Cheney: The 'myths' of war

Bring on the angry left. It's so refreshing to have someone like Cheney in office, who, like him or not, says what he means and means what he says.

“Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington,’’ the vice president said last night.

That's for sure and Cheney is the master twister.

"The terrorists do not expect to be able to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have, and they're not likely to try."

But we will keep our military in Iraq anyway for reasons no one knows. This idea that "victory" is possible if we "stay the course" is insane. In four years we haven't even secured one city much less the country.

Cheny and Bush are much bigger threats to the United States than anyone in the Middle East.

Cheney's determinism--Saddam has nukes, the war will be a cakewalk, anyone who disagrees is just wrong--is what led to the Iraq mess in the first place.

The man's a pathological liar and, most likely, mentally unstable, either from his multiple health issues or the drugs he takes for those issues.

If Bush cared about the country at all, he'd put that madman away.

Cheney lies while soldiers die.

“Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington,’’ the vice president said last night.

Twisted truth isn't new either.

The terrorists weren't there.

The WMDs weren't there.

The blood of 3200 Americans is there.

The oil is there.

I like when Cheney lies too.

Interesting article on Dick Cheney "In His Twilight", in this Time Magazine article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1597516,00.html

How about the myth that you can support the troops, while committing them to an unnecessary war, without proper equipment, following the wrong strategies, cutting short the training they need to deal with the conditions of that war, and then when they get wounded send them to hospitals for sub-standard care in unacceptable physical conditions?

How about that myth, Mr. Vice-President?

If Iraq is the central front in the war on terror it is only because Cheney and company's war has made it so.
His ideas are so wacky, if he was not vice president, no mainstream newspaper would pay him any attention or even remotely consider printing his ideas.

Jeff, if the "says what he means" and "means what he says" criteria does not require that it be truthful, then Cheney indeed is an extremely admirable man. However, if truth is indeed precious and sacrosanct to you, as it is to me and the roughly 70+% of America, then Cheney is a shameful, insidious 'evil-doer' who should be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors for his deceit that led us in this devastating, illegal and immoral quagmire called Iraq and the treasonous acts his underlings committed in quashing dissent for it, even at the expense of the national security of our country (Treasongate / Plamegate).

There is no denying that Cheney is the unchallenged master of the myths surrounding the war in Iraq:

Myth 1: He was one of the original champions of the myth that Iraq was somehow involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack. Despite the president's statement that there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement, some Americans still believe that myth to this day.

Myth 2: Cheney has also been a vocal champion of the myth that Republicans support the troops. This myth is belied by the politically driven war plan that committed inadequate resources at the start, the incredible lack of planning for the occupation, the under-funded run down VA facilities for our wounded, the never ending redeployment, and the shortages of body armor and equipment that still plague our troops to this day.

Coming from a despicable coward,who has less credibility than Daffy Duck in N.Korea,who really gives a **** what he thinks?

Cheney is a coward.

Never speaks in front of the 75% that disagree with. Can't handle detractors so he surrounds himself by the minions who love his lies. Deferred from vietnam, what, 5-6 times? Support the troops - oh yeah, lets send them to Walter Reed, lets make them get their own body armor.

Did you ever notice that the opposite is always the truth of what Cheney says. Good riddance!!!

What about the US invasion of Iraq in 1998? Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the prior administration for invading the soverign country of Iraq?

Do we need to bring up the quotes from the democrats from 1998-2002 regarding Saddam's WMD program? That is a reason we are in Iraq.

Go read UN resolution 1441. That is another reason we are in Iraq.

Saddam cash rewards to homicidal bomber terrorists families. That is another reason we are in Iraq.

What is happening right now in Iraq is what he predicted would have happened in 1991 when he counseled the first President Bush NOT to invade Iraq. Well, he was right...it is total chaos and our men and women are over there for no good reason. I wonder how much money it took to change his mind.

Will someone please stuff a sock in that VP before this country goes completely down the toilet.

" Our enemies are still trying to attack us, to kill innocent Americans…"

Just more government fear-mongering. Oh how we've never been so much like Rome just before the fall.

Dick Cheney is a patriot, a hero and man of principle. This world is a better place thanks to Mr. Cheney. His critics are misguided and blind to the truth. Thank you, Mr. Cheney for serving your country in its time of need.

Whatever. Nobody should take Cheney's public statements seriously anymore.

Jeff...The angry left?, Really. Liked your and the rest of the "compassionate rights'" comments on the Edward's sympathy piece. With such loving "Christians" on the RR, who needs terrorist?

I guess it was the Edwards piece that inspired you to fully embrace the "dark side". So it doesn't surprise me, in the least, that you find "Darth Cheney' worthy of idol worship.

I suppose you also were also fond of that other "means what he says, says what he means guy, Reagan's Sec. of Interior, James Watt.

A left-wing cult dedicated to bringing down the type of government I believe in."
--James Watt describing environmentalists

"We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber."
--Secretary of the Interior James Watt

"We have every kind of mix you can have. I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple."
--James Watt, September 21, 1983

"I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."
--James Watt, February 5, 1981

I particularly love the last quote, kind of gives you a glimpse of how the RR views their responsibility to the planet, and their embrace of the "apocalypse". A revealing article about this by Deepak Chopra on your favorite site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-seduction-of-apocalyp_b_18671.html

Darth Cheney,

Yes the (man?) knows something about myths, and he's said some pretty stupid things too:

"I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." –on his five draft deferments, April 5, 1989

"There are a lot of lessons we want to learn out of this process in terms of what works. I think we are in fact on our way to getting on top of the whole Katrina exercise." --Sept. 10, 2005

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." –April 30, 2001

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." --March 16, 2003

"In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

"Oh, yeah. He is. Big time.'' --agreeing with then-candidate George W. Bush, who was overheard at a campaign rally saying, "There's Adam Clymer, major league a**hole from The New York Times," Sept. 4, 2000

"Go f*ck yourself." --to Sen. Patrick Leahy, during an angry exchange on the Senate floor about profiteering by Halliburton, June 25, 2004

So, to Jeff, and the rest of the Darth's admirers, I suggest you do us all a favor and Cheney!

Does Cheney realize that we have been at this in Iraq for four years, I repeat,four years. The "worlds greatest army" has been getting kicked around by irregulars. Our Generals have been afraid to challenge battle plans of the chicken hawks. Our Generals' failure has led us to this point. We have 3200 dead and are headed for 5000 through 2008. Cheney wants no time limit. Does he have a death limit?

Tom o.
It's a well known fact that the shortages of body armor and lack of equipment are on the sholders of the Clinton administration.We all know B.J. cut the military to the bone,by as much as 50% and when B.J.left office the military was in ruins.....That's what Rummy meant when he said, "You fight with the army you have,not with the army you wish you had." That was a direct slap at B.J.... the draft dodger.
I know you lefties still thin B.J. was a great president,but history will show he was a failure at every turn and quite possibly the worst ever.
Paulo

Adolf Hitler is also a person who "said what he meant" and "meant what he said". The cognitive dissonance that pervades so much of what passes for informed discussion in the mainsteam media is alarming. Cheney, Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rove, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, Addison et al are implementing an agenda that endangers much more than mere civil liberties. The cost of this massive global destabilization is being borne by helpless masses of people. The benefits are being reaped by a handful of corporate entities and their managers. History will not be very kind to this period in our nation's life. We the people, having been manipulated and lied to time and again by our leaders, are paying a serious price for this national tragedy...but it is NOTHING compared with the hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed by this "pre-emptive" war!

Can this man even open his mouth without lying?

It's good to hear from the masked leader of the dark underworld, also known as the Republican Party.

Every once in a while Dick Vader feels the need to peek out from his "undisclosed location" to tell us that we're still "winning" in Iraq, whatever "winning" means..

Terry,

Can't you see that you're a blatant apologist? All those reasons you named were NOT the original reasons they sold to a gullible, shocked post-9/11 public .

Also, what 1998 invasion? Revisionist, apologist, blinded by the Majesty and Power of the Office sheep. That's you.

Bill H. and the rest of the Loony Left:
"In four years we have not secured one city much less the country."

About 80 percent of Iraq is secured. But I know facts never get in the way of the Loony Left. For instance, just yesterday while in York, Pa., I saw a bunch of loony anti-war protesters and a few had signs and shirts that said, "What really happened on 9/11?" "U.S. attacks itself on 9/11."

L-O-O-N-Y!!

"An enemy that operates in the shadows, and views the entire world as a battlefield, is not one we can fight with the strategies that we used in other wars..."

Then why was Iraq invaded?

“The second myth is the most transparent -- and that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission.

Your about to get the money, so sit down.

"Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will strengthen America's hand in the fight against the terrorists"

Invading Iraq didn't strenghthen Americas hand
in the fight against terrorism, either. It unleashed a round of Sunni/Shia genocide that was in the making for decades under Husseins Sunni rule. Now the Shias are exacting their revenge on the Sunnis. This is the conflict - not Al-Qaeda type terrorism - our military is policing in Iraq.

“That leads me to the fourth, and the cruelest, myth -- and that is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to our interests in the broader Middle East. The reality is that, if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance in that country"

Yes, without a doubt, the onus is on the U.S to stay to in Iraq.
The misssion is however, not to fight the dastardly Isalmo-terrorists hell bent on killing U.S citizens, as you claim.
The mission is to do the honorable thing and untangle the mess in Iraq that was largely created by elected officials - the presidential administration and Congress, both - of the U.S government.

"...We all know BJ Clinton cut the military to the bone,by as much as 50% and when BJ left office the military was in ruins....."

Posted by Paulo Mar 25,2007 1:45:27 PM

Clinton cut the military 50%?

Do you have any links to back up this claim burger boy?

Our military was never intended to be funded on a daily basis for W.'s "nation building" and blaming Bill Clinton for all of the GOP's disasters isn't going to win them any elections.

The Republican Party is in shambles thanks to W and Cheney,I know this because a thrice married (once to his own cousin) guy who occasionally dresses as a women is leading in the polls for their nomination.
I truly hope that the GOP nominates Rudy,I can't wait to tear apart that "9/11 hero" myth that he's running on.

Paulo,

Don't you ever did tired of being the most cynical and ignorant of Swampers? Guess your vitriol quotient wasn't high enough after you accused Edwards of exploiting his wife's illness. Now you've got to "trot out", for the umpteenth time, your lame Clinton attack.

Listen moron, after the end of the 'cold war' the nation expected a "peace dividend". Did you expect the Defence budget to remain static following the collapse of the Soviet Union? Guess we needed a few more nuclear missiles, B1 bombers, and aircraft carriers to fight Al qaeda Guess we should have dumped a couple of hundred billion more into a "Star Wars" program that didn't work. Are you capable of thought, or of just regurgitating Republican talking points?

Oh, and you mentioned a shortage of armor. Where do you think most of the IED's came from? Yeah, that's right, Bush's boy Rummy didn't have enough troops to secure Saddam's huge stockpiles of conventional weapons and explosives, so he let them fall in the hands of the insurgency. All the 'bad guys' were more than happy to take this little gift and "blow-up" our boys with it. Sorry Paulo, your heroes started this war, they botched this war, they failed to secure the peace, and the responsibility for this fiasco is theirs, and theirs alone.

Myths Dick? Really?

The baldfaced, jaw-dropping mendacity is enough to drive you around the bend:

“Along the way, we've also disproved the fallacy that tax cuts are bad for the budget. The fact is that the economic expansion, driven by tax cuts, has generated higher-than-projected federal revenues…

“But despite the growth in revenues, we still have to hold the line on spending -- and on that score there's still a lot to do…"

The day this crew took over in Washington, the national debt was 5.7 trillion dollars. OK, pretty bad. From the ratification of the Constitution and the inauguration of George Washington to Bill Clinton's last day in office, the US government, on behalf of the American people, spent five and three quarter trillion more than it collected in revenue.

Today, after six years and a few months of these clowns, the government is now 8.8 trillion dollars in debt. That's more than 50% increase in JUST SIX YEARS.

It's hard to exaggerate the irresponsibility, incompetence, and sheer arrogance of these guys. When they leave office we will be less safe, with a broken army, and debt it will be difficult to address at the same time as the boomers will be retiring en masse. As multi-millionaires, Cheney and Bush will retire to comfy lives while the rest of us are left to clean up their mess here and abroad for decades.

Terry,
Are you really this deluded?

"What about the US invasion of Iraq in 1998? Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the prior administration for invading the soverign country of Iraq?"

Simple answer, Iraq invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait, and was a possible threat to the Saudis. Not to mention boy wonder's father had the sense to built a real coalition of nations to kick, Iraq out of Kuwait. Oh and by the way, did we ever occupy Baghdad during that war? No. Not quite the same now is it?

"Do we need to bring up the quotes from the democrats from 1998-2002 regarding Saddam's WMD program? That is a reason we are in Iraq."

