Tuesday, June 10, 2008

We Are Winning In Iraq and Faster

It's time for war critics and skeptics to eat a little bird, writes Arthur Herman.

In the meantime, auditioning for the VP slot, Sen. Joe "Pick Me, Pick Me" Biden, a voter for the war, continues to heap blame on Bush.

"I vastly underestimated the total incompetence of this crew," he told the Washington Post.

Total incompetence? Mistakes were made, yes. But total incompetence? We haven't had another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in 7 years. Al Qaida in Iraq is almost destroyed and on the run around the world. (See above.)

In the meantime, the left's mantra: "Bush Lied, People Died" is taking a bit of a beating from the center-left. Read WaPo's Fred Hiatt's analysis of the Rockefeller report.

88 Comments:

Anonymous r said...

The Left will never concede that Iraq is going well and the surge worked for what that would do for Bush. Never. They have been aiding our enemies and rooting against America all along just to exercise their hatred of Bush and attempt to seize power.
Whose side are the filthy LibDems really on?

June 10, 2008 at 10:58 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 10, 2008 at 11:26 AM 
Anonymous dingo said...

Diano-
Sure, no one can prove going into iraq prevented another US attack but we do need to give some credit for that, given that this administration is taking it on the chin for everything else. I also do not think that you can compare the previous stretch of 8 1/2 years to post 9/11. 9/11 was so devastating that it changed everything moving forward. The attack itself (not our response) caused a surge in recruiting in the antiAmerican countries. It is indeed somewhat amazing that there hasn't been an attack in past 7 years. Note that there were many attempts, none successful. This is due to heightened security both abroad and domestic which we have to give the administration SOME credit for.

June 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

No, Dishonest Dave, Gil gets the point for the 7 years considering how you Hurt Feelings Libs have tried to make things out like we are more vulnerable because we went into Iraq. See, Bush has indeed kept us safe. But I don’t think anyone would expect you to give him credit for, well, anything …while blaming him for every ridiculous little thing.

And shut up about bin Laden. You know as well as I that even if we were to catch him that you’d then dismiss it as insignificant –just as you same whiners whined about Saddam when he was on the loose and then promptly dismissed his value once he was captured. Again, for your dishonest refusal to give Bush credit for anything. How about that surge? Lol…

So much for “honest debate” from the Left.

Still crying about those 4000 brave volunteers? Seems minor compared to the 60,000 lost in the Dem war of Vietnam. And stop using our brave soldiers as cheap political pawns. Everyone knows you Libs hate the Military. And they hate you just as much. But they’ll fight for you too anyway. Because they are better than you.

June 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I gotta back what dingo said. No attacks since 9/11 IS NOT a coincidence. We've captured or killed off Al-Queda's top operatives, put them on the defensive. The Libs love to attack the Bush administration on Homeland Security foibles, yet they fail to recognize that we've been SAFE. The adminstration has prevented future attacks, they have alliances doing the same around the world. I'd hate to see a liberal TSA. "Oh, I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, you may go through".

Randal, you hit it on the head - what if they caught bin Laden in the enxt month? Diano and every uber-liberal would consider it a ploy to get McCain Elected, just as Teresa Heinz-Kerry said about Bush in 2004. Everything's a damn conspiracy theory to them...

June 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM 
Anonymous r said...

It’s not that the filthy LibDems fail to recognize that Bush has kept us safe; it’s that they refuse to acknowledge it. There is a big difference. The latter is calculated, dishonest and despicable.

June 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

I just don't get the Libs comments about the war at all...

Somehow I'm supposed to believe the Dems (including Obama and Hillary) that we aren't any safer today then on 9/11 based on no provable facts, yet the argument, "we haven't been attacked since" is invalid for the same reason? Could you explain that Superman Diano?

And I'm sure if we got attacked in Obama's first year as president, that would be Bush's fault for his 8 years, ALTHOUGH nothing Clinton did was wrong in his 8 years.

I'm sure Diano believes Clinton helped the economy during his presidency too.

Diano, could you tell me any point in time where the military actually became "stronger" during a war when a draft wasn't implemented? The day the first solider is killed the army is automatically weaker. That's a pretty obvious answer to "any" war. It's the same as saying "you'll end your paper with some sort of punctuation after your last word." No s*$t sherlock!

And again Diano, can you substantiate that 100,000 dead you state? Can you explain why many cities weren't polled for "safety reasons" but surprisingly (or coincidentally), Fallujah was polled while it was the hottest bed of fighting in the country? Could you also explain how polling around 3-5% of a population and then extrapolating those numbers (when the 3-5% polled answers are in question) to the entire population is fact, let alone scientific?

I'm sure Diano will have a gripping answer like his previous that the oil industry is a monopoly.

June 10, 2008 at 9:29 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 11, 2008 at 4:44 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

And those "others" are either captured, dead, or constantly on the run. They've been on the defensive, diano, or are you conveniently leaving that portion out?

June 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Looks like Dave is once again the odd idiot out.

Umm, Dishonest Dave, just how much of a direct threat to America would you say North Vietnam was? Hehehe…
Or North Korea? Hehehe… (again)
Or that baby formula factory that Slick Willie bombed when he went wagging the dog?
Hehehe… (yet again!)

The recipe for making us unsafe starts with the Hurt Feelings LibDem engineered division they show the world as a key ingredient. It is a sign of weakness and serves to embolden our enemies …all for their petty hatred of Bush and desire to seize power.

