Oh, don’t worry about Iraq. They’re just having the civil vapors.

Or maybe a slight civil unpleasantness. Or something. I’m sure they’ll be fine. They just need a glass of water and some fresh air. But then they’ll totally walk it off.

How about “civil worm”? Then you could give it a cute logo.

Can somebody please explain to me why all the people in a position to do something about Iraq, good or bad, always seem to look like this? I mean, is there some kinda rule that you have to be an old, jowly white fart with white hair who can make a $3000.00 suit look like a potato sack? What’s UP with that?

mikey

I think some of the folks behind the effort might be supporting the Shiiteization of Iraq. Which is totally different than genocide because, um, it is.

When Lee Hamilton was my Congressman (IN-09) lo those many years ago, he could wear his clothes.

Now, as he delves deeper and deeper into hackwork (first as the token on the Kean Commission and now, having proved he needs the dough, Bending Over for Baker), it’s all the more difficult for the former Mr. Basketball to maintain an upright appearance.

And I still don’t believe that either (1) you didn’t just make up that thing about Prager and did a great job imitating their website or (2) Bush got him confused with Emily Prager, who at least has some bona fides?

At least they’re being civil, which is more than I can say about those snooty liberals in America.

And I still don’t believe that either (1) you didn’t just make up that thing about Prager and did a great job imitating their website or (2) Bush got him confused with Emily Prager, who at least has some bona fides?

In case you haven’t noticed over the last six years, Bush has made it a point to appoint people to important posts who either 1) have no qualifications or background at all (expertise being elitist, as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out numerous times), or 2) hold beliefs that are actually antithetical to the mission of the post.

Thus, as examples, we got Brownie running FEMA, and Dr. Hager running FDA.

Steven Colbert already explained exactaly what was going on in Iraq to Nora Ephrams last night and it sounded like anything but a civil war to me.

President George W. Bush has named Dennis Prager of Van Nuys, CA, to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the governing body of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum…

Uh. Muh. Guh.

That’s just… What the… How the… Bleargh…

I got nothin’. Simply stunning.

civil war (n.p.): a war between political factions or regions within the same country

genocide (n.): systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

What was the question again?

Dennis Prager is perfectly qualified to represent the Shrubministration. Dumb, bigoted, and dishonest.

Civil bother.

Prager compared a Muslim being sworn in on the Koran to being sworn in on Mein Kampf. Definitely sounds like he is qualified to serve on the US Holocaust Memorial Council.

About the WWII point, we’ve actually still got troops there. Sure, we’ve now been in Iraq longer than the government to government fighting was happening during world war II, but for most of that time we’ve been cleaning up the mess. After the government to government fighting was over in Germany, we still had to deal with guerrilla warfare from SS type troops who refused to surrender for a couple years. For the record, I’m not saying they acted anything like the fools in Iraq are acting – but we did have to fight them after the German government gave in. We were also helping to rebuild roads and what-not in Germany for a long time. And like I said, we still have troops there. Likewise in Japan (the last ‘insurgents’ to surrender on the original Japanese territory, Iwo Jima, surrendered in 1949) and Korea, and if we had stayed in Vietnam, we would probably still be involved currently if we had eventually won.

I’m not saying that the situation in Iraq is good, because it’s obviously not. At least, in the four of 18 provinces where there is still above-normal levels of crime and violence (though it would be nice if we could get rid of it all, of course). However, in those four provinces where there is still significant disturbance, the situation is more properly called “chaos” (to varying degrees, with the worst being the Al Anbar province) rather than “Civil War.” Notice, before you start screaming that I’m trying to hide the situation by changing the language, that I’m not denying the problem. I’m just trying not to misunderstand the problem by using a too-convenient word. Civil War implies one or two factions fighting the government for control. What is actually happening is closer to hysteria, with many, many groups fighting each other and the government for control, and also many individual actors causing violence and mayhem.

The correct words to use when describing some places in Iraq would probably be something close to a “failed-state” because there is a power vacuum, with the State not able to provide order or control. While that’s not good, things are getting better. Last year there were close to eight provinces with ungovernable places (out of 18), and no provinces secured solely by Iraqi security forces. Now there are at least three provinces completely secured by the Iraqis.

But, lets go ahead and bring our troops home anyway. It doesn’t matter if they’re doing some good, or cleaning up after a mess we helped create, while sustaining less casualties than we would have had in a single battle during WWII over the entire invasion. We’d rather not be there, so let’s let the Iraqi’s handle things themselves.

I actually threw up a little when I read about Dennis Prager. I’ve never seen a more dishonest scared little worm in my life, and thats after some reflection on the character of Michelle Malkin and/or Ann Coulter.

“Prager worse than previously imagined”

Despite my admiration for the proprietors and their fine work, uh, not possible. Mayhap my imagination is just better than average.

The correct words to use when describing some places in Iraq would probably be something close to a “failed-state� because there is a power vacuum

Now, let’s pause for just a moment and recall exactly why there’s a power vacuum …

You sound just like a White House press release, Ben.

