and Saddam. It seems clear to all but the most extremely partisan that we would be better off for not having invaded. Bush turns that into supporting Saddam - "if you were in charge Saddam would still be in power" he tells Kerry. True. But Saddam wouldn't be an imminent threat to us, we would have been able to spend $150 - 200 billion dollars on homeland security, we would have over 1,000 soldiers alive that are now dead, and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in - all because Bush doesn't think he needs to meet any standard, at all, when going to war. He frames it as giving a veto to France, but of course that is a lie. His problem is the use of any standard at all. He doesn't think he needs to justify the war to his countrymen. He thinks the choice should be reserved for a president alone, and that proving the need for a pre-emptive war is simply unnecessary.

He forgets we are in charge in this country, and he is just a hired hand that we can (and will) fire for incompetence on Nov. 2nd.

The "Kerry Doctrine" Bush despises is also the Franklin Delano Roosevelt doctrine. The Truman doctrine. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson doctrine. The Nixon and Ford and Carter and Reagan doctrines. It is even the same as the doctrine of George Herbert Walker Bush, the president's own father. It is also the standard of another George - George Washington. It is the standard used by the first Republican president, Abraham Linconln. It is the standard of St. Augustine. It is the "just war" standard. Not all wars are just. Not all wars help the nations that start them. Many nations have been destroyed by waging wars that they didn't need to and that they were wrong to start. Even democracies have been destroyed by waging wars they shouldn't have. Athens waged a war for national security despite the pleas of experienced soldiers who claimed it to be unnecessary and dangerous. Athens fell as a result. The "just war" standard isn't a "lets wait and get hit first" standard. It is a standard that measures risk versus reward and only allows a nation to declare war if the alternative is worse. Bush claimed the alternative was worse - that we would have been destroyed by WMDs in the hands of terrorists if he hadn't invaded. This somehow warped into a war of liberation to help the oppressed Iraqi people. And he claims Kerry is the flip-flopper. And there are no WMDs - there weren't before. And the intelligence showed invasion was a mistake. And the Army said invading would be a mistake. And the CIA analysts said the same thing until under intense pressure they allowed that WMDs were there - and the intelligence presented to Congress and the American people was that it was a "certainty" that we "knew beyond a doubt," that Saddam "did" possess WMDs and was working on nuclear weapons.

Ooops. But it is all the CIA's fault, you know.

I asked at the time "what changed?" What changed from 1992 to 2003 in the Iraq situation? We knew what he had in 1992, yet we stopped short of Baghdad. Many called that a mistake, but the threat from Saddam was contained. He continued to be a threat, and he continued to be contained, growing progressively weaker.

Then 9/11, and shortly thereafter the push for war with Iraq. But what changed? As I said at the time, if Saddam was behind or involved (even remotely) with 9/11 we had just as much right to invade as we did in Afghanistan. His actions would have been an act of war. But I noticed the administration never came right out and said that. They alluded to it. They suggested it. They convinced 75% of the American people of it - that Saddam attacked us. But they never outright said it.

That got me thinking "why?" Why were they doing that?

Because nothing had changed. Saddam was less of a threat to us in 2003 than he was in 1992. Or '91. Or '90. Or '85. 9/11 changed the world - but it didn't change the nature of the threat he posed. It didn't even change the nature of the threat terrorism posed, it just showed that we were as vulnerable as national security professionals had alwasy said we were. So why beat the drums of war against Saddam?

I still don't have an answer to that question. But I know one thing - the "global test" Bush makes fun of, that he uses to attack Kerry, is a test we should have and could have demanded Bush meet in 2003. We should have demanded that he show, clearly and without insinuation and misdirection, what the nature of the threat was, and how we would be better off by invading.

Few Americans demanded that. It was "unpatriotic." I remember attending a speech where a Southern California congressman said he would vote to authorize action against Iraq. I asked "Why? What is the nature of the threat that requires us to invade?"

I was booed just for asking. I didn't even criticize - I hadn't concluded whether we were justified or not. As I wrote in an essay at the time, if the nature of the threat were revealed I would support invasion, but it simply had not been done - no justification other than "maybe" and "he might" and "what if" was ever offered. And just by asking "why" I was booed.

The congressman said there was "secret" information that the administration had shared that proved Saddam was really a threat. That secret information was later shared with the UN in Powells' speech - and it turned out to be more insinuation, conjecture, misdirection, and outright exaggeration.

But Bush is not blamed by the right, the CIA is. Because the CIA "got it wrong." Because the CIA director said it was a "slam dunk."

If I was questioning the intelligence and the data at the time, shouldn't we expect our President to have done the same? Especially since many in the government were raising red flags of doubt? Especially since the State Department was coming to an opposite conclusion, that Saddam in fact was less of a threat than he was in 1991? And the Army was begging for somebody to listen to their warnings of how difficult it was going to be? And a general was openly disagreeing with the Pentagon, only to be attacked and humiliated for daring to disagree?

Bush is the radical, not Kerry. His "I will wage war whenever I feel like it" doctrine is a threat to national security. He must be stopped. And he is responsible for this war, not the CIA, not 9/11, and not even Saddam. Had he used the "global test" - the TEST USED BY THE ENTIRE CIVILIZED WORLD (which is what Kerry OBVIOUSLY MEANT) then he would have seen that this war was not helpful, but harmful, to our nation. He didn't. And that is nobody else's fault but his own.

this we'll defend said...

The pen (which at first was "notes" according to Drudge) was actually a "handkerchief" because Kerry sweats more than Bush (being from the cold Northeast rather than west Texas). Even the temperature was an issue that had to be settled by the campaigns, because Kerry sweats and Bush squints. So it was colder than Bush wanted, but warmer than Kerry wanted. And he brought a handkerchief to wipe his brow. Cheating bastard.

So again, the charges are false, just as with lying swift bastards for bush.

Want to accuse him of being a "jewboy?" Oops, already done on white supremacy sites.

What about being a communist spy? Yep, already done.

How about a homosexual? Yep. A member of the "Illuminati?" Yes, but Bush too has been accused of this.

So how about this: accuse him of being a space alien. After all, that large jawline can't be human, can it? Who cares if it is an outlandish and obviously false charge - that never stopped you before?

ALa said...

glob·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glbl)

1. Having the shape of a globe; spherical.
2. Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide: global war; global monetary policies.

I never said anything about convincing one's COUNTRYMEN about legitamacy...I believe the numbers of people thinking we should go to Iraq was well over half--so he did that. Did you read what I said? I said what if you can't convince THE WORLD (France germany russia) because they are being financed by the very despot we seek to depose? Then would it be American security or Global approval/legitamacy?!
Don't answer -because you can't...Kerry hasn't said...but he HAS shown through past actions. STOP talking about what he has's SO silly! Don't you understand that I could say I am 5'11 with black hair down to my ass and a million dollar inheritance in the doesn't make it so. ACTIONS (aka voting record...) please.

Paul G. said...

"Paranoia runs deep/Into your mind it will creep." - Buffalo Springfield 1967

If you had made as much effort to find the truth about as you did seeking a "Touched by God" picture of Buffalo Dick Cheney you would have found the real story about how he damaged a small business with his mis-statement here.
Oh, your post was before that was up, so we can deduce that you simply made it up after not finding a contradiction or parroted from someone else who drew conclusion without checking facts.
Of course anyone with the knowledge and access could have check and found that the registration for was created Feb. 4 2004 in preparation for this debate. or were the last places Cheney should have sent anyone.
Factcheck had this had this summary
“Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.
In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.” - my emphasis

About the debate itself, It was apparent to me why neither of these men are a candidate for president, just president in waiting. Edwards has time to learn, Edwards has had 4 years of OJT and shows that he just doesn't have the stuff that it takes.

The Veep is a shoe in for this years Ministry of Misinformation Bagdad Bob Award for “I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11”.
That's going to be one for the record books, where would anyone find a time that Dick Cheney spoke without connecting two? I suspect he might have inscribed “Sept 11th + Saddam” in the yearbooks of his highschool classmates.

Kat said...

you're right...he didn't have stockpiles of WMD, no danger from this guy:,2933,134625,00.html

"The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (search) production by Saddam Hussein's (search) regime after 1991.

But the final report by Charles Duelfer (search) concluded that though the weapons stockpiles were destroyed, Saddam’s government was looking to begin a WMD program again."

Duelfer concluded that Saddam's regime hoped to convince the world it had complied with the United Nations resolutions implemented after the first Gulf War and wanted the U.N. to lift the strict sanctions against the country.

Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on Iraqi WMD affairs, found Saddam wasn't squirreling away equipment and weapons and hiding them in various parts of the country, as some originally thought when the U.S.-led war in Iraq began, officials said.

Instead, the report finds that Saddam was trying to achieve his goal by retaining “intellectual capital” — in other words, keeping weapons inspectors employed and happy and preserving some documentation, according to U.S. officials.

Duelfer and the multi-national Iraq Survey Group (ISG) (search), which also worked on the report, say it’s still not known whether Iraq moved weapons caches to Syria or other countries."

I mean, the guy was such an innocent Arab lamb, wrongly accused. he wouldn't do anyone any harm. Surely he wouldn't try to undermine the sanctions program and buy the vote of the security council:,2933,134592,00.html

House hearings on Tuesday raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein (search) bought votes in the United Nations Security Council in exchange for benefits from the Oil-for-Food program approved by the world body.

House Government Reform subcommittee chairman Rep. Christopher Shays (search), R-Conn., suggested the Oil-for-Food program actually helped keep the now-deposed Iraqi leader in power because the former dictator gave oil contracts to Security Council members who protected him.

Nope...nothing here. Just good people trying to keep the good people of Iraq from starving while we forced the evil sanctions on them. No way they would have lifted the sanctions and let Saddam start his madness over. Not like he was subverting the Oil for Food program or anything.

Of course, leave it to the Dems to produce the red herring of HALIBURTON and the contracts that they are hoping no one will go look up and read how the LOGCAP program worked or find out how long they had a CONTRACT with the DOD for just such purposes:

The Army has used contractors to provide supplies and services during both peacetime and contingencies dating back to the Revolutionary War. On December 6, 1985 LOGCAP was established with the publication of AR 700-137. The newly established program was used in 1988 when the Third United States Army (TUSA) requested that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) contract out a management plan to construct and maintain two petroleum pipeline systems in Southwest Asia in support of contingency operations.

The first comprehensive multifunctional LOGCAP Umbrella Support contact was awarded by the USACE in August 1992 and was used in December 1992 to support all U.S. Services and United Nations (UN) forces in Somalia. Other areas where LOGCAP has been implemented include:

(...)Inland Pipeline Distribution System (IPDS) Plan - This plan is being drafted. The plan will lay out the Contractor's plan to receive, transport, construct, test, operate, maintain, and repair tactical pipelines/traces using U.S. Government provided IPDS equipment. Operations could potentially be conducted in three different countries in SWA. The Contractor will provide this support during contingency operations in SWA and will be prepared to operate the completed pipelines until relieved by the Procuring Contracting Officer. They must also be 'on call' or 'be prepared' order to support additional IPDS missions as the situation dictates.

(SWA=Southwest Asia ie Iraq)

And who won the contract? Haliburton? And who won the contract in 1997? not Haliburton, but the Mr. clinton overturned the bidding process and insisted that Haliburton stay as the provider since they were already entrenched and knew how the program worked:

In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.
So, Halliburton had the LOGCAP contract since 1999 (uh, that's on Mr. clinton's watch) and that included a contingency plan for handling the Iraqi Oil pipelines, etc.

Nothing like a red herring to try to cover the fact that the Dems want to claim Uncle Saddam was just a nice guy, doing his time in prison (Iraq) waiting for the day when he could be on probation and go get a job as a grocery sacker at the A&P. Be a productive citizen of the world. Sure wasn't planning to go do nothing bad when he got out, even though he knew where he hid his weapons. you know, just in case he felt threatened and had to defend himself.
Red herring, red herring come out to play
Your friend flipper needs you today
Red herring, red herring, flippers best friend
You'll be with flipper right to the end

Red herring, red herring you'll never die
Silky pony said so and he doesn't lie
Red herring, red herring what's in a name
With flipper and silky, you know the game

Red herring, red herring, the Democrats shame.