Go ahead and bring them up. It still doesn't justify ignoring UNSCOM and really invading Iraq. It is not the reason we are there. We are there because Chimpy had a chip on his shoulder, and the Neo-Cons saw a opening to control a portion of the middle east and it's oil.

"Go read UN resolution 1441. That is another reason we are in Iraq."

Yeah, a resolution drafted by the US and Great Britain. Doesn't really help your case there...I f it would have been drafted by any ohter nation then maybe. But no one else saw a real threat.

"Saddam cash rewards to homicidal bomber terrorists families. That is another reason we are in Iraq."

Soi why don't we go after the Saudis? They fosster the madrasas that created many of the 9-11 bombers. Flawed logic there.

"About 80 percent of Iraq is secured."

OK John DUH, why don't we leave then?

dt, enlighten me, what, exactly, did I say that wasn't respectful on the Edwards thread? This is a typical left approach, repeat a lie until it's recognized as the truth. Anyone who read it knows I expressed nothing but hope and sympathy.

About 80 percent of Iraq is secured. But I know facts never get in the way of the Loony Left. For instance, just yesterday while in York, Pa., I saw a bunch of loony anti-war protesters and a few had signs and shirts that said, "What really happened on 9/11?" "U.S. attacks itself on 9/11."

L-O-O-N-Y!!

Posted by: john D | Mar 25, 2007 3:29:58 PM

So, genius. Does that mean if we invaded, say Nevada, secured the whole state except for the urban areas of Las Vegas and Sparks/Reno, at least 90% of the states land area, it would qualify as a success? I believe those urban areas count for about 90% of Nevada's population.

dt,
I know sometimes history may not be to ones liking,but there is no reason for name calling.
Here's an article from 1993 and this man had vision,unlike the left's hero B.J.Clinton.

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bu189.cfm

Enjoy it dt!

Paulo

Jeff,

I have to leave in a couple of minutes for a dinner party, so I'll make it brief.

After stating your concern for Edwards and his wife in one post, and then following it up on others with slams on Edwards profession and political record, is, in a word, slimy.

I don't care if you were responding to John E., Tony, Paulo or anyone else. If you can't see that that was not the appropriate forum to express negative feelings towards Edwards, then I feel for you.

Riddle me this John E., when Edwards was a high-priced trial attorney, what percentage of pro-bono (free) cases did he take? You know, cases from the downtrodden that he supposedly cares so much about? How about 0%. None. Not a single case did Mr. 32-bedroom house take.

This failure is especially noteworthy given that the North Carolina bar's rules of professional responsibility state that "The provision of free legal services to those unable to pay reasonable fees continues to be an obligation of each lawyer."

Where was John Edwards' concern when he was shirking his responsibility as a lawyer AND an upstanding member of the community?

(Just) hope and sympathy, Jeff? Hardly.

dt, enlighten me, what, exactly, did I say that wasn't respectful on the Edwards thread? This is a typical left approach, repeat a lie until it's recognized as the truth. Anyone who read it knows I expressed nothing but hope and sympathy.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 25, 2007 6:06:51 PM

dt,

Let's give blame where it's due.

The first one to start flushing the Edwards thread down the toilet was your mascot, John E.

To wit:

"If Edwards were a Republican he could now serve his wife with divorce papers and run off with his mistress,and blah, blah, blah..."

Posted by: John E. | Mar 22, 2007 12:23:47 PM

The SECOND POST on the thread, and that slug turns it into the usual witless brawl.

I can always forgive a jerk, but I can't forgive a jerk who is relentlessly, needlessly offensive and has no sense of propriety.

And it's time for you and the others to admit that a creep is a creep, even if says he's on your side.

dt,
John Edwards may be doing harm to his wife's health by dragging her all over the country to campaign,that was my point.I'm accusing him of putting his own interests first.His wife's cancer has spread and her health is more important than a dream that he'll never achieve...let's face it,his polls are at 11.7% and he's going nowhere,so stay home and be there to support your wife and children.
I can tell you're very ignorant dt,so let me point out that campaigning is more than a 9-5 job.
Paulo

South Loopy Scott: We aren't leaving until the country is secured and the Iraqi government can sustain itself. Prematurely leaving does no one good, except for the terrorists and other forces that want to see Iraq fail: the Dumbocrats and their lemming allies.

Paulo,

She's over 21, intelligent and compitent. She isn't being "dragged all over the country" like an infant. It's her decision.

It's so refreshing to have someone like Cheney in office, who, like him or not, says what he means and means what he says.
Posted by: Jeff | Mar 25, 2007 7:11:35 AM

Yes, its so refreshing to hear someone who has so divorced himself from reality that words like truth, justice & honor no longer have any real meaning.

LeoT
I don't know LeoT,you may be right,but he does have that silver tongue and he could be talking her into it,like he does with juries.
If something unfortunate happens to her on the campaign trail,remember,I was the one opining for him to surrender his presidential ambitions and to be with his family at this time.
Paulo

I think if we all take a step back and think about what will be in the best long-term interests of Iraq, the Middle East, and the entire world, it is a continued movement, towards the self-empowermont, politically, economically, and in terms of liberty and freedoms for all peoples of the world (i.e. no two democratic nations that espose the same basic principals of individual liberty, economic freedom, etc. pursue a totolitarian agenda) the progress, slow and difficult as it has been, is still progress towards that ultimate goal. You can justifialbly criticise Bush, Cheney for procedurally how we got there, mismanagement, etc., but realize that ultimately, everyone in the world will be better off. Indeed, progress is being made http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/fighting_back_in_anbar
which ultimately will take hold even more as we move forward.

This is coming from a Clinton voter that realizes the party out of power needs to hyper-criticise, but let's identify that for what it is.

Ethan,

The first paragraph from President Clinton's speech to the nation on December 16, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

A bombing of a soverign country is an invasion. Remember Pearl Harbor?

Saddam's WMD program was not a reason for us to invade Iraq in 2003?

Scott in the South Loop,

Are you really this stupid?

We invaded Iraq in 1991 because Iraq invaded Kuwait, not 1998.

The reason no other nation (France, Germany, and Russia) would not draft it or be part of the coalition is because they were in bed with Sadaam in the Oil for Food Scandal.

If Edwards were a Republican he could now serve his wife with divorce papers and run off with his mistress,and blah, blah, blah..."

Posted by: John E. | Mar 22, 2007 12:23:47 PM

Crass, perhaps Leo, but true. Newt did dump his first wife, serving her papers as she recovered from cancer surgery. And he dumped his second wife, too. She has M.S.

Leo T.,

I refer you to my 6:38 post:

I don't care if you were responding to John E., Tony, Paulo or anyone else. If you can't see that that was not the appropriate forum to express negative feelings towards Edwards, then I feel for you.

Posted by: dt | Mar 25, 2007 6:38:08 P.M.

I can tell you're very ignorant dt,so let me point out that campaigning is more than a 9-5 job.
Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | Mar 25, 2007 7:02:07 PM

Like Leo said, that was her (their) choice. It was the same choice that Jerry Sloan's late wife made. If the Edwards family is good with it, if the Sloan family is good with it, what business is it of yours?

dt, what part of what I wrote isn't true? Show me the pro bono case! I keep asking you guys to do that, and you just won't! That post was a response to your mascot (john e.) saying that Edwards cares more about working people than republicans. That is a political statement! When you make an untrue political statement you open yourself up to correction.

Here's the offending statement:

"Paolo,

That $30,000 bill wouldn't be such a big deal if the Republicans cared as much about America as they do about "nation building".

They can't do that because they'd rather spend our money on Tanks and Planes for their war machine.

It's nice to see that a guy whose well off,like Edwards is,cares about helping others in America who are less fortunate.

You won't find a Republican doing that,water boy.
Posted by: John E. | Mar 22, 2007 2:40:48 PM"

You guys can't just drag the conversation into the gutter and then blame the people who correct you for being negative. That might be directly out of the Carville playbook, but it doesn't make it right!

Every thinking person has a right to shine the light of day on the fallacy of that statement! Why shouldn't we?

And don't just cut and paste selections of my words without giving the full context. Before John E. and Paulo went to work I posted this:

"No longer do I (or should anyone) see Mr. Edwards as a politician from the other side, but instead as a husband helping his wife fight for her survival.

My prayers are with the Edwards family for a speedy and complete recovery.
Posted by: Jeff | Mar 22, 2007 2:07:14 PM"

It was my fervent wish that this conversation would be kept out of the gutter but once it was taken there by others the least a responsible poster can do is correct the falsehoods.

Plus, you left out this statement I made TRYING to warn your mascot not to make this a dirty us vs. them conversation. I knew it was useless to try and reason with a zealot but I wanted to at least go on record as having tried.

"John E., do NOT go down that road. I'm trying to remain respectful of the gravity of this situation, but for you to suggest that Edwards "cares" more about his fellow man because he's running a Robin Hood campaign is the height of hubris."

dt, it's patently disrespectful to the truth to allow a lie to be propagated, particularly a blatant lie like John E. was trying to spread, to go unchallenged. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, If you guys are so concerned about keeping the conversation clean and above the board, why, oh why, won't you help to rein in your mascot?

Political sloganeering is all well and good (and that's really as high a level of thinking as his posts achieve), but I think we can agree that the place to do it was not that thread.

Actually, our troops in Iraq HAVE secured a country from terrorist violence. That country is the U.S.

The U.S.

dt,
I know sometimes history may not be to ones liking,but there is no reason for name calling.
Here's an article from 1993 and this man had vision,unlike the left's hero B.J.Clinton.

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bu189.cfm

Enjoy it dt!

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | Mar 25, 2007 6:29:27 PM

Paulo complaining about someone resorting to name calling is like...Cheney complaining about "myths of war". Ha ha. Another thing, this may be news to you Paulo, but Clinton was a centrist. Frankly, I would have preferred it if he had leaned a bit further to the left.

Clinton is much more the 'boogieman' to the right than he is an icon of the left. I disagreed with several of Clinton's policies, but on balance, I think he was maybe oh, ten thousand times more capable, and more competent than the current resident of the 'big house'.

By the way, thanks for than swell article from the Heritage Foundation. Aren't those the same neo-nuts that thought invading Iraq would be such a grand idea, that the whole Middle East would fall in line and clamour for an American style democracy? Yeah, I thought so. Try again Paulo.

For goodness sake Paulo! I know Bush is a little slow but many years does he have to be in office before any of this is his responsibility? A year? Two years? Three years? After six years this is all Clinton's fault? Who could possibly believe stuff like that?

"Crass, perhaps Leo, but true. Newt did dump his first wife, etc."
Posted by: Catherine | Mar 25, 2007 9:43:23 PM

We all know that, Catherine, but there is a time and a place for everything. The Edwards cancer thread was an inappropriate forum for just more unimaginative, sleazy ranting.

dt and Catherine,

It does no good for one of yours to drag what should be a resectful thread into the gutter, and then you blame the person who takes him to task for it.

I repeat, its time for you and the others to admit that a creep is a creep, and put aside this mindless loyalty for "your side". When one of you confronts John E, then you will have earned some respect and the right to moralize about bad behavior. Till then, your sanctimony rings hollow.

And yes, Jeff, like any mere human is less than perfect. But if he were the rudest person here, then The Swamp would be so much more pleasant than it is.

Paulo,

Your post from 25 Mar 07,

Is quite crazy, obviously you've never served a day in the military, which I'm currently serving today. Clinton did not cut the military, the cuts were from previous rounds of budget cuts on the military (VSI/SSB) from the prior administation (does Graham/Rudman and BRAC ring a bell). What we did get from Clinton (us military people) were some of the highest pay raises, vastly great compared to the ones being doled out today.

It's a well known fact that the shortages of body armor and lack of equipment are on the sholders of the Clinton administration.We all know B.J. cut the military to the bone,by as much as 50% and when B.J.left office the military was in ruins.....That's what Rummy meant when he said, "You fight with the army you have,not with the army you wish you had." That was a direct slap at B.J.... the draft dodger.
I know you lefties still thin B.J. was a great president,but history will show he was a failure at every turn and quite possibly the worst ever.
Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | Mar 25, 2007 1:45:27 PM

dt, also ANY forum where someone is trying to spread politically-motivated lies is the right forum to correct the lies. You can't open the Pandora's box by saying how much more John Edwards cares about the downtrodden than Republicans and then cry "If you can't see that that was not the appropriate forum to express negative feelings towards Edwards, then I feel for you."

I feel for you and how you've let your political mission override common decency.

Jeff,

What part of my argument didn't you understand? I said a sympathy piece on Edward's wife was not the proper forum to address your feelings about Edwards, even in response to someone else.

It wasn't about 'our' side vs. 'their' side, that was the whole point. What makes you think that you need to mediate John E. and Paulo's comments?

You say, "John E., do not go down that road, I'm trying to remain respectful of the gravity of this situation".....

