January 03, 2006

What Kos Didn't Learn From History

Kos was in laughably rare form yesterday (h/t Byron York at The Corner):

When our nation was founded, we had men of real character and courage fighting for their nascent America, one in which liberty and freedom trumped the authorative tendencies of the monarchy. Patrick Henry gave words to those efforts:
"Give me liberty or give me death!" ...

These blowhards pretend they are macho even as they piddle on themselves in abject terror from every "boo!" that comes out of Osama Bin Laden's mouth. They like to speak about how tough they are, even though they send others to fight their battles and couldn't last a day in places like Iraq, or Sudan, or the El Salvador of my youth, or any other war-torn nation....

The breathtaking cowardice of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists knows no bounds. They hide behind the American flag and our genuinely brave men and women in uniform. It's bad enough that they wouldn't deign to join the boots in the ground in Iraq. But now they make a mockery of our Constitution, for the very values that motivated our Founding Fathers to put their lives on the line to combat the unchecked powers of the British monarchy.

I have news for you, Kos, my little historically-retarded liberal, and it isn't just that the UTF stands for “Union of Failed Teachers.”

A skilled orator of his day but never a soldier, Patrick Henry was a "chickenhawk" of the first order by Kos' cheap and tawdry definition, a charter member of what would later become the "101st Fighting Keyboardists."

Wonder if Kos will die when he discovers that Patrick Henry was the forerunner of Mark Levin?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 3, 2006 06:04 PM | TrackBack

Markos emulates Patrick Henry; he incites others to go fight for his liberties. Let him continue to post himself far to the left in the upper echelons of the DNC; it will be to our advantage come Nov. The louder and more radical Markos and followers remain, the more the centrists will move right.

Besides, CY, were you truly expecting a moonbat to check facts?

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 4, 2006 08:30 AM

There is a difference: Because he was a revolutionary, Patrick Henry actually put his happy ass on the line (or do you think the British Army would not have gladly hanged him for his skilled oratory?

The 101st Fighting Keyboarders, on the other hand, risk only the occasional rogue pretzel.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 08:51 AM

Again, the chickhawk meme is an utterly foolish one, most often preached by those who cannot win a rhetorical battle, and hope to win the debate by being the only voice in the room. How... brave of our liberal friends.

The fact is that the military overall, you will note, continually meets or exceeds its recruitment goals both with new recruits and with re-enlistments. There been no call for a draft (except, as I may note, for a call by Democrats for purely cynical political notions that was then voted down by even the Bill's own sponsor).

If the truth be known, many of the conservative bloggers that are the biggest thorns in the liberal balloon are typically men in their mid to late 30s and above, outside not only of what the military prefers, but many are outside of what the military will even allow because of the simple fact of age. Many of conservative bloggers are too old for military service. Some others cannot serve for physical reasons.

Of course liberals purposefully overlook the fact that many conservative bloggers have served or do serve in the military in a number that far exceeds the service of their liberal critics. In fact, and entire subculture of blogging called milblogging is dominated by active duty and reserve military bloggers who are—not surprisingly—overwhelmingly conservative in their political views.

Some, most notably Bill Roggio and Michael Yon, not only served, but to become embedded reporters to find out the truth on the ground in Iraq first hand. Can any liberal honestly claim to have cared enough about what was going on in Iraq to have even tried the same? I cannot think of any.

Liberal bloggers are quick to ask what conservative bloggers have done and disdainfully ask what risks they have faced. It is a credit to conservatives that we are largely above such a childish argument that the vast majority of Americans outside the liberal echo-chamber finds entirely unconvincing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 4, 2006 09:37 AM

And when, exactly, did you put your happy ass on the line for freedom and democracy, Fat Bastard?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 4, 2006 09:39 AM

My dear Spy-- I haven't. I have a daughter in uniform, though.

Which is not the point. After Pearl Harbor, even though there was already a draft, there were lines around the block to enlist.

Those who profess to support the war in Iraq but are unwilling to put their own asses on the line for it are... well, never mind. Rebel boy is no doubt already thinking about banishing me from this blog-- can't have a contrarian voice on the right, it would put a hitch in the goose-stepping.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 10:01 AM

Oh, and by the way-- all those greybeard conservative bloggers that aren't signing up in droves to wear baggy green suits-- where are their children? Their nieces and nephews?

There's the entirety of the Young Republicans organisations-- right smack dab in the middle of the age of service. You guys could really lobby them to join in the Great Crusade.

Ah, well, its been fun-- but I expect to be expelled for this horrid heresy. Such a shame.

You want to have some fun, come on over to TheNewsBlog and say the same stuff.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 10:05 AM

Even when his illogic is explained away, Fat Bastard just muddles along to the next muddle-headed argument, advocating the liberal position of the forced conscription of children... for their conservatives relatives political beliefs, no less.

As I've always maintained and as Fat Bastrd's broken philosophies continue to betray, the group that today styles themslves as "liberals" are not advocates of freedom, and brook no dissent that isn't theirs.

Fat Bastard then, rather pathetically and with transparent hopefulness, desires to be banned so he can retreat to his echo chamber and away from arguments he cannot hope to win.

Run away if you must, FB but your presence here amuses me, as you are a very very useful teaching tool. Banning you at this present time would be a mistake.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 4, 2006 11:23 AM

”Those who profess to support the war in Iraq but are unwilling to put their own asses on the line for it are...”

Fat B, are you aware that the majority of military vote GOP and therefore can safely be assumed to be more conservative than liberal? That supports a postulation that more conservatives (who support the war) join than liberals who do not. In fact I’d love to hear of a recent enlistee who joined because he/she DOES NOT support the war. Do you have an example? Anyone who enlists in the U.S. Army or U.S. Marine Corps today can pretty much rest assured he/she will find himself/herself in either Iraq or Afghanistan; just like when I joined in 1967 I fully expected to go to Vietnam (which I did).

”Oh, and by the way-- all those greybeard conservative bloggers that aren't signing up in droves to wear baggy green suits-- where are their children? Their nieces and nephews?”

See my statement above. The occasional liberal’s offspring that rejects their liberal indoctrination and thinks conservatively for himself/herself joins because he/she actually supports defending this nation. There may be an exception or two, but certainly they number in a miniscule minority. Case in point; Casey Sheehan believed in what he was doing whereas his mother obviously does not.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 4, 2006 12:18 PM

What illogic, o Confederate? Did I say anything about "forced conscription?"

I did not.

I simply expect those who support this war of aggression with words (as you clearly do) to support it and the military by joining them.

Regardless, from your posts I gather that the "popularity" of the war is immaterial; the Executive has the power to go to war anytime he wishes for any reason he wishes against any body that he wishes.