ALa said...

Paul -sorry to disappoint, but I didn't make it up. I heard it on ABC news this morning. If you believe that the story that you linked is true...I have a bridge to sell you. Pleeease...the company just 'happened' to decide to divert the traffic to Soros' website -and I guess it's legal to do that without the person's permission. Come on Paul, get real. Yes, I checked out all your little sites and all the links THIS MORNING....I just don't believe all that I hear if it's not logical and doesn't jive with he rest of the Kerry being tough on defense.

Oh, and Dick Cheney isn't a 'President in waiting'...unlike Edwards (who probably hates Kerry) he doesn't want to be President. Bush asked Colin Powell to be the Veep, but he wanted to be SOS...McCain was considered, but Laura vetoed the idea --and she suggested Dick because he is smart, experienced and a policy wonk. He is actually a politician with an agenda of public service -imagine that.

~Jen~ said...

I loved every single word of your post. Silky pony??!?! LOL!!!!!!!!

The comments were fun too. Can you smell the fear?

*happy sigh*

Life is good Ala71. Life is good.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul G. said...

Yes I believe it, because it's fact that I checked myself.
I personally checked whois, I didn't rely on a news service.
Your little PC doesn't have a whois client so I sent you to a website that will do it for you.

And yes -anyone- who owns a domain name can repoint it without the permission of the target ip address provided the purpose is not theft of identity Ford Motor Company vs. 2600 Magazine.

I'd love to send you a parrot head hat for a day, you could wear it when you meet Laura, you will meet her right? She wouldn't just walk by her husbands biggest groupie.

Frater Bovious said...

God Bless You Kat. To quote you:

"And who won the contract? Haliburton? And who won the contract in 1997? not Haliburton, but the Mr. clinton overturned the bidding process and insisted that Haliburton stay as the provider since they were already entrenched and knew how the program worked:

In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans."

So, the whole lie about Republicans and the Draft isn't the first time that Democrats have tried to blame Republicans for something they did. Very nice. fb

Ron Brynaert said...

I seriously doubt that "Phil Dillon, Prairie Apologist" will be following anyone into battle. Stupid.

As for your take on the debate, Ala. Yeah, you're right. Cheney definitely won last night. He cleaned up with the we-hate-Martin-Luther-King demographics.

I still can't get over the fact that Dick thought he could lie his way out of constantly linking Saddam with 9/11. My god. I don't see how anyone can think that he could have possibly recovered from that carlcameronish fabrication. Perhaps he should have said, "I once decided to link Saddam with 9/11 before I decided against it."

Do you know how many times Dick Cheney presided over the senate?

The answer is twice.

this we'll defend said...

Kat (and I am sure all of the kool-aid drinking right-wingers) have now admitted that sure, Saddam didn't have any WMDs, but hey, HE PLANNED ON GETTING SOME.

Think about that a while. What nation doesn't fit into that category? And what standard do we use to launch a pre-emptive "war of defense" offensive?

I think Canada is plotting (they COULD be, you never know) so let's get them!

Bottom line: the president claimed that Iraq was a clear and present danger, and that the risk of not invading was greater than the risk of invading.

And Iraq was not a clear and present (immediate) danger, it wasn't a "gathering danger," and the risks of not invading were minimal, while the dangers of full invasion and occupation were KNOWN to be be much, much higher than the administration let on.

And as for ALa71: she at first agrees with Bush's attacks upon Kerry for saying "Global Test" but once it is shown what he clearly meant and clearly said, she responds "STOP talking about what he has's SO silly!"

The Daily Show last night hit it right on the head (as usual - how does Stewart get it so right night after night?) by noting Kerry's problem is the gap between what he says and what Bush says he said.

Here is a campaign commercial from the Bush Campaign that everyone should watch:

RBP said...

The Veeps only debated 90 minutes!
Oh I'm sorry, I mean the Veep and the Veep-elect.
I too, keep wondering why I keep reading this blog, oh yeah, 'cause it's funny!

Bigandmean said...

You and Kat have them stired up again. I read over all the posts a second time - well I couldn't get to all of TWD's. I have to work tomorrow. I was struck by the profane language and name calling coming from our friends from the left. Civility seems to be such a fleeting thing.

I was really disappointed that my friend Cheeky sat the tone with such gems as "insane", "poor quality", "inhaling plastic" (I think she meant you Ala), along with "stupid", "mean" and "evil" (all of us who intend to vote for Bush I suppose). Rab threw in a "stupid". Lefty got in "blond pompousity"(you again Ala). Then good old Jericho got the "F" word in while implying that Ala favored genocide in The Sudan! TWD joined in with "kool aid drinking right wingers", got in a "lying swift bastards" and finshed up with the old reliable "cheating bastards".

It really concerns me that the lack of civility leading up to this election will have a lasting negative effect on our country. I don't know if there are Bush supporters who visit left wing blogs and do the same thing or not since I don't have the time to read any except for two or three bloggers who regularly post here. I haven't seen anything on their blogs like I've seen on Ala's and others. If conservatives do it they are equally to blame.

I actually like several of the lefties who post here. I don't think they're stupid, evil, lying bastards - they just see things different from the way I do. In any case, I think we should all strive to do better.

ALa said...

B&M: Luckily it takes a lot to upset me...haha -I enjoy providing the forum though...even if it isn't changing minds, it may cause someone think about something they might not have before (on either side). I know that in real life they would all love me (despite my strong affiliation to W) because everybody does....LOL
I will carry no ire past November 2 -I have my mental plan in place...if we lose I will be thankful to them for sparing us eight years of Hillary for four of Kerry...

cheeky monkey said...

Hmmm... so much to respond to.

Big and Mean-- in terms of tone. Yes, biting. It's the give and take with all the kids on the playground. Not going to be nice when the bullies on the right aren't, and talk about Edwards being sliced like bologna, Ala talking about the antisemitic UN (again, what's with this claim ALa? it's offensive to me), and the rest.

But rest assured, I did not mean to imply that you all are mean, evil and stupid. No, that was reserved for some of our fear-inspiring leaders. You and the rest of blog world. I think you're mostly smart and seriously misguided!
But I like you anyway and would welcome you into my home and cook you dinner anyday.

ALa said...

Cheeky: (you should be offended –but not at me…)
Anti-Semitism in the United Nations –Not a new thought…

“There is a considerable anti-Semitic component behind the policies pursued [at the United Nations] and expressed without challenge (except by the United States) in its fora.” Jewish Virtual Library

“The U.N.'s assault on Israel, in direct violation of its Charter, now rivals even the Jew-hating indoctrination that preceded World War II. The very organization that is charged with ensuring the equal protection of all nations, large and small, has become the spearhead of attempts to destroy one of its most vulnerable members.” History News Network, George Mason University

“As a result of such bias, the UN has lost credibility. It is no surprise that the Oslo Agreements were negotiated outside the auspices of the UN, and contained no role for the UN. Though Israel was the subject of aggressive wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 and the victim of countless terrorist attacks, the Security Council and the General Assembly have never once censured Israel's assailants. It is not just an issue of anti-Israel bias; it is difficult to ignore an anti-Jewish bent in many instances. For 50 years the UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets, including xenophobia, but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism until 1993, and then, only under intense US pressure.” Focus on Jerusalem

“The United Nations has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism, intolerance, and inequality against the Jewish people and its state.”
Those words were uttered by tenacious law professor Anne Bayesfsky last week at, of all places, the United Nations. No, it wasn’t outside the New York building as traffic whizzed by, but rather inside one of the auditoriums that more often plays host to anti-Semitic rants from UN member nations.
Six decades after its founding, the UN apparently decided that anti-Semitism was an issue worth addressing. The irony, though, was not lost on those painfully aware of the UN’s disturbing legacy.”

I could list examples for days and days…but I won’t. Suffice it to say that the UN is now hiring members of Hamas…their explanation ‘they don’t differentiate between various political groups’…my lord! Hiring terrorists at the UN…what a shocker that is! (not)

free0352 said...

TWD, Jerhico, Paul, Others.

I have some questions about how Kerry plans to carry out some of his promises.

How does he plan to double the Special Forces with out sacrificing the awsome quality and skill. They can't find enough guys to be T.O. NOW who meet the standards? Does he plan to lower the standards?

Kerry states he will only roll back tax cuts(This means raise, pure spin, face it.) taxes on the wealthiest 2%. Then I hear Edwards and Kerry both state its people who earn 200,000 dollars a year or more. Now I remember Clinton saying similar stuff (He was saying 100,000 bucks, but that was comperative income in 1992)

Now... the wealthiest two percent can't possibly meet the goals Kerry has set for his proposed administration. Any ligitimate economist I've read will tell you the money just isn't there. There must be more revenue generating plans somewhere in his plan, what are they? Cuting the defacit in half, health care, social security, ect. All these ideas and plans are very expensive stuff. Also there is the great possibility (likelyhood) that the Coalition in Iraq HE says he can build will be a little tighter with the pocket book then what he had hoped. France and Germany woun't get involved no matter who is ellected, England is giving what it can, and like you've said many times, how much does Poland really have? So we've got to pay for the war he says he intends to fight.

Kerry states that he will not only NOT increase the defacit, but will cut it in half within four years. This suggests to me that those people who earn 200,000 grand a year can expect a tax hike, like I've heard the candidates say, as well as this has been the standard demorcrat plan campained on for eons.

Now, most small buisness holders are not members of closely held corporations. They pay taxes like any other guy because in reality, they can't afford the acountants and tax lawyers to find the loopholes for them to be on the corporate rate. while thier net worth might be 200,000 dollars per year, they don't really make that kind of money when 60%-80% of earnings are re-invested into the buisness, thier pay sure isn't 200g's. Especially after taxes.

So my question is, with the majority of jobs in the US comeing form small buisness owned by this economic demographic, how can Kerry justify these tax increases where the betting chance is it will force these small buisness holders to cut back to survie? (I.E. layoffs and cutbacks, which chain reaction into further layoffs by thier customers and supplyers)

While the majority of the VERY wealthy Americans (the actual 2%) got rich by buying and selling assets (realistate and Stocks mostly), they often re-invest this money into small buisnesses as well as large ones. The rich guy who buys a resteraunt for example. Can Kerry justify raising taxes on the actual 2% considering this economic demografic's history of quickly liquidating small buisness assets and locating tax loopholes with super human skill? (Kerry is in a dream world to think he will ever get to sign a bill closing all the loopholes in ANY congress, if even such a bill could be writen. NOOOOOOOO politician seeking re-ellection will EVER sign that thing. Rich folks got rich by being smart or paying people to be smart for them, they don't pay taxes. The middle class does. Hence Edward's Incorporated law practice as an example.) Or worse yet, the 2% cuting back or liquidating those buisnesses to pay for the tax increase should thier efforts to find a loophole fail, laying off the employees and causing larger corporations to lay off or cut back do to thier shares being sold wholesale? Even a .4% hike is a hell of a lot of money to a small buisness, or even a large buisness when you consider .4% hurts the small and the large equally. Though I will say a corporation can dodge the tax all together, completly legally with smart acounting by not generating any profit to pay taxes on. While I guess forcing them to re-invest the profits to expand could be a good thing for the middle class, not generating profit for share holders will cause them to sell in mass, which is catostrohic for that corporation, and bad for all classes who will lose thier jobs. Not to mention the government woun't generate any revenue anyway with this increase unless they miraculously close the loopholes. Woun't more small buisnesses incorporate to dodge the hike, and larger ones re-double thier efforts to dodge the tax? Does Kerry intend to exten corporate wellfare to corporations devestated by having to pay out to selling share holders? What IS Kerrys stated policy on corporate welfare.

I have always noticed that Democrats campain on taxing only the 2% demographic, and once in office start raising things like gas, corporate taxes, and service fees. And in thier last terms raising across the board. Too many Republicans are guilty of this too. All of this will traspher and tricle down to the middle and low classes. Stores don't take the hit in profit, they raise prices and so does every other buisness. With this in mind, does Kerry's plan include any OTHER tax increases I'll end up with in the long run? Right and Left, post away your arguments.