So why didn't you, and just leave it at that? Is it so important to you to get in the last word that you had to fuel the dialog towards more Edwards bashing? If you were at a funeral and someone called you a dirty, lying, neonut would you wrestle him to the floor and 'set the record straight', or would to be respectful enough of the situation to ignore it?

As for your objections to the cut and paste, I'm sorry if you felt I misrepresented you, that was not my intent. You asked for the offending portion of your statement, and I obliged. If I was trying to take things out of context, I would not have said "after stating your concerns for Edwards and his wife in one post", in my preceding comments.

Finally you complain that I don't "reign in my mascot", and therefore you have an open licence to attack. Buls@#t. You said, firing the first shot across the bow on this thread, "now bring on the angry left", which prompted my statements about the Edwards thread. Now tell me who's angry?:

I found the Edwards press conference to be offensive and an insult to America's intelligence.

For him to use his wife's cancer for political gain is disgusting. I wish her a speedy recovery and the family all the best. However, the politics of their press conference sickened me.

His wife's 3 biggest concerns after hearing about her cancer were: the kids, her husband, and the country! Give me a frigging break! Politics don't get any lower than that press conference.

Posted by: Paul Lee | Mar 22, 2007 1:41:57 PM

The next time you have a child (normal child birth) and get a bill for $30,000,thank John Edwards and his band of liberal lawyers.
Stay home and take care of your wife and children and quit being such a bottom feeder.

Paulo

Jeff-

Interesting on how you take off on John E, but Paulo and Paul Lee's comments attacking the Edwards get a pass from you.

Can't we leave politics out of this, for this thread at least?

Posted by: Tony | Mar 22, 2007 3:10:02

I feel badly for Mrs. Edwards. But to use this as an excuse to basically promote his campaign is the most shameless stunt a politician can pull. Wow have I lost respect for this guy...and I'm a Democrat. For those that don't see this for what it is, I pity you.

Posted by: Phil | Mar 22, 2007 3:21:42 PM

If Edwards simply wanted to squash the rumors that he was suspending his campaign, he could have sent out a simple press release.

He didn't do that because he wanted to gain more public sympathy by trotting his sick wife out in front of the country. It also gave him the opportunity to have his cancer stricken wife do a 3 minute political commercial on his behalf for free.

Stop being so naive. That press conference was so politically motivated that I'm surprised he didn't blame global warming or the war in Iraq for her cancer.

Posted by: Paul Lee | Mar 22, 2007 3:24:11 PM

To Bill R,
What kind of "human being" uses his wife's illness to benefit his own political aspirations?

If John Edwards is a "human being," I am happy to be excluded from the group.

I also noticed that they managed to bring up their dead child during the press conference. Bravo!

Posted by: Paul Lee | Mar 22, 2007 4:04:40 PM

If Edwards were a Republican he could now serve his wife with divorce papers and run off with his mistress,and once he's caught and exposed for being a lying hypocrite he can confess to James Dobson and have his sins "washed" away by the Republican water carriers in the Evangelical Army...............atta boy Newt!

I like Edwards and I think he's going to be in the mix before this is all over.

Posted by: John E. | Mar 22, 2007 12:23:47 PM

Seems to me you've got some pretty angry folks over there on the right, Jeff. If your going to hold me accountable for everyone who post from the ideological left on The Swamp, why not hold yourself to the same standard? And, at the risk of offending you, I'm going to cut and paste a relevant portion of your comment on the Edward's thread (rather than reproduce the whole freaking thing):

As for me not going after my philosophical brethren for their comments, you have absolutely no leg to stand on, Tony. Days ago you were saying it wasn't your responsibility to renounce the comments of "John" who was passing along campaign smears from the Hillary camp about John McCain. Paolo's not my responsibility like "John" isn't yours.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 22, 2007 4:11:54 PM

So which is it Jeff? Is it our collective responsibility to "reign in" our "brethren" on The Swamp, or isn't it? And more importantly, because someone doesn't recognize the proper etiquette on a sympathy piece, does that mean it's open season for the usual mudslinging? Apparently so, in your book.

Cheney and his sayings are only one example in a long and sordid litany of outright lies that have been told to the American people and to the world's people by this Administration.
Beginning particularly with the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, a global shift in world power configurations began with the ascendancy of an Islamic regime that was willing to reject American hegemony in the Middle East. The 444-day standoff saw 66 Americans held inside the American embassy in Tehran by revolutionary students under the new regime. In the aftermath, the American right discredited President Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan was installed as the new US President, and a systematic and methodical dismantling of FDR’s social safety net of programs to ameliorate some of “free enterprise’s” more glaring inequities was initiated. Ronald Reagan set his union-busting sights on the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), the majority of whose members he fired in the summer of 1981. It was to spell the death knell of collective bargaining as a legitimate device for working people to ensure themselves some modicum of control over their own economic destiny.

Over the course of the ensuing 25 years, America has seen corporations close thousands of manufacturing facilities and relocate them in underdeveloped nations, where there were no troublesome regulatory constraints and labor was plentiful and dirt-cheap. The US citizens who used to work in those facilities saw their livelihoods disappear before their very eyes. McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, Target and a host of minimum-wage employers moved adroitly to fill the vacuum, further marginalizing American workers and creating a huge permanent underclass of “working poor”, people who labor 40-plus hours per week and still find themselves barely able to survive economically. All this was done in the name of “free enterprise” and “globalization”. Basically, these code words connote massive shifts of wealth to the upper stratum of the elite, always at the expense of the mass of the population. Always these ploys are couched in terms of promoting “free trade”.

By June 1990 the East German Government had officially dismantled the Berlin Wall and a year later, on Christmas Day of 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned from power and the USSR officially dissolved. These events were to have a significant impact upon the American population, but not the one they expected. The projected windfall that, by right, ought to have accrued to the citizenry of the USA never materialized. Americans felt that, finally, the financial and material resources that had for 75 years been diverted to “fighting communism” would now be applied towards improving living conditions for millions of American citizens. They were about to be bitterly disappointed.

The reality of "politics" in the USA today, a quarter century later, is that there has been a massive rightward shift in public discourse that significantly predates 9-11-01. It started with Clinton's attacks on welfare "cheaters" and has continued unabated ever since. Clinton immediately abandoned most of his progressive agenda as soon as his "handlers" convinced him he needed to move to the right in order to win re-election in 1996. The vicious and unrelenting Republican hatred for Clinton notwithstanding, the two "sides" were not then and are not now substantively different in their views on how to "govern" the nation.

Basically a new external enemy has been created, cultivated and proliferated...a much-needed distraction to supplant the COMMUNISM that so effectively served wealthy elites for 75 years until the demise of the USSR. After all, nothing would anger the wealthy more than having to direct such massive budget surpluses as existed before 9/11 towards the health and welfare of the American general public. War always enables those in power to usurp democratic freedoms and aggrandize executive power. A cursory review of presidential behavior during every American war will point this out. One of many examples from the George W. Bush Administration is highlighted below:

On August 17, 2006 a Federal judge ruled that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. The judge, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, ruled that the National Security Agency’s program violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Exacerbating these usurpations of power by the executive branch of government is the unfortunate demise of a truly independent free press. In a modern first world democracy, the function of the vaunted Fourth Estate (the press) is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. American history is replete with examples of genuine muckraker reporting that exerted a restraining influence upon otherwise unbridled corporate greed and abuse. The population was at least minimally protected by the media’s willingness to expose particularly heinous abuses of power and public trust. Not so any longer. Especially since 1979 and the Iran hostage episode, the media has assumed a particularly obsequious and subservient role in the political arena.

If there is any question about media bias, one need only ask oneself this: “Is there any difference between (A) the manner in which the media treated Bill Clinton over a sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and (B) the manner in which the media treats George W Bush over his lies to the nation about weapons of mass destruction in order to drag the country into a war with Iraq?” One offense did no harm to the nation. The other offense has caused ongoing, possibly irreversible damage to the USA as well as Iraq. Yet the Republicans appointed Kenneth Starr as special prosecutor and spent over $40 million to investigate and try to impeach Bill Clinton. No such outrage is being directed at George W. Bush and his Administration even though thousands of civilians have died since Bush’s decision to take the path to war with Iraq based on lies. Let the reader be the judge. Is the media really “Liberal”?

Attacks on "liberal media" are a convenient ploy by the elite who run the nation. After all, one need only consider that the "media" are owned by, and completely serve the interests of, very large corporate structures, which are, in turn, owned and controlled by very wealthy elites within American society. Nevertheless, labeling the "media" as "Liberal" creates a sham debate among the general populace...a debate in name only, never in substance. In fact, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" no longer have any substantive meaning in American political discourse.

Just as both major parties marched in tragic lockstep towards the horrendous misuse of American power in Southeast Asia from 1957 to 1975, so now also have they done vis a vis the Middle East. Then the external enemy was Marxism. Now the external enemy is Terrorism. The current "ISM" is a far more effective tool for focusing the attention of the masses. The “threat” is ongoing, ubiquitous and ever changing. An example is this story headlined on CBS News:

Bush: America Safer, But Not Yet Safe
US will be fighting terrorists for years to come - Bush
First of all, this "ISM" is not confined to any one readily identifiable nation state. This enables the elite to project its military power with impunity wherever it sees fit.
Secondly, this “ISM” lends itself to constant change in definition, depending on the current needs of the elite. Thirdly, it can just as easily be applied against internal as external "undesirables". An impervious assault upon long cherished Constitutional rights and liberties is being aggressively pursued. Unwarranted wiretaps, the questionable election results from 2000 and 2004 (the first of these having predated 9-11-01 argues in favor of elite scorn for democratic practices BEFORE terrorists gave them a convenient bogey man), and “rendered” prisoners are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Michigan men released from jail; terrorism charges dropped
Columbus Dispatch

US Drops Terrorist Charges Linked to Cell Phone Purchase
Voice of America

Fourth, new "terrorists" are easy to "create", based on the definition fed to the populace. There are many more parallels between the two “ISM”s that have dominated public discourse since 1917. I will not bore the reader with further detailed enumeration. Suffice to point out that, once again, the elite has effectively found a “cause celebre” to distract the masses and allocate society’s wealth and nature’s resources in such a way as to massively benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Historically this is not new. What IS new is the degree to which the powerful can get away with outright lies to justify what they want to do. Witness the article by David Corn included below:

Better Saddam Than Dead
David Corn
August 16, 2006
David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). Read his blog at www.davidcorn.com.

Better dead than Red. During the Cold War, that was the rallying cry of the diehard anti-communists, many of whom never had to face the choice. During those years, hundreds of millions of people—in the Soviet Union, in China and elsewhere—did not adhere to such an extreme slogan. They may not have fancied living in lands without freedoms, but they believed it was preferable to reside under repression than to die trying to topple tyranny.

There have always been brave souls—the rebels of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the members of Solidarity in Poland, the dissidents of the Soviet Union, the champions of Tiananmen Square—willing to sacrifice their own existence to achieve freedom for their fellow citizens. But let's face it; most of us would rather be red—or any other color—than dead. And that's hardly an irrational choice, for even in a dictatorship, one is often free to enjoy family and friends and some of the mundane pleasures of life.
Which brings us to Iraq. The chaos and mayhem there has reached (or surpassed) a point when it may not be unsound to say that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein. Think of it this way: in the years since George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. The most recent statistics are staggering. In May and June, according to the United Nations, six thousand Iraqis were slain. Recently, the health ministry noted that 1,850 Baghdad residents were killed in July alone and 3,438 civilians were killed throughout the country. That is, in a three-month period, about 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in the troubles the invasion—and the poorly planned occupation—gave birth to. Yet despite these harrowing numbers, President Bush, according to The New York Times, is befuddled by the lack of public support among Iraqis for the American mission in their country.

As we all are aware, pre-invasion Iraq was a nasty place in terms of human rights and political freedoms. But in the years prior to the invasion, there was not this level of slaughter. Amnesty International's 2002 report (PDF here) notes that “scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience and armed forces officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were executed.” Scores of suspected government opponents were arrested, and their fates and whereabouts were unknown.

Scores of people killed—that's what now happens on a daily, rather than annual, basis. Of course, there were brutal and horrific acts of mass murder during Saddam Hussein's reign. The Anfal campaign of the late 1980s—which included chemical weapons attacks on Kurdish villages—led to the deaths of tens of thousands and the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands. Saddam's repression of the Shiite rebellion of 1991—which came at the end of the first Persian Gulf war after President George H.W. Bush called on Iraqis to overthrow the dictator and then did nothing to support the uprising—resulted in about 30,000 Shiite deaths. Since the invasion, the discovery of mass graves has reminded the world of these atrocities.