I’d rather be a patriotic armchair warrior than a treasonous armchair coward any day.

June 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 11, 2008 at 11:21 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

You're kidding. Right? First off, the real Al Queda never was a prominent force in Iraq. Certain Sunni insurgents adopted the Al Queda name, as have many other terrorist groups. But even the pentagon has revealed that the insurgents are mostly home grown. Remnants of Saddams army. Besides, it's now starting to look like a game of wac-a-mole with similar terrorist tactics popping up in Afghanistan. And of course one could make the argument that they don't have to come to the U.S to fight us. George Bush said "bring em on", and they have. Now to the tune of 4094 dead and over 33,000 U.S. military wounded. If not for advanced military equiptment and superior medical emergency services, the death toll would be much higher. The opposition can fight our best and brightest without ever leaving home. Meanwhile, our military is reaching the breaking point as a result.

So who's really winning in Iraq? Iran, of course. Iran seems to now have a huge influence on the proposed new security agreement.

And are we really safer? Well, 9/11 did take place on Bush's watch. And for those of you who forgot, Condi conveniently couldn't remember the name of the report that was in her possession before 9/11. Hmmm. The memo was titled "Bin Laden determined to attack on U.S. Soil" This from CNN-(CNN) - "The White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." Add to that the last NSA report that claims that Al Queda is growing at an alarming rate.

Bush Lies- Who Dies? Our son's, and daughters. Our mothers and fathers. You might feel nice and comfy because it's not happening on American soil. But it's a false comfort.

June 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Bob,

Did you read Spencer's article or the congressional report? Bush actually didn't lie. Good try lying though to make your point!

Then again, that report you discuss about Condi, is also issued to EVERY living US president. So where were all of these presidents running up and down the streets warning everyone? Or are they allowed to not doing anything and it is fine?

June 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM 
Anonymous r said...

The only long term solution is to change the perception of America
That’s it! We need to change because we are the problem!
We should make friends with our terrorist enemies while we’re cowering to them too! Lol…

Let’s just end this debate right here. It is fair to blame 9/11 on those responsible: Terrorists and eight years of Slick Willie incompetence and inaction.
But to Libs, Bush keeping us safe is somehow worse. Lol…

June 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Jonas

If you going to acuse me of lying, then show me the lie. Did 9/11 happen on Bush's watch? Yes. Did Condi claim to not know the title of the report we refer to? Yes. Did the NSA repoprt say Al Queda was growing at an alarming rate? Yes. So be specific Jonas. What did I lie about?

June 11, 2008 at 4:17 PM 
Anonymous dingo said...

David,
You can question our presence in Iraq but I think to say it is a total failure is nonsense. Regardless of reason of going into Iraq and whether we should have, consider the following:

1. We certainly sent a message when we removed Hussein from power in a very short period of time, a message to other countries that might make them reconsider aiding terrorist organizations.
2. Iran is clearly a threat to the US, we have a military presence now right next to them. Do we really want to remove that?
3. Hussein was a brutal dictator who oversaw the murder and torture of thousands. Is it such a bad thing that we ousted him from power?
4. The press does not accurately report what is going on in Iraq. The only existence the Iraqi people know is one of oppression and following the orders of whoever has the biggest gun. We are trying to bring democracy which is a vast improvement. The thing is, it doesn't come easy.

I would suggest that you all read the following article, very well written. About 2 guys who went to St Joes together, 1 an anti Iraq War journalist, the other a marine. I found it to be a fascinating read, follows a meeting and accounts that we never see in most of the press. Randal, some of the words are big but I think you will still be able to handle it. Regardless of your stance when/if you see any member of the armed forces say thanks, I do when I see them in the airport and its appreciated and....
THEY DAMN WELL DESERVE IT
Here is a link to the article...

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the_great_divide_iraq/

June 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM 
Anonymous bob said...

Dingo

I think that was a cheap shot telling that "some of the words are big". Let's try to be adults and respect each others right to have a different opinion.

As for your 1,2,3,4...
1. Yes we did send a message to the world by invading Iraq. The message was that Bush was a cowboy who shoots first and asks questions later. The message that we will invade a sovereign nation using highly inacurate, and cherry picked inteligence. Many read the message as "the U.S. is the school yard bully, and we'd best arm ourselves or we could be next." And according to the NSA, terrorist groups are growing at an alarming rate. You think this is positive?

2. Iran is clearly a threat? We invaded their neighbor 5 yrs ago. Could it possibly be that they consider us a threat? After all, we did assist Great Britain in the overthrow of the democraticly government in Iran in 1953, and install the Shah.

3. When Saddam was gassing the
kurds, we were doing business with him. At the time, the CIA attemted to put the blame on Iran.
He wasn't a tyrant until we no longer needed him.

4. The press does not accurately report whats going on in Iraq? I'd agree with you there. Imbedded reporters obviously had a bias view.

June 11, 2008 at 6:37 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

June 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Bob,

You lied when you said, "Bush lies - who dies?"

So there's your lie. Could you also acknowledge the fact that per Gil's article, NSA (and many intelligence) reports are mainly incorrect these days. So for me to believe Bush lied because our intelligence was wrong, but it's all of a sudden "perfect" regarding our safety, is really tough to believe. I'm not 5.

Then again, per our (and international) intelligence, Iran stopped its nuke program due to "governmental pressure right after the US invaded Iraq." Now who provided that pressure? Oh wait, George Bush. So he technically solved the Iran nuke problem per "our intelligence" (which you state is factual). So why do so many Libs say he's looking for a reason to attack? He's already solved the problem!