From 2004.

The fact is that the Democrat Party offers no ideas other than surrender.

Extreme liberals like John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and John Murtha are just offering a plan of surrender to the terrorists.

How we handle Iraq will teach the terrorists a lesson. So teach them not to mess with the US.

I must say, y’all are attracting a much better class of troll than you used to. What with recent upsurge in Republican staffers “between engagements” it shouldn’t be any wonder why. Not nearly as teh funny tho…

If you look at the increasing stability of the most stable Iraqi provinces and ignoring the increasingly sectarian nature of the increasingly violent anture of the, ah, sectarian violence. It’s only in 4 provinces!!!11! Plus the violenters don’t even carry flags, fer chrissakes. They practically don’t even exist!!!!;)!!!

I’m totally putting a link to my post on my resume

Ben seems to be trying to modify history in order to create a lesser-of-two-evils decision in regards to Iraq.

We are still in South Korea, and we are still in South Vietnam, neither of the Souths are willing to accept removal of our soldiers. As well, you seem to think there would have been some concept of victory if we had only stayed in Vietnam longer. That noise you hear? It’s just the wind through your ears.

And your ignorance of the massing forces within Iraq is similar to the President’s continued fairy-tale belief that it’s all the fault of that there Al Gore Qaeda.

There is a middling of minor insurgancies within Iraq, but the sides have been drawn long before now and the forces readying seem to be willing to ignore the presence of the US forces.

What does that mean? Possible American loses reaching into the hundreds or thousands a week with escalating casualties of civilians and the destruction of any foreign entities not protected within the new borders.

Welcome to reality, Ben. It’s a nasty place, but you do have to live in it.

How we handle Iraq will teach the terrorists a lesson.

Heh, indeed.

Because we removed a harsh dictator who would have killed anyone who did anything he didn’t like? Or was it something else…maybe a Orec Xl picked up a bowling ball and dropped it on each of the politicians head, so that they died and created a vacuum in the space that they used while they were alive?

And since it was us, should we have to at least help fix the problem? In my opinion, we get out of iraq the second we can’t help anyone at all anymore, and that moment will come when the elected government tells us to leave…so far, they get hives and shakes whenever someone mentions it to them. At least, more than fifty percent of them do, and the fact that that fifty percent are the ones in power is what makes them a democracy-ish place now, rather than a dictatorship. Shoot me, but I think that’s better than nothing…plus, people in the 14 provinces in Iraq that now get to complain openly about their government not bringing them electricity (instead of keeping their mouths shut about the fact that they had none) is a good thing to me…

Based on what Ben said, we’ve still got troops in those Confederate states. Look at all the money the feds have to give them because they don’t have the wages and tax base to support themselves. Their roads are crappy, their schools are crappy. Lots of the white folks still fly the Confederate flag. Occassionally carpet baggers like myself still get shot, so I suppose we could say that the South has an insurgency going against the Northern Aggressors!

Yes Ben, all those hundreds of thousands are happy to have been liberated.

From life.

Why is it so difficult for people like yourself to realize that life in Iraq was much better before we went there?

And why do you believe that our continued stay will improve things? The only reason they havn’t asked us to leave is because they are scared of actually having to work and fight for what they believe.

Binkyboy – (by the way, I’d love to hear how you came up with that name, it’s quite, um, shall we say, interesting)

“Ben seems to be trying to modify history in order to create a lesser-of-two-evils decision in regards to Iraq.

We are still in South Korea, and we are still in South Vietnam, neither of the Souths are willing to accept removal of our soldiers. As well, you seem to think there would have been some concept of victory if we had only stayed in Vietnam longer. That noise you hear? It’s just the wind through your ears.”

How am I modifying history to say that we’re still in South Korea? Did we finally move out of the DMZ to let China deal with the problem they created (or at least encouraged?) As far as I know, we’re still there, even though most of the population seems to not appreciate us. Their democratically elected government seems to feel differently, and have not yet asked us to leave, not even impolitely.

As far as the South Vietnam stuff goes, it’s possible you misunderstood what I said. It was kind of a confusing sentence structure, and my grammar teach from fourth grade would probably not have let that slide, but I’ll try to make myself clearer. The point I was making is that when involved with a messy war, one expects to stay a while. If we hadn’t pulled out after the Tet offensive (which you should go look up; the strategy for them was to carry of a few militarily stupid but media savy attacks to make us change our minds about who to vote for. We obliged, and then left. It was probably a good idea. I wasn’t alive at the time, and I’m generally not a fan of cleaning up France’s messes. However, military (and otherwise, I’m assuming, but I just haven’t really studied it that much, my focus is on Russia) historians say that the Tet offensive was very damaging to the vietnamese military prospects. We were actually in a better position after their attacks than we were before, even though we took some high propaganda value losses (you loose stuff in war; that’s why it’s a good idea to think carefully before you go start one. That’s something I’ll never disagree with – though I might disagree with you about when to start fighting. I’m willing to agree to disagree about this, since it’s irrelevant.) which caused us to give up. If we hadn’t given up, there’s always a chance that we could have pulled victory out of a mess, and if we had, our troops would most likely still be in Vietnam, helping them clean things up. Nothing’s guaranteed, however. I never said we were still in South Vietnam, just that if many if’s occurred, it was possible that we would be.