They're were a lot of questions in there, and I'm not arguing, I really want to know. There is a lot more I'm curious about, and I could have writen this clearer, I'll admit. Remember I'm not arguing here (I'm waiting for your answers, so I can argue them) so forget Bush. I don't want to here "But Bush this and Bush that. He lied and people died!" I want to know what Kerry has to say other than his sound bites and worthless websight that tells me nothing but his dreams. I want to know exactly how he plans to pay for all this shit.

leftyjones said...

First of all....Blond Pompousity IS funny and I'll even bet deep down, Ala admits its somewhat true. Hell, I'll admit I can be pompous at helps to enliven the debate.
As for the post in question.....
I'll shed a different light on it today...mostly because I've been where you guys are.

4 years ago I watched in disbelief as I saw what was happening in October.
I'm not even getting into what happened AFTER the election, it never should have been so close.
The dems never quite took Bush seriously enough and though its easy to understand why...the fact is, it cost them. They were behind in money, articulating their message, sending out their spinmeisters, good ads, volume of ads....etc.
The repub's beat them to the punch each time.
I saw an election that shouldn't have even been close based on record, the economy etc. bcome the closest of all time and I saw it slipping away but didn't want to admit it.

Ala's post clearly shows she is beginning to feel the same fears about her beloved "W"'s chances this year.
The most compelling proof of this........?
The fact that she is over the top in her analysis.
The debate WAS close, actually pretty well handled by both sides and left absolutely nobody staggering.
In the was also just a V.P. debate which outside of Quayle getting smashed 12 years ago has never made much of a blip.
It certainly doesn't undo the Presidential debates or the performance of "W" last week.
The screaming about " don't listen to what he says....look at his record" is nearly identical to what the dems said 4 years ago.
Failed business man, fortunate son, maybe bright but not very articulate, ceremonial governor post in a state where the governor has less power than almost anywhere....blah...blah...blah
We couldn't believe he was "getting away with it: and now, neither can the right as they are sure that kerry IS "getting away with it" on his record.

Polls are not absolute and they cannot be trusted to pinpoint an election. We learned that 4 years ago as well. BUT, polls can indicate a mood swing....a changing of the tide. This certainly happened post convention and it's happening again now...with little time left.

Jen, I DO smell the fear but it's not coming from our side. Many dems I know didn't really deep down think that we had much of a chance this time around and are suddenly feeling VERY invigorated...we are not worried although we do understand there is time left for changes to occur yet. ( republican october surprise )
We feel good and yes, we do believe that at this moment there is a chance to change directions, change horses and quite possibly save America by sending the second Bush on home down to Texas where he can spend his time planning a library instead of how to ruin our country.

ALa said...

Funny, you've been saying you were confident and 100% sure that Kerry would win this whole we find you were upset? I don't understand why you are happy all of a sudden...Kerry may have won the debate according to pundit spin (remember that after the debate HIS camp declared it a tie), but none of the internals changed -Bush still has double digit leads on who is a better leader, who says what they mean, who's most believable, and who can keep you safer. I never said the VP debate was a big deal...did you read my post...I specifically acknowledged that the country was probably watching the Yankees or Extreme Makeover...BUT it was not a tie -at three separate occasions Edwards hands were visibly shaking -he looked like he got sucker-punched when Cheney exposed his tax loop hole ...but to give him credit -he had a hard job to do...defending Kerry's politically expedient record...

Must go now...I have to dig through the shed for Halloween decorations...

Jericho Brown said...


Don't you mean "LIBARY"?


The U.N. was instrumental in the creation of the state of Israel.


The best thing about Kerry's plan is that, even if in its infancy, without all the t's dotted, i's crossed, it has to be better than the fiscal irresponsibility W. has inflicted on this country. As David Cross said, "You mean, if I let you do whatever you want to my country, fuck up the environment, fuck up international'll give me a check for $600 dollars?" Tax cuts are bribes for the working class, look the other way money.

Kerry's greatest attributes:
1. Able to speak in complete sentences.
2. Not BUSH

leftyjones said...

Ah Ala....
Changing the words ever so slightly to make a point.
I am confident about Kerry winning....I simply have to believe that at least 50% of the people in this country are too smart to want another 4 years of this shameful leadership (leadership used in a sarcastic, laughable kind of way)
I do know some other dems who have been wringing this summer about what Darth Rove would come up with to divert the public from the truth...
As you well know, a base that feels unsure is in trouble...I believe this base was a bit hopeful and a bit unsure but last Friday and the revelations of truth about Iraq coming out have changed that and energized the group. The pendulum has swung....though there is still time left for either candidate to screw it up...right now, we are not the worried ones.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
free0352 said...


Didn't I specifically ask you not to mention Bush and just tell me what your candidate has planed on these specific questions. Stop spining. You don't even know, do you? You knee jerk liberal, "I hate bush and kerrys good enough for me" Are you kidding me? To your credit, you can't get your candidate to stay still on ANY issue I guess it WOULD be hard to know. But I'm guessing he's told SOMEBODY difinitavely how he plans to do all this shit! All right you other liberals out there, do better than THAT and just answer me. I'm not trying to argue untill I have something to argue about. Bush sucks isn't an answer to my question! I had specific questions, you don't have to answer them all. Just pick one and run with it. What is Kerrys proposed policy besides having a unilateral sumit in Korea and an international one in IRAQ! You're right, he's not a flip floper, he doesn't have a policy to flip flop on if you listen to Jerhico! Just tell me what this guy wants to do with his damn tax plan, this is all I ask. I've tried to find it and all I get is 17 differant answers none of which are similar and none out of Kerrys own mouth. You like this guy so I figured you follow him closer than I do and maybe you knew. Am I wrong? Are you guys ACTUALLY TELLING ME the only reason you're voting for him is he's a Democrat! I try to look at how they stand on issues important to me and pick the one I like best. I rarely do but I've voted Democtat before, especially in local ellections. But not you, oh no jerhico, its Democrat for you if the green party doesn't have a real chance. tax cuts arn't bribery! That money belongs to them, the earned it! Is John Kerry going to rip food off my daughter's plate to give health care or god forbid wellfare or redistribute it to another state or whatever to somebody else who was to worthless to get thier own and leave me with mediocre government crap! thats a valid question damn it! Its my fucking money he's spending! Why oh why does the government have ANY right to it? That isn't rhetorical, why should I give up more? I pay a shit ton as it is. Look at your pay stub man! or is it you love Kerry because YOU'RE on wellfare Jerhico? What is Kerry's policy, why is it worth it? Is he actually going to do it? Who WILL he do it too exactly? TWD, I know you know....come on man, Jerhico is killing me. You know I'm a reasonable guy. I've made up my mind on the war, but convince me his economic policy doesn't suck like his forign one does.

leftyjones said...

Do not confuse being confident with being passive. I liken the way I feel to being as excited as a runner coming down the homestretch in second but having closed the gap...making my move and running harder than ever for the tape.

There is much work to do and a lot of time left.....anything can happen, we all know that.
But we're excited and guys are defending, deflecting and having to explain away the loss of an overnight lead. It gets interesting from here.....

Bigandmean said...

I'm glad you've got thick skin. I checked out the blond blog that you recommended and was surprised at the ferosity of the name calling by the lefties there. One of them hit her with the infamous "c" word (it has a "t" on the end and the abbreviation for the United Nations in the middle).

You're probably right about "Blond Pompousity" now that I think about it. It was funny the next time I thought about it. I had just seen one of Ala's cohorts called the "c" workd as noted above and my humor meter hadn't kicked in yet.

One thing I've noticed, in all honesty is what I think is a regional difference regarding the use of some terms to express displeasure with those with whom we don't agree coupled with minor generational differences.

My wife and I will be in Philly for the first time ever next March. We won't eat much. What's for dinner? Seriousty though, do any of you Philly natives have any recommendations for places to find good food with a local flavor? I'm talking real Italian, Philly cheese steak or other local fare.

If we're all still speaking I'd love to get together when the Mrs. and I are in town and buy a round.

free0352 said...


I know what you're talking about about being excited. Its hard to call, the next debate will clinch it. The swing states have made up thier minds by now, but the undecided voter close to the candidates base states can throw it one way or the other. They are neck and neck at presant, which means Bush wins the ellection historically. Encumbant advantage. Kerry knows this. He has to beat Bush's ass as bad as he did in the last debate to do that. If Bush had trounced him last time, Kerry would be KIA this ellection. It would have been a landslide. I'll give Kerry the credit as a politicean for pulling it together, more of a comeback than Clinton ever had. But all the people in New York and California can vote democrat and it doesn't mean anything has changed. Thats the beauty of the ellectorial college. I know I lot of dems hate that system, but it is fair. Hell, if we got rid of it then poor states like North Dakota and Alaska wouldn't even get a say in who the presedent would be. The candidates would only campain in California, Texas, Michigan and New York. The middle and south of this country is voting Bush this ellection with the exception of michigan and illinois, and possibly ohio. Ohio is looking pretty red ritht now. Kerry has spent so much time on Pennsilvania (stupid, he had that state anyway) that the republicans are in a feeding frenzy in the buckeye state. Ohio is the clencher as Florida will vote Bush this year, I'll bet money on that. So in reality, I'm predicting Bush, because pollsters arn't factoring everything in they should. We saw this last time and it drove you guys nuts, he can loose the majority because they all live in; Texas (which bush has hands down)Michigan (Kerry) California (kerry) and New Communist York (Kerry, god I need to get out of here) But while Kerry will carry those big states along with his given of new england, Bush will carry the entirity of the midwest, a huge chunk of the west, and I bet Kerry doesn't get one southern state except maybe west virginia. Thats huge electoral votes, and gives Bush a great shot.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...


A base that feels unsure is in trouble. Well, the candidate himself is unsure over in the Kerry camp. For it or against it? Global test or no global test? Uh, duh, uh, duh, he can't give a straight answer. And that's what you think will be effective "leadership" going into the next four years? I think before 2008 we'd see a President Kerry in bondage gear being whipped around by the Dominatrix Duo, Chiraq and Schroeder, just as in the JibJab cartoon. This is because he has no resolve, and he represents PEOPLE with no resolve.

Rather than speculate on the horse race that is this campaign, I will simply fear for the fate of America if the Clueless Tool of the Soviets from 1971 becomes the American President. That is all.

ALa said...

Cheeky: I have heard you're a good cook -so I'll take you up on the dinner offer! LOL...

BigandMean: SERIOUSLY, I will be HURT if you guys are in town and we don't get to meet you!!!!!!! Just name your poison!....

OK kids, must leave the blogosphere until tonight...was doing yard work all day (which included cleaning out the shed -aka: moving the man's 1,000 lb. tools around) and now....Justrose and I....are meet....the FIRST LADY of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA....Laura Bush...VIP tickets....auditorium packed with like-minded fodder...
This is the dilemna --what the hell do I wear...seriously! Dressy? (but what if I wear heels and we are standing for four hours?) Jeans -is this appropriate to meet the first Lady? If only I had paid attention to the dress codes at all these rallies on TV.....
Until tonight!...............................

Paul G. said...

Free are you saying it's impossible to double the size of the special forces?
That we couldn't do it even if we tried?
It sure sounds like that's what your saying.
It can be done, you know it can be done and all it takes a plan and the will to do it.
A spurious argument on your part, I've heard it before, and it has no place in military thinking.
Can't do.

Your following questions are only one even though you wound it out long enough to make it look like many.
Even so they/it are/is very good.
The next administration is going to have to create an environment where business small and large can can grow in America.
That isn't the environment we have now.
There is no magic bullet fix to the problem of the tax structure, an indiscriminate tax break or increase is not going to solve the problem.
Taxes from both the state and federal levels eat a small business alive.
Small business has seen a temporary offset in the recent break on the federal side, but it is already being eroded by increases from the states and constitutes only a band aid not a real fix.
The root of our current problems come from a weak federal policy that does not put America first.
Foreign investment in the country has actually reversed starting in the fall of 2000 and continues to this day.
American investment outside the U.S. is at a critical level because of the lower cost of operating in those countries. Those costs have nothing to do with our tax structure on business or civil lawsuits (with perhaps the exception of firearms).
They are purely based on labor (wages, retirement, safety, health, retention) and ecological issues.
Issues that have been thrown into advantage for the second and third world by the unbalanced policies reinforced by NAFTA GATT and the WTO.
It is amazing that a country like ours that refuses to give France or the U.N. a veto over going to war is willing to give international courts the power to dictate our internal and external economic policy.
We must take control and reinstate tarrifs that reaffirm American values and preserve our economy.
Is Kerry the fix for that?
I doubt it, but I'm in a throw the bums out frame of mind, change the players when they fail, do it regularly and eventually they just might get a clue

Kerry talks about enforcing our trade agreements, so does Bush.
Bush has a 4 year track record of failure in enforcement, I'm ready for another guy.
The transport of over 300 lbs of ready to go weapons grade plutonium to France from the US this week, putting business ahead of national security does not give me confidence in the current administration.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Paul, I agree that the Special Operations forces can and should be increased. That is especially the area needed the most for tracking down and killing terrorists--the special capability of Special Ops for surveillance, scouting, etc., and the ability to do their work without becoming CNN/Michael Moore propaganda fodder (unlike the infantry--no offense to the infantry).

