blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Well, This Should Calm Things Down

12.29.2006

Well, This Should Calm Things Down

Get ready. The fiasco of Iraq is just about to get worse. The trial was laughable (i.e. witnesses hidden behind a screen) and now the death penalty will be imposed after a sham of an appellate process. The Sunnis will not be pleased. The number of U.S. troops killed so far is nearing 3,000. It's unforgivable to have a single one of them in harm's way at this moment.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

He was a nasty, evil dictator. Killing him will solve nothing and probably make things even worse in the Iraqi mess.

Mary Mack said...

I am so with you on this one. I can't help but feel a little bit sorry for the guy who had no chance whatsoever in his so called "trial." He was a nasty, evil dictator, but we ignore the other heinous crimes going on in 3rd world countries.

We're involved in something that we will never have control of, and by not getting out we keep sacrificing the men willing to defend our country.

Anonymous said...

it is unforgiveable to see a bunch of Americans not supporting our troops. Liberals.....maybe you all should be put through what the Iraq citizens have been through.

TXsharon said...

The best way to support our troops is to get them the hell out of Iraq before the whole thing implodes around them.

How about some truth and not getting into unnecessary wars for profit, how about some benefits for when they get home, how about proper equipment...how about REAL support for our troops!

8:56 want to support the troops? How about going over there and taking someone's place. BTW, the Iraqi citizens were a LOT better off before we got there not to mention there were more who were living.

Anonymous said...

Saddam's been hanged.

Now, will Bush again claim "mission accomplished?" How many more American soldiers will die after Saddam in this endless civil war?

Anonymous said...

Love the hindsight. It takes real guts to walk up to a pile of cinders and say "hey pal, I think your house burned down". Next time, try showing up ahead of time and telling that same guy he forgot to turn off his stove.

TXsharon said...

They need calling cards!

A young soldier, in the hospital, with both legs blown off needs to be able to call his/her mom!

Walter Reed Medical Family Assistance Center (MEDFAC)
6900 Georgia Ave., NW
BLDG. 2, Third Floor, Room 3E01.
Washington, DC 20307-5001

Phone: (202) 782-2071 or toll free 1-866-546-1310

AT&T and MCI do not expire.

AT&T cards can be bought at the Post Office, Sams/Wallmart, Eckhard, Best Buy or Office Depot. They Come in $10, $20 and $30 cards that give approximately 100, 200 and 300. minutes.

TXsharon said...

Costco has calling cards. 700 minutes for $20.

Costco calling cards

Anonymous said...

I have family in Iraq, Why don't you try talking to our American Soldiers and see what they think? 90% say the liberal media is not telling the truth and we need to be there. Easy to be a monday morning QB.

Anonymous said...

Move to France Jerkoffs!

Anonymous said...

Give me an L for liberal!
Give me another L for LOSERS.
What's with you ignorant people? This guy so deserves to die. And you impugn their judicial process? Liberal lawyers are such jerks. The man is (thankfully now its was) UNQUESTIONABLY guilty of crimes against humanity.

Mary Mack said...

8:56-
I think everyone who opposes us being in Iraq supports our troops. We don't support the person who sent them there. The men enlisted in the military don't get to pick their destination, and I would bet money Iraq would be the last place any of them would want to go.

TXsharon said...

9:57 anon: I talk to soldiers every single day. Today I received a very long email from a soldier who is in Iraq and his best friend was killed this week. The overwhelming majority of them know the truth and they want out!

Now, go get some phone cards.

TXsharon said...

"Military Times Media Group is the source for military news and information service members have trusted for over 60 years!

Every week, the print edition of our newspapers, Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times, deliver you exclusive, original, in-depth news and analysis about your career, pay and benefits and issues impacting your professional advancement. In addition to this vital career news, each paper is packed with community information and active lifestyle features of interest to military personnel and their families."


Source

* 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war...42 percent said they disapproved
* 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.
* When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.


They are stuck with doing their jobs now we should do ours and get them out of there.

Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, why do some people seem to think that anyone who opposes our involvement in Iraq must be a "Liberal"? Do you name-callers even know the meaning of the word?

Anonymous said...