My whole point with this line of reasoning is that, while yes, the going is tough, and some places are bad and dangerous, things would be worse if we just left. Also, we have a responsibility to clean up messes we caused. Go ahead and feel free to disagree if you want – it is a free country, unlike pre-2003 Iraq.

“I must say, y’all are attracting a much better class of troll than you used to.” – Elvis.

Elvis! You’re still alive! Thank God! (whoops, probably shouldn’t do that around here, sorry. I didn’t mean to offend. Please don’t blow me up) Your comment makes me smile. Of course, I’ve never been employed by any politician, and thus feel free to make fun of all of them. Thanks anyway though, it was a good guess…

Anyone else want to step up to the plate?

A good friend and drinking buddy of mine works as a historical researcher at the Holocaust museum. I’ll have to ask hm what he thinks of Prager this evening over a pint.

Usually, most of his reports from the museum are good. Right now they have a special exhibit up about the madness and outright lies that are the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Because we removed a harsh dictator who would have killed anyone he didn’t like?

How exceptionally Benevolent of us. Need I remind you that when Saddam was doing most of his killing, he was our best buddy? Right up to a href=http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html>the start of the first Gulf War. I’m believe that a war based on lies, bigotry, and planting military bases in a non Saudi oil rich country never was going to have good results.

Maybe?? the worst of this could have been avoided with better planning (any planning would have been better!), and better execution.

But of course, this is the Bush regime, so none of that happened. And now it’s over, it isn’t getting better, and it isn’t going to. Welcome to the reality based community, Ben.

Blinkyboy – Life is better without ever having electricity or passable roads. Life is better without freedom of speech. (well, simpler anyway, and there’s more free time for washing clothes when you don’t have to make time to think, cause thinking is done for you by the government – see how much saddam gave to his people! More free time!) Life is better when you’re afraid that the government is going to come take your son or daughter in addition to your paycheck.

Sorry, I forgot. My bad.

So teach them not to mess with the US.

[VERY heavy sigh] Gary. The problem was CREATED because America’s foreign policy was created by boys with a fourteen-year-old’s playground understanding of power projection. Go back and read that sentence carefully. Now. Do you really, I mean REALLY, believe that our foreign policy should be developed on that basis? That our job, and the job of our fine armed forces, is to “teach them not to mess with the US”??? And while I’m in you’re grille gary, knock it off with the surrender. Nobody is surrendering. Hell, you may be the last asshat in america using that phrase. We’re all trying to do the best we can for our country, but there are some of us who genuinely believe that we would be best served by getting out of Iraq.

Next time you come by to drop off a couple turds of stupid, maybe you could explain (briefly, I know you’re in a hurry) just exactly what our troops are accomplishing by being targets for the insurgents? What, you think that if they soak up enough iraqi rounds they’ll run out and we’ll win? You are the one who is disrepecting our troops, gary. I want them NOT to die over a stupid waste. And you think leaving them over there to be ground up for nothing is way OK. Now who’s really supporting, and who’s really just not giving a shit?

mikey

And please remember, because I’ve said it many times. I’m not saying that Iraq is currently peachy-keen, or that life is full of roses for everyone.

While deaths from our invasion may not quite number in the hundreds of thousands, the deaths that would have been caused by the continuations of the sanctions we had placed on Iraq certainly would have continued to kill as many people as they already had. Some figures quoted are as high a 100,000 children a year. At least Iraqi’s now get a chance to get medicine and basic living supplies, where as before 2003, the only one in the country that got really taken care of was Saddam.

Things are Bad, they could get Worse. However, they could be worse if we leave.

And, I’m just saying we got a responsibility to help clean up the mess, until the point when we can’t help anymore.

Damn, left a bracket out. Anyways, I keep this link handy, because the goalpoasts of what we’re trying to accomplish in Iraq are constantly being moved. There is no ‘American exceptionalism’ at work here, simply Machiavellian acts for power and profit.

Clumsy and disastrous Machiavellian acts, at that.

I think your fourth grade teacher forgot to teach you not to just copy things out of the encyclopedia as well. Your little history lesson on the Tet Offensive actually has little to do with this discussion and more in common with those that practice similar historical revisionist theories while sitting in their underware trying to protect us from Islamists by manning their keyboards and eatting Cheetoes.

Life under Saddam was like life in any other country controlled by a dictator and surrounded by fundamentalist nations bent upon destroying your secular country. The people had jobs, they had opportunities to get educations, higher educations even. They had electricity, potable water, roads and more. They did live in fear, but no more or less than people in China, North Korea or anywhere else there is an authoritarian regime that operates more on emotion and gut feeling than on real intelligence and real planning.