Ergo your apparent belief that disagreement with this particular bit of unpleasantness amounts to treason.

Now, as for illogic-- where is the illogic in expecting those who support this war to join up and go fight it?

Your comparison of Patrick Henry to those Iraq war supporters who won't sign up just won't wash. If Patrick Henry had been picked up by the British Army he would not have died in 1799 at the age of 63. He would have been hanged.

What do you and your fellow keyboardists risk? Certainly not the opprobium of your readership-- last I got into a discussion on your blog you banned me right damn quick. And other than that odd rogue pretzel, you're surely not risking life and limb.

How many of you have spent some time at Walter Reed, talking to the men and women coming back from Iraq minus hands, legs, eyes...?

Damn few. Yet such folks have the temerity to slime Jack Murtha, a decorated Marine, a former DI and a mustang who retired a colonel. A decorated combat veteran smeared for calling this war a mistake. (but then, you folks do have a tendency to slime decorated combat veterans, don't you?)

No, Southron-boy, I don't see the illogic. What I see is your simple, obvious hypocrisy.

You all SAY this war in Iraq is necessary, unavoidable, and utterly righteous. Yet so very few of you are willing to sign up for it.

You seem to believe this war is worth someone's blood, but not the blood of anyone you care about.

You can howl for one president's head because he lied about consensual sex, but you can contort yourselves into the most absurd positions to defend a president who breaks the law, says he breaks the law, and says he will continue to break the law.

This Imperial Presidency appeals to your innate need to control.

All of which leads me to wonder where the libertarians on the right went-- they're surely not controlling the Elephant Herd Party nowadays.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 01:09 PM

Old Soldier-- do you have any idea how many enlistees are black and latino? Do you really believe those soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines are also supporters of Mr. Bush? (bear in mind that black support for the president hovers around 2 percent).

There are a lot of people in uniform that are neither Republicans nor are supporters of Republicans-- they're Americans. And as Americans, they have the right to disagree with the political leadership (though not to disobey the orders of that lawfully constituted political leadership, which is another matter entirely).

Are Republicans and conservatives the only 'good Americans?'

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 01:59 PM

Fat Bastard said:

Did I say anything about "forced conscription?"

I did not.

Of course you didn't. You merely said:

...all those greybeard conservative bloggers that aren't signing up in droves to wear baggy green suits-- where are their children? Their nieces and nephews?

Yes that was you, Fat (sad) Bastard. Trapped in your broken loop of illogic you then opine again:

I simply expect those who support this war of aggression with words (as you clearly do) to support it and the military by joining them.

Again, we've covered this ground. Republicans and conservatives are overwhelming represented in the military, in conservative blogging, military blogging in general, and the new field of embed reporting.

Perhaps what we should be asking you, Fat Bastard, is why Democrats and especially self-described liberals such as yourself are chronically underrepresented in the military, even well before the 2000 elections that put Bush in office.

As for Patrick Henry, he unadoubtably faced for more risks than I and some other who cannot join, but not nearly as many as Michael Yon or Bill Roggio or Neil Prakash or Austin Bay or Lt. Smash or Baldilocks or Mustang 23 or MDG or Major Chaz or many of the hundreds and thousands of other milbloggers and bloggers who have been on the frontlines as soldiers. These men (and women) have all faced bullets and IEDs or the possibility of them, and at least one in the group above was awarded a Silver Star for his actions. Do not dare judge them as being less worthy than Patrick Henry. They've risked as much or more.

Patrick Henry was a great speaker, but he was no citizen-soldier. They indeed risked life and limb as have thousands like them. My comparison stands now, greater than ever.

The rest of your oratory, as always, is empty.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 4, 2006 02:01 PM

Which is not the point. After Pearl Harbor, even though there was already a draft, there were lines around the block to enlist.

Posted by Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 10:01 AM

Well, it seems to me your not letting truth get in the way of any of your statements FB but just so you know, I was a Recruit Division Commander just after 9/11 and we had to add extra racks to our barracks to get the people in.

War is never worth anyone's blood, but Freedom is. Just ask the people in Iraq. My brother-in-law and my nephew asked them directly while they were over there and they all (everyone they talked to) said it was and is worth it. They want us there and are glad we did what we did. We are Free in our society, why shouldn't they be?

We are free only because someone helped us out in the beginning (France if you can believe that one) and we have been repaying that debt ever since. It's not only noble but right that others have the rights and Privileges that we enjoy (most Americans don't even think about).

I was also in the gulf during Clintons presidency, that was also the time that Saddam was allowed to take pot shots at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. The only real repurcussions were some blown-up radar dishes. They just got more from France or Germany and were back in business. (that in itself was an act of war by the way, each time.)

Posted by: Retired Navy at January 4, 2006 02:11 PM

The “logic” of the chickenhawk meme is very simple: if you support the war, you must join the military to fight it, or else you are a hypocrite. The object, of course is to stifle dissent that liberals don’t approve of, not any sort of honesty, not matter what they say.

According to their “logic:”

To support the death penalty, you must kill someone.

To support gay marriage, you must marry someone of the same sex.

It is an argument of fools, requiring you to commit your entire life totally to each and every opinion you hold, without relying on experts in the field to do it for you.

If you want to live in a house, you should work as a builder.

If you want people to take out your trash, you should work at the dump.

If you want police or fire protection, you must become a police office or firefighter.

Another gaping logical chasm that Fat Bastard and other liberals can’t wrap their tiny brain around is the entirety of what they propose. They say they want everyone who supports the war to join up, or to not have an opinion heard. Let’s play along for a moment

If all the supporters of George Bush who supported the war and all Democrats who supported the war (and God forbid, don’t remind them that many did, or their little heads will explode) joined the military, then it would be a military, by a very conservative estimate, 60 million strong.

By way of comparison, the United States Army at its height of greatest mobilization was just 8 million in May, 1945. We would have to mobilize two American soldiers for every single Iraqi man, woman and child according to their brilliance.

It would be physically, economically, and logistically impossible for a country the size of the United states to equip and maintain an army of the requested 60 million member size demanded in the fevered liberal mind under their own criteria. We would have destroy all of the liberals favorite social programs to grant their wishes, from Social Security, to Medicare, the Medicaid, to Midnight Basketball. We of course, would also be forced to draft all non-members of the military into civilian defense-related jobs to support such a massive military.

The meme is simply, and completely asinine, and no one who subscribes to it should be taken seriously.

Please feel no need to be gentle with them. Sometimes stupidity simply needs to be exposed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 4, 2006 03:10 PM

Evasions, pure and simple. I never said anything about conscription; but I did ask about volunteering. I never said anything about forcing someone to join, but I ask why haven't they? Or, for the greybeards, are they encouraging their sons and daughters to volunteer? (and once again, my own daughter is in uniform right now; my son-in-law was a SEAL in Desert Storm)

You have many many excuses (we're too old, we couldn't afford an army with that many enlistees, blah blah blah)-- but that's all they are. Excuses.