But the United States took no action at the time of these nightmares to stop the killings. And in the years since the Gulf War, a weakened Saddam had not repeated such genocidal acts. That is hardly praise. But let's be blunt: Far many more Iraqis have died due to the war Bush started than were killed by Saddam in the years prior to the invasion. The total number of civilian Iraqi deaths may well be more than 100,000. (The equivalent loss for the United States would be more than 1 million people.) This is much more than the recent death counts in Lebanon and Israel—which spark justifiable outrage on each side.

I imagine that hardheaded advocates of the war will say that such is the price of liberty, that eggs must be broken. Yet here's the rub: The Iraqi people did not decide that such a cost was worth bearing. They had it imposed upon them. In the examples of anti-communist rebellions cited above, freedom fighters in those countries were willing to take the risk and put their own lives at stake. They could determine if they wished to be dead rather than red. In Iraq, there was no such indigenous calculation. People in another country decided they knew what was best for Iraqis. And they then botched the job.

The Saddam regime is gone; that's true. But given what has taken its place, it would not be an irrational choice for many Iraqis to prefer the Iraq of 2002 rather than the Iraq of 2006. Think about it. Most Iraqis before the invasion—like most citizens in most repressive states—managed to get by. They may not have had freedoms, but they had their friends and relatives. They still fell in love, had sex, had families, played with their kids, followed sports. The lucky ones—like the lucky ones in all countries—had meaningful work. Now millions of Iraqis have lost a loved one. And in return, they have a country that is unstable and on the brink of collapse, and their daily lives are marked by crime and deep uncertainty involving life and death. It's a different sort of terror than what George W. Bush speaks of.

Is it better to be free in an environment of violent chaos than safe in circumstances without freedom? I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know the answer. I might well choose a life without political freedoms rather than lose my wife or children. Live free or die, they say in New Hampshire. But how many people really believe that? In any event, that choice should be left to those who are actually willing to die to make the point. The 100,000 or so dead Iraqis cannot tell us what they would prefer.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and the other supporters of this war are responsible for the consequences of their actions—or they ought to be. One result is that tens of thousands of Iraqis are now dead who would not have been had the invasion not happened. Given that Bush hails the preciousness of each life when the subject is embryonic stem-cell research, I wonder why the Iraq war is not judged—and acknowledged—an abysmal failure by its creators. Do they not believe Iraqi lives are as valuable as frozen embryos?

Before the war, Bush and his aides said the primary rationale for the war was neutralizing a direct WMD threat to the United States. That turned out to be bogus. They also claimed that bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq would have a positive effect on the entire Middle East. Strike that, too. Additionally, they claimed the war would save the Iraqi people. Instead, it has created a hell for many Iraqis. The carnage that has come about due to Bush's invasion is unforgivable. In defending the war, Bush often points to the fact that a brutal dictator has been removed from power. But so profound is Bush's failure in Iraq that there is increasing merit to the argument that this single positive achievement was not worth the cost.

Let's ask all the dead Iraqis what they think.
-End-
The total lack of American leadership accountability is extremely blatant and obvious. The weakened condition of democracy within the USA has been an ongoing process. One might easily argue that this process is a direct outcome of elite rule. After all, power hates accountability or restraint, and privilege disdains oversight. Democratic principles are inconvenient to those who wield enormous power and privilege. Witness the concerted propaganda campaign that was unleashed upon the American citizenry to justify military attack and invasion of Iraq. Witness the massive discrepancy between what the Bush Administration said about the likely duration of that “war” and the bleak reality of what the world sees now in the Middle East. Of course, both American political parties fully supported Bush’s march into the current military insanity. No entity seems willing or capable of holding the Administration accountable for its actions.

In the meantime, the powerful in the USA have contributed mightily to massively destabilizing the Middle East and, therefore, the entire world. Such destabilization, of course, plays directly into their hands and serves their interests. After all, if enough people can be significantly terrorized and frightened, they will grant any and all power to the “authorities” that hold out a promise to “protect” them. How convenient that these “authorities” have not been able to find, capture or kill Osama Bin Laden or his lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri. How convenient that, only when Bush suffered a huge decline in his “approval” ratings, suddenly the “authorities” were able to find and kill Abu Musab al Zarqawi. The list of outrageous crimes committed by the powerful in America, in the name of a powerless citizenry, has earned scorn, ridicule and hatred worldwide.

On August 11, 2006, headlines regarding the terrorist plot to explode several airplanes uncovered by the British government have been accompanied by additional headlines that read:

Democrats assail GOP fundraising effort
Jordan Falls News

Terror Plot Could Have Impact on US Elections
Voice of America

Politically, a chance to score points
Boston Globe
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer. WASHINGTON - Democrats assailed the Republicans Friday for e-mailing a fundraising appeal mentioning the war on terror hours after British authorities disclosed they had disrupted a plot to blow up aircraft headed to the United States. "In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a letter that asked for donations to the Republican National Committee. "Once the RNC learned of this error we ceased distribution of the e-mail," said Tracey Schmitt, a party spokeswoman.
END
The point here is not to deny that groups exist in the world at large, groups that are willing to resort to dastardly, heinous acts to inflict harm on innocent citizens to achieve their goals. Terrorism exists, to be sure. One must bear in mind, however, that one group’s terrorists are another group’s freedom fighters. The ability to define the terms dictates how these different groups are perceived. When the first world nations perpetrate a bloodbath against less powerful states, the perpetrators invariably couch such actions in terms of promoting “freedom” and “liberation”. When the much less powerful states respond with suicide bombings or other equally pathetic attempts at redressing the massive grievances they have, these people are labeled “terrorists”. When the USA bombs and slaughters millions with impunity, this is “liberation”, whether in Vietnam or Iraq. When 2 planes kill 3000 American citizens, this is “terrorism”.

This is only one small example of how the elite create the world they want and then use what they have created to further their interests, always at the expense of the masses. The one thing that they cannot do is control events globally. Once having unleashed the insanity of global military conflict, the powers in Washington now are at a loss to rein in what they have started in motion. Witness the total unpredictability of events in Iraq, followed by more of the same between Israel and Lebanon. The world may now be witnessing the opening battles of what might very well become WWIII. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, George W Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and all the other people who have played a significant role in these developments will be held to account only by a distant history written by minds that have perspective. Meantime, we all have to live with the results these people have given us. Whether the human species can survive what has been set in motion remains to be seen.

dt, correcting a falsehood is NOT mudslinging. Or "the usual" mudslinging or anything of the sort. It is standing up for the truth in the face of repeated falsehoods. What don't you get about that? I've asked three times now, so pony up, where is the pro bono case that John Edwards took? Show it to me. Show me that what I wrote was untrue and I'll gladly apologize. But you can't. It's 100% true and you know it, that's why you try these misdirection plays instead of arguing substance.

I've already said my piece about Paulo, as for Paul Lee and Phil, aren't you assuming that they come from the right? How do you know? I've never seen them post here before. If it was Paulo I'd be all over reining him in, but as for them, who knows? I think we all know what your mascot stands for.

Leo T aka Juanito, if I cared what you thought I wouldn't post at all, beanie boy.

Jeff, I rightly pointed out the difference between how Edwards handled his wifes illness and how Next mishandled his wifes illness.
It speaks volumes about the hypocrisy that is the Republican party in 2007.

By NO MEANS was it necessary for you to start going off on how you think Edwards is a bad attorney.

"correcting a falsehood is NOT mudslinging. Or "the usual" mudslinging or anything of the sort. It is standing up for the truth in the face of repeated falsehoods. "

Is that really what you believe Jeff?

Funny, when I corrected YOUR falshood that McCain won the Congressional Medal of Honor, that sure wasn't your attitude then.

Let's see what you had to say then...

"Excuse me, it wasn't the congressional medal of honor. The silver star, or the bronze star or the distinguished flying cross, apparently, aren't good enough for you so I won't counter that he was awarded them. But he was.

The problem with Kerry is that he came back and immediately went to congress and talked about "heads being chopped off" and other supposed atrocities he saw committed by troops. Things that never happened. McCain didn't do that. McCain was probably receiving two to three beatings a day while Kerry was complaining to Congress about our soldiers. But as you dems like to say, "John Kerry's not running in this election (thank God for you)."

You're all pathetic, attempting to smear a POW, and an honored and decorated veteran because you're afraid of both him and Rudy Giuliani.

Good luck with your next anti-Hillary youtube ad.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 19, 2007 4:12:01 PM

Huh, I ONLY point out your untruth and suddenly I'm part of an attempt to smear a POW.

Where was you dedication to the truth then Jeff?

This is unreal. You didn't just say Newt, you said "any republican," John E., despite the fact that a day later Tony Snow would announce he was having a surgery and last I checked he hasn't served anyone with divorce papers. Undistributed middle, John E.

It speaks volumes about Newt. It doesn't speak volumes about anyone else in the Republican party. It would be like saying Gary Condit is representative of all Democrats when it comes to having affairs.

"By NO MEANS was it necessary for you to start going off on how you think Edwards is a bad attorney."

Yes, it was, you said he cared more than any Republican about the poor. That's not true. If it was, he would've fulfilled his commitment to take pro bono cases. And I never said he was a bad attorney. I actually think he's a very good attorney. What I said was that he didn't fulfill his commitment as a member of the North Carolina bar association. That's a fact.

I said NEWT, crybaby Jeff and you know it.

You blew this out of proportion when you strated going off about how Edwards is a bad attorney.

Whether he took pro-bono cases or not had NOTHING to do with the post.

I think you've been skipping to many Young Republican meetings.

Wow, John E...

It's typical of you not to read other people's posts, and then make a fool of yourself "commenting" about them...

but you're don't even know what YOU'VE written, YOURSELF!

This is unreal. You didn't just say Newt, you said "any republican," John E.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 26, 2007 12:42:37 PM

I said NEWT, crybaby Jeff and you know it.

Posted by: John E. | Mar 26, 2007 12:58:08 PM

How about this: Instead of wasting bandwidth seeing who can scream the loudest, why don't one of you two spend a couple of minutes and search for what was said, verbatim. This is the Internet, afterall. It's still there.

Here's the statement in its entirelty. Still looking for any mention of Newt (or Next) Gingrich in it.

"Paolo,

That $30,000 bill wouldn't be such a big deal if the Republicans cared as much about America as they do about "nation building".

They can't do that because they'd rather spend our money on Tanks and Planes for their war machine.

It's nice to see that a guy whose well off,like Edwards is,cares about helping others in America who are less fortunate.

You won't find a Republican doing that,water boy.
Posted by: John E. | Mar 22, 2007 2:40:48 PM"

Seems to me like whether he took pro bono cases has everything to do with this.

Juanito T Leo, obviously I'm not to worried about what you think, waterboy.

KKKarl Rove tactics aren't going to work for you this time Jeffy.

I don't like you,could you bring that Bill guy back?

Tony, I can only admit I was wrong so many times on the McCain thing. I've said I should've said Silver Star, Bronze Star of Distinguished Flying Cross many times. It doesn't change my point, though.

Hmmm, Leo T seems to be critical of both parties and philosphical beliefs, so John E. I would say you are off-base in trying to make into your idea of a right-wing nut.

And military man, I'm not surev if you are real or not, but under the Clintoon administration the military was cut, the number in the military did fall. Yes, some of it was a continuation of the cutting back following the end of the Cold War, but Clintoon cut it back even more.

While I have not served in the military, I know many who have and still do. Their stories of life in the military under Clintoon are all negative.

Not my point Jeff.

When I corrected you, you accused me of being part of a smear on McCain. Above you said that correcting the factual record isn't mudslinging.

So which is it Jeff? Or is it dependant on the political views of the politician in question?

dt, correcting a falsehood is NOT mudslinging. Or "the usual" mudslinging or anything of the sort. It is standing up for the truth in the face of repeated falsehoods. What don't you get about that? I've asked three times now, so pony up, where is the pro bono case that John Edwards took? Show it to me. Show me that what I wrote was untrue and I'll gladly apologize. But you can't. It's 100% true and you know it, that's why you try these misdirection plays instead of arguing substance.

I've already said my piece about Paulo, as for Paul Lee and Phil, aren't you assuming that they come from the right? How do you know? I've never seen them post here before. If it was Paulo I'd be all over reining him in, but as for them, who knows? I think we all know what your mascot stands for.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 26, 2007 12:22:39 PM

First of all, dense boy, let me repeat: A sympathy piece about John Edwards and his wife, dealing with her stage 4 breast cancer is NOT the appropriate forum to discuss whether or not you believe John Edwards cares about the poor, Period. That was my point, can I make it any clearer?

Then you accuse me of misdirection and call me out on whether your statements about Edwards were true. Did my original post ever bring up the veracity of your statement about Edward's "caring" or John E. or Paulo's statements , for that matter?, No.

But since you brought it up, and since you seem to be basing your theory (of Edward's caring) on an article from the Washington Times, here's my thoughts on it.

