i commend mr. robert for travelling to iraq, after reading his account i wondered where he went in iraq and how protected he was when he was there??
you're right about one thing...only 25% of the men and women who served in vietnam were drafted. However, over 1.7 million were drafted from 1965 - 1973.....38% of those served in vietnam. one can be as positive or negative as they want about the conflict and i hope that it works out as planned. it does not seem to be going that way.

Every American wants us to "succeed" in Iraq - we are already there, so we might as well finish the job.

But that doesn't change the simple fact that Bush was wrong to invade & occupy that country. Heck, Iraq could turn into the next Hollywood for all I care, all peaches & cream - it doesn't mean we were "successful." We can never be "successful" there because we never belonged there in the first place. And that is why Bush gets so much grief; not necessarily because of the debable that is now Iraq, but because on the premises for which he decided to invade.

So what if Iraq turns into American 2.0? What does that now mean - that we have the right to invade & occupy any country that we deem "unsafe" to American interests? That we can choose to build "democracies" in whatever country we want? Are we really supposed to be the World's Police, a country of nation-builders? Truly, is that what you neocons hope for?

Because I ask you who is next on your list? You always seem to avoid this question. But it's a fair question: you say (now) we removed Saddam because he was a brutal dictaor, and now American has "feed" 25 million Iraqis - but what of all the oppressed people in N. Korea, or Cuba, or Saudi Arabia, or heck, even China? Why not "liberate" those people? You on the right always seem to side-step that question.

Also, Mark - I've noticed you linking many times now to the Washington Post, in favor of Bush. Are you now conceding that the WP is not part of that oh-so-evil "MSM"? Or is the WP only "fair" when it supports Bush?

Sorry, that should read "America has freed 25 million ..."

Thank God for blogs like these. Great Job you guys!!! =)

maf53,

So you're saying that the President should have defied the will of Congress who, in 1998, passed the Iraq Liberation Act making regime change the official US policy and in 2003 passed the Authorization for use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq, which in addition to setting out the reasons for enforcing the 17 UN Resolutions, gave the President the go ahead to us military for to enforce the Resolutions.

Had President Bush proceeded with liberating Iraq without Congressional directive/authorization, your claims would have merit. But since Congress is the one who set the policy, under a Democrat President, and authorized the action, your disapproval is moot. Your elected representives in the US Congress gave the green light, and the President did the right thing.

"Because I ask you who is next on your list? You always seem to avoid this question. But it's a fair question: you say (now) we removed Saddam because he was a brutal dictaor, and now American has "feed" 25 million Iraqis - but what of all the oppressed people in N. Korea, or Cuba, or Saudi Arabia, or heck, even China? Why not "liberate" those people? You on the right always seem to side-step that question."

I have answered this question many times. First, Iraq was a unique case. None of the countries you listed were under a Ceasefire. None of the countries had recently invaded two neighboring countries. None of the countries has used WMD against its enemies and its own people. None of the countries were firing at our aircraft, an act of war. None of the countries attempted to assassinate a former US President. And most importantly, none of the countries were under a series of UN resolutions mandating disarmament, and was not completely cooperating with the resolutions. Add to that the active support of terrorism.

As for North Korea, sure they do a lot of sabre rattling, but they are contained. Their internal situation is so screwed up that they do not pose that great a threat. If it wasn't for the failed attempts by the Clinton administration at diplomacy, which resulted in giving the North Korean the technology to produce nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Sure, North Korea would like to reunite with South Korea. Why wouldn't they. South Korea is a democracy with a thriving economy. North Korea is a disaster, with millions starving. Just as what happened when the Iron Curtain fell, I'm predicting that when Kim Jong Ill meets his maker, reform will slowly take place.

China? Get real.

Cuba? As with North Korea, I think things will change when Castro dies. I haven't heard of a lot of Cuban supported terrorism either.