June 11, 2008 at 10:14 PM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

Again Bob,

You lie with this comment also, "The message that we will invade a sovereign nation using highly inaccurate, and cherry picked intelligence." (PS I spell checked your sentence. Thank me later).

Did you not read Gil's article or the corresponding report it was based off of? It clearly states the only portion Bush wasn't "basing off of the facts presented" was Al Qaeda being in Iraq.

Soooo, you're basically saying the intelligence info we gather is for the most part ALL incorrect. Now, why is that NSA report fully factual again?

Remember, we aren't "cherry picking" facts or sources here.

June 11, 2008 at 10:18 PM 
Anonymous dingo said...

Bob,
Relax, making fun of Randal is a thing I enjoy, He calls me dumb dingo and I bust on him, its ok, its part of the dialog we have here. I respect his right to his opinion, in fact I agree with his in this case more than yours. I'm gonna make him real proud w/ #1. As for your comments:
1. Damn straight we sent a message. Everyone can pile on Bush and I can certainly say he did many things wrong but one thing I will say that others including yourself will not "wow, after 9/11 I am glad he was in office instead of Gore!". Know why? HE TOOK A STAND!!! And a stand needed to be taken. US has too long been seen by antiUS as weak, unable to flex its power. We flexed it alright. True, I can see why you say it was cowboy, invading iraq was never about WMD, it was about sending a message. A message that we had been hurt and that it was on a scale that we will not tolerate and we did pick on someone. Brutal as it sounds it is the only language understood in this part of the world. US is not a bully, 2 planes were flown into the world trade center killing thousands of innocent americans, a message needed to be sent to anti american countries. If we choose to we can simply remove you from power, simple as that for most countries. We are technologically advanced. In other words, if in the future we detect you are harboring terrorists or aiding them, if we put pressure you better react.
2. Cmon, Iran is a threat, don't be silly.
3. Not sure about that/questionable US ties before attack but I do not think there is any dispute on whether he was person that should have been removed/was a murderous scumbag. Agreed on any notion that US needs to have stronger principles than ever on stuff and not be enemies/friends when convenient I just don't know enough of what you are talking about, which I will always admit if its the case.
4. True Dat. Again, it is all so easy for us to post comments on this. Anyone here have a son/daughter/relative in iraq? You are the ones that feel the impact most that the rest of us here carry on about but are not truly impacted by on a personal basis. Would like to hear those thoughts.

June 11, 2008 at 11:39 PM 
Anonymous BOB said...

Jonas & Dingo

Come on Jonas. The biggest lie is also the most obvious. The fact that Bush called Iraq an imminent threat. And yes it was a lie. Then of course, Bush said Iraq sought yellow cake from Africa. After the documents were proven to be fake, Bush continued to use that argument for going to war in his speaches, by changing the wording to "the British believe Saddam sought yellow cake from Niger". I remember Russert asking Condi on meet the press, why Bush continued to use that argument after the evidence became questionable. Condi had some lame excuse, like "it must have been an oversight".
So, you might call that a spin. I call it a lie. And last Jonas, are you that anal that you have to spell check blog replies? Save your spell check for the Times. They need it more than I do.

Dingo- News Flash - 1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. To insinuate that attacking Iraq was an intelligent and legitimate response to 9/11 is -well- kind of dumb. To say that Gore would not have retaliated after 9/11 is just speculation on your part. It's not valid. And lets face it. I would agree that Bush did the right thing by going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but I think you would agree that Afghanistan should have remained the focal point. But no! Bush had bigger fish to fry in Iraq. Now Afghanistan is starting to slip away because our military is stretched so damn thin.

2. Is Iran more of a threat to the U.S., or is the U.S. more of a threat to Iran?

3. Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Two books I would recommend.
"The Spiders Web" and "Overthrow".

4. We seem to agree on that one. For your information, My Dad served in WWll, My brother and I are both Vietnam era vets, and my son is currently in the army. He's going on year 12 in MI. He served in Kosovo during the Clinton administration, and recently spent a year in Iraq working with a three man unit that collected and disposed of bombs, and gathered forensic evidence at bombing sights.

June 12, 2008 at 9:05 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Lib speak: Is Iran more of a threat to the U.S., or is the U.S. more of a threat to Iran?

Translation: The U.S. is always the bad guy.

June 12, 2008 at 10:45 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

R SAID...

How profound! Did you find that on a bumper sticker?

June 12, 2008 at 10:49 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 12, 2008 at 12:27 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Yeah. It was on the back of a Blame America First Lib’s car.

June 12, 2008 at 12:33 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Like that’s somehow bad? Man, you Libs suffer from all kinds of guilt.
No surprise Lib Dave would prefer Iran being more powerful than us. This is likely why the Left is opposed to any action against Iran.
Maybe you guys aren’t really just cowards after all and you really are rooting for our enemies and wish to see the demise and destruction of America?

June 12, 2008 at 12:37 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Randal

Maybe Im all wrong about this, and this concept might seem very liberal to you, but I believe America is a country that should export hope, not fear.

Do you really think we should consider attacking another sovereign nation that poses no "iminent theat" to the U.S.?

June 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Yes, I HOPE Iran and their wacky president aren't manufacturing nukes. I HOPE he doesn't have an itchy finger, since, after all, he's wacky enough to deny the holocaust.

Why should I, as a parent, not fear nutjobs like Manny Jihad in Iran? What's wrong with the two of you?