First of all, you make your claim based on ONE criteria as it was framed in an article that could be perceived as misleading, and I site the following comments to support my case:

Pro bono: being fair to Edwards
A Washington Times editorial asserts that John Edwards during his career as a plaintiff's lawyer "took no pro bono cases", which if true might expose him to obloquy and also could put him into conflict with the ABA's Model Rule on the subject ("The science of malpractice", Jul. 25; see KipEsquire, Jul. 25). Tucker Carlson voiced the same charge on CNN "Crossfire" Jan. 12 (transcript).
But is the charge accurate? In a quick search on "John Edwards" + "pro bono", the most prominent article to turn up is Adam Liptak's Jul. 14 New York Times piece, "Edwards's Lawyerly Style Drew Fierce Foes and Fans", which phrases things rather differently: "Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact." (emphasis added). The difference is potentially significant, since an attorney might devote considerable effort to pro bono work without handling any court cases that his colleagues might recognize as notable (say, because they sought to shape the course of the law).

No doubt we'll be hearing more about the nature and scope of Edwards' pro bono efforts as the campaign proceeds. In the mean time, those of us who are skeptical of his candidacy should be careful not to let our criticisms run ahead of the available evidence.

Posted by Walter Olson on July 27, 2004 12:51 AM

So based on some Washington Times article addressing "pro bono" work, Edwards, in your opinion, doesn't care at all about poor Americans. And you know this how?, because he didn't do any "Notable" cases dealing with pro bono work.

So let's, for the sake of argument, say he didn't do any "pro bono" work, notable, or otherwise. You seem to be saying that this is, proof positive, that Edwards is insincere when he says, he cares about that "other" America.

And yet, Edwards supports raising the minimum wage to at least $7.50 an hour. Edwards supports legislation to strengthen labor laws. He supports legislation to fight abusive "payday lending",and other predatory lending practices. He supports programs to overhaul HUD so more families can afford housing. He supports legislation to expand access to preschool programs such as Head Start. He supports legislation to reduce the cost of student loans.

To me, this doesn't sound like a man who doesn't care about that "other" America. What legislation does Bush favor to help the disadvantaged? A "No Child Left Behind" program that he doesn't fund. A "student voucher" program that favors the wealthy and impoverishes public schools?

You make it sound like you're the foremost and final authority on whether Edwards cares about the disadvantaged in America. What's your next argument going to be, that if he really cared about America, he would sell his big house and live in a log cabin?

The whole, "tell me if what I said isn't true" argument is, once again, besides the point. There's a time and place, my friend, and the Edwards Campaigning with Cancer isn't it.

Tony, it's not dependent on views. I never said you were wrong to do it. It's always right to correct a falsehood.

My criticism of you then and now (this is going back 8 or 9 posts now) was that you stood by silently while another poster ("John") tried to say that McCain broke under interrogation. You were wrong to do it then and you're wrong to do it now. You've seen me go after Paulo, so you can't say I don't practice what I preach.

p.s. Is distinguished flying cross good enough, then? Can we just agree on distinguished flying cross?

Oh, and one last time DT, I happen to agree with you. A thread about Edwards' wife and the announcement of her cancer is NOT the place to make a political statement like John Edwards cares more about the poor than any Republican. You guys broke the faith, not us. Once that floodgate was open it was all over and both of us know that.

What I said, incidentally, that John Edwards has never taken a pro bono case as required by the North Carolina bar association, is not an attack at all. It is not positive or negative, it is simply the truth. Edwards has said several times in interviews that he wishes he had. He's said that free legal counsel is a part of eliminating the two Americas he always talks about. Maybe it's the truth you have a problem with.

There's a time and a place alright, dt, and you and John E. took the thread into the gutter with statements like "John Edwards cares more about the poor than any Republican."

Do you seriously expect to get away with that anywhere? You cannot just make political statements on a thread that's not supposed to be about politics and then blame the other side for correcting you! How many times do I have to say it?

I don't care if you don't feel it was appropriate or not, any thinking person knows that the original offending statement wasn't appropriate! So, yes, campaigning with cancer was the place to say it. Blame John E. for ruining the thread. Not me.

Whether or not any voter believes John Edwards' "Two Americas" campaign rhetoric is up to them and not you or me. What is important is that they know the facts, and John Edwards ignoring his obligation as an attorney is an important part of that record. Actions speak louder than words.

You can say it's beside the point until you're in the blue in the face. It won't change the fact that you're wrong. It's not beside the point, it IS the point.

As a corollary to your dumb argument, dt, nobody from the right went over to the Tony Snow thread and used it to say that Snow cares more about the poor than any Democrat. Do you see, now, how your mascot John E., ruined the goodwill of that thread?

"...You've seen me go after Paulo..."
Posted by Jeff Mar 26, 2007 4:23:04 PM

Excuse me while I pick up my jaw......ok,I'm back

I've also seen you laugh at other posters smear jobs of Democrats....Billy/Jeff.
In your mind you are the final authority on here and since the GOP has been blinding people with disinformation the last 6 years I can see how you would think that way.

I'm not the final authority on anything that goes on here, I'd just like to think that I wouldn't support bold-faced lies simply because they attack a Democrat or support "my side." You, however, John E., have gone on record supporting them and doing the smearing yourself. Oops, you did it again.

No Jeff, you directly accused me of being part of a smear, when my ONLY statement was to correct your error. I posted your response above.

By the way, I've never seen you go after Paulo. I did in fact see you support Paulo's statements in the Edwards thread.

"As for Paolo's comment, it's entirely true that the reason medical costs have skyrocketed are the similarly rising costs of malpractice insurance, an environment Edwards helped create as a trial attorney. It might be a little insensitive that he chose this post to comment on it, but it's still true so I'm not going to go after him for it. "

This after Paulo called Edwards a "bottom feeder" as his reaction to Elizabeth's cancer.

And, finally, it makes absolutely no difference what medals McCain received, they should provide him no shield from the legitimate criticism of his political positions, which I have leveled.

P.S. I'm not going to let a two-bit Young Republican like you run me off, Jeffy.

You were the one who said "politics is a contact sport".

Buck up,girlfriend.

Jeff, the John E. quote that bothers you so much came as a response to Paulo's "bottom feeder" post. You know the post you sid there was no need to go after?

So who poisoned the thread again?

How about we all sit back and say the thread got nasty from both sides, and the both sides said things that had no place in the thread in question?

So, wait, when did I say McCain's medals are a shield? Putting words in mouthes now, Tony? You might as well just say you agree with John and Hillary because your silence is noteworthy. Look further in that thread and you'll see me incur the wrath of Paulo.

No one's questioning your statement, Tony, it's your silence about something you should find despicable that's noteworthy.

When did I say "politics is a contact sport?" Whose girlfriend am I supposed to be? So, John E. hates both Latinos and gay people. Got it.

How about we all sit back and say the thread got nasty from both sides, and the both sides said things that had no place in the thread in question?

Posted by: Tony | Mar 26, 2007 5:12:32 PM

Fine. I can agree to that. I never really questioned that in the first place.

There's a time and a place alright, dt, and you and John E. took the thread into the gutter with statements like "John Edwards cares more about the poor than any Republican."

Jeff, and I took it into the the gutter how? Are you incapable of addressing me and my actions, or my specific response to your actions?

Once again, I hearken back to my hypothetical argument. If you and I are in the front row of say, Molly Ivins funeral, and I said 'Jeff, you heartless jerk, you probably wished her dead'. Your response would be to immediately punch me in the mouth and cause a ruckus, because, after all, I had "opened the floodgates" with an inappropriate comment at an inappropriate time.

In the same circumstances, had you slighted me, I would have stayed quiet, out of respect for the family, and waited to get outside to punch you in the mouth. Does that explanation do it for ya Jeff? If not, too bad. I'm not blue in the face, I'm just sick of wasting my time on you and your sorry attempt to justify your actions on Edwards.

You started out good, then lost your way. Admit it, and quit trying to scapegoat someone else. I'm surprised you haven't dragged Clinton into this yet.

"So, wait, when did I say McCain's medals are a shield?"

"Anyway, John, thanks for making it obvious that you're willing to be a part of a smear campaign against a man who has won, amongst other honors, the congressional medal of honor."

"You, on the other hand, are a part of a pathetic smear campaign against one of this nation's most decorated veterans."

That's when Jeff. You are clearly invoking McCains medals (Real and Imaginary) to protect him from criticism.

As to John E. statements...

As I've said before, I have not supported John E.'s statements in any way. You however have supported Paulo calling Edwards a "bottom feeder" in the cancer thread. See the difference?

Tony, I wasn't supporting Paulo! This is ridiculous. I called his comments inappropriate. I did not invoke his medals to protect him from criticism. Trust me, McCain doesn't need protection from you. I was making a comment about your silence in the face of what I think you knew was a lie.

dt, there's so much wrong with your statement I scarcely know where to begin. No one got punched in the face. Last I checked, this was a blog, not a funeral. Decide all the arguments you want with physical violence. I'll decide mine with logic and reason.

I'm not justifying anything. My actions don't require justification by you or anyone else.

p.s. Tony, reread what you just cut and pasted and notice that it's addressed to "John" and not you.

Oh,that's right Jeff,I forgot,you never have made any "unfair" attacks on here nor have you ever piled on when others have i.e. Paulo.

Give me a break,you crybaby.
If you can't handle it leave and go to a kids web site on politics,I'm sure you would dominate there.

Jeff-

Why do other people need to justify their actions or inactions if you do not? You have repeatedly asked me to justify my suposed silence on John E's comments.

And be honest here Jeff, why did you mention the medals? Why mention them when attacking someone eleses criticism if not to make the criticism seem illegitmate?

Jeff, a lot of words have past here, and you have been quite forcefull in your denunciations of others, I really think maybe you need to take a bit of time to calm down and look at your own actions before you cast quite so many stones.

And military man, I'm not surev if you are real or not, but under the Clintoon administration the military was cut, the number in the military did fall. Yes, some of it was a continuation of the cutting back following the end of the Cold War, but Clintoon cut it back even more.

While I have not served in the military, I know many who have and still do. Their stories of life in the military under Clintoon are all negative.

Posted by: John D | Mar 26, 2007 3:27:04 PM

John,

Yes I'm true and still in the military, having survived over 20 years. I can't speak for all branches, but in my branch, during the Clinton years we actually saw an increase in personnel strenght because we were losing many high tech jobs to outside industry. So re-enlistment bonuses increase and total number were allowed to increase. The years under him weren't as nearly as bad as the years we're now experiencing. Why do you think the standards have drop to increase recruitment. Everyone is entitled to their view, but those years were not that bad and still again most of the personnel cuts were made prior to his arrival. He cut personnel, but the deepest cuts were right after the first Gulf War, 1991 and 1992 and finishing off in 1993.

Jeff, you're a moron and don't know the slightest thing about critical thinking. I used a hypothetical to illustrate my case. I thought it might make it simpler for your little mind to comprehend. Apparently not, "mister logic and reason". Here, let me try, one more time, to make the connection for you.

Situation: Somber occasion, Edward's wife's recurrence of cancer. (In the hypothetical, it was another somber occasion, a funeral).

Situation: Insensitive statement about republicans not caring. ("Jeff, you probably wished her dead", in my hypothetical)

Situation: a smackdown by you of John E. during a discussion of the Edwards tragedy (punch in mouth at the funeral because of "my" insensitive statement). You seem perfectly comfortable using metaphors when making your argument, but belittle mine.

Geez Jeff, did anybody get "poisoned" on the Edwards thread? Did anybody "drown" when the "floodgates opened up" on the Edwards thread?
You may think you're clever and the epitome of logic and reason, but your just another political hack and Bush apologist without a clue.

My point, as you well know, in both the actual Edwards thread, and the hypothetical: If someone uses poor judgement , i.e. makes a political statement on a "sympathy thread", a man of your declared "principles" would have found an appropriate time to respond. I responded to your B.S. on the Edwards thread after you sent the first "shot across the bow" with the crack above, "bring on the angry left". Does that metaphor confuse you Bill, Jeff, Jeff Y, or whatever?

John E!!!! you silly little wingnut!!!

You haven't answered my challenge. Please cite an example of when I've "swiftboated" anybody.

And don't resort to calling me "Beanie" or "Burrito", please.

I'm not justifying anything. My actions don't require justification by you or anyone else.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 26, 2007 5:52:39 PM

Jeff, you posed the question below, I obliged:

Question:
dt, enlighten me, what, exactly, did I say that wasn't respectful on the Edwards thread? This is a typical left approach, repeat a lie until it's recognized as the truth. Anyone who read it knows I expressed nothing but hope and sympathy.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 25, 2007 6:06:51 PM

Answer:
John E., do NOT go down that road. I'm trying to remain respectful of the gravity of this situation, but for you to suggest that Edwards "cares" more about his fellow man because he's running a Robin Hood campaign is the height of hubris.