The chickenhawk meme, as you so eloquently name it, is neither simple nor stupid. It's a recognition that you and others like you want other people's kids to fight in this war.

Those of you who so loudly proclaim the righteousness of this war-- WHY AREN'T YOU ENCOURAGING YOUR LOVED ONES TO ENLIST?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 03:34 PM

Ah, your wicked wit has pierced me to the quick. I must change... I must...


Meanwhile, our boys and girls are getting shot at... with the apparent complicity of our so-called Iraqi allies.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 03:39 PM

FB what the heck are you rambling about? Who are you to know what or why someone joins the military? Let alone BLACK AMERICANS... But now that you brought that up about 2% voted republican. Every Black conservative that speaks is admonished by the self proclaimed leaders of the black community WHY? Well here you go. DEM's cater to the minority vote (Pay Them) give them what they want "free money" so why work? Why get an education? Just perpetuate the cycle of dependency. That gives you all that free time to stand on the street corner and drink booze from a paper bag. Using scare tactics and pulling the race card. Wailing about how conservatives don't care about blacks. I grew up poor, as poor as any black american and in a large family. I joined the military to get an education and I haven't looked back. I was blind but now I see. I care about all people. But when do you draw the line between individuals that really need help and the ones that are a drain on our society. The great society was devised as a way to give people a "A HAND UP" not "A Hand Out". We are looking at two or three generations of entire families that are on welfare. I as well as a lot of people including Black Americans are tired of this. We all are paying for it year after year. I would rather spend my tax money on the military. You know why.... Because I would say that about 60 to 80 percent of minorities see the military as a way out and a way up. Learning a skill and getting educated and voting Republican.. (just kills you doesn't it). I personally know friends that are black and democrat thought that during the last election that Bush supported bringing back the draft. A black DEM. tried that Charlie Rangle Dem. N.Y. Because he felt there was a disproportional number of minorities in the military. Well DUH... they are there because they want to be..... I grew up in a predominatley all democrat houshold. Preached to all my life how the "Dem's were for the working man". F.B. thats B.S. I'm curious how the folk's in NYC feel about the tran. union strike? Another Dem. backing org. that could have used the money that they were fined to offset the retirement plan. What do you know about Heros? Most real heros don't talk about their medals or what they did to legitimately receive them. Not like your buddy Kerry. Murtha is a disgrace to even call himself a Marine and he is not helping. Most of the active duty Marines I have talked to would spit on him. Murtha is his own worst enemy. His latest escapade was calling for people not to join. Now who is going to defend your freedom? YOU.... I hope you sleep well under that Blanket of Freedom tonight that my friends and family are providing you and every other American. Thank You C.Y. for letting me vent a little.

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 4, 2006 03:40 PM

And there we go. Find a real, decorated veteran (and in Jack Murtha's case, one who has consistently supported the military even when it went against the rest of his party's wishes; as well as one who visits Walter Reed regularly) and slime him.

Oh, and those Negroes, they're just lazy and want to take money out of your pocket.

Ri-iight. Thanks again.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 04:21 PM

Still trapped in his meme, Fat Bastard can’t grasp what he has already been told time and time again. It is sad, really. He defends an indefensible position, as is his right, and he’ll keep chanting it no matter how many people point out the gaping holes in his logic.

  • Republicans, usually Conservatives are the core of the military. They have been, and will continue to be in the future.

  • Republicans, usually Conservatives do encourage their family members to serve their country, at a far greater rate than you will find from liberals, who are busy trying to ban recruiting for the military on both college and high school campuses.
  • Conservative political bloggers are far more likely to be in the military than any other kind of blogger, and milbloggers, including those I keep citing, are overwhelmingly conservatives.
  • The Army is not large enough to support all conservatives who support the war. To do so, it wold have to be more than seven times larger than the U.S. Army at the end of World War II.
  • The “you are a hypocrite if you support it but can’t do it yourself” chickenhawk meme is an asinine argument that falls apart completely when any logical reasoning at all is applied against it.
  • Conservatives support the troops even when they aren’t family members, proving that the war is not just a personal interest issue, but an ideological one as well.

If he can’t get these basic facts correct, I guess any meaningful conversation is beyond him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 4, 2006 04:39 PM

Another dramatic case of projection, projecting your paranoia on somebody else. Markos is a total moron and probably a coward as well. I doubt there are any of his crowd in the military. Most probably they wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold and would shit or faint if someone pointed a gun at them. They are all parasites living on the freedoms secured by someone else.

Posted by: docdave at January 4, 2006 07:29 PM

Faithful Patriot:

You probably won't understand this, but the reason most such "black conservatives" are held in such low esteem by most black Americans is that they haven't the balls to stand up to their white masters. Take for instance Mr. Bennett's assertion that to be born black was to be born criminal. Yet where were the "black conservatives" like Michael Steele?

But then, you probably didn't take that as evidence of bigotry.

And this is the problem that you and yours face: you are not qualified to define what racial bigotry is. You would like to tell most black Americans that what they have is what they deserve and that they should be happy about it. You believe that black people want nothing more than to take the hard-earned money from your pocket and blow it on drugs and cheap wine.

And since you essentially agree with Mr. Bennetts proposition, well, it's not bigotry, is it? Its just "facts."

Show me a "black conservative" who decries the open racism of Michelle Malkin (who believes that the Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea); or Michael Savage (who believes that last year's tsunami wasn't a tragedy and that Americans ..."shouldn't be spending a nickel on this); or the Council of Conservative Citizens (the 21st century version of the "White Citizen's Councils" of the 1950's.)

Why do you think black people would respect someone who would make common cause with David Duke?


You're so right.

Republicans represent all that is good, noble and pure about the American Experiment; only conservatives love this country.

Regardless of situation, consideration, or merely the facts on the ground, you are always on the side of good.

Congratulations on your purity of purpose, your nobility of cause.

By the way, how's that Jack Abramoff thing workin' out for ya?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 4, 2006 07:44 PM

Fat and Ignorant Bastard:

Bennett never asserted that to be born Black was to be born criminal. He used statements made by others to illustrate a common misconception. It IS true, however, that the majority of crimes committed in urban areas are committed by black males. Why? Because they comprise the majority of people in urban areas. Is that a condemnation of the black race? Absolutely not. Nevertheless, you are such an intellectually impotent person that you would capitalize on anything in a lame effort to prove a point. Unfortunately, you are unable to prove anything.

... but the reason most such "black conservatives" are held in such low esteem by most black Americans is that they haven't the balls to stand up to their white masters.