And I notice that instead of addressing the real point, that of massing forces of the two sides in Iraq, you instead went after my moniker. How very insiteful and illustrative, Ben.

Barack Hussein Obama

You really want to use his middle name to help demonize him, Gary? The king of Jordan’s name is Hussein as well. Care to demonize a valued ally?

The fact is, Gary is an idiot who doesn’t know how common a name Hussein is in that part of the world.

And since it was us …

Ben, thanks for that admission. It’s a helluva lot more than some righties can manage with their “however this all happened” attitude.

… should we have to at least help fix the problem?

Yes, we should, I agree. Or should have, I should say. It’s hard to label this bollixed-up occupation as “helping to fix” anything. And it’s now quite past the point where simply fixing how we fix it will ever fix it.

In my opinion, we get out of iraq the second we can’t help anyone at all anymore

That second you speak of is now. If we go, Iraq becomes a bloody clusterfuck. If we stay, Iraq becomes a bloody clusterfuck, with some of that blood belonging to American troops.

Let’s say the roof of the building we’re in is inevitably going to collapse, and soon. Let’s also say that we know this in advance. So why stay in the building?

Look, the “but we took out that awful dictator saddam” is bullshit. Unless and until it becomes the policy of the united states of america to invade and occupy all nations ruled by authoritaring tyrants and dictators, using the overthrow of the considerable awful Mr. Hussein to justify this stupid, illegal, aggressive violation of the very rules WE wrote at Nuremburg is nothing but a convenient coincidence. It’s bullshit. An excuse is never a justification. We can have theories about why we went, but hiding behind “hey, at least they have teh freedom now” is unacceptable. And until somebody can explain to me what positive impact american soldiers are having on the violence in iraq, I will remain in favor of a full and immediate withdrawl.

If you are playing poker and the guys at the table are pounding you, you’re losing every hand, at what point do you decide to get out with what you have left? Or is it ever considered wise to keep playing and hope something good will happen. As Nancy Pelosi so wisely says in the battle of slogans, Hope is not a Strategy. I know, the poker analogy isn’t particularly apt, but it is a highly oversimplified way to make the point that if there’s no way to win, you quit…

mikey

Ben, we did not “help” to bring about this horrific situation (and horrific it is, with civilian deaths in the tens to hundreds of thousands); we caused it all by ourselves. See, this outcome was predictable and had been predicted. It’s why filthy hippies like George Bush the First didn’t remove Saddam–’cause he’d been a supporter or Saddam for decades and knew what would happen when the old creep was gone. (Hell, even a _La Femme Nikita_ episode outlined the reasons for leaving Saddam in power, back in 1999.) Face it–your boys made a hell of a mess, and our continued presence is making that mess worse, not better.

That’s why the Iraqis want us gone. They’ve been saying so for quite a while now.

Civil War implies one or two factions fighting the government for control. What is actually happening is closer to hysteria, with many, many groups fighting each other and the government for control, and also many individual actors causing violence and mayhem.

Read some genuine history, Ben, not just the summaries that come with your role-playing figurines. When a “civil war” happens, it’s always about multiple groups scrumming for power and many “individual actors” doing their best to ensure their own survival, usually by damaging other individual actors’ chances. Romanticists talk about the Blue and the Grey in America’s own civil war, but during that war people saw a beleagured central government in DC, a strong minority in the DC legislature determined to block anything Lincoln proposed, an insurgency more-or-less centered under Jefferson Davis, half-a-dozen border wars some of which started well in advance of the Fort Sumter incident (Missouri, Kentucky, Texas, et al), at least a dozen states whose agendas couldn’t be predicted (the draft riots in New York, the legal division between Virginia & West Virginia), a whole bunch of generals on both sides whose goals didn’t always match their nominal allegiances, and a shitload of waifs, strays, and criminals trying to stay alive by taking whatever chances they could seize. Similar situations pertained in what used to be Yugoslavia, during the dissolution of “British India” into three-countries-plus-several-ongoing-border-wars, and now in half-a-dozen African nations, not to mention the former Soviet Union.

What’s going on in Iraq today is a civil war. “We”, meaning American troops under the nominal command of George W. Bush, are responsible for pushing Iraq out of its former status as a dictatorship into its current status as a nation involved in a civil war. Quibbling at the margins about whether “chaos” or “hysteria” is a better description of the unhappy Iraqis’ lives today is the very definition of putting lipstick on a pig — although this pig is more like one of those 800-pound prehistoric monsters with foot-long fangs and a really, really bad attitude.

“Civil Strife”?

Wasn’t that a Squirrel Nut Zippers song a few years back?

In the afterlife
you could be headed for some serious strife
now you make the scene all day
but tomorrow there’ll be hell to pay!

Um, wait…never mind!