"It has no place in military thinking.
Can't do."

You mean like General Shinseki's 'Can't Do'? Just razzin' ya. There actually is a place for "can't do" but you have to be really careful when you say it, and be ready to support it as to why.

My 'druthers as an additive to the force profile that went into Iraq would have been, rather than a flood of 100,000 extra conventional combat troops that have to be fed and housed and ammo'd up and supplied, etc., I'd have tacked on 20 extra high-end Special Ops teams (SEALs, Special Forces, or Delta if possible), their requisite support in gunships, MC-130s, etc., and about 2,000 specially-trained Iraqi nationals acting as infiltrators and informants and agents going into the insurgent units to identify who's who in the zoo. Fully wire them up as they go in and give them Iraqi nationals as handlers too, so they don't look suspicious in their activities. That, and a basic law-and-order force of sufficient size so that military-looking troops don't have to be the ones policing the streets. Maybe that's what the armchair planners mean when they talk the 200,000+ talk, that those would be needed for basic law and order. But then, those wouldn't have to be combat infantry type troops. Take anyone from any military specialty and put a police-looking uniform on 'em, nice and civil-looking, with the basic side-arm and stick, for basic day-to-day law enforcement, getting the cat out of the tree, domestic disputes, anti-looting, that sort of thing. Infantry plays the SWAT role and extra backup and fighting any organized insurgent units of a known location. Special Ops goes proactive and tracks down and kills the Zarqawi wannabe types.

"Taxes from both the state and federal levels eat a small business alive."

And Kerry is promising to increase them, to eat small business DEAD.

"It is amazing that a country like ours that refuses to give France or the U.N. a veto over going to war is willing to give international courts the power to dictate our internal and external economic policy."

I'd go farther and call it infuriating.

"Is Kerry the fix for that?
I doubt it, but I'm in a throw the bums out frame of mind, change the players when they fail, do it regularly and eventually they just might get a clue"

Actually when the worse players come onto the scene, they'll think you gave them a mandate to implement their more deleterious policies. It matters WHOM you use to replace the "bums". A lot.

"The transport of over 300 lbs of ready to go weapons grade plutonium to France from the US this week, putting business ahead of national security does not give me confidence in the current administration."

I know the French are surly, but TERRORISTS?

C'mon. Ils ne sont pas si mauvais que ça. Seulement un peu... orgeuilleux.

free0352 said...

Go to a redleg's perspective right now and read what he has it the rest of this post when you are finished.


Many of the things you said are correct, some I disagree with and some I don't. I remind you that NAFTA, and GATT were signed by William J. Clinton, and he gave great support to the WTO. So would Bush.

What you have not...not...not... done is answer any of my questions. Not one. Zero, nada. I'm starting to think you leftys can't answer them.

You did not answer how John Kerry will double the special forces. The SF is a highly elite unit. The selection process is extreamly demanding, requiring years of experiance. You can't just recruit the SF. It takes years to grow a soldier capable of maintaining the SF's impecable standards. I don't know what percentage of soldiers are capable, willing, or elligible, but I know it's very few. Not everyone gets to be ellite. But all this is worthless because, you didn't even answer how John Kerry is going to keep his word on this one campain promise you attempted, badly, to defend.

I asked how raising taxes on people making 200,000 dollars a year will not effect small buisness negitavely. You admitted taxes crush small buisness, and then bashed Bush for his tax relief. What you did not say is what John Kerry will do.

I asked how John Kerry will offset the crisis in the stock market John Kerry could possibly creat if he did not act to stabilize the backlash and subsequent sale of stock which always acompanies a tax hike. You did not even try to tell me.

I asked how John Kerry would provide insentive for the rich to not liquidate assets such as small buisneses after a tax increase to minimize thier loss made them less profitable and more complicated. You didn't touch it.

I asked how John Kerry would pass get a bill passed to close tax loopholes the rich often utilize for thier benifit, one of Kerry's promises. Nope, nothing there either.

I asked if John Kerry really intends to increase taxes on gasoline. I further asked how if he did he would offset companies raising prices and consequently our cost of living if he were to raise the gas tax. Not a peep.

Do any of you voting democrat this ellection know what your candidate stands for? Does your candidate stand for anything? I'm beginging to suspect you're voting for him simply because you don't "like" bush. Well, I gotta tell ya. In a world of international terrorism, war, and uncertainty, and economic difficulty, it seems to me you want somebody who is nice, and raises taxes. I want someone mean as hell, who lets me keep my paycheck. But hey, who's next? Who can stop spining for 3 fucking seconds and answer a simple question!

Tom said...

Jericho Brown asks, "Whatever reason do we non-Right-wingers keep coming back here?"

Personally, I think it's because you like hot blondes.

Paul G. said...


I'll talk to you further when you get words like fuck out of your posts. I used no such language when I spoke to you and do not appreciate it in response.
Get civil or get Cheney'd.

Tom said...

this we'll defend said:

"It apparently never entered [dollface's] mind that if a president can't demonstrate a war is legitimate to his own countrymen then PERHAPS IT ISN'T LEGITIMATE? Illegitimate wars don't help our national security, they harm it."

Oh, really? So the isolationist movement of the 1930s, early 40s was correct and the legitimacy of WWII was only determined once we were attacked and those who hertofore opposed it came around? After all, before Pearl Harbor, what did Hitler and Tojo ever do to us? Funny thing is, that's precisely how Roosevelt had to handle the whole thing, so millions in Europe and Asia had to die until a fight against tyranny was 'legitimized' by the deaths of 2000+ Americans on December 7th.

And the same stupid thinking prevails to this day.

Hypothetically, if liberal morons were given conclusive proof that Saddam possessed the weapon stockpiles, they STILL would have whined that an invasion was "illegitimate" because he hadn't used them against us.

Oh, wait a minute, no need for a hypothetical, that's exactly what happened, because the leftist opponents of the invasion of Iraq based their opposition on the UN inspections and sanctions continuing, the assumption being that even if Saddam possessed the WMD, the US invasion was still unjustified unless and until either a couple thousand more Americans were murdered OR the UN gave the green light, the latter of course an impossibility since Saddam wasn't a.) white, and b.) Christian or Jewish. If he were, UN condemnation would have been immediate.

The invasion of Iraq was perfectly legitimate. The guy was murderous dictator putting a bounty on the heads of Jewish children and the family of the President of the US. He'd already plotted to kill one former US president, which that president's successor responded to with a few cruise missiles, probably after a lot of soul searching (and a couple of BJs from an intern).

Tinhorn barbarian dictators like Hussein are ALWAYS legitimate targets. We're finally catching onto the fact we should take them out because we can. 9/11 changed the whole global dynamic. It's a shame lefties can't get used to that.

Paul G. said...


orgeuilleux? Not in my vocabulary.

"I know the French are surly, but TERRORISTS?"

I made no inference that the French were terrorists, only that I believe that WE America can keep weapons ready plutonium more secure within the borders of our country rather than sending the material to any other country and trust that country to account for every ounce of it (some will be lost in processing, how much can only be determined through careful accounting) that accounting will not be done my Americans subject to our laws but by others in another country, without direct oversight or accountability.
It's stupid, dangerous, and counter to the track record of France concerning Nuclear Non-Proliferation.
France is one of three or four countries that will and have sold nuclear technology (Pakistan 1990 directly to AQ Kahn's network) to anyone willing to say that it is for power production or research.
But as I said before the issue for anyone should be that of accountability, the risk of simple transport is too high at this time, much less the release of control to a county that won't allow U.S. overflight.

Terrorists, no but perhaps too “négligent”.

redleg said...

Paul (and to Kerryites in general)

You cannot mass produce special operations forces. Not that we can't say we'll do it. You just cannot produce operators like SF and SEALs by increasing the numbers of groups or teams. They are special and need special traing, will and selection before they ever enter an operational team. Guys flunk out all the time. The beauty of these guys is that they can produce asymmetrical results with just an ODA in place. But it doesn't come cheap and you can't grow it over night or even in 4 years. We only have the special operations community we have from 40+ years of hard work. Example-- you can only enter SF selection as an E5 Sergeant and usually enter it later. Officers usually enter as senior lieutenants or captains. It takes a year and a half of training to get them ready to join a team after finishing selection. I would argue that you could grow another ranger battalion quickly, though it would be hard but groups of SF? Teams of SEALS? Not freaking likely, nor would the amounts of specialized support each like unit needs. We are growing them as fast as we can. Double the SF? A politicians promise with no plan. We need more of them undoubtably, but we are doing exactly what we can.

CSM has the OEf scenario just about right, but overestimates what we were actually capable of delivering into the White Mountains at that time. A beefed up SF team was what was on the ground and they worked miracles. I would've liked more, but as an artilleryman I always want more. Mass does indeed kick ass. But only mass that you can deliver upon the enemy at the right place and time.

For those of you who has not served in the 'Stan, I cannot even tell you (and I have tried TWD) how austere an environment that is. Even the mech heavy Soviets only had 110k there during the Soviet-Afghan war. What almost swung the balance for them was Spetsnaz in the hills hunting down the muj. And the muj/AQ/Taliban are not nearly so well supplied now except near the border of Pakistan. How hard it is to emplace even a small unit to fight and win is extremely tough. But I keep hearing people telling me we should have had 4 Divisions or 350k soldiers there. Not true and completely impossible from a strategic lift viewpoint.

Kat said...

To Paul, TWD, jericho, Lefty, et al...let me answer the question of justification of war even if there is no WMD. I think that I am allowed to do this since you all believe that it is ok for your candidate to vote "Yes" to authorize force and then qualify it later by saying he expected the President to use all diplomatic means before going in there even though we had been in front of the UN on this same issue for over a year. I think I am allowed to qualify my support for this war without WMD because your candidate says he will support the troops but votes "NO" on funding as a protest, or because it wasn't his bill, or because it was to be paid later instead of raising taxes today, or because...whatever his next damn reason was.

So, here, I get to do my impersonation of a right wing "Johnny Nuance" and tell you why the lack of WMD doesn't bother me at all....

The Iraq War: How do I love thee, let me count the ways

I love thee because, I believed in 1991 we should have gone down town to Baghdad.

I love thee because I believe we should never have left a dictator in place that threatens the region while claiming it was for the purpose of keeping stability in the region.

I love thee because I remember in 1992 how Saddam massacred the Shia and we stood by and did nothing.

I love thee because I remember after the Shia massacre I found out that Saddam had gassed the kurds and thousands died

I love thee because because I realized that he wasn't just some guy invading another country, but an evil bastard along the lines of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot

I love thee because we had to establish no fly zones and keep a huge contingent of troops and air force flying over Iraq to keep him from doing it again.

I love thee because I remember how many times Saddam targeted our planes and we had to blow up their radar and SAM installations

I love thee because, even after we did no fly zones, I found out that it didn't stop Saddam from massacring his people and putting them into mass graves

I love thee because I finally read about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the horrible things that were done to them and how over 600 Kuwaitis were still missing

I love thee because in 1998 when I still voted Democrat President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act and I thought we were finally going to get rid of this bastard, but we didn't

I love thee because in 1998 I finally realized that the sanctions and the oil for food program were terrible solutions with horrible consequences.

I love thee because in 1999 I heard for the first time that Saddam was paying blood money to the family of terrorists and that he had a terrorist training camp.