Riddle me this John E., when Edwards was a high-priced trial attorney, what percentage of pro-bono (free) cases did he take? You know, cases from the downtrodden that he supposedly cares so much about? How about 0%. None. Not a single case did Mr. 32-bedroom house take.

This failure is especially noteworthy given that the North Carolina bar's rules of professional responsibility state that "The provision of free legal services to those unable to pay reasonable fees continues to be an obligation of each lawyer."

Where was John Edwards' concern when he was shirking his responsibility as a lawyer AND an upstanding member of the community?

I still hope Elizabeth Edwards has a quick and full recovery and my prayers are with the Edwards' and EVERY family that is living with the scourge of cancer, but don't suggest that John Edwards cares more about helping others than anyone who actually fulfilled their professional responsibilities. Or when it didn't help them to run a campaign. His record states otherwise.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 22, 2007 2:58:55 PM

You accused John E. and ME of taking the Edwards thread into the gutter. How did I take it into the gutter Jeff? Show me where I dove into the fray on Edwards? (does that metaphor also confuse you Jeff?)

There's a time and a place alright, dt, and you and John E. took the thread into the gutter with statements like "John Edwards cares more about the poor than any Republican."

Oh, and one last time DT, I happen to agree with you. A thread about Edwards' wife and the announcement of her cancer is NOT the place to make a political statement like John Edwards cares more about the poor than any Republican. You guys broke the faith, not us. Once that floodgate was open it was all over and both of us know that.

"You guys broke the faith", what faith was that Jeff, Mr. logic and reason? Who are "you guys", I speak for myself, don't you? "Not us", you said. Who is "not us"?. Is this a team sport now, is your team Paulo, John D. and Bruce? I thought you acted on your own behalf, Mr. "my actions don't require justification by you or anyone else". And about that assertion of yours, you know, "once the floodgate was open it was all over and both of us know that". No Jeff, I don't know that, that's the point I've been trying to hammer into your thick skull all day. You said, "John E, do not go down that road", then you proceeded to follow him in. I did not say anything disrespectful of Edwards, you did, you just won't admit it.

How about the myth that you can support the troops, while committing them to an unnecessary war, without proper equipment, following the wrong strategies, cutting short the training they need to deal with the conditions of that war, and then when they get wounded send them to hospitals for sub-standard care in unacceptable physical conditions?

How about that myth, Mr. Vice-President?

How about the myth you can support the troops while calling them murdering, raping, torturing war criminals every chance you get?

You claim to support the troops and yet bring up Haditha, Quantanimo Bay, and Abu Graib as if these incidents taint every man and woman in uniform.

Ask the troops what they think of that support.

Stan-

Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and Gitmo all happnenned (or are happening)and have gravely hurt our cause around the world. Heck, even Gates and Rice think we should close Gitmo now.

I've never said that those incidents are reflective of the majority of our troops. I've never called our troops, as a group, murdering raping war criminals. Unfortunately individuals amongst are troops have committed murder, have committed rape and have committed war crimes. Those crimes cannot be dismissed or ignored, nor can the war crimes of those at the top of the chain of command.

Now that we've disposed of your lies and slander (and you never denied any of the ways I listed that Bush has shamefully failed the troops), Stan, have you found the unused 90% of the military yet? When you do ask them how they would like to be supported.

dt,

Your protestation of this not being a team sport doesn't QUITE ring true. You and I know about The Club.

It seems to me that since the mascot and you are both members in good standing, that you bear at least some small measure of responsibility for his (invariably) stupid, disgusting and hateful commentary here.

It seems only right that you should criticize the mascot when he steps over the line. It's dissappointing that you never do. Maybe you pity him, since he's not too bright, and figure you should go light on him? If so, I think you're mistaken there. Like I said earlier -- a creep is a creep.

In any case, I'm grateful that you have at least been decent enough not to leap to his defense in this thread.

No dice, dt, I still stand by every statement. I feel pretty good about it, too. The truth, especially when it's used to refute falsehood, is neither positive or negative. It's just true. You can call it "negative" or use whatever spin you want to attach to it, but you've already lost the war by conceding that Edwards took no significant pro bono cases.

In fact, I'd bet that Edwards would say something along the lines of "free legal service is part and parcel of ending the two Americas" if he were asked about it.

You can call me a moron or do whatever bloviating you want on this blog all day, but it won't change the facts. Watching you pretend to be all high and mighty has given me plenty of amusement over the last day and a half. Thanks for the laugh.

Bill, Jeff, Jeff Y, Cybil,

Is this your version of verbal "rope-a-dope"? Just let people pummel you all day with logic while you hover on the ropes in a stupefied state of bliss?

I see you've learned the republican "bait and switch" well. I called you on your gross inappropriateness, you have no answer but some lame defense based on some supreme "truth". And, like Bush on the Plame Affair, the "truth" keeps changing. With Bush it was "if anyone knew of these leaks". Then it was, "if anyone committed a crime". With you it started as no "pro-bono" work whatever, zip, nada. Then it's no SIGNIFICANT pro-bono work. Just like the master eh?

I tried to keep the argument focused on the appropriateness of occasion, you deliberately fell back on some "high and mighty" principle of truth is truth, truth is neutral (and this from someone who admires the master of lies and deception, Darth Cheney). Next time I see your sister, I'll remember to tell her how ugly she is, I feel guilty, lying to her about the neutral truth, just to spare her feelings.

So Jeff, I'm happy I could entertain you yesterday, I can now say I did some "pro bono" work with the mentally challenged. And I'm happy that you feel so very good about yourself. That may help you as you make those baby steps back to reality. In, the meantime, feel comforted by the fact that John D, Bruce, Paulo and yourself are firmly behind the other 13% of the country that think Darth Cheney is a swell guy.

P.S. Thanks for confessing to us that you're on this blog for your own amusement, rather than honest debate. I always suspected you were either a brain-dead, true-believer, or a troll. Now I'm convinced you're both.

Leo T., Juanito,

Look Juan, if you want back into the "club", just say so. Meanwhile, I really think you're taking this "blog Mom" role too seriously.

"I've never called our troops, as a group, murdering raping war criminals."

Posted by: Tony | Mar 27, 2007 6:17:19 AM

As a group?? What have you called them as a group?

Hey look, it's the real guy that John Edwards pretends to be when he's out campaigning:

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070326_Unsung_fortune__A_rich_mans_secret.html

That's why the lie is particularly offensive. There are real people out there devoting their lives to helping the less fortunate. Listening to a politician like Edwards prosyletize and pretend that he's one of them is downright galling to any thinking person.

As a group Stan?

They are our troops. They are Americans. They represent the US, both our good and our bad. They are Us.

We are all responsible for what they do, mistakes and all. We all have a responsibility not only to praise, but to recongnize shortcomings.

Jeff-

I'm with you. Doesn't it make you crazy when a politician doesn't walk the walk?

Like this one Senator, who, on one of the votes he actually bothered to show up for, voted for a bill which will allow evidence which resulted from physical coercion to be admissable in Military Tribunals. Even worse, the guy was a victim of torture himself when he was younger. Talk about galling! I think his name is McCain. You should really look into that one!

dt,

Juanito T. Leo is obsessed with me.

Crying Jeff,

I'm not done with you.

You and your windup toy dog Juanito T Leo were the ones who were gleefully smearing Dale Peters.

Whether on not he is what he says,it shows that you two are nothing more than crybaby hypocrites.

Smear,smear,smear....and then cry foul to the moderator if things get turned around on you.

That's why I don't concern myself with you or your puppies little hurt feelings.

That's why the lie is particularly offensive. There are real people out there devoting their lives to helping the less fortunate. Listening to a politician like Edwards prosyletize and pretend that he's one of them is downright galling to any thinking person.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 27, 2007 10:26:18 AM

Yeah, they're out there Jeff, just none of them are in this administration. But I agree with you on those politicians that talk the talk, but....

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

P.S. Everything John E. said about Newt on the Edwards thread is true. So by your reasoning, since truth is neutral and knows no bounds... oh forget it, I'm done with you.

Ooh, he's not done with me! We've established that Dale Peters is a sock puppeteer. And I didn't do it. DailyKos did. Puppies? Notice how John E.'s posts concentrate on the juvenile. I guess mommy let someone back on the computer for a few hours.

Dt, you're hilarious. I never changed anything. John Edwards did no pro bono work. He's done no pro bono work in his record and if he has done any why wouldn't he make it public?

It's fun watching you blather so I'll just sit back and wait for the latest screed. You simply can't argue facts because they're not on your side. Period. I just roped a dope.

Here's the link to professor Stephen Bainbridge, of the UCLA School of Law. He knows a little more about the law than you, doesn't he, dt? So sorry to burst your bubble.

p.s. dt, I don't have a sister. Ha!
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2006/12/john_edwards_an.html

Aww, he's done with me! Shucks, I was having such a good time with him.

Last I checked, no one around here was saying Newt was a great person or defending him. I know, that won't stop you guys from bringing it up ad nauseum. Just means I'll have to dust off the macro I made to automatically paste things about Gary Condit and Ted Kennedy. Wonderful little blog we've got here, eh?

John E!!!! you silly little wingnut!!!

You STILL haven't answered my challenge. Please cite just one example of when I've "swiftboated" anybody.

Crying Jeff,

At least you admit that you're nothing more than a partisan hypocrite...that's a start.

dt,

Little Jeffy takes partisan swipes at Dems and cries to the moderator when someone does it to his beloved NeoCon Republicans...typical Yuppie Young Republican.
He's probably drooling on his monogrammed sweater right about now.

It's fun watching you blather so I'll just sit back and wait for the latest screed. You simply can't argue facts because they're not on your side. Period. I just roped a dope.

Jeff, so glad "the facts are on your side", kinda like your boy Cheney, whom you so admire:

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003

"In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." –Nov. 7, 2003

He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." –Nov. 7, 2003

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." --March 16, 2003

"There are a lot of lessons we want to learn out of this process in terms of what works. I think we are in fact on our way to getting on top of the whole Katrina exercise." --Sept. 10, 2005

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." –April 30, 2001

Hope you're sitting back and enjoying your ignorant bliss Bill, Jeff, Jeff Y (which ever persona I'm addressing today). I think it's nice of the folks at the asylum to let you use the computer, too. I gotta go now Jeff. As much as I enjoy beating you down, I feel guilt at taking advantage of the insane.

Oh, and Jeff,

Since you can't free your brain of Republican talking point 3,001, I've linked a thread that explains how ludicrous your "pro-bono" argument is. Hurry-up and read it now, it's time no let one of the other inmates at the asylum have a go;

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/12/in_defence_of_j.html

Is mommy letting you use John E.'s computer now, dt? Let the hate flow, man. Let it flow. You're not doing anything but embarassing yourself.

p.s. I thought you were done with me?

"We are all responsible for what they do, mistakes and all. We all have a responsibility not only to praise, but to recongnize shortcomings."

Posted by: Tony | Mar 27, 2007 11:06:04 AM

Shortcomings, you call that support? You pathetic creep.

People that break the law are responsible for their own actions. I’m not responsible for the illegal action of a military member any more than I’m responsible for the guy that robs a convenience store down the street.

When you talk about the military, you can talk about the 99.9 percent who carry out their duties with honor or you can continually bring up the .1 percent who have committed crimes and have been/will be prosecuted. You choose to ignore the 99.9 percent.

You choose to support the troops by focusing on the crimes of a few. Good move, great support!

Stan,

Call as many names as you like. Ignoring crimes does not make them go away. Those crimes have had enormous negative impact on the rest of the effort in Iraq.

And yes we are all responsible for what happens in Iraq Stan. WE snet them their. WE pay for every bullet they shoot. They represent US, wevry last one of them.

That's what supporting the troops really is Stan. Taking responsibility for what they do in our name. Not the silly magnet on the back of your car, not mindless uncritical praise.

Jeff,

I don't hate anyone, least of all you. And no, Jeff, Mommy isn't in the picture any more, died last month of breast cancer that had metastasized into her spine, (not working the sympathy angle there Jeff, just a fact).

If she were around though, she'd have no part of the digital age. She preferred the old Royal typewriter.

Also Jeff, I don't mind embarrassing myself, especially if it makes life more bearable for you in the asylum. And I have no aversion to admitting a mistake. In fact, I'll admit one right now. I made a mistake thinking I could have a rational discussion with you. Now, I am through with you, besides Nurse Ratchet is pissed at you for not taking your meds.

Nurse Ratched: If pro-boner Jeff doesn't want to take his medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don't think that he would like it.

“Call as many names as you like. Ignoring crimes does not make them go away. Those crimes have had enormous negative impact on the rest of the effort in Iraq.”

You choose to ignore everything else and highlight only the crimes. Insinuating bad soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines represent all US military personnel has an enormous negative impact on the morale of those that serve honorably.

“.... They represent US, wevry last one of them.”