That is idiocy in its most rabid form. I guess you think that Condi and Colin and others are just too weak to stand up to the Massa? They have more skills and capabilities and reverence to America than you could ever have. Why? Because you represent all that is weak in America today. You have nothing positive to contribute to anything in this or any other dialog. You just make accusations which have nothing to substantiate them other than hate and loathing. Why? Because you are projecting your own lack of self esteem, purpose and vision. It's just bruised ego and damaged narcisism.

By the way, how's that Jack Abramoff thing workin' out for ya?

It is working about as well for the Republicans as it is for the Democrats. Heads will roll on both sides of the aisle - or can't you read and comprehend the news that has been available for the past 24 hours?

Show me a "black conservative" who decries the open racism of Michelle Malkin (who believes that the Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea); or Michael Savage (who believes that last year's tsunami wasn't a tragedy and that Americans ..."shouldn't be spending a nickel on this); or the Council of Conservative Citizens (the 21st century version of the "White Citizen's Councils" of the 1950's.)

You've been reading too much fiction from the Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan camps, haven't you? Provide some proven quotes to show that any of this tripe has validity - including unimpeachable source information.

You are really pathetic, and I, for one have lost my patience for dealing with someone so devoid of fact, intellect and a capability to engage in honest and meaningful dialog. You are no more that a big, empty bag of hot air. Stick a pin in you and you would probably deflate like a balloon - or like a blowup doll. In either case, emptiness is emptiness. No substance and no depth. Just empty words and flabby accusations.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 4, 2006 09:51 PM

Source information for Michelle Malkin? Other than her bleedin' book? Source information for Michael Savage other than recordings of his bleedin' show? You have GOT to be kidding me. Willful blindness?

I never mentioned Michael Moore nor Cindy Sheehan; I was talking about so-called "black conservatives," and why they are despised by the vast majority of black Americans.

Ahem. What Bennett said was that if you wanted to lower the crime rate you could abort all black babies.

Chapter and verse.

And since you clearly agree with that, then you too, my dear sir, are a fucking racist.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 07:12 AM

Spy your good!!!!!!
F.B. when did I impune the Black race? I don't blame African Americans, I blame flaming liberals like yourself that could not or will not take responsibility for the failures of the Democratic philosophy of appeasment. When are you going to let go of your hatred? And as R. S. stated when are you going to have substance and depth? You continue to bloviate,spin or misconstrue someone statements. I was trying to make a point that all people should take responsibility for thier personel actions and not blame others. Many prominent African Americans have stated the same thing and have been ostracized by the black community. Why? Because its the truth and people just don't want to hear it. Then you have raving idiots like Howard Dean blaming whitey. Thats really helpful.... All because Dem's are afraid of losing the minority vote. Oh, by the way I understand perfectly what you are spewing from your excrementitious pie hole... Typical bullshit Lame ass excuses..

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 5, 2006 07:23 AM

Fat Bastard:

Does the phrase "dumb as a box of stones" sound familiar? That is the perfect description of you and your half-baked accusations.

You need not mention Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan at all. You think and write and spew hate exactly like they do. Then, when you are cornered and shown how utterly ignorant you are, you stoop to using the 'F' word. Aren't you a classic example of the lame-brain liberals who have to use profanity in an attempt to overpower the opposition - by shouting the loudest? No wonder you were never called upon to lead in debating groups.

Cowards have to hide behind a keyboard because they could never survive in a real one-on-one debate with anyone.

Racist? I marched with Martin Luther King in the early 1960's. Where was your bloated self? You say that you are fat, but the biggest bloat is in what you say and write. Gee ... Whata MAN!

I knew that you could not provide source information on anything. Weak-kneed liberals never can. Admit it. You have not even read Michele Malkin's book, have you? If you had you would be able to provide source information and specifics.

You failed to provide the complete quote on what Bennett said on his radio show, didn't you? The exact quote was as follows, bonehead:

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

And how can we analyze the truth of what Bennett said? Patriot hit the nail on the head. Liberals have managed to appease the black citizens of this country by throwing them scraps from the table and unearned money taken from the pockets of all other American citizens. They don't want to really get involved in helping their brothers and sisters. They just want their votes.

Unfortunately, black people continue to live a life of dependency - fostered by the idiotic legislation created by the liberals. It is not their fault that they have been led into a life of dependency and unsatisfied expectations. Many see no light at the end of the tunnel and choose lives of crime as a means to an end. MLK is probably turning over in his grave.

Keep it up Fat Bastard. You continue to lose everytime you write a single word or sentence. I guess you are just stubborn - and clueless..

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 5, 2006 09:48 AM


A "philosophy of appeasement" requires someone to appease, Patriot. Who are the Democrats appeasing, in your mind, other than those lazy Negroes who want something for nothing?


You marched with MLK? Really? That's nice. I don't believe you, but its nice of you to assert it. It was no doubt during your "liberal" youthful days.

As for reading Ms. Malkin's book, you're absolutely right, I haven't read the whole thing. I've read enough of it to believe she's a fucking lunatic... but then, I believe anyone who comes out in favor of concentration camps is a lunatic. As I believe anyone who comes out in favor of torture is a lunatic. Starting to sound familiar?

And thank you once again for bringing up the "appeasement" meme. Those lazy Negroes need to be appeased; give them money and power or they'll riot! Negroes can't read, don't understand history, and are incapable of evaluating policies as they're advanced by the political parties. Nope, they just go with the Democrats because the Democrats give them money. Stupid Negroes!

But of course, since you believe in what Mr. Bennett says, and agree with that statement wholeheartedly, then you can't see it as an expression of white supremacy... after all, you're not a racist, now are you?

Not by your own definitions, at least. A racist is not someone who holds negative beliefs about other people based on their physical appearances; that's rational thinking. One has to wear a white sheet and a pointy hat to be a real racist, doesn't one?

Thanks again for demonstrating my point.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 10:57 AM

Fat Bastard:

Here is something additional on the Bennett quote. It is from someone who really does not like Bill Bennett or Bush or the Republicans. Despite that, he still has the ability to reason - something you have yet to understand and embrace. Referring to the exact quote I cited,

"Even this passage doesn’t quite give the full context of Bennett's remarks, but it gives enough of the context to show the form and content of his argument. It also makes amply clear that he was not advocating the abortion of black babies; that's what he was rejecting. (It is rather odd to hear Bennett criticized for wanting to abort black babies: Bennett is opposed to abortion as such. And it's downright bizarre to hear criticisms of aborting black babies coming from people who think that fetuses lack rights, are dispensable, can be aborted on demand, and should be made more easily available to black mothers. But such are the ways of brazen hypocrisy).