I love thee because I remember the nineties and how many times Saddam through out the UN inspection guys until we threatened him with violence and I wondered what he was hiding.

I love thee because I thought in 1999 that one more stupid resolution didn't do a thing and these people had no interest in enforcing it

I love thee because in 1999 I wondered once again why he hadn't deposed this bastard yet.

I love thee because after all these things, in 2001 he made remarks supporting the attacks.

I love thee because after the attacks, anyone we were still doing flyover missions and being daily targeted by their radar and SAMS was an enemy and potential friend of the bastards that attacked us

I love thee because I believed and still believe that anyone who gassed his own people, massacred his own people, buried his own people in mass graves (some still alive), invaded other countries, thumbed their nose at the UN and inspectors, targeted our flights daily, tried to take over the region on two occassions, used chemical weapons against the Iranians (as much as I don't care for that country), started making a showing of being "Islamic" to show solidarity with our attackers, paid money to terrorists and families, trained terrorists, allowed terrorists to live in his country, had rallies with him holding a gun, shooting it in the air while his people danced around shouting "death to America"; was the type of enemy that would use WMD or give it to another to use in a proxy war against us if and when he had the chance.

I love thee because after we invaded, since Mr. Kerry can have hindsight about whether he would support the war again if he knew what we know now, I think I'm allowed to have hindsight as well.

I love thee because, after we invaded, I saw the prisons with the torture chambers, with whole families incarcerated, while people frantically dug up the ground looking for underground cells with their loved ones in it.

I love thee because after the invasion and the liberation of some prisons, I saw children and babies being liberated and it reminded me again what a depraved bastard he was

I love thee because after the invasion, I saw how extensive the mass graves were and it reminded me again what a depraved bastard he was

I love thee because after the invasion, I found out that he had hundreds if not thousands of "fedeyeen" that were largely foreign fighters snd mujihadeen that pretty much said to me he was involved with the terrorists before we invaded.

I love thee because I found out that Zarqawi and ansar al Islam was stationed in Iraq and they had participated in joint actions against the Kurds with Saddam's henchmen which told me that he was in bed with the terrorists

I love thee because I found out Zarqawi and ansar Islam are related to Al Qaida that had attacked us

I love thee because I found out Zarqawi had been treated in the major Ba'athi hospital in Baghdad for his injured leg after he left Afghanistan which he couldn't do unless he had connections with SAddam's Ba'athi party which told me that Saddam was in bed with the terrorists

I love thee because without Zarqawis relationship with Saddam's Ba'athi party he would not have had the infrastructure and support in place to bring in the foreign terrorists that are in Iraq today which tells me that Saddam was in bed with the terrorists

I love thee because we found parts and pieces of a WMD program that was lying in wait to be reactivated and with the slow eroding of sanctions and his connections to terrorists, it was only a matter of time before they were re-started and he consolidated his relationship with the terrorists

I love thee because, despite the lack of his participation in 9/11, Saddam had over 10 different contacts with al Qaida in the last decade in an attempt to consolidate this relationship which told me he was in bed with the terrorists

I love thee because after the invasion, we found intelligence records that showed one Hakmet to be a Colonel of Saddam's fedeyeen foreign fighters that was also present in khartoum at the grand terrorists meeting which tells me that he was in bed with the terrorists

I love thee because I found out about the extensiveness of the oil for food scandal and how Saddam was siphoning money to private bank accounts, leaving his people with little resources, medicine etc, even worse than I thought in 98-99

I love thee because I found out that some of the contracts for the oil for food project were given to KGM, which is an empty office in Switzerland and is tied to the Mulsim Brotherhood which spawned the likes of Zawahiri who mentored bin Laden who attacked us and were obviously getting support money and the contracts were personally set up by Saddam and his henchmen which told me that he was in bed with the terrorists

I love thee because I met some Iraqi bloggers that told me they wanted to be free and gave personal stories about how they and their families were persecuted, disappeared, etc. and despite the difficulties, most of them are joyful everyday for the chance to be free and it taught me more about my freedom than any civics class I ever took

I love thee because by installing freedom and deomcracy in Iraq, by attacking Iraq, by showing these folks we mean business, countries like Libya get the picture and Saudi Arabia is now moving forward with reforms faster than they have ever done before to give their people more freedom. And freedom + Middle East = NO To Terrorists

I love thee because I believe freedom can change the face of the world and give people the opportunity to live and be prosperous which means they won't feel the need to attack us and will be realy happy to have trade agreements instead of armed stand offs with us.

I love thee because the terrorists are there now and we must destroy them

I love thee because the terrorists are there now and it gives them a place far away from us to fight with them directly

I love thee because that bastard Zarqawi was in Iraq for several years before the war, was connected with the Ba'athi Saddamist regime and is now going around Iraq beheading people which tells me that it was only a matter of time before he tried to figure out how to export that kind of terror here and I don't want to see our news full of stories about beheadings in San Diego, Philadelphia, Orlando, Dallas, name it

I love thee because, with hindsight, it would have been easier to overthrow Saddam and stabilize the country in 1991 because Al Qaida was not yet as strong as they were in 2003 and they hated Saddam in 1991 so we would not have seen the size and scale of terrorists now in Iraq

I love thee because every action, every movement of that depraved bastard and the terrorists in Iraq shows me that my security is threatened and after 9/11 I will not lie down and wait for them to come for me.

I love thee because I believe we have the imperative and empirical right to protect our security regardless of what some feckless countries, like France and German, or the UN or even more fickle citizens of the US believe.

The Iraq war, how do I love thee

Kat said...

how do I love the Iraq war, let me count the ways...

I love thee because, despite claims of wrong war, wrong place and wrong time, freedom is never wrong

Paul G. said...


Can the numbers of the special forces be doubled or not?
If we can't then we had all better start digging our own personal spider holes.

The future of war on terror from a military perspective hinges on the use of special forces, we cannot project armies of 100's of thousands to every location in the world that presents a threat.

It is my opinion that if we had used air power combined with special forces we could have settled the Iraq WMD issue without full scale invasion.
We could have even taken out Saddam and his evil spawn by the same means. And the time to do it would have been about 15 minutes after we finished task one, getting Bin Laden.

The nature of Guerrilla/Terrorist war requires a Guerrilla/Special Forces response.

Yes I know we are making efforts to increase the numbers, but what is wrong with making it a policy decision from the top, the Commander in Chief?
If we don't make an effort to double it how fast can we expect it to increase by 15%, 40%, or 80%?

I have been part of an elite military group and understand that the 'best of the best' cannot be manufactured, it can only be refined.
It's not an issue of skills but talent and talent is inherent not taught.
That said, I do still hope and believe that we have not moved so far from our pioneering roots that we don't still have the stuff it takes.

Paul G. said...

Not only have you gone completely off topic from anything I've said in this message thread, you have provided me with an example of the sickest idolatry of war I have seen in my life.


redleg said...


the only one who has strayed from his pioneering roots is you, my friend. Your candiadtes claims are false and simplistic, and unreachable. 40k troops OK. Doubling the special forces is ludicrous and unreachable.Even an extra battalion added to the six groups (understrength groups) already in existance is almost too much to ask. You should know this is you were a former special operator. Him saying it only backs up the claim that he doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

Leaving a threat like Saddam Hussein in power is a monsterous thought. If he didn't have WMDs, so what. We thought he did. He definately ain't got them now and we also have a fotthold in the middle east. It reminds me of Guadalcanal or Tunisia. We are just inside the entrance of this war. But we are there and your words and protestations of failure are both defeatist and doing damage far beyond your candidates political point. They do damage to the Iraqi and Afghanis and our allies in this great war against terror, and they harm those troops deployed in harms way. I will again be one of them soon. Kerry's mantra of failure and strategy of retreat are sickening to me because I know he will leave us high and dry when I am trying to fight. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. John Stuart Mill I believe.

Kat said...

Saddam and terrorists (and we ain't just talking Palestinians)

The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."

On Oct. 3, 1993, less than nine months after that Iraqi memo was written, American soldiers were ambushed in Mogadishu, Somalia by forces loyal to Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid, an alleged associate of Osama bin Laden

An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian, Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relationships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance, Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals affiliated with al Qaeda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The documents describe Al-Jehad wa'l Tajdeed as "a secret Palestinian organization" founded after the first Persian Gulf War that "believes in armed struggle against U.S. and western interests." The leaders of the group, according to the Iraqi memo, were stationed in Jordan in 1993, and when one of those leaders visited Iraq in November 1992, he "showed the readiness of his organization to execute operations against U.S. interests at any time."

Tefft believes the Tajdeed group likely included al-Zarqawi, whom Teft described as "our current terrorist nemesis" in Iraq, "a Palestinian on a Jordanian passport who was with al Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan prior to this period (1993)."

Tajdeed, which means Islamic Renewal, currently "has a website that posts Zarqawi's speeches, messages, claims of assassinations and beheading videos,"

The same 11-page memo refers to the "re-opening of the relationship" with Al-Jehad al-Islamy, which is described as "the most violent in Egypt," responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. The documents go on to describe a Dec. 14, 1990 meeting between Iraqi intelligence officials and a representative of Al-Jehad al-Islamy

Al-Zawahiri was one of the leaders of Jehad al-Islamy, which is also known as the Egyptian Islamic Group, and participated in the assassination of Sadat,

One of the Asian groups listed on the Iraqi intelligence memo is J.U.I., also known as the Islamic Clerks Society. The group is currently led by Mawlana Fadhel al-Rahman, whom Tefft said is "an al Qaeda member and co-signed Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious ruling) to kill Americans." The Iraqi memo from 1993 states that J.U.I.'s secretary general "has a good relationship with our system since 1981 and he is ready for any mission."

The Abu Nidal group, suspected by the CIA of having acted as surrogates for Iraqi terrorist attacks, is also mentioned.

"The movement believes in political violence and assassinations," the 1993 Iraqi memo states in reference to the Abu Nidal organization. "We have relationships with them since 1973. Currently, they have a representative in the country. Monthly helps are given to them -- 20 thousand dinars - in addition to other supports," the memo explains.

Iraq not only built and maintained relationships with terrorist groups, the documents show it appears to have trained terrorists as well. Ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern countries are listed on the papers.

Many are described as having "finished the course at M14," a reference to an Iraqi intelligence agency, and to having "participated in Umm El-Ma'arek," the Iraqi response to the U.S. invasion in 1991. The author of the list notes that approximately half of the individuals "all got trained inside the 'martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate."

Now, you tell me how this guy was not a threat, would not attack us, was not really a security problem...Tell me about your version of Uncle Saddam.

Tell me how you just keep pointing to the word "WMD" and actiing like that was the only threat that this kind presented to us. Tell me how, every time you try to point out the President using the words "Sadddam" and "WMD", you always conveniently leave out the word "Terrorists":
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

Is "WMD" going to be your one and only test to determine "imminent threat"?

And don't tell me it's not, because your arguments have frequently circled the "UN Sanctions were working; he didn't have WMD; he wasn't an imminent threat" meme.

Tell were the UN sanctions (that were being flouted for over a decade) going to keep Saddam from working with the terrorists?

I'm with the President, without actual WMD stockpiles but with the ability to recreate at will, the slipping of sanctions and his ties with terrorists, this guy met the "global test" applied on Sept 11.
Sept 20, 2001

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.

Now, how many times did he say "Terrorists" and "Saddam" with the codicile of "what if" they had WMD?

Is that your "global test"? "Let's wait and see"

I saw "let's wait and see" on Sept 11 and I'm not planning to "wait and see" on your's, Mr. Kerry's or the UN time table.

You want to continue to mouth that "WMD and Saddam was no imminent threat" meme, you go ahead. connect that up with your screed about "where is Osama" as if he was the only terrorist or threat we have to worry about.

Frankly, you ignore these threats of terrorists and regimes that support them at your own peril. don't expect me to join you in your fantasy world where everything is "OK" if we just play by somebody else's rules, apply your "global test".

I only suggest, out of the kindness of my heart, that you save that last sip of Kool Aid for the day you wake up and find out your local school, government building, water treatment plant, etc was attacked while we were taking the "global test".

I have a feeling you're going to need it.

Kat said...