Wrong, the people that committed those crimes don’t represent me or this country any more than Rep William Jefferson represents you or any other Democrat. You’re a fool to think they do. If they represented what America truly stood for, they wouldn’t be punished. Again, you chose to say .1 percent of the military represents the US. You’re wrong. Do you hate and blame all Arabs for the acts of a small minority of Muslims?

“That's what supporting the troops really is Stan. Taking responsibility for what they do in our name. Not the silly magnet on the back of your car, not mindless uncritical praise.”

You’re an idiot. The people that violated the laws outlined in the UCMJ didn’t commit those crimes in my name or your name. They weren't sent there to commit those crimes.

It’s not mindless, uncritical praise not to paint all troops as criminals.

Stan-

Our Government, representing you and I, chose to send our young men and women into the most stressful and awful of all situations - WAR. It is absolutely inevitable that in any war, some atrocities will occur from the soldiers of any country, including the US, even without the training deficits that we have allowed to happen. That is an absolute truth, and any country that chooses war, knows that going in.

You may be willing to write off those young men and women completely Stan. However my view of supporting the troops includes having compassion for those who make horrible choices in horrible, stressful conditions. We knew these things would happen, yet we chose war. For us to say we're not responsible for that inevitable outcome is rank hypocrisy.

And yes, the .1 percent represent the US, as do the 99.9%. Recognizing that the .1% exist, does not mean that I hate the 99.9%. When have I ever "painted all troops as criminals" Stan? I fully recognize that the far majority of our troops are good, decent well meaning people. I also recognize that there have been shameful acts committed. I further recognize that some of those shameful acts were committed by folks who are otherwise good, decent well meaning people who made very bad decisions under very bad circumctances that we committed them too. There but for the grace of God go I.

We must take ownership not only for the positive results of our decisions, but for the negative as well. Where our decision for war has caused harm to the Iraqi people, we must take as much responsibility for that as where we have done good. We must try to make the wrong things right, and we cannot do that by ignoring the wrongs in a flag waving spasm.

Rep. Jefferson, does represent Democrats negatively. Just as Rep. Delay represented Republicans negatively. We are all represented by both our good and our bad.

"You may be willing to write off those young men and women completely Stan. However my view of supporting the troops includes having compassion for those who make horrible choices in horrible, stressful conditions."

It is never excusable to make criminal choices that break the laws of the UCMJ. That's not compassion, that's ignorance.

Punishing those who break the law isn't writing anyone off. It maintains the high standards of Duty, Honor and Integrity that is expected of the ENTIRE military.

"It is absolutely inevitable that in any war, some atrocities will occur from the soldiers of any country, including the US..."

You expect US military members to commit murder, and rape and want to excuse that behavior? That shows how little you think of the US military. Somehow they are too stupid to know the difference from right and wrong. Somehow they don't understand the UCMJ. Holding people accountable for their actions isn't 'ignoring wrongs.'

"some of those shameful acts were committed by folks who are otherwise good, decent well meaning people who made very bad decisions under very bad circumctances that we committed them too."

Good and decent people don't rape and murder other people. War isn't an excuse, never has been. More ignorance.

"There but for the grace of God go I."

Give me a break. You're saying it could happen to anybody. It doesn't happen to EVERYBODY, hence the 99.9 percent of US military personnel that carry out their duties honorably.

Flag waving spasm. Good one. Is that supposed to be an insult? Waving the flag, supporting the troops, having a 'silly' magnet on my car. Is that now politically incorrect according to you?

Stan, I never said those that commit crimes shouldn't be punished. I fully agree thay should, including those at the highest command authority. But, are we to lock those people away and never mention the incidents again?
Yes they should be punished, but we MUST acknowledge that we also bear some responsibility in creating the situation to begin with. Is your faith in the military so week that it cannot stand a full and frank discussion of it's actions?

Stan, are you actually saying that you believe that atrocities are never committed by US troops? Are you actually saying that it shouldn't be considered as likely when making the decision to go to war?

Harsh wake up call for you Stanley, ALL armies commit atrocities in ALL wars. War Is Hell, and you cannot refine it. To acknowledge that reality is not to excuse it. You are correct there is no excuse for atrocities, just as there in no excuse for not recogonizing that atrocities are part of the inherent and unavoidable nature of war itself whne making the decision to go to war.

Stan, are you deluded enough to think there is no chance you could do something horrible if confronted with the unimaginable stress of combat? Look deep in your heart Stan before you cast the first stone.

Stan, your flag waving and magnet sticking are shallow gestures if you are unwilling to look at the deeper issues. They are meaningless if they are your only reaction, if they are your shield from reality.

We as a nation chose war and with war, all of it's attendant evils. We all bear that responsibility, not just the common soldiers.

“Stan, I never said those that commit crimes shouldn't be punished. I fully agree thay should, including those at the highest command authority.”

The military will mention the incidents and bring those that committed the crimes to justice. All in the open for everyone to see. That doesn’t mean you continually harp on only the negative things are military has done. As far as ‘the highest command authority’, what does that mean? Everyone up the chain-of-command gets fired or locked up because someone commits a crime? Brilliant. So, according to you, when that female astronaut flipped out (US Navy Captain), everyone above her should have been held accountable? Head military person at NASA, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs, Secretary of Defense?

“… Is your faith in the military so week that it cannot stand a full and frank discussion of it's actions?”

My faith in the military is exactly the OPPOSITE. I believe the military is than strong enough to shine a harsh light on those who break the rules and laws of armed conflict and show it will not tolerate such action. By doing so, it shows the core values every military member must possess. The military is strong enough to be constantly run down by people like you.

“…Are you actually saying that it shouldn't be considered as likely when making the decision to go to war?”

Are you retarded, when has that ever been a consideration for going to war? When atrocities have been committed, those responsible were punished and additional training/guidance if needed has always been provided. There has never been a discussion of disbanding the military, not using or trusting the military to defend the US, or not fighting when necessary because of the danger people in the military will go berserk and start murdering innocent civilians.

“… just as there in no excuse for not recogonizing that atrocities are part of the inherent and unavoidable nature of war itself whne making the decision to go to war.”

So you think the Generals and civilian leadership sit around and decide what the acceptable levels of ‘inevitable’ atrocities are going to be okay before deciding to go to war? You are a fool.

“Stan, are you deluded enough to think there is no chance you could do something horrible if confronted with the unimaginable stress of combat? Look deep in your heart Stan before you cast the first stone.”

There is no chance I would kill or condone the killing of innocents. Didn’t do it in Desert Storm, wouldn’t do it now. Again you fail to acknowledge the 99.9 percent of people that can handle the stress without becoming war criminals. Do they have some kind of super-human ability to distinguish from right and wrong?

“Stan, your flag waving and magnet sticking are shallow gestures if you are unwilling to look at the deeper issues. They are meaningless if they are your only reaction, if they are your shield from reality.”

They are gestures that truly mean something to me whether you believe it or not. I don’t seek or need your approval to fly a flag. Those gestures ARE reality to me, not meaningless. The flag I fly is the one I took into Iraq during Desert Storm. I flew it when President Bush (41) and President Clinton were my Commanders-in-Chief, and I fly it now.

Stan-
Have you ever heard of the concept of command responsiblity? How about the Yamashita Standard?

Commanders have certain responsibilities for crimes committed by their subordinates. If they order the crime, know about a crimes about to be committed by their subordinates, or fail to prosecute a crime committted by their subordinates or to intervene in on going crimes by their subordinates.

"There is no chance I would kill or condone the killing of innocents. Didn’t do it in Desert Storm, wouldn’t do it now."

Interesting the way you phrased that. "The killing of innnocents." What was your role in the war Stan? Did you ever take part in any indirect fire? Aerial Bombing? Do you know where every round you fired ended up? Are you really sure that you never killed an innocent Stan? Before you go ballistic, I'm not accusing of any sort of a crime. But to say you never killed an innocent, that seems to be an impossible statement for any combat veteran to make. And guess what Stan, if you did kill an innocent unintentionally, that is not soley your fault. It's our collective fault, including mine, for committing to war as a nation.

"So you think the Generals and civilian leadership sit around and decide what the acceptable levels of ‘inevitable’ atrocities are going to be okay before deciding to go to war? You are a fool."

No Stanley. A fool is some one who believes that if we commit to a war that there will be no atrocities. A fool is one who believes they are not in any way responsible for the completely forseable outcomes of their decisions.

But what does any of this have to do with the point I originally made Stan? You know the fact that the Bush Administration has shamefully failed to support the troops in their material and training need in this war, the fact that returning wounded have been treated in substandard conditions? Doesn't that bother you at all? Or is your version of support all about lip service and never about action?

Do you have evidence any commanders ordered a crime, knew about crimes about to be committed by their subordinates, or failed to prosecute a crime committed by their subordinates?

General Yamashita] was charged with permitting his troops to commit' the extensive and widespread atrocities. (25,000 men, women, and children all unarmed noncombatant civilians, were brutally mistreated and killed.)

Are you saying US military personnel did something like this? Those are pretty inflammatory charges Tony.

"There is no chance I would kill or condone the killing of innocents. Didn’t do it in Desert Storm, wouldn’t do it now."

This is where your argument falls apart and we see the kind of person you are.

There is a difference in unintentional collateral damage and murder. You are a scumbag to say they are the same and insinuate there is no difference in US military personnel carrying out lawful (under international law, like the Geneva Convention) military operations and someone who commits murder.

Using your sick logic, all military members are war criminals. You are truly despicable.

You are the last person on earth that should lecture someone on the difference between support and worthless lip service.

Stan, the Yamshita Standard refers to the legal theory used to prosecute Yamishita after the war. It established that commanders can be charged for the actions of their troops.

"There is no chance I would kill or condone the killing of innocents. Didn’t do it in Desert Storm, wouldn’t do it now."

Stan, once again you miss my point entirely. YOU are the one who used that phrase, not I, YOU are the one to confuse the issue, not I.

"Before you go ballistic, I'm not accusing of any sort of a crime." Learn to read Stan, it helps.

But keep avoiding the facts I raised Stan, it's what you're best at. Using your claim of your superior support of the troops to attack any question of how well the troops are really being supported. You put defense of Bush and his actions above legitimate discussion of the welfare of the troops. Talk about despicable.

I know what the Yamashita standard is, it doesn’t apply here unless you think commanders committed, ordered, or covered up crimes.

"Stan, once again you miss my point entirely. YOU are the one who used that phrase, not I, YOU are the one to confuse the issue, not I."

I used that phrase thinking you would know the difference between collateral damage and MURDER. I was wrong to give you that much credit.

"Before you go ballistic, I'm not accusing of any sort of a crime." Learn to read Stan, it helps.

I read what you wrote, I got the full meaning and I stand by every word I wrote. You and You alone compared lawful military action to murder.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my support of the troops, the war, or the President. This has nothing to do with who is president. It has to do with your inference that US military personnel are war criminals.

It makes America look bad and it makes Bush look bad. That’s good enough for you. My support of the troops isn’t superior to most people’s, it’s superior to yours though.

Stan, you attacked my post that dealt with the way the troops have been treated by this administration by making your unsupported allegations that I've said all troops are war criminals, a lie. That's where all this started, with your blind rage at some one criticisng this administration.

You are willing to say any lie to protect this Administration from criticism. (Speaking of which, where's the 90% of our military we haven't used yet Stanley?) That is the choice you have made. You've chosen to support the Bush administration over the troops.

You don't support the troops at all Stan. That just another of your many shameless lies.

Nice try. You can't dance your way out of this one.

My post had nothing to do with this administration. I was specifically questioning your support based on YOUR prior statements in other posts.

I don't care what you say about Bush, Cheney, Rove, or anyone else in the administration.

You attack others people support or lack of support when you say the most horrible things about our troops.

Anthony, why do you hate our troops so much?

Here are your exact words:

“Stan, are you deluded enough to think there is no chance you could do something **horrible** if confronted with the unimaginable stress of combat? Look deep in your heart Stan before you cast the first stone.”

We were specifically talking about war crimes. Haditha, Abu Garib, rape and murder.

You asked if I could intentionally do something horrible. I said no.

You and you alone then said there is no difference in US military personnel carrying out lawful (under international law, like the Geneva Convention) military operations and someone who commits murder.

That means all US troops are war criminals. Your words.

You can try and say that's not what you meant to say, if so, why did you compare the two?

And I found the other 90%, there here with me now. They think your scum for calling them war criminals

"And I found the other 90%, there here with me now. They think your scum for calling them war criminals"

Oops, should have been 'they're' instead of 'there'.

"You and you alone then said there is no difference in US military personnel carrying out lawful (under international law, like the Geneva Convention) military operations and someone who commits murder. "

No. Never said it. A complete lie. YOU used the term "killing innocents" not "murdering innocents". Don't blame me for you lack of clarity in thinking and writing. YOU made the statement, not me. I just pointed out the stupidity of it, and clearly stated that I WAS NOT accusing you of a crime.