June 12, 2008 at 1:53 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve

If thats the case, we should have gone into N. Korea long ago. Do they get any crazier than that guy?

We should attack a country because the leader doesn't believe in the holocaust?

And no one has an itchier finger than King George. There's probably a guy just like you in Iran saying "Damn, we'd better get the upper hand here before this crazy cowboy attacks our country next!

June 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 12, 2008 at 9:30 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Well Dave, there are a lot of chicken hawks out there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember right, Gil never served. Add him to the list with Hannity, Limbaugh and Dick Cheney.

June 12, 2008 at 11:29 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Ah, the Michael Moore Standard. I knew that was coming from onea you weepers here sooner or later.

The Lib Michael Moore Standard (MMS) states: (paraphrased) “In a grasping effort to cut off honest discussion and silence all opposing views, anti-war Liberals shall attempt to claim that only those who have served in the military or who have family actively serving in Iraq shall be permitted to wage war, make war policy or even so much as intone on the war. All others will be called silly unflattering names designed to stifle them by calling into question their lack of military service as if this were requisite for speaking on the topic. Never mind that this is the Land of Free Speech where everyone gets to speak on any topic of their choosing without qualification. And try to do it with a straight face so someone –anyone- takes us at all seriously! Try to make like it’s a ‘GOTCHA!’. Yeah, yeah, maybe that will work! Man, I hate Bush…”

(See, the fat MMS is very similar to the Al Sharpton/ Apologist Liberal Standard that says only blacks are permitted to speak on racial topics without being shouted down and plastered with silly labels. …or the one where only gays are allowed to speek on gay issues, again, using silly labels to enforce.
It’s all about cutting off honest open discussion –which Libs detest- by attempting to eliminate all opposing views to one side’s favor.)
Yep, Lib utter crap. So much for “honest debate” from the Left.

And, Dishonest Dave, you certainly have a lot of nerve calling someone else a Chicken Little, considering your childish respouting of every shrill doom&gloom Lib lie about the dire impending crisis of global sky falling. Heck, you seem to really believe every single thing that you have been told you’re supposed to be mad about! Lol… [insert unflattering name equating Dave’s intellect with that of a young school girl]

June 13, 2008 at 12:55 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

We should have, Bob. Instead, we send Madeline Albright over there for Photo Ops and to give money and in turn they oppress their people and build nukes. We also have a strong international backing on this one.

June 13, 2008 at 8:03 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

If Iraq had actually developed a nuclear weapon, it would have been guarded day/night by a few thousand troops as a deterrent against Iran (which now happened to have more influence over Iraq than ever before). It would never have been launched against the US (skipping over that fact that Iraq didn't even have the technology for a missile to reach the US).

If true, why was there a nearly unanimous vote to go to Iraq based on the intelligence gathered?

June 13, 2008 at 8:09 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve & Randal

Ill tell you why we had a nearly unanimous vote, and it had nothing to do with the intel. It had to do with political cowardice. Remember, you had people like Bob Graham of Fla. who voted against the war, who had the inside scoop on the intel. Most of those who voted for it, did it because they were afraid of looking unpatriotic if they voted against it. They were afraid of loosing constituents. And they thought it would be a cake walk. And yes, I include Hillary, Edwards, Biden, and all the rest of the Democratic pussies who didn't have the balls to stand up to Bush and Cheney.

That's one thing I'll give Obama credit for. Even though he couldn't vote on the war, he was running for a senate seat at the time, and part of his platform was opposition to the war. He was willing to risk loosing his run for the senate by standing up for what he knew was right.

Randal- I'm not a Moore fan. I think for the most part he does more harm than good, but the truth of the matter is, the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Cheneys talk the talk, but they can't walk the walk. And they all had the opportunity to do so. I know. Some times the truth hurts. But then Cheney had more imortant things to do. Cheney supported the Vietnam war, but he applied for and recieved 5 deferments because he had "other priorities". Rush had that big boil on his ass (great reason not to serve), and Hannity- well I think he's just another big conservative pussy. Whats your excuse?

June 13, 2008 at 9:03 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

real hard platform to run on, bob. especially in an amazingly liberal state such as illinois and with an unpopular war and a rising media darling in barry obama. AND, if a senator voted for the war because they didn't want to be unpatriotic, then they shouldn't be serving in the senate to begin with. you don't determine the fate of men & women's lives to be "patriotic" on C-Span. Evidence was conclusive at the time that something had to be done. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that going to war in the first place was the right thing to do (I don't believe I ever did on this blog but if so, shame on me - start combing through it diano), but the problem is getting out, which isn't as simple as pulling the troops and abandoning the people of Iraq who need us more than ever as we have dismantled their previous government and are are attempting to foster growth of a new one in the middle of hell.

still, no one can fully explain how obama will get the troops out of iraq despite the fact that he carries absolutely no military experience and his foreign policy experience consists of living overseas in his youth.

June 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Steve

OK. This a a decent & serious discussion. So here, goes. Let's face it. Senators don't always stand up for what they know to be right. I remember McCain stating that his stand on flying the confederate flag at the state house in S.C. was an act of political cowardice on his part.
I honestly believe that many who voted to give Bush permission to go to war were looking out for their own political interests. On both sides of the isle.I've heard Chris Mathews, Russert and Pat Buchanan voice the same opinion.
Steve, evidence was NOT conclusive that something had to be done. Saddam was contained. He was never an iminent threat. We now know this for a fact. This goes all the way back to ex weapons inspector Scott Ritter who was said "Ain't nothin there", and later confirmed by Bush's hand picked man, David Kay. After all that we now know, I still can't understand why people like you insist that the "evidence was conclusive at the time". It's ignoring the facts because you have the need for some form of moral justification.