Paul...glad I could provide you with the entertainment...You don't recognize a play on Elizabeth Barret Browning when you see one? You are way too ultra sensitive my friend.

In regards to the thread, I don't know how you see it as "off topic" Just because you and TWD and redleg are discussing special forces and kerry's record, doesn't make the discussion of the war "off topic" particularly as part of the discussion from TWD was about how one could describe the war as "legitimate" now that Duelfur's report is out and I was answering him with the same sick humor I think the question deserves.

Because, all in all, continued questions of "legitimacy" taken from the mouth of Kofi Annan is a sick bit of humor and deserves the same reply.

Paul G. said...


"Doubling the special forces is ludicrous and unreachable."
Thanks for the defeatist answer.
That was the response to the question I asked, but not the one I expected you to make.

"You should know this is you were a former special operator."
No I wasn't my statement was "I have been part of an elite military group" that is not the same thing, skills and talents go beyond on the ground combat field operations.
I do not feel the need to specify my specialty beyond saying that my last years production went directly to the Joint Chiefs of Staff daily.

"But we are there and your words and protestations of failure are both defeatist and doing damage far beyond your candidates political point. They do damage to the Iraqi and Afghanis and our allies in this great war against terror, and they harm those troops deployed in harms way."

Defamatory, unsupported and a damned lie.

My previous response to you was simple, clear and non-insulting, why can you not respond in a similar manner?

Paul G. said...


"You are way too ultra sensitive my friend."
Actually Kat you are probably way more sensitive than I am.
I have seen in my 20's seen things that you would still be having nightmares about in your safe little cul-de-sac in your eighties.
I'm not crying like you would, I took the lessons and moved on.
I regard them as evil, and a disgusting part of the human condition, you regard them as an ode to love.

As for the thread, I'm pretty sure nobody, certainly not myself were wishing someone would provide some humor with an insult to the dead by war (military and civilian).

Yes I'm sensitive, I'll keep it over the fatuity of your prattle.

Kat said...

Paul, Paul, Paul...

I just love how you and your favorite candidate like to whip out your war experience and tell me how I should believe like you because, you know, you were there.

And, because I never served and didn't see the horrible things you had to, my opinion doesn't count, right? I can have no opinion on the legitimacy of war because I never served?

And Paul, since I've seen the same comments from you on my blog, I find it interesting that you believe my belief in the legitimacy of this war is some how "an insult" to the dead.

All I've got to say is, Thank You Paul for showing me your true colors, since you want to use your military experience as a method to deny me my right as a citizen to an opinion.

Isn't that what you were taking me to task for on my blog? Intimating that my belief that some of the protestors should shut up because it hurts the war effort, is impeding their right to free speech? Even while they scream "men died while bush lied"; "kill the President"; "regime change"; "NAZI"; "Bush/Hitler";

That's ok, right Paul? No insult to the dead and dying there. It's ok to shout down America and the war, particularly if you have a nifty little slogan, but don't do the same in support of the war, because that is some how sick in comparison.

Paul says, "Shut up. I was in the military. You have no right to speak."

Of course, I am putting words in your mouth. But I thought I'd return the favor.

Bigandmean said...

Your ability to come up with the facts through your research to prove your point amazes me. You and Ala are truly gifted in what you do and the rest of we mortals shall forever be indebted to you for doing all the hard work. I'm in awe of the work both of you do.

I couldn't get better information if I was directly wired to the Joint Chiefs. Thanks man. After reading your posts I come away hoping you'll run for something.

And Kat, I don't know if I feel left out or not since no one commented on the fatuity of my prattle. Hey, I got prattle.

Paul G. said...


I didn't tell you to believe like me.
I didn't say your opinion doesn't count.
I didn't say that your "belief in the legitimacy of this war is some how "an insult" to the dead.", I said your sick format("how do I love the Iraq war, let me count the ways...") was an insult to all war dead .
If you want to discuss the postings I've made on your blog, why don't you do it there?
Discuss them there - reference them specifically here if you must but not with the vague (nuanced?) and distorted references you just did.
Oh and there's nothing nuanced in Paul says, "Shut up. I was in the military. You have no right to speak."I've never said anything like that to you, I said my eyes had seen things yours hadn't I didn't say it had anything to do with the military and I have never stuffed any words in your mouth.
Your a hopeless case, but YOU called on my name here, I didn't seek out discussion with you personally, so some masochistic part of yourself was seeking confrontation with me.

Paul G. said...

If you see Jensdad around, please let him know the advice he politely ask for is on my blog.

Kat said...

Big and Mean...I love to hear you prattle. Who can resist having a big strong guy tell them they are fight?

Prattle on, dear sir. And don't worry, I'm sure Paul and TWD and Lefty will get around to trying to take you apart.

I am finding that, using the extreme lefts weapon against them, ie shocking words and images, is the best way to engage them. LOL

cheeky monkey said...

Big and Mean-- can't wait for you and Mrs. Big and Mean to come by. I'll have my best party dress on. Seriously, we'd love to feed you, or at least point you in the right direction of some grand Philyl food. It's an eating town.

cheeky monkey said...

Ala-- the conversation about Israel and the UN is a different post now that we're into plastic ponies and feeding Mrs and Mrs Big and Mean. It deserves its own space.

But I will say this as a teaser to what will undoubtedly be a doozy on my page-- Just like Israel, Palenstine deserves to exist. And if you call people who blow up kids and homes and destroy lives terrorists, then you're also calling Israel a terrorist state. The United States and the rest of the world cannot provide blanket support for land grabs, murder and economic/physical isolation of another people. It is both morally wrong and one of the greatest reasons for the mess in the middle east for the past 50 years.

And before you lump me in with the UN as anti-semetic, just remember that I AM part of the Jewish tribe.


Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

"I believe that WE America can keep weapons ready plutonium more secure within the borders of our country rather than sending the material to any other country"

I thought it was supposed to be us "right-wingers" who irrationally and arrogantly thought that we and only we were any good at anything? Do I detect a "cowboy" strain in your talking there, Hoss?

"CSM has the OEf scenario just about right, but overestimates what we were actually capable of delivering into the White Mountains at that time."

I wasn't intending to say what we currently have the capability to do. I was trying to say what would be ideal, like on a "wish list" of forces. I do understand that you don't just pull SEAL teams out of your ass (nods to Kat for the analogy from her blog). More of today's SEALs would have to be pulled from the field to become SEAL trainers if we want a ramp-up that will result in more teams about a year from now, and that might be costly of current operations. Same with Army Special Forces, AF Special Tactics, et al.

In the ideal scenario, we'd have ramped up Special Ops numbers at the end of the Cold War back when we DID foresee a greatly increased threat from terrorism and a dramatically reduced need for conventional forces.

Back to Paul,

"Can the numbers of the special forces be doubled or not?
If we can't then we had all better start digging our own personal spider holes."

In about a year they could be doubled. But in the mean time we'd have to cut active Special Ops capability in half, as operators become trainers instead, and this isn't really a very good time to be contemplating that.

"It is my opinion that if we had used air power combined with special forces we could have settled the Iraq WMD issue without full scale invasion."

I think you need to read Andy McNabb's book, "Bravo Two Zero".

"We could have even taken out Saddam and his evil spawn by the same means. And the time to do it would have been about 15 minutes after we finished task one, getting Bin Laden."

So we should have waited until 15 minutes after taking out Prime Minister Tojo, before doing anything about Hitler?

To Kat you said,
"you have provided me with an example of the sickest idolatry of war I have seen in my life."

Is that what that was? Thank you for pontificating. Can't wait to see your comments on Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Team America--World Police".

Kat to Paul,
"Is 'WMD' going to be your one and only test to determine 'imminent threat'?"

I recall a certain event where only boxcutters were used. Imagine that.

Yes, some like TWD and Kerry and Paul will use their war hero status to try to shout down civilian opinions that disagree with their own. From their point of view they think the terror of war is so intense and horrible that it is to be avoided at all costs, because they don't want any other warfighters to have to experience that. What I think they forget, as a fellow been-there-done-that, is that there IS such a thing in life that could be worse than war, even the worst kind of war. That would be slavery to such cultures as Islamic fundamentalism or North Korea's starvation mill. There it would be our women and our children suffering, and not just us, so I suggest all of us combat veterans CHECK the damn attitude about "how dare those civilians be so glib about war". Some wars are worth it, no matter what.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Cheeky. You're right. Land-grabs are wrong.

We should all move back to England or wherever our particular ancestors are from. And the English should move back to France. And the French should move back to Germany and Italy. And everyone of Indo-European descent should move back to the Caucasas mountains and the Russian Steppes. And Native Americans have to go back to Siberia across the Bering Straight (leave North and South America to the animals, the real first inhabitants here).

Then will you be satisfied? Perhaps?

I have a bold idea for the Israel/Palestine issue. Whichever side is first to draw up a plan for according full citizenship and rights to the OTHER side's people, let them be in charge. Whatever it is, call it something other than Israel or Palestine. Call it, perhaps, Canaan, in memory of a previous land-grab.

ALa said...

Cheeky...I was made an honorary Jew a long time ago --so Shalom!

CSM...or how about all the surrounding Arab nations (that pretend that this is the issue for the hostility and use the Palastinians--who have EVERY right to exist -just not at the peril of others--to further their jihad) give back all the land that they have taken from 'Palastine' -which is WAY more than the tiny snippet the Israelis have...then maybe I will take anything they say seriously. I can't believe the world still falls for the 'other Arab nations are upset because of the Palastinians' BS...PLEEEEASSE!

Paul G. said...

"So we should have waited until 15 minutes after taking out Prime Minister Tojo, before doing anything about Hitler?"

This is the parrot talk I get so tired of.
Japan attacked & declared war on the United States.
The United States declared war on Japan December 8th, 1941.
December 11th, 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on the United States.
The United States responds by declaring war on Germany and Italy later that day.
Not going after Germany was not an option, and not a valid argument for the rush to war of 2002 - 2003.

I've read Bravo Two Zero, have you read "One That Got Away"? by Chris Ryan from the same team? Both good books.
Funny thing about that, nobody writes books about the missions that go right, they seem to stay classified, of course some of the ones that don't go right stay classified too.

"Some wars are worth it, no matter what"
No doubt about it, and that's why they should be done right and our strength not diluted by wars that could have been won better or smarter.

Kat and Redleg have contended that -anyone- who disagrees with policy is disloyal and are providing aid to the enemy and should in their opinion be locked up.
I contend that we are in a democracy, not in a declared war and that although their opinions are valid they do not carry the force of law or the intent.
Get a declared war and your opinion becomes one backed by law, without it your trying to mess with free speech and democracy and that rankles me.

free0352 said...

Paul is upset that I used "inapropreate language" in my post. I guess us poor, working class kids aren't elitist enought for his high liberal nancy ears. I apoligise, now dry those eyes paul, my mean jock self isn't going to stuff you in a locker like in highschool.

Party of free speech indeed.

Doubling the special forces is not impossibe, but to keep the same level of talent and skill and most importantly experiance, it'll take 10 years.

But no one has answered ANY OF MY QUESTIONS! The challange is there, some lefty please take the the free0352 challenge.

Paul G. said...


I'm sorry I had to remind a Marine to control his language in public, it shouldn't have been necessary.

Funny you should mention lockers and highschool - there was a fool that tried that once, the cost of the lesson to him was a chipped tooth, a broken nose, a fat lip and 3 weeks suspension.
Don't mistake politeness with weakness, and don't mistake someone who doesn't want to fight for someone who won't, or can't.
Do you know what the difference is between a bully and Saddam? Opportunity. Neither one has morals.

Oh, and clueless.
Don't confuse free speech with using crude language in polite company.

Jericho Brown said...

I seriously can't believe somebody has turned this conversation (Paul? Say it isn't so)to whether or not it's appropriate to use cuss-words (profanity). What the fuck. Great way to distract from the real issues at hand. There are no bad words. Thus saith Leonard Cohen.

Paul G. said...


I said nothing about 'bad words'.
I simply informed free that when speaking to me, and expecting a response he refrain from using such language and respond with the same respect I granted him.

No it's not approriate to use them if you want to have a converstaion with me, and that's my rightful choice.

Jericho Brown said...