Saudi Arabia? Other than the fact that they are sort of an ally? They are slowly becoming more democratic, although I doubt if the Kingdom will give up the throne. We just need to continue to put pressure on them to stop the support of terrorism by the Wahhabi's. Saudi Arabia is a unique case as well because of the location of the two most holy sites in Islam.

With some countries, diplomacy works best. With others, when they are failing to comply with UN mandates that they agreed upon, where diplomacy has failed for 12 years, where they are skimming billions from UN program, military action is the right action. Remember also, President Bush gave Saddam the option to step down peacefully, and Saddam refused that option. He rolled the dice, basing his choice at our feckless response to the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole, and lost. We won.

Well at least MAF doesn't hide behind his parties skirt! Don't worry MAF, we all know you were against the war from the start and nothing could or would change your mind! That's O.K. we live in America! THE GREATEST NATION OF ALL! Oooooooooooowwwwwww, I can see you shaking when I say that! I think I'll say it again, just for the reaction. America, THE GREATEST NATION OF ALL! hahahaha I love saying that, and actually believing that!

Hey Mark, any ideas or info. on how we civies can help in Iraq other than with monetary, mental, physological, support from the homefront!

bearmanUSMC,

Have you considered joining your state's Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR). Its a great way for former military members to continue to serve. We are a DoD agency that works to gain and maintain employer support for their employees who are in the Guard and Reserve. We are always looking for more volunteers. We have a variety of programs in which you can serve. If you are interested, I can post the contact person in the state where you live (I'm the Executive Director of the Michigan Committee).

A10:

You listed 8 criteria for invading Iraq. Would those 8 criteria need to be met before we attack another country? 7? 5?

What about Iran? Are they next?

Signed, Just Curious

Just Curious,

Nice strawman.

They might be if they do not come to their senses and the present course of diplomacy fails to bring them into alignment with the UN mandates.

What would you proposed to do about Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons and using them against Israel or some other country?

Well tone down the rhetoric for one. Beating our chests does nothing to intimidate Iran, just inflames them.

UN mandates"

Do you also plan to cite UN mandates when they don't reflect our best interests?

Can you give me examples of this inflaming rhetoric? Links preferred.

I may not respond until tomorrow. We had to hoapitalize my mother early this morning (like 2:00 am) and I'm operating on zero sleep. The sandman is calling.....

Get some rest. Your mother is more important than our silly little debate.

Hope she is better.

inflaming rhetoric:

Bush:

"All options are on the table," said Mr Bush, when asked about the possible use of force during an interview for Israeli TV.

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

Cheney:

It was used last month by Vice President Dick Cheney, who seemed to hint at military action or even the overthrow of the Tehran government. "We join other nations in sending that regime a clear message," Mr. Cheney said. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Cheney
said that the Security Council would "impose meaningful consequences" if Iran remained in defiance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4147892.stm

I don't like the swipe at "clinton civil servants". You can't expect office workers to do combat deployments. If you do your on crack.

I am retired GS13 with Air Force and Federal Courts experiance and I have always supported President Bush. But I served just the same under Clinton. Just dumb to take a shot at stateside civil service.

Ash,

It is impossible to inflame someone who has already called for Israel to be wiped off the map...he's about as inflamed as he can get, and nothing we do - plus or minus - is going to change things. You're falling into the appeasment trap; that concept that if the good guys will change their behaviour, the bad guys will follow suit. Doesn't work that way.

Maf asks what is next - whatever proves to be next, will be next. In spite of leftwing attempts to create a web of neocon conspiracy, it really doesn't work that way - no one, least of all the neo-conservatives, has ever put forth a program of endless American intervention around the world. What we will do, however, is promote freedom at every opportunity and fight terrorism and tyranny where ever and whenever we can.

It does not follow that because we liberated Iraq directly that we will, say, directly liberate Iran or North Korea. In a perfect world, we would just set a plan to knock off each tyranny in a systematic effort to rid the world of tyrants, but that is just not possible - never was, never will be. There are a host of reasons for our not being able to do such a thing - not least of which is the fact that a sizeable portion of American opinion (mostly on the left, but some on the right) holds the United States to be the primary problem in the world, and thus they inhibit robust American action from time to time.