As for Obama, I must correct you on one point. When he ran for the senate, it was not yet an unpopular war. In fact at the time it was unpopular to be AGAINST the war.

I dont know how Obama, or anyone else for that matter plans to get us out of Iraq, but if the latest news reports are correct, the new Iraqi government might insist on our departure. What then Steve?
Do we refuse to leave? Do we tell them that our sacrifice has been to great and Iraq is now ours?

June 13, 2008 at 10:18 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

if the Iraqi government wants us out, that's a clear enough signal to me to move on. of course, the iraqi government better be comfortable with their situation to make such a request.

Obama was a media darling in 2004, spoke at the Donkey Convention and had next to no opposition other than an intentional opponent in Alan Keyes. Obama was basically anointed to the position of Senator in 2004.

And as I said before, let me repeat, congrats to Obama for being against the war in 2003, unfortunately , his words in 2003 don't help in cleaning up a mess in 2009.

June 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Most of those who voted for it, did it because they were afraid of looking unpatriotic if they voted against it. They were afraid of loosing constituents.

So, Bob, you’re saying that LibDems voted to send us into a war they didn’t believe in that has claimed 4000 America lives just for their own political wellbeing. War for political expediency.
Boy, that sure sounds a whole lot worse than what you guys accuse Bush and Cheney of doing.

And don’t be too quick to elevate Obama for his opposing the war. One’s reason for opposing it is what is important. Motive matters. And given his questionable loyalties and associations, his motives may very well not have been entirely pure or pro-America.

I don’t have an excuse for not enlisting in the military. Nor do I need one. Besides, why would I be a soldier? We’ve already got guys who do that. It’s their calling that they volunteered for, not mine. I’m sure they wouldn’t want me doing their job any more than I’d want them doing mine. But, again, just your asking such a question of me clearly insinuates the Michael Moore Standard. And, as we have already established, that is utter crap. Care to try yet again, Lib Bob?

Here’s the bottom line on “Bush lied”: Every smart mind in the world believed that Iraq/Saddam was a threat and had WMDs. Every one. Including three presidential addminstrations. Members of Congress had access to THE VERY SAME INTEL as did Bush. Even your Dem god Slick Willie, who, you will find, has a number of quotes out there declaring in no uncertain terms that ‘Saddam has WMDs (a term that he is sometimes even credited with coining) and that someone at sometime will have to deal with it/him/Iraq forcefully’.

That you Lib weepers are still whining about the reasons we went to war five years ago is nothing less than childish sour grapes pathetic. Get over it. Move on. Quityerbitchin. We know it’s all really just about your petty hurt feelings dislike of Bush. And that is hardly a worthy reason to oppose a war any more than the reason you gave for congressional LibDems authorizing it.

June 13, 2008 at 11:07 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Randal

"So, Bob, you’re saying that LibDems voted to send us into a war they didn’t believe in that has claimed 4000 America lives just for their own political wellbeing. War for political expediency." YES! Thats exactly what I'm saying. And it came from both sides of the isle. And Bush did lie. He knew Saddam was not an iminent threat, but he continuosly tried to convince everyone that he was. He also kept trying to convince us that invading Iraq was connected to 9/11. I remember one Bush speach on Iraq where he mentioned 9/11 thirteen times! Over 4000 dead and over 30,000 seriously wounded, and you have the balls to call this sour grapes?
I guess you found it amusing when Bush was on national TV pretending to look for WMD's under his desk in the oval office. Ha Ha Ha.
I bet the men in Walter Reed and the families of those lost thought that was a real hoot

It's not about hurt feelings or a dislike of Bush. It's about taking a country to war under false pretense. You claim that every smart mind in the world thought that Saddam had WMD's! Well I guess they weren't so fuckin smart, were they?

June 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Right, my point exactly: Everyone was fooled by the mistaken intel. So it is greatly unrealistic and unfair –dishonest- to blame it all on Bush, er: “Bush lied!”

Why are you Libs so upset, so overly emotional about this war, anyway? It seems feigned – little more than an exercising of petty hatred for Bush. Has this war really negatively impacted you personally -really? Have you had to stand in rationing lines in bare feet because you wore out your rationed shoe allotment? Run out of your rationed gasoline? Used up your unsliced bread ration for your PB&Js? Cut your finger on a metal drive? Had your kid drafted or killed? Or is it, as I seriously suspect, just from what the Leftist Media has fed you designed to stir shrill anti-war/ anti-Bush emotions so the Left can seize power?

It sure seems to me you’re just another one who has taken to respouting the same tired everything you have been told you should be mad about.

And when we get closer to the 60,000 war dead from that Dem war Vietnam, then we can start talking seriously about the number of casualties from this war. While terribly sad, you must admit, 4000 pales in comparison to 60,000. 60,000 > 4000 Heck, only 4000 lost in a five year war after millions of deployment hours sounds, well, pretty darn good!

June 13, 2008 at 12:30 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 13, 2008 at 1:07 PM 
Anonymous r said...

And the Lying LibDems voted to authorize anyway.

June 13, 2008 at 1:13 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 13, 2008 at 1:22 PM 
Anonymous r said...