But isn't it free's right to talk the way he feels like talking? You're infringing on his right by advocating your own. This is the main problem with the far lefties I know. You guys are so PC you can't see the forest for the trees. It's condescending and really goddam annoying.

Kat said...

Free Speech isn't free. It's very costly.

Having said that, you are now trying to use the canard that I said people couldn't say anything against the war in order to make your argument that it is apparently ok for YOU to tell ME I can't have an opinion because, blah, blah, blah...

It's a "canard" because you know damn well I said IF WE HAD DECLARED WAR the crap these people were saying would be TREASON.

But we didn't, so it isn't.

But of course, the party of the "truth" wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the big donkey's ass.

However, that does not negate my opinion that saying it, even if it isn't a declared war, is, in Rummy's words, "unhelpful". In my words: stupid, lame, aiding and abetting, shameful, degrading and yes, un-G-d Damn-patriotic (notice I don't say "unAmerican" since protesting is as American as you can get).

When we are at war with an enemy that predicates it's first victory on making us withdraw from the middle east so it can take over a few countries and start down the path of the "great Caliphate", showing any weakness is like handing them the next bomb.

This crap is broadcast around the world in a blink of an eye.

Yes, i would like them and you to shut the hell up. But, I never said that you and yours can't speak. I just said they shouldn't.

And it doesn't have damn thing to do with Bush, because, even if Senator Kerry is elected, if he follows through with making Iraq safe, it means troops will stay there. That means the little protestors from ANSWER, Nick Berg's crazy padre and a number of others will still be protesting and saying all sorts of things about atrocities, civilian casualties, war crimes, name it. And it does not make our troops safe.

And our troops will still be there.

Since you don't like the Japanese/Germany association, I'm going to bring it up again:

When we were at war with these people, our people knew that anything they said could be used as propaganda or possibly give away secrets. Loose Lips Sink Ships. In the darkest hours, they weren't running around with signs saying "FDR Lied while our sons died".

It's called "THE WAR EFFORT" and it includes psychological as well as physical perseverence. Nobody, no matter how they felt about how the war was going, was running around to the news papers and announcing that our troop strength was low, they weren't well armed, didn't have enough supplies. Although all of those things were true at one time or another, they actually understood that those were not subjects for public discussion because YOU DON'T CONVEY YOUR TROOP STRENGTH, capabilities AND MOVEMENTS to the enemy.

And while the commanders in Iraq are trying to do their jobs by insuring that their units don't give their capabilities away, the civilians back home are stabbing them in the back by providing just that information to the enemy on internationl television programs.

The right to free speech does not mean you have the right to abuse it.

You want to present OVERWHELMING POWER, both PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY. You want them to SHIT THEIR PANTS at the mere mention of your name. That way they might actually LAY DOWN THEIR WEAPONS and SURRENDER without actually having to shoot too many people or get shot at yourself.

You don't get the psychological edge from claiming "illegitimate war"; wrong war, wrong place wrong time.

Even Genghis Khan actually knew how to prosecte a war using psyops! He had his people put their wives and children on "un-ridden" horses as well as forced his enemies to walk before him so they looked like they had the biggest and MEANEST bastards walking the face of the earth. He sent troops ahead and had the heads of the previous town's campaign piled at the gate of the enemy. Many cities fell to their knees and offered to pay him to leave them alone without him every having to take the town by force.

That is what we should be projecting. Regardless of size and capabilities, it should not be in the public domain.

Jericho Brown said...


Because of the following phrases from your last post, all of which contain profanity, I must disregard everything you've said and act like you're beneath me because you have no control of the your spleen, which everyone knows controls the more depraved parts of human nature. Get educated, lady.

"But of course, the party of the "truth" wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the big donkey's ass."

"...stupid, lame, aiding and abetting, shameful, degrading and yes, un-G-d Damn-patriotic."

"And it doesn't have damn thing to do with Bush"

"You want them to SHIT THEIR PANTS at the mere mention of your name."


free0352 said...

Paul, I'm from New York, and if you don't want to speak with me because I speak in the common custom of my home state, then....well, we'll get to that.

I'm sure glad Paul is here to enforce how we speak. We need you Paul, to point out what is pollite. I mean, with out you I might say something decidedly un-pc like I just did in ALa's newest thred, the one with the first lady. I might offend you. Oh wait, I'm from New York, so in the fine tradition of my gallant and quite socialist home town, I will with all the respect and admeration my mother failed to instill in me extend the middle finger of my right hand and procede to explain to you that your head is quite pointy, and there is a tin hat on it. Now calm down, and get real. I have not read your profile, and as soon as i'm done here I shall. I suspect you are OLD, and if that is the case and the're is a generational gap, I still don't care. This is the future calling, and if you haven't noticed we all swear like sailors here, or in my case a Marine, who tend to swear repeatedly and often to the point where elenor roosevelt kindly asked her husband to disband us due to our offensive behavior and language. Now that was in 1944, so think how nasty we've become. Of course the rest of us here in 2004 don't think so, because we're all like this. Give me a break and answer just one of the questions I've posted, I don't have a swear word in here anywhere. The Free 0352 challange is calling.

Paul G. said...


Your from New York? Who would have guessed?

I did answer your questions -all of them- way back,
"It can be done, you know it can be done and all it takes a plan and the will to do it." You see it's the job of the military to work out the detail of the task given it, the Pres. sets the orders, Congress funds it (don't hit me with voted-for-voted-against)
"Your following questions are only one even though you wound it out long enough to make it look like many.
Even so they/it are/is very good.

The next administration is going to have to create an e..."

You chose to deny them as answers.

As for the language of your state, as I have said here before I have had many homes, Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, NEW YORK - my mothers home state and she did teach me. You have no excuse if you are the Marine you claim (and I am now more certain than ever your a phony), they would have pounded at least a semblance of public courtesy into your dense little skull.

My God, the thought that I might be old - B&M careful I think free wants to send us to the Carousel of Logan's Run.

Paul G. said...

"Even Genghis Khan actually knew how to prosecte a war using psyops!"

Quite so, I believe that when asked what the civilians could to help fight our President's advice was to go shopping. There's a good way to re-enforce public support and sacrifice.

Your WWII references show that YOU are the one that has trouble with seeing truth.
After saying we are not in a constitutionally declared state of war, to make every attempt to validate your opinions with examples of a time when we were.
You are the one who needs to get real.

I suspect that Bin Hidein's allies are looking at us a laughing their freaking heads off.
The panic that still pervades this country is nothing less than biblical in it's proportion. Terror does work, and most of your blog posts are concrete proof.


Your worse than they are (and I suspect your throwing out a huge percentage of your comments just to stir hornets nests).
"But isn't it free's right to talk the way he feels like talking?"
Oh he has the right to speak any way he wishes, that right does not entitle him to conversation in that manner with anyone he chooses - I have the right not to participate.
My refusal, or expression of disaproval does not constitute a denial of his rights.
He if he chooses can modify his language (so as to not look, ignorant and uneducated as righties here have said in other threads and blogs), or he can continue to speak coarsely and bully other into conversation. See his choice of speech is completely free, and so my friend mine.

Jericho Brown said...

I'm not saying anything to stir up any nests. While I'm obviously on your side as far as the moral right of the non-right, I have to take stands when I think people are being ridiculous. Wouldn't you want all your friends to do the same?

free0352 said...

oohhhh....Paul thinks I'm a phoney Marine. I'm convinced you are a sniviling phoney American, sot there.!

Hence you did not answer, you are ignorant. I made it clear I wanted to understand (get ready to wrap your small mind around this) John Kerry's policy. Not yours Paul.

I will give you credit for answering the special forces answer... kind of. Since it is a military question I can live with Kerry not releasing facts and figures on funding, command structure, force recruitment plans, etc. Everything else is Pure Paul and negative on the John Kerry. I have also explained why this is impossible during his presidentcy. While deligation, holding high standards, and a can do attitude is a good thing, not to mention this is a certifiable good idea in the eyes of this (hold back and gasp paul) republican, I was curious if Kerry had, maybe, released who he had in mind for Secretary of Defense yet. Thats who he would in fact give the order to. You need to chill with the fevor pitch Paul, you get ulcers that way. And always remember, you can ask ME anything you want. Thats a REAL debate, not just knee jerking party line and spouting rhetoric and a keening pitch.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

"December 11th, 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on the United States."

And Saddam may as well have declared war on us with statements like this:

"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

"I've read Bravo Two Zero"

If you did with both eyes open, you'd understand how difficult it is to be a team of four to eight operators in a country with division-sized forces hunting you down. To glibly say "well just drop in and take out the nukes" or "just drop in and take out Saddam" displays a definitive lack of understanding of how such operations work.

"nobody writes books about the missions that go right, they seem to stay classified, of course some of the ones that don't go right stay classified too."


"and that's why they should be done right and our strength not diluted by wars that could have been won better or smarter."

This gets back to the WWII example. Our strength would have been less diluted by focusing on Japan. Are you consistent enough and intellectually honest enough in your thinking to apply your formula for success to that war as well? Or will you simply remain a partisan hypocrite?

"Kat and Redleg have contended that -anyone- who disagrees with policy is disloyal and are providing aid to the enemy and should in their opinion be locked up."

One of the greatest risks to right-thinking people in this country is to be tempted to advocate that. While I do think that damaging our war effort gives aid and comfort to the enemy, I also think that unless you advocate the violent overthrow of this Democratic Republic, the proper response to any of your pro-terrorist blathering is with anti-terrorist words, not people with badges and guns. You should be shown for what you are, not transformed into martyrs.

"Get a declared war and your opinion becomes one backed by law"

Not even then, really. The "Trading With the Enemy" act of 1909 prohibits TRADE with the enemy, not kind words for the enemy, or unkind words toward the U.S.

Even in a declared war you'll have quite a bit of liberty here.

Jericho Brown,
"Because of the following phrases from your last post, all of which contain profanity, I must disregard everything you've said"

Basically because you have no cogent response to Kat's points. Noted.

"I suspect that Bin Hidein's allies are looking at us a laughing their freaking heads off."

Primarily because of how many people they see here in America who are sympathetic to their cause, as a form of "protected expression" and such. Rock the Vote, you kids, and share in the blame when your girlies are in burqas and hijabs instead of thongs and low-rise jeans.

Jericho Brown said...

Smoker: When I said that to Kat I was making a point that Paul was being a retard regarding not responding to people that use "profanity." And just when I thought we were getting along, you show yourself to be daft. I'd still have a drink with you, though, if that's any consolation.

Paul G. said...


You get your chance tonight to hear it directly from Kerry, not channeled through me.
But in reality you question cannot be answered with specificity, even by Bush.
January 21st is a long ways away and whatever the economic situation is now it will have changed by then, and nobody can predict what oil prices will be or if another conflict (Korea?) breaks out.
There is information at the Kerry sight but the level of detail cannot be summarized into small set of sound bytes.
You should know, as well as I do that the President submits a budget and then Congress fights over it works out differences send it back to the Pres. and he has to decide how much of the pork barrel his folks got.
This is both party's.
What I tried to get across to you is that Kerry actually mentions doing something about trade, Bush doesn't.

Can we compromise?
You try and keep the vulgarities and insults down, and I'll add more to mine when I respond to you.

Paul G. said...


"This gets back to the WWII example. Our strength would have been less diluted by focusing on Japan. Are you consistent enough and intellectually honest enough in your thinking to apply your formula for success to that war as well? Or will you simply remain a partisan hypocrite?"

Can I make this any clearer? Do you not know history?
There was no option to ignore Germany and Italy, U-Boats were already in American waters sinking ships - it was not a gathering cloud or "imminent threat", it was here. The two do not relate. Jeesh

Kat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kat said...

Paul:Your WWII references show that YOU are the one that has trouble with seeing truth.
After saying we are not in a constitutionally declared state of war, to make every attempt to validate your opinions with examples of a time when we were.
You are the one who needs to get real.

So Paul, because one is a declared war and the other is an undeclared war, the strategies and tactics don't apply? War is war, regardless of whether congress "declared war" or "authorized use of force". Our troops are still in harms way. They are still shooting and being shot at. In which case, every battle, every tactic, every strategy that we've learned, is an appropriate example of how to correctly or incorrectly prosecute war. That includes appropriate propaganda responses.