Blinkyboy – Life is better without ever having electricity or passable roads. Life is better without freedom of speech. (well, simpler anyway, and there’s more free time for washing clothes when you don’t have to make time to think, cause thinking is done for you by the government – see how much saddam gave to his people! More free time!) Life is better when you’re afraid that the government is going to come take your son or daughter in addition to your paycheck.

Actually, Ben, the infrastructure in Iraq (power lines, sewers, etc.) is in worse shape than before the US invaded. And if you think that Iraqis have ‘freedom of speech’ in their country now, then you are not viewing the situation realistically.

Read Riverbend, an Iraqi woman who blogs from Iraq. Read like three of her posts and then see if you can square any of what she describes with ‘freedom of speech’, ‘freedom of the press’, or a normal society. She describes how women must now cover their faces when they go out in public, or they could easily be killed for going against fundamentalist social mores. She describes a media which is completely controlled by the government. She describes an infrastructure that is crumbling. She describes a paranoia that is only increasing.

Also:

While deaths from our invasion may not quite number in the hundreds of thousands

That is simply not true. According to the Lancet, about 100,000 people died, simply from the initial US invasion. Mostly civilians from bombs.

You are polite, Ben. You argue using reason. But you are not proceeding from true premises. It is simply unrealistic to believe that the US can ‘fix’ or ‘clean up’ Iraq, except perhaps by committing genocide. It is not true that Iraq has freedom of speech in any meaningful sense. It is not true that the US has killed less than 100,000 people in Iraq. It is not true that the medical situation or the infrastructure are better than they were before the invasion.

Now, I appreciate your politeness and calmness, but I feel that you are not arguing from true premises.

The king of Jordan’s name is Hussein as well. Care to demonize a valued ally?

FWIW, the King of Jordan’s name was Hussein, but he’s been dead for close to eight years. The current King of Jordan is Abdullah II.

Gary Ruppert said,

How we handle Iraq will teach the terrorists a lesson. So teach them not to mess with the US.

I don’t know about you folks, but I am happy to see Gary has recovered from the November election losses.

And I am KILLING myself that we didn’t start a pool on when Gary would first post “Barak Hussein Obama”. Oh my god that would have been awesome.

While deaths from our invasion may not quite number in the hundreds of thousands, the deaths that would have been caused by the continuations of the sanctions we had placed on Iraq certainly would have continued to kill as many people as they already had. Some figures quoted are as high a 100,000 children a year. At least Iraqi’s now get a chance to get medicine and basic living supplies, where as before 2003, the only one in the country that got really taken care of was Saddam.
Things are Bad, they could get Worse. However, they could be worse if we leave.
And, I’m just saying we got a responsibility to help clean up the mess, until the point when we can’t help anymore.

I hate to join in the pile-on, but…. Ben. Please provide your evidence that Iraqi’s now have “a chance to get medicine and basic living supplies.” Because, have you read about what is going on in Bagdad?

And, Ben, please provide ANY evidence that we “can” help. ANY AT ALL. HOW ARE WE HELPING? (sorry for the all caps there).

Having “Hussein” in your name is about as telling as “Peter” or “Paul.”

I think that the way that Ben and others see it is that we’re engaged in some kind of war of attrition with a number of groups over in Iraq and since our resources are so much greater than theirs, it’s a war that we will ultimately win if he are sufficiently determined to “stay the course.” He may be right. I’m also willing to concede that if we withdraw from Iraq before such a victory is achieved then we will hand the terrorists et al. a substantial moral victory. And of course no one wants that. However, the costs of continuing this war for this country are much greater than the costs of ending the war as early as possible.

1) Despite local successes, we seem to be inspiring insurgents to take up arms against us at a faster rate than we are killing existing ones. The US Army is constructed for state-to-state warfare, not counterinsurgencies. This type of conflict is simply not something that we do well (a good argument can be made that we should stop investing in nuclear submarines and stealth fighters and restructure our military for the likely reality of 21st Century warfare).

2) As long as we are bogged down in Iraq, we fail to provide an effective deterrant against greater threats to our security. It’s no coincidence that N Korea and Iran have made huge gains in their nuclear arms programs since the war started.

3) There are more efficient means of achieving our long-term strategic objectives than by expending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting car bombers half a world away. It would be far more efficient (not to mention moral) to invest the same money into achieving energy independence than to continuously prop up weak regimes that are willing to sell us cheap gas.

I also want to mention that this war most certainly has not saved lines. About the 100,000 that allegedly died during the sanctions regime? Those people are still dieing, and in ever greater numbers. Nobody talks about all the little kids that are dieing because in some little town or another there no one is collecting the trash now, or the drinking water has become contaminated, or the hospital is now running with minimal supplies or staff. They should be counted among the dead of this war, too.

Hell, we’ve spent, what, like $300 Billion on this war so far? You know you would can buy for $300 Billion. A fucking cure for cancer that’s what. The opporunity cost is simply staggering. We could have stopped every fucking death from cancer from now until the end of time if we simply had our priorities right. Instead, we placed our economy on an unsteady footing and future funds that should be directed to science or other much needed causes will be sent to China instead as interest payments.