It is just common sense. Use the bee hive analogy my national security class professor used last semester. Think of insurgents, taliban, etc. as bees in a bee hive. We (the hand) use force against (invade) the hive. (the hive being Iraq, in this instance). Do the bees (insurgents) get mad because we have touched there hive and disturbed the environment inside? Of course. What do the bees (insurgents) do? They get mad (swarm). By swarm they try to attack the hand (Americans/allied forces) and shoot at us (sting us). Once the hive has been damaged what happens? The bees try to rebuild, but they can't it is too late. Chaos ensues, worker bees try to rebuild the hive but as the hand keeps damaging the hive it eventually turns into all out chaos. The hive eventually implodes (crumbles). Bees flood out in a swarm against the hand and against each other in panic. The queen bee (Saddam) tries to hide and keep his hive together. But once the hand finds the queen and kills her, the swarm of bees intensifies in retaliation. In the end, the hand has suffered great damage by being stung numerous times (casualties). After leaving the hive (Iraq) alone; the hive has been crumbled into ruins in areas where the hand hit the worst. The queen bee is dead, but as always another leader finds its way to the hive and tries to rebuild the colony or swarm. If the hand would of stayed and hit the hive, knocked it to the floor-then lit it on fire, then there would of never been a worry for a new swarm in the future. On top of the hand suffering fewer stings.

HHL said...

11:29, thank you.

There was a time in this country's history (about a decade ago, in fact) when the term "conservative" referred to someone who believed in lower taxes, less government spending, less government regulation, and small government in general. The conservative agenda as regards foreign policy was to maintain a strong defense, while generally trying to avoid foreign entanglements.

These were the policies of Reagan and many Republicans before him. Then came Mr. Bush and the "neo-cons". I'm not sure how this flavor of Republicans would attempt to characterize their policies, but they certainly do not include lower taxes, less spending, less regulation, or smaller government. And as we can clearly observe, they definitely do not involve avoidance of foreign entanglements, rather the opposite.

My point is not to argue for or against the war in Iraq, but merely to suggest that calling someone a "Liberal" in this context is illogical and meaningless. As used by the posters above, it simply means "someone who disagrees with me". Which is really idiotic and adds exactly nothing to the discussion.

Anonymous said...

I blame those damn democrats.

Anonymous said...

A republican wet dream. Sell the man WMD in the 80's and hang him in 06. Be sure and hold the execution before he is put on trial for using the WMD we provided to him. By the way, ignore the photo of Rumsfeld shaking his hand 18 months after the gassing.

Anonymous said...

Bush will rerun this over and over to try to salvage what's left of his Presidency.

Anonymous said...

Killed for having non-existant weapons of mass destruction? Judge must have been from Texas. lol

TXsharon said...

hhl, thank you! I've been trying to make that point here for a very long time.

No political party has all the answers but the neo-cons who are currently in charge have none of the answers.

Anonymous said...

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bomb.php

In honor of him. *salutes* LOL

wordkyle said...

hhl: Labels are funny things. I had to look up what a "neo-con" was. Interestingly, Wiki identifies Reagan as a "neo-con." Few people are 100% of any political ideology. A defintion -- including yours -- of their position depends on where you stand.

The lately-fashionable use of the term "neo-con" was addressed by David Horowitz: "Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists."

By the way, Bush did lower tax rates, which "increased" taxes; i.e. revenue from taxes.

Anonymous said...

11:35: If the hand had stayed home and tended to it's own bees there would have been no stings.

just saying...

TXsharon said...

Thanks for the momories

We had him all along...

Anonymous said...

Reagan's fault.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
" On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting."

TXsharon said...

wordkyle: David Horowitz? We're supposed to be impressed by something that wacko says?

Right...

HHL said...

Wordkyle, you may be right. I used the term "neo-con" for the purpose of differentiating the Bush ideology from the Reagan ideology (i.e., neo = new; con = conservative). It was also my understanding that Bush and Rove used this term to describe themselves (also as a way of distancing from previous (failed) Republican presidential campaigns).

But anyway, to the extent that I painted anyone with a broad brush, I guess that only proves my point.

As to Bush's fiscal policies, I understand the idea that lowering tax rates will actually increase tax revenue by encouraging taxable economic activity. This has always made sense to me.

However, a couple of further points on this: (1) I haven't personally seen my own tax rate lowered over the last 6 years, (2) by increasing spending in a greater proportion than the corresponding increase in tax revenue (by whatever means), the current administration is only delaying the time when increased government revenue is needed, (3) regardless of the validity of the point made above, the quickest and most simple way of increasing tax revenue is to increase tax rates, so this is probably how it will be done, and (4) it is my personal view that, regardless of the method used, the government should not seek to increase its revenue, but rather to decrease it, along with a corresponding decrease in spending. I have a minimalistic view of what our government should do and be, and in my opinion Bush's policies are taking it in the exact opposite direction.

wordkyle said...

txsharon: Labels, labels, labels. Y'all are just full of them.