“lied to by Bush”
“The GOP were traitors.”
“LibDems …patriots”


Lol! You’re hopeless, Dishonest Dave!

June 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Randal

I wasnt agreeing with you. Far from it. As David said, those with integrity were opposed to the war from the start. They were the smart ones. I remember a Frontline series where members of the atomic energy comission were interviewed. They said they told the administration that they knew the aluminum tubes were not suitable for military use because of their size. Their information was ignored.

Over 4000 dead, over 30,000 wounded and who knows how many dead Iraqi's, and you say we have no reason to become emotional?
I do have a personal connection Randal. My son spent a year there.
He lost friends there. He was devestated. I have another friend who is on his third tour in Iraq.
You've shown your true colors Randal. As long as it doesn't personaly affect you, you could care less. So lets get this straight. Randal isn't inconvenienced by the war, therefore, everyone else should just keep quiet and go along with the program. Tell it to the guy's in Walter Reed, Randal. I'm sure they, and their families would appreciate someone like you telling them not to get emotional.

June 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM 
Anonymous dingo said...

Bob, Thank you and your son for serving. Thank you for pointing out what a tool Randal is.

June 13, 2008 at 2:32 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Also you have showed your true colors. Still with all the overblown weepy emotion.

Tell us, Bob, just where is your boy right now? Oh, stateside, out of harms way. Interesting.

I have a friend over there too. Just because I don’t endlessly cry about this war and how it started like you guys do doesn’t mean I don’t care about it. And I don’t turn all treasonous and make my Prsident out to be the enemy just for my hurt feelings like you emotional dolts do. You have fallen for all the whiny hype you have been fed by calculated Lib design.

And having your kid serve gives you no more or less right to express you views on the war –and gives your views no more or less weight- than anyone else.

June 13, 2008 at 4:07 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

R

Maybe you should re-read Randals post. He asked if the war had affected me personaly. I answered.
Opposition to the war is treason?
Funny, I think it's my constitutional right to oppose the war. You want to talk treason? How about the people who outed Val Plame? According to Bush Sr., that would amount to treason.

As for my son, no he's not state side. He served in Kosovo and Iraq. You might be reading about him soon in the Times.

June 13, 2008 at 7:00 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

politics and our debate aside, thank you and your son for your service. I've said the same to my brother who did nine months over there and safely made it back stateside.

June 13, 2008 at 9:15 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Bob, I am “R”.

And I asked why you are so overly emotional about the war (like every other angry Bush-hating LibDem whiner) when, presently, you really have no personal stake in it. None of us do. Why does something so far away that isn’t impacting you directly in your day to day make you Libs so angry and upset? Again, I believe it’s because you have fallen for all the whiny hype you have been fed and told you should be angry about.
You can oppose the war all ya want –no one told you not to. Just why ya gotta be so emotional about it? (again, like every other angry Lib) Get a grip. Seems to me that you guys should see a therapist about all that baseless/projected anger.
There is no place in waging war or crafting war policy for all that unstable emotion.

June 13, 2008 at 9:45 PM 
Anonymous r said...

That’s good to hear about your brother, S. You stand as a lesson to the emotional angry ones that someone can indeed have a loved one in the sand over there and not go all hating Bush about it.

June 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM 
Anonymous r said...

And many feel that the filthy Lib “journalist” that outed Plame publicly was the treasonous jerk. That Lib Media… always looking to hurt Bush and don’t care if they aid our enemies in the process…
But I’m guessing Bob is ones them who is willing to overlook this part of that story …just so long as the crooked line drawn reflects poorly on Bush.

June 13, 2008 at 10:08 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

R - Randal

Well R, thats what makes us different. I take this war seriously, and you have a cavalier attitude when it comes to the war. You feel that since you don't have a personal stake in the war, you can just ignore the hardships of the people who are personaly affected. Not your problem is it R?

Your statement-". Why does something so far away that isn’t impacting you directly in your day to day make you Libs so angry and upset?". Wow! Tell that to the soldiers that are over there R. I'm sure they would just love to hear that! You are amazingly self centered!

June 13, 2008 at 11:09 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 13, 2008 at 11:53 PM 
Anonymous dingo said...

r,
I had to go to home depot today to get a very large wrench. After I was done using it I wrapped the handle in cloth tape and wrote RANDAL on it in in magic marker, thats how big a tool you are. You are such an ass and you cannot admit when you are wrong. And of course Bob is labeled as the "blah blah blah dem/lib". Remember Randal that you are a radical which means that you are on the fringe while most sane Americans can look at an issue from an educated perspective and look through the eyes of someone who does not agree with them to understand their perspective. You are not interested in other people's perspectives and you really should be. You assume Bob is some tree hugging anti-US buttlick when in truth based on what he is saying, he has made more of a sacrifice for our country than you likely ever will. You write
"I asked why you are so overly emotional about the war (like every other angry Bush-hating LibDem whiner) when, presently, you really have no personal stake in it. None of us do."
I don't see any of his posts as being overly emotional. I like the "presently" remark. Come on, the man has served and his son was in Iraq for some time. I am humbled by anyone regardless of viewpoint that has had their child serve in iraq and frankly, yes I do feel that their viewpoint matters more than mine. I like the end of your blurb where you say "none of us do". Who are you to speak for everyone Randal? Obviously Bob has had a son there, who are you to determine that no one else has a personal stake in this war? Presumptious? Assinine? Can you admit you are off the mark here Randal or are you just not that much of a man?