How we handle Iraq will teach the terrorists a lesson. So teach them not to mess with the US.

Marge: Homer, when are you going to give up this crazy sugar scheme?

Homer: Never, Marge! Never. I can’t live the button-down life like you. I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles. Sure, I might offend a few of the bluenoses with my cocky stride and musky odors — oh, I’ll never be the darling of the so-called “City Fathers” who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about “What’s to be done with this Homer Simpson?”

Marge: Look, just get rid of the sugar, OK?

Homer: No! [Marge leaves] [a swarm of bees lands on Homer and the sugar pile]
Aah! Hey, get off my sugar. Bad bees! Bad! [gets stung]
Ow. Oww! Oh, they’re defending themselves somehow.

Apologies for being so long winded. This war is such an evil waste. I just can’t help myself.

When it comes down to it, Barack Hussein Obama is that man’s name, and i’m gonna use it.

Barack Hussein Obama is anti-life, anti-gun, anti-taxpayer, and anti-war. He’s not what America needs on social issues, economic issues, or on foreign policy.

As well, Obama is only so popular because he hasn’t been exposed as being more liberal than Kerry, Dean, Murtha, and Pelosi.

When it comes down to it, Barack Hussein Obama is that man’s name, and i’m gonna use it.

Well, you could at least admit why you’re using his middle name religiously now. No one needs to spell out Bush’s middle name to evoke disdain. Now, why don’t you be a good little propagandist/cultist and get started on the Obama demonization!

By the way, Gary, weren’t the election results supposed to be “overturned” as you put it? And weren’t we going to lose, before that? Remember those predictions? I truly hope you’re not a stock broker.

Barack Hussein Obama is anti-life, anti-gun, anti-taxpayer, and anti-war.

Ok, this is called “spin”. You see, Obama is Pro Choice, not anti-life. I’ve never seen him say anything like “y’know, we’ve got to stop all this damn LIFE”. Obama is anti-crime. You don’t have to be “Pro Gun” any more than you have to be “Pro Tennis Racket”. A gun is a thing, a tool to be used, a hobby for some. Gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution. It ain’t going away. So stop with the blatent scare tactics. Near as I can tell from recent history, our side is a helluva lot more interested in preserving the constitution than your side. And I’m not even sure what “anti taxpayer” is supposed to mean. Bush gave the tax cuts to the richest one half of one percent, the democrats want to take those stupid cuts away and give them to the middle class. Now you can have any opinion about this you want, but it is objectively NOT anti taxpayer. But gary. Oh, gawd, gary. The last one. That damn Obama is anti war. Now that’s some bigtime demonizing there. What, you want politicians who are pro war? Who the fuck IS pro war? I mean other than the likes of hitler, napoleon and cheney? Jesus christs tits in a mason jar boy, anti war is bad???

mikey

Anti-life *and* anti-gun?

That’s right. He opposes both life and the most effective method of ending life. Must be some crushing cognitive dissonance right there in his head.

Actually, by ‘anti-life’ I assume you mean ‘supports the right to abortion’. But just think. If abortion had been commonplace, maybe all the liberals you hate would have never existed! I mean, they’d have had liberal-leaning parents, right?

P.S. Noob alert. Am I right in thinking people like Gary here use the word ‘liberal’ itself as if it were derogatory?

The election results are only standing up now because the Republicans wimped out and failed to challenge Democrat fraud in Montana, Virginia, and Missouri.

Barack Hussein Obama is someone who opposes firearms ownership. He’s farther to the left on guns than Kerry and Gore.

Obama hasn’t met an abortion that he didn’t support. There’s no such thing as a right to an abortion.

In fact, the 5th Amendment prohibits taking life without due process. Life begins at conception, and there is no due process in abortion.

As for politicians who are pro-war, there are a lot, they’re the people who support the War on Terror.

Obama doesn’t support that War.

Dammit, he came back to explain the stupid, but he neglected to explain the “anti taxpayer” thing, and that’s the only one I don’t get…

mikey

Barack is a tax hiker, that’s why he’s anti-taxpayer

Ben-

With respect, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to discuss the half-century-long presence of US troops in Europe and Asia without even mentioning a little thing called the Cold War. Those troops weren’t there to put down insurgencies, at least not by 1950.

Obama hasn’t met an abortion that he didn’t support.
That reads like it was dreamed up by Noam Chomsky, as an example of how a sentence could be grammatical but at the same time have no semantic content at all.

Something else that could have been done with that 300,000,000 bucks… We could have simply not spent it at all. Didn’t that used to be a part of the GOP agenda?

Gary, do the words “crushing debt” mean anything to you? Taxes cut is simply taxes deferred. This debt will have to be paid, with interest, for decades to come. Where is the money going to come from? We can pay now, or we can pay more later. We can’t keep spending money we do not have. Do you even understand the concept of debt?