Those who want to apply a label to themselves can take this test. It's a bit dated, but still pretty good.

wordkyle said...

hhl: We agree more than we disagree, and I, as most Conservatives do, find the Republican lack of control on spending indefensible.
And I agree with a decrease in the need for government revenue.

In the short run, tax increases might be the quickest and simplest method of increasing revenue. This does not make it the best.

As the Coolidge tax cuts, the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts and now the Bush tax cuts show, increased economic activity follows tax cuts. With increased economic activity comes increased tax revenue.

We still have the problem of the politicians' view: "Taxes are the way to feed a hungry government." While I don't recommend starving it to death, the government should be put on a restricted diet.

Let's see if those Democrats who criticized Republican spending can do better. I'll support them (on that one issue!) if they do.

TXsharon said...

word kyle: you are the one who presented David Horowitz's view of labels which is only to further label.

Don't pretend! I have been to your site.

hhl: 10-4 on #1,2,3, and especially #4

HHL said...

Wordkyle: yes, that's what I meant: in the short run, it is the easiest. Unfortunately, at least with regard to budgetary issues, politicians (of all stripes) tend to exhibit a strong lean toward easy, short term solutions.

And I think it goes without saying that I take a dim view of the Democrats' willingness to curb government spending. Especially since the Republicans, who have made this their publicly-espoused mantra lo these many years, aren't willing to do it.

Which brings me back to something along the same lines as my original post: it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to differentiate between the policies of the two major parties on the issues I consider most important to our country.

txsharon: watch out, by agreeing with me, you may also be agreeing with Wordkyle! I find it interesting and somewhat promising that people can find these types of commonalities once we move the discussion beyond calling each other Liberal! and Fascist! and so forth.

TXsharon said...

hhl: I do agree with WK in a few instances which is why I find certain comments of his amusing. For the most part, I vehemently disagree with him. I kind of like civil liberties and keeping the government out of my bedroom and all that.

Anonymous said...

TONIGHT (Dec 30) please watch CW33 news at nine...followed by a one hour special on prosecutors who continually probate sentences of sex offenders/molesters. Our Wise County DA will be one of the targets of this report. Voting public needs to know this information!

Anonymous said...

12:20 Do you have anything to do ? Let me guess, your 40 something, still live with mom, and fondle yourself daily. LOSER!

wordkyle said...

txsharon: You described Horowitz as a "wacko." I assumed that you had no evidence to support your claim, since you didn't elaborate on why you thought he was a wacko, and that you therefore thought labeling him a wacko was all you needed. Pretty much the standard attack.

As for me? Anybody to my left politcally is a Lib.

By the way, exactly which civil liberties have you been deprived of by the Bush administration? Or is that simply another randomly repeated cliche?

TXsharon said...

I've read up on Horowitz. Just Google him and check a few links.

I'm not going to waste my time looking up links and citing things for you because I've done that in the past and you didn't read them.

Obviously, there are plenty of other Americans who have, like me, evaluated the information and decided that they don't like what the Bu$h Administration has done to our country and in Iraq. If you are interested, Google is your friend.

Anonymous said...

2:32, YOU must be Jones' sister! (you are quite wrong about me...I'm just a citizen who is sick and tired of seeing sex molesters walking our streets after Jones has turned them loose...once more!)

Anonymous said...

No, txsharon, I would bet that the majority of Americans who agree with you simply go with the idea because "I heard it on TV, so it mush be right."

The Democrats (i.e., liberals) have done a great job at pounding the repubs with propaganda. Like someone close to me said just awhile ago, the liberals are doing the propaganda work for the terrorists! Citing civilian casualties, troop casualties, how we're so horrible for being there in the first place.
OH, and btw, about beinbg a former Iraq ally, if I remember correctly, we also helped Afghanistan defeat the Russians, didn't we? Were we wrong there, as well?
Political climates change. At that time Russia was the biggest enemy we had. Was it wrong to help defeat them? Now Iraq/Afghanistan are our enemies. WHAT GIVES!?
I say (also as that wise scribe mentioned to me shortly ago), The number one priority is to KEEP THEM FROM KILLING US!!! Whatever it takes!!!

*wink* (and no, sharon, that wasn't aimed at you...)

Anonymous said...

Hey - - 2:32! You one of those molesters, are you? Get the hell off this board! You should be in jail, pervert!