Bennett is offering an argument by reductio ad absurdum [emphasis mine], which takes the form of hypothetically asserting a proposition p, showing that p leads to some obvious falsehood, and then rejecting p on that basis. It's an argument form that one learns within the first few weeks of an introductory logic class.

And where exactly, Fat Bastard, did you get your PhD in logic?

Rhetorical question ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 5, 2006 10:57 AM


No, you idiot, the issue is not that he advocated the abortion of black babies! That's the standard sidestep of the true issue at hand-- the casual, thoughtless direct association of blackness with criminality.

And you call me thick.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 11:15 AM

You are really pathetic, Fat Bastard. As with so many liberal democrats - or whatever you call yourself - you drop poop all over the place, but you are too blind to avoid stepping in your own droppings.

No one ever referred to our black brothers and sisters as "lazy Negroes" - except you.

You did not provide a direct quote that indicated that Michelle Malkin supported concentration camps. Your credibility remains at ZERO.

Then you say, "Negroes can't read, don't understand history, and are incapable of evaluating policies as they're advanced by the political parties. Nope, they just go with the Democrats because the Democrats give them money. Stupid Negroes!" You are the only one spewing that nonsense. Looks like you are reflecting that psychological aberration known as personal projection.

Then you say something that supports everyone's view that you are dormant of rational thought when you note, "A racist is not someone who holds negative beliefs about other people based on their physical appearances; that's rational thinking. One has to wear a white sheet and a pointy hat to be a real racist, doesn't one?"

You must be a very, very lonely man, Fat Bastard. You are even delusional. You are putting words in the mouths of others that only you have uttered.

Here is a clinical psychologist's take on your condition:

Racist/feminist hypocrisy - Passionate advocating of government-enforced discrimination based on sex or race, while aggressively proclaiming opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist."
Overemotional perception - Excessive concern with how a social action "looks" or "feels," to the exclusion of actual effects in the real world, in particular, any effects beyond the immediate. Resistance to, and denial of, objective evidence proving the adverse consequences of progressive policy. Superficial cognition about most matters of significant import, as the progressive personality relies on the "feel" of issues rather than truly understanding them.

Yeah ... we know. Everyone else is insane. I think you call others "lunatics." Hmmmmm. More personal projection of your own maladies.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 5, 2006 11:27 AM

The depth of your insight - and logic and reasoning - is paper thin. You don't even understand the basics of the logic of assocition, do you? I'm a thick idiot? At least I have some education. It appears you have none.

You are pretty comical, though - as CY has pointed out.

Nevertheless, you are really very, very boring.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 5, 2006 11:34 AM

I see. Democrats succeed among black people by appeasing them.

Can you explain that concept in a way that does not imply that blacks need to be coddled? Or that blacks want something for nothing?

I assure you, I'm not lonely. Nor am I alone. And your passionate denunciations do nothing to remove what you did say:
Unfortunately, black people continue to live a life of dependency - fostered by the idiotic legislation created by the liberals.

Doesn't this mean that liberals are giving black people something for nothing? And that this is how they are "appeased?"

Your rhetoric reinforces the idea that blacks "want something for nothing," Spy, whether you're willing to actually "man up" and say it flat out.

As for Michelle Malkin-- fine, have it your way. I dare say I've read more of the book than you have; and the very title of the book: In Defense of Internment is prima facie evidence that Ms. Malkin is in favor of concentration camps (or, if that offends your delicate sensibilities, "internment camps").

Congratulations, though, Spy-- its always nice to be able to chat with an avowed white supramacist.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 11:55 AM

Kids, I've about had it with the personal attacks, the smears, and the foul language.

Clean it up, or take it elsewhere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 5, 2006 12:08 PM

Bill Bennett, by the way, was responding to a caller who was making a reference to the book Freakonomics, which apparently made the assertion about abortion and the crime rate.

A much fuller transcript of what actually occurred:

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I’ve read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn’t — never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they’re all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don’t know what the costs would be, too. I think as — abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don’t know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well –

CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Fat Bastard misrepresents what Bill Bennett said, means, and has proven throughout his lifetime.

Color me unsurprised.

And while I still have not read Malkin's book, I would note a huge difference between internment camps, which were holding facilities designed for national defense, and concentration camps, which were designed for the eficient murder and disposal of large numbers of people.

Not a very subtle difference at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 5, 2006 12:22 PM

Forgot the "/" closing the blockquote after ..."tricky". Sorry about that.

The comment after that is mine, not Bennett's.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 5, 2006 12:25 PM

Well... that went well..., didn't it?

I'm curious, FB, what righteous position do you claim by your daughter being in the military? You're very obviously as liberal as the day is long... I would have thought you would forbid your daughter to join the military. I'm just not correlating your reference to a position.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 5, 2006 12:34 PM

Your mistake, Old Soldier, is in believing that a "liberal" cannot love his country, or support his countries soldiers.

But that's okay, you're not the first to make that particular error.


You can bring up everything else that Mr. Bennett said, and you can try your darnedest to sidestep the point, but it remains nonetheless. Mr. Bennett's bigotry is revealed in his casual association of criminality with blackness.

UNDERSTAND ME: It's quite clear that Mr. Bennett does not condone mass abortions; and that he would consider it a horrendous act. And that's right, insofar as it goes.


There's no way to explain that simple fact away.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 12:40 PM

“/”Your mistake, Old Soldier, is in believing that a "liberal" cannot love his country, or support his countries soldiers.”/”

Did I ask if you love this country? I do not doubt that you love this country. I asked for the position you claim based upon your daughter’s service in the military. Can we try to stay on the question, please? I’m just curious, because I don’t claim any position based on my brother’s Purple Heart, or my other brother’s service, or my uncles’ service, etc. My position is based solely upon my experience.

Please don’t make the claim, “I support the troops, but not the war.” That boat does not float on the sea of logic.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 5, 2006 01:25 PM

F.B. why do you hate the truth sooooo much. I have many friends of different colors and religions and in fact my wife is asian. I never referred to anyone as stupid or lazy. Its just human nature to want something for free. Think about it for just a second... Its always easier to get something for nothing. I also never stated that people enjoy being on welfare. The only way to break the cycle of dependency is to stop the wholesale and unrestricted use of a welfare system that is given to perfectly healthy, normal people. Why is the Democratic Party preferred over the Republican Party among the African American community? Appeasement plain and simple dems stay in power by accusing the right of neglecting the needs of the African American community. How you ask.. Social Program's "FREE FREE FREE"... If you refuse to see the logic in that you are beyond help. I am not accusing anyone of being lazy or stupid, just mislead and lied to. It's only human nature to want something for free. So if you stop giving it away and make people earn it that instills a feeling of pride and self esteem. You cannot make a person go to school if they choose not to and the lame excuses that are being used by the liberals that minorities do not receive nor do they have the same opportunities as whites is just ludicrous. I have no qualms with anyone who needs help, that is what the system was designed for. I stated before I grew up poor...dirt poor. Just as poor as any "underprivileged" minority. I speak from personal experience. If you want a way to better yourself there are plenty of ways to do it.
Furthermore do not refer to me as a racist. I am stating fact. This is not a perfect NIRVANA world. But excuses do not hold any weight with me. If a person wants a better life, and wants it bad enough, they will achieve it. Life is not a walk in the park. But perpetuating the cycle of dependency is not going to solve it. Determination and hard work, works everytime... not setting on your butt and whining and blaming others. You seem very intelligent and well educated, why did your daughter join the service? Which personally I think is outstanding, I really do mean that.. I think that is one of the most admirable thing she could have ever done. I wish your daughter well in her endeavors and I hope she is safe..