So if we would try the fetuses in a court of law, abortion would be legal?

When it comes down to it, Barack Hussein Obama is that man’s name, and i’m gonna use it.
Yes, I’m all in favour of formality. And we wouldn’t want to confuse Barack Hussein Obama with all the other Barack Obamas in the headlines these days. But you also list John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and John Murtha, and they have middle names of their own… seems a bit unfair not to use them.

P.S. Noob alert. Am I right in thinking people like Gary here use the word ‘liberal’ itself as if it were derogatory?

Ash, Gary’s our very own favoritest pet troll. There has been much speculation that he might be a Turing machine running with a direct feed off of Drudge, because he doesn’t really respond to direct questions with answers. He’s funny as hell, though. Poke through the archives, and you’ll find some of his greatest hits hidden back there.

How we handle Iraq will teach the terrorists a lesson. So teach them not to mess with the US.

We’ve already taught them plenty of lessons, Gary — most of them exactly the lessons sensible people hoped they’d never learn. We’ve taught them that a handful of suicidal believers from one country (Saudi Arabia) can get us to attack two totally *different* countries (Afghanistan & Iraq). We’ve taught them that we can do a noble thing, like removing the Taliban’s control over the Afgani government, before we lose interest, shift our force elsewhere, and permit the worst of the Taliban remnants to come out of their border hidey-holes and resume their old roles (but with even less working infrastructure, which is all to the advantage of the Taliban!). We’ve taught them we can destroy thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars starting a war in Iraq that we didn’t need and we can’t control. We’ve taught them that it takes just a half-dozen years for a handful of stubborn historical illiterates to alienate our allies in Europe and Asia and destroy all the goodwill it took fifty-plus years to build up after WWII. We’ve taught them that our mighty nation is currently being run by a cadre of fundamentalists, geopolitical romantics, hard-right partisans, and corporate whores who give every indication of being happy to trade 250 years of democracy & progress for another few percentage points in the polls or their multinational masters’ ROI. And we’ve taught them that a stubborn 25% or so of the American voting population is too bloodyminded, too biased, too ill-informed, or too stupid to stop bleating that black is white, up is down, the sun rises in the west, and The Dear Leader is the Infalliable Son of Heaven… even if his determination to “teach the terrorist a lesson” is beginning to look more and more like deliberate sabotage of everything America stands for, and enemy action against the 85+% of American citizens who don’t want to give up the best of our history and ideals.

There’s no such thing as a right to an abortion.

Gary wants the government in your doctor’s office with you. I thought republicans were about limited government (well, the old-school republicans, anyway).

Life begins at conception, and there is no due process in abortion.

Gary deeply values our zygote-Americans.

Do you even understand the concept of debt?

He doesn’t. None of them do. They don’t give a shit how much debt is racked up by uncontrolled spending and tax cuts. They believe some magical Supply-Side fairy will come along and wipe the debt away.

He’s funny as hell, though.

What’s hilarious is when he starts doing his Blofeld/Dr. Evil impersonation when he pontificates on the fate of the ‘Democrat’ party.

In fact, the 5th Amendment prohibits taking life without due process. Life begins at conception, and there is no due process in abortion.

*wipes tears* That is why I love having Gary around. Abortion violates the 5th Amendment people!!

Or should I say, “I love having Gary Drudge Ruppert around.”

When it comes down to it, it’s the man’s name, and i’m gonna use it.

Barack is a tax hiker, that’s why he’s anti-taxpayer

Now that’s just silly. Why would a tax hiker be anti taxpayer? I mean, you hike taxes, you want people to pay them, right? So wouldn’t you be about the most PRO taxpayer of anyone? It IS a mystery.

Abortion violates the 5th Amendment people!!

And yet, somehow, it keeps sneaking past the supreme court – they, the arbiters of constitutionality, keep upholding it…

mikey

In fact, the 5th Amendment prohibits taking life without due process.

Actually, it says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think the key word here is “person.” One has to have been born to be a person. Unless one is a corporation, of course.

(“Save a prayer for the mooorning afterrrrrr…..”) Oh, did you say something?

Crikey, guys. Another banner day, and me tied up at work for most of it. I truly do miss all the fun.

This “Ben” is new to me and I am intrigued. I believe it is a GopBot MCA2006, an impressive feat in technology. It develops what seem to be actual “arguments,” in that it advances “claims” and follows them up with copious amounts of SynthEvidence, by and large in complete sentences and even paragraphs. However, it has some glitches, such as automatically disengaging when valid questions are introduced into its interface.

Further, a quick glance at its warranty reveals the following loophole: “This blog is a collection of random thoughts. I in no way take responsibility for them,� to which I am forced to say PFFFFFT!