Are you capable of telling the truth Stan?

Stan, I think our troops are probably more concerned about the inadequate training, lack of proper equipment, the decline of preparedness levels, and the terrible conditions our wounded have been treated in, than they are in your lies that I've called them all war criminals. I think they'd be pretty appalled of the way you attack people who raise those issues.

If you are a vet Stan, you're a disgrace to the uniform.

"You and you alone then said there is no difference in US military personnel carrying out lawful (under international law, like the Geneva Convention) military operations and someone who commits murder.”

“No. Never said it. A complete lie. YOU used the term "killing innocents" not "murdering innocents...”

Intentionally killing innocents is murder. It was very clear in the context of what we were discussing INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTIONS. You even brought up the Yamashita Standard, are you now saying that applies to collateral damage caused during lawful combat operations? Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways.

Below are your words after I said I would never kill or condone the killing of innocents. It was crystal clear I wasn’t talking about unintentional collateral damage. We were talking about atrocities (your word). You specifically asked me if I could do something ‘horrible’ because of the stress of combat. So, after discussing horrible atrocities you state:

“Aerial Bombing? Do you know where every round you fired ended up? Are you really sure that you never killed an innocent Stan? ...But to say you never killed an innocent, that seems to be an impossible statement for ANY COMBAT VETERAN (my caps) to make.”

You clearly link two completely different subjects, murder and collateral damage. There was no misunderstanding on my part. Your words are clear.

It’s funny and at the same time sad to watch you try and squirm your way out of what you said and clearly meant. It’s embarrassing to read your lies/excuses about what YOU said.

“Are you capable of telling the truth Stan?”

Yep, read the above paragraphs, all true, every word.

“Stan, I think our troops are probably more concerned about ... I've called them all war criminals. I think they'd be pretty appalled of the way you attack people who raise those issues.”

The troops are concerned about many issues, the lack of support and lies from people like you might not be on the top of their lists, but I bet it’s discouraging to see it in print anyway.

“If you are a vet Stan, you're a disgrace to the uniform.”

I’m a combat vet, and I expect nothing less from you than total disdain for me and all the other vets that you think have committed ‘horrible atrocities’ in the name of America.

Thanks again for your ‘support’.

Stan,

Again : YOU failed to specify the difference. I specifically acknowledged the difference. I said I was NOT accusing you of a crime. And no, know combat veteran CAN confidently make the statement that they never killed an innocent. Innocents do die in war, intentionally and unintentionally. But what did I go on to say then Stan?

"And guess what Stan, if you did kill an innocent unintentionally, that is not soley your fault. It's our collective fault, including mine, for committing to war as a nation."

Note the word "UNINTENTIONALLY". Note that I said it was as much my fault as the person who did the killing. Death is a tragedy Stan. Anyones death. Can't you find it in your heart to find some remorse for the dead, and some compassion for those who do the killing? I do. Every freaking day. I've NEVER made the judgements against our soldiers that you accuse me of. Haditha and Abu ghraib are all of our sins, civilian and military alike, not just the soldiers involved. I've never said anything but that. That's why I believe this war must end, and soon.

But again you avoid the substance of the debate Stan. You couldn't care less about our soldiers and their real needs. You will lob any false allegation you can to cover up the real issues.

I have expressed NOTHING but support for our troops, including the ones who have been pushed beyond their limits. YOU are the one who relies on lies to defend those who shortchange them.

Tonight Stan, there are troops in Iraq, riding around in vehicles without proper armor, who haven't had the training they need, who are desperately praying they don't get wounded and end up in the conditions their buddies ended up in at Walter Reed. Some of those troops, Stan, are already suffering from PTSD. Some may yet do things that they may later regret when their mental health returns. Stan, you have failed all of them. You have attacked those who merely raise the training and equipment issues. You attack those who express some compassion for those poor souls who have so tragically lost their way amongst the unimaginable horrors of the war they face. None of that matters to you does it Stan?

But you have a sticker on the back of your car. Hoorah!

"And no, know combat veteran CAN confidently make the statement that they never killed an innocent."

99.99% of combat vets CAN confidently make the statement that they never MURDERED an innocent.

Again you try to say murder and other crimes are the same as collateral damage.

That's not a lie Tony, you said it and now you're trying to say since you used the word 'UNINTENTIONAL' somehow it's okay.

INTENTONAL murder, and UNINTENTIONAL collateral damage are different. They are different under international law. It's clear to anyone, don't try and blame me because you are to stupid to follow the context of the original discussion.

Your words; Yamashita Standard, horrible atrocities, all show you knew EXACTLY what we were discussing.

Tonight Tony, there are troops in Iraq, riding around in vehicles without proper armor, who haven't had the training they need, who are desperately praying they don't get wounded and end up in the conditions their buddies ended up in at Walter Reed. Some of those troops, Tony, are already suffering from PTSD. Most will never do things that they may later regret when their mental health returns

You attack those, including combat vets, that disagree with your twisted point of view. None of that matters to you does it Tony?

Tony, you have failed us of them. The last thing we need on top of all that is for you to call us war criminals.

"Tony, you have failed us of them. The last thing we need on top of all that is for you to call us war criminals."

Posted by: Stan | Mar 30, 2007 10:18:53 AM

Cut and paste malfunction. Please delete 'of them' from the post above.

"But you have a sticker on the back of your car. Hoorah!"

Posted by: Tony | Mar 29, 2007 9:14:22 PM

You forgot to mention the flag on the front of my house.

Why does that bother you so much, Tony? What is it about the words on my car magnet "Support the Troops" that you find so repulsive?

Why do you hate the flag and the other vets that support the troops, Tony?

"Innocents do die in war, intentionally and unintentionally."

The problem is you see no difference in the intentional (murder) killing and the unintentional (collateral damage).

You chose to link the two. You did it because in your mind any soldier, sailer, airman, or marine is a potential murderer.

Kepp that 'support' coming, Tony.

"I've NEVER made the judgements against our soldiers that you accuse me of. Haditha and Abu ghraib are all of our sins, civilian and military alike, NOT JUST THE SOLDIERS INVOLVED. I've never said anything but that. That's why I believe this war must end, and soon."

So Tony, the war should end soon because of the actions of .1% of the military?

You said those sins are on all the military, but in the statement before that you say you haven't judged the soldiers. WTF ????

You just said ALL soldiers have committed sins (atrocities) and the war must end soon because of those sins.

Tony, why do you hate the troops and think they are all sinful?

Great support. Keep it coming.

Stan, stop lying about what I said. I specifically used the word "Uninitentional" to make the very important distinction that you claim I don't make, and which you yourself DID NOT MAKE.

And again, I HAVE NEVER ATTACKED THE TROOPS. PERIOD.

I have consistantly, throught this thread supported ALL of out troops, including showing compassion for those who have commited crimes while serving in combat. You have not. You are the one making judgements against service members, I am not. You are the one railing against the common soldier as a war criminal, while denying anyone else, in the chain of command or in society in general bears any responsibility. You are the one placing the interests of the commanders above the interest of the troops. You are the one who ignores the very real concerns about equipment and training.

So far the only thing I've found out about you that even begins to sound like you support the troops is that sticker on your car. You are a hypocrite Stan. You are actively not supporting the troops.

I have publicly acknowledged my responsibility to those troops and for what those troops do while carrying out the misssion we as a society, rightly or wrongly have given them. I have publicly acknowledged that the wrongs that have been committed, intentional and unintentional, during the war in Iraq are also my responsibility as an American. I stand shoulder to shoulder with our fighting men and women.

Do you Stan? Do you support them that much? Or does your support only extend to defending the actions of their Commander in Chief and to the bumper of your car?

“Stan, stop lying about what I said. I specifically used the word "Uninitentional" to make the very important distinction that you claim I don't make, and which you yourself DID NOT MAKE.”

These are my exact words, Tony.

There is no chance I would kill or condone the killing of innocents. Didn’t do it in Desert Storm, wouldn’t do it now.

There is no way you can intelligently think I meant there is no distinction between intentional murder and collateral damage. There is no way you could intentionally kill innocents if you didn’t know they were innocents BEFORE you killed them. This clearly isn’t the case in collateral damage. You are the one that linked the two, don’t try and weasel out of what you said. How pathetic.

"And again, I HAVE NEVER ATTACKED THE TROOPS. PERIOD."

Don’t get your panties in a wad. Since when is saying they are all responsible for the actions of a few criminals not attacking them? Since when is saying there is no difference in murder and collateral damage not attacking them? Huh, Tony?

“You are the one railing against the common soldier as a war criminal, while denying anyone else, in the chain of command or in society in general bears any responsibility. You are the one placing the interests of the commanders above the interest of the troops.”

First of all, there are no ‘common’ soldiers. I don’t say, as you do, soldiers aren’t smart enough to know the difference from right and wrong. They don’t need the chain-of-command to constantly tell them not to intentionally kill innocents as you believe. Individual soldiers are responsible for their individual actions. That’s what the law says, and that’s not ‘railing’ against them.

Again you want to make all military members look bad because it supports your non-support of the war. You can’t separate the troops you hold in contempt and a war you believe is illegal. You hate the Commander-in-Chief and that hate trickles down to every military member YOU call a war criminal.

“So far the only thing I've found out about you that even begins to sound like you support the troops is that sticker on your car.”

Then you haven’t been paying attention. You’re too busy slamming the troops.

“I have publicly acknowledged that the wrongs that have been committed, intentional and unintentional, during the war in Iraq…”

Oops, you did it again, you say intentional and unintentional ‘wrongs’ are the same. (Your words, retard) Is that your legal opinion based on international law. You are saying again what you have been saying all along, intentional (murder) and unintentional (collateral damage) are the same to you.

"I stand shoulder to shoulder with our fighting men and women."

Don't make me puke. Every man and woman in uniform would find you as digusting as I do. You aren't man enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with any of them.

"You are a hypocrite Stan. You are actively not supporting the troops."

Wrong again. I run a training simulator. My job is to train the troops. Every day I go to work at Offutt AFB and train students.

What do you besides blog your little heart out and call the troops criminals?

Tony, why do you hate the troops and those that DIRECTLY support them by giving them the training they need?

"Since when is saying they are all responsible for the actions of a few criminals not attacking them?"

I said WE are all responsible, including myself. That's not an attack on them.

"Oops, you did it again, you say intentional and unintentional ‘wrongs’ are the same."

Stan, did you fail reading comprehension in school? If I thought they were the same, I wouldn't list them as different things would I? They are not the same, hence two different words used separated by the word "or". The individual soldier is not morally responsible for the unintentional killing of an innocent, but should we not feel remorse for that dead innocent?

But then this has nothing to do with what I actually say. This has nothing to do with my actual positions. You've twisted those beyong all recognition.

This is all about you Stan. It's about your need to see yourself as a super patriot taking on anyone who challenges the wisdom of Great Leader Bush. It's about your need to project your deep anger and hate on others. You have no compassion, so you cannot recognize that trait in others. You have no mercy, so it enrages you to see it in others. All you have is anger.

We're speaking different languages Stan. We're coming from completely different places.
This conversation has become pointless. I'll leave you with the words of the greatest of Americans, reflecting on war, it's aftermath, and peace.

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Peace. Shalom. Salaam.

“They are not the same, hence two different words used separated by the word "or".

‘Or’ doesn’t change anything. You said atrocities are intentional ‘or’ unintentional. Saying both are atrocities makes them both ‘murder’. That’s one of the definitions of the word ATROCITY, you fool. If they are unintentional, they aren’t atrocities. How stupid are you?

You are an idiot or a moron or both. See how I used the word ‘or’, both words are different but basically mean the same thing when referring to you.

“but should we not feel remorse for that dead innocent?”

Way to change the subject. The discussion is whether they are killed intentionally or unintentionally. Remorse does not mean we don’t hold those who’ve committed crimes accountable. Remorse doesn’t mean we smear those conducting lawful military operations.

“This is all about you Stan. It's about your need to see yourself as a super patriot taking on anyone who challenges the wisdom of Great Leader Bush... All you have is anger.”

Nice try Dr. Laura, I’m not angry with anyone but you. Angry isn’t really it either, it’s more like pity and disgust. I pity you because you are such a tool. I feel some annoyance towards you because our troops deserve more support and respect than you give them.

This has nothing to do with President Bush, except in your mind. You keep bringing up Bush as the Commander-in-Chief as if that some justifies your contempt for all military members up and down the chain-of-command.

“We're speaking different languages Stan. We're coming from completely different places.”

Finally, you said something that makes sense;. Your language is the one of derision towards our troops and anyone that doesn’t agree with you. My language and my actions, every single day, show my support and commitment to the troops I work with and train.

“...with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in...”

What would Abraham Lincoln say about not finishing the work ‘we are in’ right now, and cutting-and-running?

He would be so proud of troop bashing, surrender-turds like you.

And speaking of surrender, I now accept yours.