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 5, 2006 02:13 PM

Old Soldier:

I must respectfully disagree with you on whether one can support the troops without agreeing with a particular war policy as promulgated by National Command Authority. How many on the right, after all, decried the use of American military power in Kosovo? Disagreement with that particular "war" was very deep among Republicans; yet I certainly hope that they did not hold the men and women in uniform responsible for the decisions of their political leaders.

Good soldiers follow orders and do their jobs, and most of all look out for the guys on either side of them. They cannot be held responsible for the decisions of the civilian relationship. As I once read it, "it always comes down to the poor brave bastards of the Infantry," and those guys (and gals, nowadays) have my support and my prayers regardless of where their orders take them.

I reserve the right to believe the political leadership had its head up its collective arse in ordering the invasion of Iraq; but I pray for the American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines tasked with carrying out those orders.

Faithful Patriot:

I started my political career as a Libertarian; I voted for Ron Paul back in '88 and for Harry Browne in '96. I've always believed that society is best served by laws and policies that provide the greatest degree of liberty for it's individuals.

Unfortunately, a libertarian society requires people to actually act in their own self interest; but I've found that humans can be too damn cussedly mean-spirited that they make decisions that are NOT in their self interest. After all, did it make sense for lunch-counter owners to turn away paying customers because of their color?

Yet that's precisely what they did.

One thing I've noticed is that in discussions of race and racism, black people tend to think of the effects, and white people tend to think of intent.

I'm more than willing to believe that you have no intention of holding racist or bigoted views; but you do nonetheless.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "white privilege?"

You enjoy the fruits of white privilege, whether you "choose to" or not, whether you know it or not. The mere fact that for you, race is not a regular consideration is indicative of your privilege.

That you feel comfortable in believing that most black people are on welfare (they're not), or that black people prefer "handouts to a hand-up" are, again, prima facie evidence of a racist outlook.

As in Bill Bennett's statement, the problem is a casual association of blackness with "welfare queen" or "thug" without noticing that the vast majority of non-white people are neither.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Patriot, but the shoe fits.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 03:58 PM


By the way, my daughter joined the Navy after wasting a whole lot of my money going to college (and going to way too many parties... :) ) And, her stint in the service has done her a world of good; I cannot possibly express how proud I am of her.

I also mentioned my son-in-law is a former SEAL-- the toughest little runt I ever saw in my life. Looks like a skinny little shit until he takes his shirt off-- he's all steel cords and razorwire. I never worry about my grandson's safety, he has a most bodacious bodyguard.

BUT-- it's one of the reasons that I so abhor this war. I see not some abstraction like "the troops," I see individual soldiers and Marines, getting shot from every direction. I see those same soldiers and Marines killing innocent civilians (and not by choice; but war is a frightful, nasty business and if our boys and girls take fire from ANYWHERE, they're gonna return fire "tout suite", whether its a storefront, a mosque, or a school) and living with the consequences. I see thousands of young men missing legs, arms, eyes, and for what? "Freedom?" How can you "free" a people when they're shooting at you and calling you an invader?

I'm not categorically against the use of military force, far from it. But I am against spending our soldiers blood and our treasure in wars that are not directly in our national interest.

And in my opinion, that describes Iraq.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 04:22 PM

I may still believe you are all wet in your broad assessments of the geopolitical and social/racial/ethnic landscape, FB, but I appreciate the fact that you can be civil if you choose to.

Thank you.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 5, 2006 05:40 PM

FB, I, too, desire to express my appreciation for the civility of your latest response. I also wish to extend my well wishes for your daughter and express my appreciation for her service.

Here is an Old Soldier take on the statement, “I support the troops, but not the war.” Genuine support for the troops must include support for their mission – in this case their mission is a victorious conclusion of a conflict/war. “I support the troops, but not the war” attempts to erroneously separate the two elements. They are not separable. E.g., “Go Braves, I hope you lose because I don’t like baseball.” Make sense? Another analogy gets a little more basic. “Troops” are an element used in the prosecution of a mission, just like tanks, or artillery, or helicopters, a rifle, etc. Does it make sense to say, “I support tanks, but not the war?” Obviously troops are human beings and we place a much higher moral and ethical value on people than we do equipment. However, the reality stands.

As for Kosovo; if you will recall the Republicans opposed sending troops to Kosovo before the deployment. For one thing, there was the perception that the deployment was intended to take the heat off Clinton during his difficulties. A stronger coalition was desired since this was strictly a peace-keeping mission and our national security was not threatened. Once the troops were deployed, by executive order, the Republicans ceased their noise (for the most part). Contrast that with the Democrats supporting the deployment of the troops and the invasion of Iraq. Their noise against the war has occurred eighteen months after the start of the war. There were a couple Dems that opposed the war from the very beginning; they have credibility in opposing the war now. But those who supported the initiation of the war and have since turned against it for a political advantage, I find contemptible.

We obviously disagree about the significance of Iraq in providing for our national defense. Like many others, I believe deposing Saddam was definitely in our national interest. To stand up an Islamic democratic republic in Iraq is to our advantage, too. We must deny the radical Islamic terrorists training grounds, finances, logistics, safe haven, etc. I believe our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan will help toward that means. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Freedom and liberty are not free. Blood is required to obtain and secure freedom. Our military has always been willing to fight for freedom whether ours or on behave of other oppressed peoples. I have no doubt that some of the severely wounded are bitter about their loss, but I also understand that the vast majority believe in the mission and do not feel their loss is in vain (at least not yet). (That last comment is in regard to a political party’s attempt to cause us to withdraw before we have secured the victory.)

Again, thanks for the civility and may God grant your daughter and all service people safety.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 5, 2006 06:37 PM

To all- Likewise for the civility.

Now, Old Soldier, I could hope for "victory" in Iraq; but my read of the strategic and tactical situation currently in Iraq is that we can't win. We're fighting an insurgency that gets better by the day; one that I believe is led by the senior noncoms and junior officers of Saddam's army (you know, those guys with guns that Paul Bremer fired).