They are fighting an enemy who understands what publicity and propaganda means to their operations. Unless of course, you haven't noted the videos of beheading people, mutilated bodies, roadside bombs and other such media, spread across the world by the 24 hour news services?.

Paul: I suspect that Bin Hidein's allies are looking at us a laughing their freaking heads off.

Well, finally, one of the few things we can agree on. And, I think we'd agree that they are laughing because their propaganda has worked so well. We are divided. "A house divided cannot stand".

The difference is in who we think is responsible for that division. Folks like you blame the president for "misleading" us into war. Folks like me don't believe we were misled into anything and that certain actions are necessary, for the multiple reasons I listed in my tribute to Elizabeth Barret Browning which offended you so much. However it was presented, the points I make are what I believe to be very good reasons for the war in Iraq. The only one I didn't list was the very real strategical advantage of having troops in the heart of the ME, stationed there and ready to take action. Because Saddam and Iraq are not the only states that present a threat.

In which case, you cannnot refute any of those points because they are real, not some canard about whether there were actual "stockpiles of WMD" or not, "misleading intelligence" or not.

Saddam was an enemy of the United States. He had ties to terrorists. He had the ability to recreate his WMD program even if he did not have 200 30 gallon drums of VX or sarin laying around or 1-10 nuclear tipped missiles. The sanctions were being eroded by corruption and graft. He daily targeted our planes. He disregarded the UN resolutions by building missiles that were beyond the proscribed range; retaining any part of his WMD program (decaying or not) and routinely barring or obstructing the UN inspections. not to mention his assundry crimes against the Iraqi people.

After 13 years and 600billion in containing this man, it was time to eliminate him and get rid of the threat entirely. If you were content to spend another 10 or 20 years continuing this containment, so sorry. But I was not.

Paul:The panic that still pervades this country is nothing less than biblical in it's proportion.

Me: Well now Paul, who's using hyperbole to make their point? If the panic was so "biblical" in proportion, you would see the re-creation of the nuclear bunkers in people's back yards. You would see the daily round up and persecution of muslims or Arabs or anyone that appeared to look like one. Everytime the threat level was raised, businesses would shut down, children would stay home from school, people would board up their houses. That is panic of the "biblical" proportion.

And what is funny about you saying that is, in the same breath you decry the President telling people to "just go shopping". Which you know is not exactly what he said. He said to continue with our normal lives and not to let the terrorists win by giving into these terror tactics. He said to "go shopping" to insure that the economy did not go into total meltdown after our major financial center was hit. Had the economy actually done so, the terrorists would have achieved their first goal, which was to weaken us so financially, that we would be unable to financially support or prosecute any actions against them or prevent them from recognizing their main goal, which is to slowly take over the governments of the Arab states and create their version of the Ottoman empire. And that is not "hyperbole" or "terror" that is in their own words straight from their own manifestos and correspondence.

Financial disaster might have forced us to reconfigure our force projection around the world and leave these countries to their own devices. We would have been pre-occupied with the economic disaster here at home and they would be free to do as they wished. Exactly what they were aiming for.

So, which is it? Are we in a "panic of biblical proportion" or are we just going about around regular lives with maybe a little bit more understanding that "safe" is a relative term and we need to be more cognitive of our surroundings, the people that inhabit it and activities overseas that might have repercussions here?
Paul:Terror does work, and most of your blog posts are concrete proof.

Me: Again, we can agree on one thing, terror does work. it has two capabilities, the first is to create the "panic of biblical proportions" that you point to and the second is to make people withdraw. Complete denial or at least to put our heads in the sand thinking that these actions are so horrendous, there is no way for them to be pulled off again.

I prefer to be aware of the possibilities. Because I want to have a fighting chance if something does happen. We need to know how they act. What their tactics are. What kind of targets they would choose and we need to be able to formulate proper responses. And that isn't just the government's job. It's ours as well as we would be the most likely victims.

There is no "panic" or "terror" in that. As you rightly point out, my posts are often in regards to that. Not because I'm sitting here afraid to go out or afraid I will be a victim, but because people have a tendency to forget and become complacent and need to be reminded. And occassionally, that takes a baseball bat and not a poke with the finger.

for instance, when I posted about the Beslan tragedy and the possibility that such tactics could work here, your first response was denial and indicating that I was over reacting.

My point was simply to pay attention to the tactic because, once one group uses it and it becomes "public domain", other groups will "copy cat" to some degree. And that includes anything from a lone gunman (which has happened) to placing bombs in the school (which has happened, although it was some teenage kids which just goes to show you that it doesn't take an evil terrorist genius to figure it out). A group of three or four terrorists on a suicide mission, walking into a school in a middle class neighborhood, would be very easy. There are limited security measures in most schools that aren't inhabited by the filthy rich or the filthy poor.

I can quite easily walk into the front door of my local school and be inside before anyone stops me and asks me what I was doing. I can sit outside or drive around the building, waiting, to my hearts content.

The point of looking at these things and talking about them is NOT to instill terror or cause panic or make people withdraw their children from school. The point is to tweek people's minds and get them to pay attention. Ask their schools how they handle unknown "visitors". Do they have a plan to respond to such emergencies? Are the teachers diligent in looking for strangers walking around the school? How would they evacuate? How do they contact the police and emergency services? How do they contact the parents? Do they have a plan?

It's called being prepared, not terror. And we learn that preparation by things like Columbine and Beslan. And it's not just the government's job to do this. It is our responsibility to our family. Possibly, some folks are content to just sit at home and assume such preparation exists. But if no one asks, how do we know?

As the 9/11 commission report indicated, it was a failure of imagination that led to the disaster. The enemy has no such short comings. They are very imaginitive.

And again, it is not just the responsibility of the government to imagine the worst case scenarios and how to respond to them. We civilians are the most likely victims. We should be prepared as well.

That is not terror nor panic. Just reality brought to us on 9/11 and prevailing around the world as terrorists bomb resorst in bali, indonesian embassies in Paris, trains in madrid, kidnap and behead people in the Middle east, or some guy proclaiming himself a muslim while he drives around the DC area and shoots people pumping gas or coming out of a grocery store.

i prefer preparation to the "head in the sand" technique.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Jericho Brown,
"When I said that to Kat I was making a point that Paul was being a retard regarding not responding to people that use 'profanity.'"

Now *I* feel like a retard for taking it the way I did, LOL. The typed word doesn't carry any tone of voice, so I missed the comic nuance in it! For my social blunder, the first three rounds are on me. The catch is, I get to drink all three.

"Can I make this any clearer? Do you not know history?
There was no option to ignore Germany and Italy"

And similarly no option to ignore a madman who was reported by the CIA and other sources as pursuing a nuclear program, "known" to have a chemical and biological stockpile, and all this in a post-9/11 world where a gaggle of freaks with boxcutters had just downed the two biggest towers in the world. One would think, and yet a Democrat would not, in this situation here.

And your precious Kerry himSELF has admitted that he has always considered Saddam a threat. His only bone of contention that he gave in the debate, for the run-up to the war, was that "sanctions were working". Uhm, sactions were "working" to starve innocent Iraqis to death, enrich corrupt French and German politicians (no big secret why they got their panties in a wad over this either), and embolden Saddam to perpetually play cat and mouse with inspectors. In sum, when Hans Blix reported "slight progress", that, to Kerry, meant "WORKING". To a real leader, it wouldn't.

And to a logical leader, "serious consequences" means "serious consequences". To a Waffle House like Kerry, apparently it doesn't.

'Don't cross this line, or else... I'll draw another line!' The deterrence method proven not to work on any given playground, is exactly what your Boston Backstabber would have as official U.S. policy for four long years. Well count me out on that.

redleg said...


I am right in line with you


You can disagree with my feelings on your candidates dishonesty, lack of character and abject assistance to the enemy. I can't and won't censor your words. I merely state they assist our enemies of this great nation and help the enemy defeat us in the information war. How does President Kerry plan to win the war when he has already publically lost it? How am I or free supposed to fight for an idea that Kerry says was the wrong war, at the wrong place and at the wrong time? Aid the enemy as long as you want, but don't pretend you're being a patriot while you are doing it. Since you don't like profanity, I refer you back to our previous reparte on this blog. The same name to you still applies.

Get out from behind your computer sometime, stop sending your memos to the joint chiefs of staff and see how this war is being fought. I know you were in an elite unit (an AF color guard perhaps?) and did all sorts of super secret things that you are too polite to mention and you are a very hardened veteran of the Cold War. But you are way out of touch. You cannot mass produce special operators. Period, full stop. You can mass produce aircraft, aircrew, radio support and support battalions. But special operators require special people and they are few and far between. Try to mass produce them and you lower the quality. But I guess they didn't teach that to A1Cs way back when.

Free sounds a hell of a lot more real than you do my friend. You should get out and meet some real people every now and again. One should not live by takeout alone.

I really like all of the hindsight is 20/20. Kerry does that a lot.

Hey Paul when you were in Cambodia with Kerry and the CIA guy did you really get shot at? And I was wondering if you could get me one of those super keen magic hats he is always talking about. That would be really neat.

Paul G. said...


I'll come back to step on your steel toed boot to defend myself.
You, free, and Katie suffer from an incipient form of totalitarianism and you mistake it for patriotism.

The Constitution was not drafted by a single individual by by folks who disagreed publicly and in war time.
They even publicly disagreed on conduct and policy of the war.
So I guess our founders were guilty of treason against the country, by your standards.
If you and your men are afraid to fight because folks back home are still willing to wage democracy, while you wage war then you are not the soldiers you pretend to be.
I cannot help it if you choose to keep your reading list limited to viewpoints that only agree with your own.

As for my service and your denigration of it.
I am not too polite to mention the details, I am prohibited from doing so.
As for color guard service you couldn't be further from the truth, as for my rank, you make some pathetic allegations and display your disdain for the servicemen that keep your sorry rear end alive and send you into battle at the right place with support.
If your regard is this low for another branch of the service then it's understandable how you hold our democratic system in such low regard.

My life didn't end with the cold war, and my involvement with issues of the world didn't freeze in some sort of generational time warp.
VN was a primarily a guerrilla war from the side of the VC and the north, but not by us – hence the rebirth of our special forces, but too little too late.
We failed to bring them up to size after because of our focus on the Soviet threat and although we didn't forget the SF, we made it a lower priority.
Now it's on the front burner again and since this war is going to be longer and wider spread we cannot accept too little too late.
No we cannot manufacture SF, but we can grow it dramatically and transfuse a lot of guerrilla

Read back to my previous response my socialized military friend, I have already said that you can't mass produce elite forces. Get your needle out of the track you are stuck in.

You don't have a clue as to where I get out out or when, and I sure as hades don't eat take out - pollute your gut with Micky D MRE's, I eat food.

If you want to fully participate in the real world, take off your uniform Johnny, give up your socialized medicine, your socialized housing, your 30 days paid vacation and your appeal through chain of command and live with us.

I've done both, they aren't the same world.

When you deploy again, keep those kids alive because your being watched by all of us, not just the enemy.
We are keeping track of the names, the hometowns and the families even if the administration hides the caskets.

redleg said...


I get it. I am now a drone of the machine. I receive those things as part of my compensation and I do receive 30 days of leave per year. I am right now use/lose 90- days, but I am just drafting on the taypayer dollar. Things are rough out there as a civilian. Get over yourself.

I also note you have not given us any more details on your service after denigrating both mine and Frees. You remind of those fake Vietnam vets who claim to have been recruited by the Cia at 16 for sooper-secret missions into N Vietnam. You usually find out after that they were dishonorably discharged in 1979 after a few months service. You are living in fantasy land.

I love my sister services, when they are doing their job. I love combined arms as much as any who have seen what they can do in actual battle. Spectre is my good friend, I like Marines (even have a degree from their University) and have been known to tolerate the occasional sailor or two. There is a spirit of friendly competition between us at the user level, which you, comfortable in your invory tower, evidently know nothing about.

You also obviously don't know a damned thing about SF of SOCOM so I won't try to correct that here. Just let it be known that you are incorrect, yet again. You guys love hindsight, don't you? So much better than actually having to make timely decisions and deal with the consequences, something liberals have never been any good at. Where are the FDRs and Harry Truman's?