And Gary. Dear, sweet Gary, posting multiple-sentence entries that still make absolutely no sense. Gary? More words just don’t equate to more reasonableness. Sorry, guy. I agree with you that Obama’s pretty special, but you’ll never demonstrate that he (or anyone else) is objectively “anti-war” and “anti-life.” It’s rather like being both “anti-sex” and “anti-celibacy.” Try plugging that into the more logically programmed BenBot and see if it fries his circuits. (Psst! Do it, Gary! Then maybe he’d go away for good and you could be our bestest troll again.)

Gary seems to have spontaneously regenerated from particles too small to be vacuumed up on November 7.

Gary Manson Ruppert–or is it Gary McVeigh Ruppert?–used to turn up at Atrios telling all & sundry how the Democrats were going to Bite The Big One last month.
Havn’t seen much of him since…

Jillian – looks like he did answer me. It’s just, the answers didn’t make any sense.

I like this ‘shorter’ format. Can I try?

Shorter Gary Ruppert: “The 5th amendment opposes taking life without due trial. Support gun ownership!”?

Ooh, and that other bit at the top: “The Democrats committed massive fraud to win the election, but the Republicans didn’t do anything about it.”

I think Gary Rupperturing received an upgrade over the elections.

Look! He was responding to mikey’s post! it was an almost lifelike… well, it kind of seemed like a response. Much improved.

I think we’ve raised Gary’s game.

The tax thing always gets me. The die hard conservatives believe that:

1. America is the best country EVAH!
1A. People who don’t agree with 1 are free to go somewhere else.
2. The free market determines an item’s value.
3. Individuals have a responsibility to pay for the things they receive (i.e. TANSTAAFL)

BUT-

when it comes to paying for the freedom and standard of living that America provides, why, then, it’s supposed to be a free fuckin ride, especially if you’ve managed to milk the American system enough to make yourself wealthy. And let’s not talk about the people, like the Bushes and Cheney, who have accrued their wealth by DIRECTLT sucking on the government spigot.

I mean, come on, Gary. If you really think you’re being taxed so damn much, you can fricking take a hike. There must be plenty of countries with lower tax rates…. oh, yeah, the standard of living in those countries is abysmal.

In fact, the 5th Amendment prohibits taking life without due process.

Yes, so the government should stop forcing women to have all those abortions!

I love it when toddlers use big grown-up words — like “5th Amendment” and “due process” — when they have absolutely no idea what they’re saying. It’s just so adorable!

Ben, I Love ya, but you’re no match for Gary. The Constitution is only concerned with government action. (the 13th Amendment aside) This Christian nation was formed out of the idea that the greatest threat to mankind was unchecked governmental power. They also didn’t believe that life began at conception and they didn’t give the government the power to do anything about it if someone got tthat crazy notion later on. Good Christians that they were. If you’re curious you should read the opinion in a Supreme Court case called Roe v. Wade. You have actually read the case haven’t you? We’d hate to think you’re wasting our time arguing about an issue for which you have no basic preparation.

Hysterical Woman said,
December 1, 2006 at 2:48

So if we would try the fetuses in a court of law, abortion would be legal?

Would the fetus have the right to plead the Fifth?

Why the fuck is it that people like Ben think that American soldiers are so much better at painting Iraqi schools than Iraqi school-maintenance-workers are?

Ben sez with heavily laden sarcasm: “But, lets go ahead and bring our troops home anyway. It doesn’t matter if they’re doing some good, or cleaning up after a mess we helped create…..”

I mean, what the fuck is the “all the good we’re doing over there?” all about?

School painting, at best, is a photo op for the military. Kindof like having the Air Force Band play an outdoor jazz concert at the park during the summer festival. It’s nice, and it’s good for the Air Force’s image, but it’s not their real job. Their real job is, you know, flying airplanes to kill other countries’ soldiers, or support the killing of such by ground forces..

And Ben adds: “while sustaining less casualties than we would have had in a single battle during WWII over the entire invasion….”

Umm…, right, Ben.

I’m curious, does anyone know? Are there statistics about the number of wounded and maimed coming home ALIVE that, under WWII or Vietnam conditions, and lacking current medical treatment, would not have survived?

It’s one thing to say, Gosh, we have so few casualties, i.e., DEAD soldiers, rather than horribly maimed ones. But it seems to me that our numbers simply show us that we’re a whole lot better at keeping horribly wounded people alive than we used to be. That’s a comfort for some…but the statistics make it a false comparison; those who hold up the numbers as a GOOD thing are simply comparing apples to oranges.

ben, you are full of shit. what ss officers were fighting on for a couple of years?

What if the fetus ends up causing the death of the mother but survives? Can it be tried in court for murder? Can the father be tried as an accomplice to murder because he helped create the murdering fetus?

The mind boggles. The Earth wobbles.

BenA, thanks, now I had to look it up:

His Majesty King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein is the 43rd generation direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

Straight from the Hussein, No! website.

I guess his dad was Hussein Hussein, but I’m not going to look that up because I really thought I already had my fill of Hashemite trivia.

Jordan–Dang–with friends like us, who needs enemas?

I’m sorry–this software can generate em-dashes–but it can’t close italics?

!