Worse, even if we succeed in bringing "democracy" to Iraq, are we prepared to have a democratically elected theocratic government? I've noticed elsewhere here at the CY a lot of anger and fear of the Iranian president. Need I remind you that he was democratically elected? (as were Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, but that is a tangent).

And if we're not prepared to accept a democratically elected Islamic government in Iraq, how can our guys win?

I'd like them to complete the mission, Old Soldier, but I believe that mission is poorly defined and ultimately probably impossible to accomplish.

The fundamental difference between Bush 41 and Bush 43: 41 understood that if you give our boys and girls a CLEAR, WELL DEFINED MISSION (e.g. "Kick Saddam's army the hell out of Kuwait, then come home and have a good cold beer" and THEY WILL GET IT DONE.

"Bring Freedom to Iraq" is NOT a clear mission statement.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 5, 2006 07:14 PM

I have a response, but must run for the night. Please check back tomorrow.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 5, 2006 08:01 PM

FB, if your read of the strategic and tactical situation in Iraq comes from the MSM, you’ve come to the agenda driven conclusion they want you to reach. Try reading some of the mil bloggers that CY listed in a previous comment. They shed a very different light upon what is actually occurring in Iraq. If the troops on the ground thought Iraq was unwinnable, do you think they would reenlist in record numbers while still in the combat zone? If the troops perceived Iraq to be unwinnable, the draft would have to be reinstituted to man the forces. Whether or not the people of Iraq are committed to a republic will only be tested after we stop providing security.

Funny, according to our military leaders, Al-Qaeda becomes weaker with every operation we conduct. Yes, there are still some Saddam loyalists hanging on to the old regime, but they are being turned in daily by their Iraqi neighbors. Their numbers are actually dwindling. (Again, check out the mil bloggers.)

You cannot truly believe that Ahmadinejad and Chavez were democratically elected; running against opponents that espoused a significantly different platform? Even Saddam Hussein was “elected” dictator, er, I mean, president of Iraq. When your life depends upon the name you mark on a ballot sheet, democracy is not evident.

“Bring freedom to Iraq” is every bit as clear a mission statement as “free France, England, Austria, the Philippines, etc., and topple Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.” We also undertook “nation building” after the defeat of Germany and Japan. Food rationing in Germany finally ended 7 years after the surrender. Iraq has more infrastructure today than they have ever had. I’d say we are way ahead of our post WW II accomplishments.

I certainly have no crystal ball and have no way of knowing that Iraq and Afghanistan will remain free democratic Islamic republics. I certainly hope they will; that the freed people will reject the radical Islamic theology. But what I do know is that we, the USA, cannot live from radical Islamic terrorist attacks unless we engage them now and destroy their ability to mount offensive operations against us. I will not accept a status quo that includes a “reasonable number” of attacks and deaths delivered at the hands of these radical Islamic terrorists.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 6, 2006 07:50 AM

I don't get my views from the MSM; all I hear there is happytalk.

As far as how the guys on the ground there feel... absolutely right that they should feel that way. It would be damn hard to put your ass on the line every day if you couldn't believe in what you're doing... although I'm not so sanguine that most of the troops do believe in "the mission."

Also, the Iranian president (I'm not going to chance mangling the spelling) and Chavez were democratically elected. The fact that y'all don't like them doesn't change the fact that they won elections.

Nonetheless, I think my central question remains: is the US prepared to accept an Islamic Republic of Iraq?

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 08:42 AM

FB, we must be watching/reading different MSM, because all I see is doom and gloom in regards to Iraq. None of the upbeat events or improvements in infrastructure is ever reported.

Why would we not accept Iraq as an Islamic republic? Did we not start as a Christian republic? We are not at war with Islam; we are at war with a radical faction of Islam. If there was a radical faction identifying themselves with Christianity that were engaging in terrorist activities directed against us, were would be at war with them just as easily. The key is to get Iraq to that democratic republic stage. So far we are succeeding; so let’s not give up just yet.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 6, 2006 10:15 AM
I don't get my views from the MSM; all I hear there is happytalk.

It's obvious that, Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, etc. etc. are more to your liking.

Given the dubious content of your posts, I'm not surprised.

Posted by: Elephant Man at January 6, 2006 10:21 AM
By the way, how's that Jack Abramoff thing workin' out for ya?

Quite well, actually.

It seems that prominent democrats including Hillary Clinton had no problem helping themselves to the Abramoff "bankroll".

Once again the democrats (once again) provide another shining example of their hypocrisy.

As another "scandal" blows up in the democrats collective face, Wile E. Coyote comes to mind....

Posted by: Elephant Man at January 6, 2006 11:45 AM

Why I typed "once again" twice in one sentence, I can't imagine...


Must be that confounded Halliburton Mind Control Ray wreaking havoc on me.

Damn you Karl Rove! *grin*

Posted by: Elephant Man at January 6, 2006 11:49 AM

I just want to introduce something else about the American Main Stream Media that really angers me - and it should anger all Americans.

First, here is the URL reference to a report in the European Press that is worthy of a read.

This story was published elsewhere in the British Press, the French Press, Algerian and Italian and even Pakistani newpapers, to name a few. The American MSM ignored it. Only a short reference was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on page A6. That reference did not tell the whole story. It only noted that 3 Algerians had been arrested. No mention of their mission against the U.S.

The bottom line to all this is that Italian officials, working with new wiretap information they had gathered, arrested three Algerian suspected al Qaeda terrorists in Italy. The first person was arrested on November 15. The other two were arrested shortly thereafter - within weeks.

Quoting the Italian Minister of the Interior, Giuseppe Pisanu, who described what information was uncovered, the news item states, "The attacks would have targeted ships, stadiums or railway stations [in the United States] in a bid to outdo the September 11, 2001 strikes by Al-Qaeda in New York and Washington which killed some 2,700 people ...."

Why didn't the MSM report this piece of major information on Italy's efforts in the war on terrorism? Very simple: 1. They hate George Bush; 2. They think they smell blood in the water and want to go in for the kill via impeachment proceedings; and 3. The gathering of Intelligence via Italian wiretaps would tend to support Bush's tasking of the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda operatives and their associates inside the U.S. The Turkish Press item cited above was published on December 23 - after the beginning of the big uproar over the NYT article on NSA surveillance without warrants.

What if the Italian government had collected information on these goons and been forbidden by some statute to go with the information? What if planned attacks were successful?

It is pretty disgusting when the American MSM is more concerned with their own selfish agenda than in the security if their own country and the physical, emotional and economic welfare of its citizens.