June 14, 2008 at 12:16 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Randal

I think you need a reality check, so here it is. This is what it feels like to have your son or daughter serving in Iraq. I'm sure a lot of others i my situation would back me up on this. When my son first told me he was going to Iraq, I cried. I guess in your book, that makes me a weepy lib, but he happens to be my only son, and I was a single parent. His assignment was to locate IED's and disarm them. He was also required to collect forensic evidence at bombing sights. That would include body parts. For a year, my contact with him was minimal. We would exchange e-mails and IM each other when he had access to a computer, but that wasn't often. Every night, I would watch the news, and pray that his name didn't pop up, and everytime I'd hear a report of a roadside bomb taking out a humvee, I'd be a nervous wreck.
His lst month of deployment was probably the worst for me. So often you hear of soldiers that only had a few days left, and never made it home. I'm fortunate.
My son made it home in one piece, but I still fear he could be redeployed. And that Randal, is real personal negative impact. But then, it isn't your kid Randal. So why should you care?

June 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Boy, all the weepers are out piling on today. Maybe they feel emboldened because their Affirmative Action/ Surrender to Muslims Candidate is in town?

I love how Dishonest Dave always tries to transpose. That never gets old! In his world good is bad and bad is good, up is down, wants are “rights”, coward is brave, weak is strong, treason is patriotic… Lol… But that’s how he earned his nickname. Gotta love that silly Libism.

Sure, Bob, I understand your angst having your kid over there –when he is over there- I would feel the very same way. Except for the part where you go all hating Bush over it. Your boy is brave and he’s doing a noble thing that many of us wouldn’t. But then, he did volunteer for it knowing what that could get him. I have the utmost respect for our boys in uniform who have sacrificed… I support their efforts, their mission and their leaders. I even support care package drives for them. While Libs instead use them as pawns in their hurt feelings cheap political games, like scorekeeping our war dead for the Bush-bashing value. Despicable.

But Dingo is just flat wrong that having a kid in Iraq somehow gives one’s views more merit or weight. Just wrong. That’s the Michael Moore Standard which we dismissed earlier. That’s almost like saying only those with a personal family stake in the sand over there should be making war policy. Oh, that’s right, that’s what you are saying! And that’s, well, just silly. And that’s why no one takes that view at all seriously. Sorry, it ain’t just me.

June 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i hate to join this discussion so late ,but. isn,t this the second time we have been at war with iraq, remember the first time. they all raised their hands and the war was over in 100 hours. for the only time in U.S. history we have invaded a country twice after already defeating it. the name of the presdent both times was ,is bush. if you don,t see a problem then god bless you.

June 14, 2008 at 3:46 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

See, what’s really happening here is that I, as a patriotic supporter of our country, president and the war effort, am simply refusing to be put on the defensive for my position. And Libs like you guys, and particularly Dishonest Dave, then pounce on that and disingenuously label it as uncaring or arrogant warmongering or anti-soldier and come with your usual silly Lib labels. Much like DD attempts and fails to assert that everyone who doesn’t join lockstep with the Gay Agenda is somehow a “Hitler”. Lol… Since when did gay become to new normal and decent people questioning that put on the defensive, anyway? Sorry, but I just don’t play along with them silly Lib games.

June 14, 2008 at 7:22 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 15, 2008 at 12:53 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Your post screams dishonest whining Liberal p*ssy, DD.

June 15, 2008 at 2:24 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 15, 2008 at 2:27 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Randal

You? A patriot? Randal, who claims we aren't personaly affected by the war calls himself a patriot? You are anything but.

June 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Oh, grow up and quit weeping. I hope you boy isn't the p that you are.

June 15, 2008 at 6:54 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 16, 2008 at 12:22 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Give it up, DD. Everyone knows you hate our Military anyway. So this makes your petty words that much more empty.

June 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 16, 2008 at 6:24 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Ho hum.

I already wrapped this up. Maybe you missed these:

See, what’s really happening here is that I, as a patriotic supporter of our country, president and the war effort, am simply refusing to be put on the defensive for my position. And Libs like you guys, and particularly Dishonest Dave, then pounce on that and disingenuously label it as uncaring or arrogant warmongering or anti-soldier and come with your usual silly Lib labels. Much like DD attempts and fails to assert that everyone who doesn’t join lockstep with the Gay Agenda is somehow a “Hitler”. Lol… Since when did gay become to new normal and decent people questioning that put on the defensive, anyway? Sorry, but I just don’t play along with them silly Lib games.



I love how Dishonest Dave always tries to transpose. That never gets old! In his world good is bad and bad is good, up is down, wants are “rights”, coward is brave, weak is strong, treason is patriotic… Lol… But that’s how he earned his nickname. Gotta love that silly Libism.

Whine on, DD.

June 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM 
Anonymous r said...

And you, DD, are like trying to stuff a lying and disingenuous and cowardly eight track tape into a CD player. Or something. Lol…

I haven't answered your silly question because this isn't about me. It does not matter why I didn't/don't serve. That holds ZERO bearing on my right to speak on or support the war.

Again with the Michael Moore Standard. As if one can’t support the war effort without having themselves served. And you’re stretching it to include one can’t be patriotic with having served. You silly Dishonest Libs sure are silly.

Let’s take a look at the flipside of this standard. That being that you, DD, didn’t serve either, but because you hate America, Her President and Her Military. Hmmm, which is worse? Lol…

June 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM 
Anonymous r said...

That should read: "And you’re stretching it to include one can’t be patriotic withOUT having served."

Which of course is a Lib lie.