Anonymous said...

from Anon 10:15 p.m.:

Here's perhaps another way to look at it. To Americans, the muslims are the new Russians. Think about it:

1. Russia tried to destroy us (Nikita Kruschev vs. Kennedy, 1961). They hated the West and our way of life. Agree?
2. They bully and dominate countries smaller than they are, simply for reasons beneficial to their cause (I know the likes of txsharon and the rest will say the U.S. does this, but this is MY dissertation--lol).. They wanted to spread communism on a global scale and become THE major super power.
3. We helped their enemies any way we could--regardless of political affiliations at the time.

To me, the difference is the modern politically correct mindset in our country. The President is bad, no mastter what he does. Those poor iraqis (I especially find it humorous when the libs DEFEND saddam and FEEL SORRY for him)...

We're the big, bad enemey, but when there's earthquakes, tsunamis, famine, etc., who are the first ones to the rescue? The muslims? I think not...it's the USA...

Me, I'd rather be the biggest kid on the block...

Anonymous said...

TxSheehan, If so many soldiers want out of Iraq, why do they keep re-enlisting? I doubt you talk to a majority of the troops over there.

TXsharon said...

10:37 anon said:

"this is MY dissertation"

Well then, you certainly must be right because ALL dissertations are absolutely correct and right. LOL@U

11:23 anon: Ever heard of stop loss? They are sending the same soldiers for their THIRD tour. Care to sign up and give one of them a spell?

TXsharon said...

10:37 anon:

"Me, I'd rather be the biggest kid on the block..."

That worked great for the Romans.

Good luck with that dissertation. LOL!

greta said...

Let's see... If one chooses to join the military then one must have realized that upon joining that one may have to fight for our country, if deemed neccessary. Right? And a soldier may die or get seriously hurt fighting a war. Right? Well, we are at war. Like it or not. Anyone who joins the military sacrifices his or her life by joining. Surely, you know this.

TXSHARON, I can hear you now, with your attitude, communicating with the soldiers as you say you do. Do you talk bad about our government to a soldier while they are defending our country, like you do here? Do you make them as angry as you are so their mind is not focused. That my dear lady will get them killed or seriously hurt.

TXsharon said...

Word Kyle your answer re: our lost civil liberties is here

greta When someone joins the military, they sign a statement swearing to defend the constitution which does not include an illegal war of choice, for profit, based on lies. It is our duty to make sure the military is not misused. Surely you know this. We are now sending soldiers back for their third tour of duty AFTER they have been honorably discharged. Surely you know this is wrong.

My communications with soldiers is supportive and largely consists of trying to obtain what they need. example Greta, how many phone cards have you sent?

wordkyle said...

txsharon: I just subjected myself to the more than fifteen minutes of video by noted Constitutional scholar Keith Olbermann that you linked to. It's unsurprising to see you using authorities like him.

The only "civil liberty" he discussed was habeas corpus and the Military Commissions Act. This law, passed by Congress denies non-citizen, unlawful enemy combatants access to civil courts. This would keep them from tying up courts, as well as not permitting them and their defense attorneys access to classified information that could be leaked to our enemies.

Rights of American citizens are not abridged. At all. In any way.

It's just the grassy knoll talking to you. And Keith Olbermann is boring, besides.

TXsharon said...

Word Kyle, the same night that Keith Olbermann described how the Bu$h administration had ruined our Bill of Rights, Jonathan Turley who is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively about constitutional law, was interviewed by Keith. He is alarmed at Bu$h's abuse of powers and his rape of our Constitution. He calls it a Constitutional crisis. You can (but I'm sure you won't) watch numerous videos of him trying to warn Americans about the dangers we face HERE. He is not a Liberal. He is a Libertarian.

The suspension of habeas corpus like the wiretapping without a warrant and now the mail opening without a warrant applies to us all. Read up on it.

Anonymous said...

Ding ding.......3,000 American soldiers dead, a Texan at that, and still counting, sir.

Anonymous said...

What is unthinkable is that you would post such cowardly drivel -- are you really that much of an idiot, Barry? Are you really so far removed from reality and world politics as well as the role of the United States? Go smoke a doobie, sing coombayah with your buddies, buy the world a coke, but stay away from attempting to discern what is real. My God, man, you and people like you have the right to vote. It is truly frightening, more so than the threat from terrorists like Bin Laden and dictators like Hussein. Maybe we are at war with the wrong folks. Perhaps it's time to clean our house as well. BTW, you probably need to delete personal threats made against Bush and his cabinet. Else, there's a good chance you'll be talking to the men in black soon.