Hang all the F&^%$#ing bastards! Let's start with the NYT scumbags first, though.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 6, 2006 01:02 PM

FB notes, "Nonetheless, I think my central question remains: is the US prepared to accept an Islamic Republic of Iraq?"

That is what democracy is all about, isn't it, FB? It is supposed to reflect the Will of the People, right?

Would you prefer it to revert to the totalitarian, secular form of government that existed under Saddam?

The Iraqis don't want that.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 6, 2006 02:28 PM

Elephant Man:

Sod off.

Old Soldier:

To be perfectly honest, I didn't really care about Saddam one way or the other.

However, I do have a business contact (in Canada) who was born in Iraq (and in fact was a soldier during Gulf War One). He tells me that his mother and his sisters, who still live in the Kirkuk area, once had electricity and water 24/7. He told me that under Saddam, most people had free health care and a free education (through post-graduate level).

As of this past summer, last time I talked to him, his mom was lucky to have electricity 7 hours a day. They have to go out for water, they don't have running water still. His neice hasn't been in school in over three years.

Saddam was a brutish thug, of that there is NO QUESTION.

But I'm just not so sure that the changes we've wrought are all that good for the majority of Iraqis.

For me, the bottom line was this: Saddam was an Iraqi problem, not an American one.

YMMV, obviously.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 05:41 PM

Oops, sorry Old Soldier-- that was meant for the Spy.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 6, 2006 05:42 PM

Is that the best you can come up with, FB? Maybe you need to memorize some more talking points.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 6, 2006 06:27 PM

Hey, I'm the first to admit that one anecdote does not a study make. But having spoken with the man face to face, human to human, I was moved.


Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 7, 2006 11:25 AM

You noted,

For me, the bottom line was this: Saddam was an Iraqi problem, not an American one.

Well, FB, you may wish to reconsider whether or not the problem with Saddam was solely an Iraqi problem in light of the following, quoted from the Weekly Standard:

"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials."

You and others interested can read the entire story HERE, if you wish. If, on the other hand, you choose to stick with preconceived notions and ignorant statements from the likes of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, you can do that too.

Indeed, FB, My Mileage DOES Vary ... Would that be MMDV?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 7, 2006 12:39 PM

Come on, Spy-- Of course I'm going to listen to John Kerry. Crikey, the man was smart enough to turn a scratch into two purple hearts! He had the brains and the balls to convince his entire chain of command that he deserved a Bronze Star when everyone knows he did nothing for it!

Damn, when you run into Doctor Evil, its smart to give him a listen...

p.s. The Weakly Standard?[chortle, snort, giggle]

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 7, 2006 05:18 PM

You can chortle, snort and giggle all you want, Fat Bastard. The facts are the facts, and you have probably not yet even bothered to read the article, have you?

That loud thud you hear is the sound of all those Democrats fainting at learning this compelling news. Documents and photographs surely beat the hell out of Air America, the so-called CNN situation, er, uh, echo room and MSM talking points, I believe.

Gee, FB, you didn't comment on that little bit about the cowardice of the MSM in not publishing other facts that would support Bush, either, did you? You know, the three Algerian terrorists who were caught as the result of Italian wiretaps? Are you going to claim that it, too, was part of the massive Republican conspiracy to discredit the MSM and the Donks?

YM too MV ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 7, 2006 05:46 PM

You dismiss the sites that I cite (ooh, notice the different spelling!); I dismiss those you cite.

But come on-- you gotta admit, a man smart enough to convince the entire United States Navy to give him a high medal he did nothing for... well, damn, you just gotta give him credit for that, now don't you??

You're amusing, Spy.

But as you plan your all-out assault to hang all the evil traitorous liberals("Hang all the F&^%$#ing bastards! Let's start with the NYT scumbags first, though."), remember that some of us believe that gun control means using both hands.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 8, 2006 11:31 AM

Fat Bastard:

My only reference to your hero, Kerry, pertained to the idiocy of one statement - and there are plenty more where that came from. That was about terrorist training camps in Iraq. And you want to make a big story about something other than that one statement. It appears that you are playing a game of dodgeball. You want to divert attention from issues at hand to bring up the total nonsense of his own traitorous past and what prompted Vietnam vets to turn against him? No wonder you were never asked to play on anyone's team.

Did I say that all traitorous liberals should be hanged? I was referring to those individuals who leaked classified information and those who chose to published it. Are you at all familiar with USC Title 18, 798? It specifies the law governing the release or publication of classified information. The penalties are pretty severe. Instead of just getting all wrapped around the axel for Scooter Libby's alleged perjury - not much different in legal interpretation from Clinton's brand of perjury - you may want to see about room reservations in Levenworth for James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, their bosses and their sources.

“I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism,” former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, October 21, 2003
“Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one,” Senator Edward Kennedy, October 16, 2003
“The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all,” Defeated Democratic Candidate for the Office of President of the United States, Al Gore, August 2003 - also known as the man who invented the Internet! Chuckle, BWAHAHAHAHA
"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion," Defeated Democratic Candidate for the Office of President of the United States, John Kerry, September 24, 2004.
"Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." John Kerry again, September 30, 2004.

I used to tell my students at Southern Maryland University to stay focused and on task in their Lab assignments. You may wish to try to do the same, FB.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 8, 2006 02:56 PM

Spy- you really believe there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda (and their attack on 9/11?)

Okay then. Thanks.

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 8, 2006 04:38 PM

As I opined in a rhetorical question elsewhere, FB, you are really not very good at this are you? Did I draw such a correlation? No, you did. I am just stating the fact that evidence is available to indicate that Saddam's so-called elite forces DID train some 8,000 terrorist operatives. There is some documentation to indicate, though, that there were mock aircraft flight drills at those three camps. Preparation?

Ya think?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 8, 2006 05:10 PM

You do believe it... wow. You probably also believe there were WMD's... oh, they were buried in the desert or shipped off to Syria... yeah, that's the ticket, Syria...

Posted by: Fat Bastard at January 8, 2006 06:37 PM

Well, Fat Bastard, you have nothing at all to support your position. I have all sorts of stuff that you cannot explain away, including recovered raw and enriched uranium, thousands of gallons of CBW gases and liquids and powders and projectiles, buried Russian, French and German missiles and weapons, plans and documents and photographs - all of which have been recovered since the U.S. invasion.

Would you like to have a list? Can you explain away each and every one?

I Doubt it.

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 8, 2006 07:25 PM

Here's another gem for you, Fat Bastard:

“It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world’s cause. We're in this together." -- John Kerry, March 20, 2003

Looks like the tiger's stripes - and resolve - have changed just a bit since then.

Does the word, Fraud ring a bell now that reminds us of the strength of his covictions after returning from Vietnam too, when he sold comrades down the drain for solely a partisan political objective?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 8, 2006 10:16 PM