June 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 17, 2008 at 7:47 PM 
Anonymous r said...

(sigh) Simply saying something untrue doesn’t make it magically true, DD. You are the hater of America, our President and the Military, not me. All your dishonest wiggling and silly words doesn’t change this fact.

I'm not serving in a war that I believe is morally wrong…

So now our soldiers should get to pick and choose their assignments based on whether or not they agree with it?? Gee, who gets to do that at their job other than the self employed? Lol…

And stop lying. You hate the Military and a coward like you would never serve.

June 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 18, 2008 at 2:17 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Why should I have to work overtime when they’re napping in the Green Zone?

See how utterly stupid that sounds, DD. You’re grasping. With third grade logic. It shows. You’re failing. This shows too.

I don’t care about your work history. This isn’t about you –or me. But good of you to man-up and admit that you are a delicate weakling Lib. No wonder you are a coward and peed yourself at the thought of boxing Mr. Shields. Heck, you were too afraid to even meet us for a beer!

See, the thing about volunteering is that it’s volunteer. Kinda hard to spin that into some baseless criticism of Bush and this war. But that’s never stopped you from trying, DD.

I am doing my small part by countering the domestic enemy insurgents, Libs like you, who are actively aiding our foreign ones.

June 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM 
Anonymous Jonas said...

R,

Notice how when it's convenient for Dave to call out your past, he's all about "what your past involves." But when it comes to proving your knowledge in an industry or field that shows you superior to him, it is because "your arrogant and gold plate your balls to show off."

He has no problem showing his past to try and make you look bad, but you can't do the same.

It goes to the same argument: David wins discussions by speaking and not allowing others to speak about their views or the correctness of his presented info.

June 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Sure, ol’ DD plays the Marxist Goebel game that depends on repetitious lies. He also seems to think that whoever makes the most words wins. -This is just childish while the former is highly dishonest. But then, that’s why we call him Dishonest Dave. And when all else fails he ever resorts to petty personal attack. When ya think about it, Dave is really kinda like a Hitler. Only not as smart. He demonstrates quite well the depth and quality of Modern Liberalism.

June 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 19, 2008 at 1:28 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Ho hum. More hollow words from Dishonest Dave. You really are still ouchy from the beating I gave you yesterday, huh? Lol…

Mr. Shields has bested you intellectually here many, many times. Simply saying otherwise does not change this fact. And I’ll bet he’d make you cry in a boxing ring.
And stop wiggling. You are afraid to join us for a beer. Period. You are the classic arrogant Lib bully coward, all brave and brash when safely behind your computer. I suspect the only reason he even invited you was to expose this truth about you, knowing that your cowardice would cause you to decline and wiggle as to why. He succeeded. Once again besting you.

Stop you distractive petty nitpicking. You know who I meant. And it’s spelled “Goebel”. And he was a Marxist. Maybe you should do somea that there research yourself.

You are the one who has tried endlessly to make this about us rather than the issues at hand. You always do this. This is why I don’t answer you dumb personal questions and I do not care about your past. What does matter is that your treasonous views today lead you to spout your treason here. You openly rail again America, our President and Military. What you did (or failed to do) long ago does not matter. Just as why I never served in the Military has zero bearing on my right to voice on the war.
And, once again, I’d rather be an armchair patriot that an armchair treasonous coward like you any day.

Not that it’s anyone’s business, but I have never viewed porn on a computer. Sure, a dirty pic here and there through the years –What man doesn’t appreciate the nude female form? Well, except for you. [wink]- but never a porn vid.

June 19, 2008 at 12:02 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Deep, DD. I'll bet you make www.gayrumphumping.com a daily stop in your surfing. Ew.

I could also count the times I've been in a strip club.

June 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Oops, I forgot to include my gottcha…

See, DD, I set you up here and petty you jumped right in just as predicted.

Since he has failed in his quest to gain any personal information about me to use in his distractive petty attacks, now let us watch as LibDave repeatedly brings up my admitted lack of perversion as some sort of grasping cheap personal criticism of me each time he is run out of real ammo and I whup him in arguments on unrelated topics.
Yep, petty, predictable and pathetic. It’s just what LibDaves do ‘cause they got little else. Lol... You're so easy.

June 20, 2008 at 11:06 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 21, 2008 at 3:39 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Sure, it’s like you’re on a quest to learn more about me, DD. You’ve practically been stalking me for months trying to pry and get me to reveal my personal info just and only so that you can then use it in one of your petty ad hominem attacks to distract attention when you are getting humiliated in an argument with me.

Others here have leveled this same charge at you numerous times, DD. So ya can’t say it’s just me. Everyone sees what you are. It’s kinda hard to miss! Lol…

I’ve been at this awhile and what you do is common shallow Lib MO. I’m no mystery. I’m not secretive. I’ve just not told you anything about me so as to remove this tool from your dishonest petty Lib playbook, is all. And you can’t stand this.

Heck, you’re so obsessed with me I’ll bet you’ve Googled me trying to find out more about me! Now that is just pathetic.

It’s just not about me. So let it go. Get off my leg.

Now be a good pathetic little whiny Lib and run along. Maybe if you’re nice and you stop hounding me I’ll show you some charity and tell you a little something about myself. Lol…

June 21, 2008 at 2:48 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

June 21, 2008 at 7:32 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Pathetic Dave trying to save face with muddling distraction after being humiliated once again.

I'll take the point.
Oh, and get off my leg, ya wierdo.

June 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home