Be that as it may, we will take the next step - right now, Iran looms very large, but do not discount a move against Syria or North Korea. The decision to make the next move will be based upon conditions at the time the decision is made. For the present, it looks very likely that we'll engage in military action against Iran before fall...but that could change rapidly. Suffice it to say that there will come a day of reckoning with the Iranian mullahs.

You see, 9/11 really did change everything - at least, it did so for anyone who loves America and loves liberty. It became clear that we had followed a realpolitik blind for 50 years vis a vis the third world, and especially the Arab/Moslem part of it. We weren't on the side of the angels - we worked from the abominable assumption that our brothers and sisters in the third world were a problem to be managed, rather than people to be succored. The American left - and a small portion of the right - still views the third world like that...we who support the Bush Administration don't.

Vash,

Why aren't they going to Iraq? Why are so many of them turning out to be working against Administration policy?

Given the evidence I have, I just don't trust anyone who was hired or promoted into any senior position by the Clinton Administration - additionally, I find it disturbing that the government is having such a hard time getting career civil servants to work in Iraq. I realise it is a dangerous place and a harship post, but people should only go work for government if they have a calling to serve, even at high cost to themselves. If all they are doing is punching a clock and waiting for retirement, they should find something else to do for a living.

Definitely interested A-10! I'm in kaleefornia!

bearmanUSMC,

Contact one of "kaleefornia's" Executive Directors (They have two, one for the north and one for the south). Their contact information is found on the National ESGR web site. Just click on the part of the state you live in, and the contact information will be listed.

By the way, I served in the USMC from '73 to '76.

A-10

Thanks for the link A-10! I was an early 90's jarhead! I have a bro who recently got out of the 101st airborne, he did tours in afghanistan & Iraq! It makes him sick to see the liberal negative spin from the left on what is going on over there! He says if the real story were told liberals would have no choice but to jump on the bandwagon because of the "commpassionate" reputation they have tried to make for themselves over the years! Go libs! Thank God for the MSM and there spin, eh libs!

Mark,

I'm afraid you have fallen into the trap that the United States is automatically the good guy and therefore has the right, nay, obligation, to be the policeman of the world. I don't think any country can claim the moral right to restructure the world in their image based on the military might to nuke dissenters into the stoneage.

You describe yourself as a Catholic first. The sooner you admit to yourself and your readers that you see this primarily as a religous war, or neo Crusades, the sooner your credibility will be accepted. You look at and interpret everything concerning the middle east in terms of Catholic v. Islam. Sure you can cloak it in terms of democracy, or the choice to choose for themselves (as long as they choose what we want). But the subtext for you is always Christianity v. Islam.

Old adages are usually the best. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink it. We have laid the groundwork for new opportunites in Iraq. NOW it is up to them.

Bring the boys home, because we love them.

t is impossible to inflame someone who has already called for Israel to be wiped off the map

And who appointed us study hall monitor for the world? Israel can take care of itself just fine, see: The Six Day War of 1967 for example.

In fact I would say they can handle the situation much better than we could based on our performance in Iraq.

Lets get back to basics:

Dem Party = saddam filling mass graves

Pres. Bush = saddam making license plates while wearing an orange jump suit

Wish things were that simple James. And frankly the war in Iraq is not our most pressing issue.

Ash,

I thought you were so incensed a while back because someone called you "obtuse," that you pitched a hissy-fit, picked up your keyboard and vowed to boycott this blogsite.

So much for keeping your word...

Oh! I forget! You're a liberal! That means you can change the rules when you see fit, as you see fit. No one should take anything that you post as worth the bandwidth you wasted to express it.

Go crawl back under that bridge that you live under. Leave the adults to engage in substantive debate. You haven't the skill or intelligence to make the cut...

Mark called me a liar. Which is a tad ratched up from obtuse.

I am returnin because I just can't let the morons like yourself continue unchallenged.

dbog, you'll know when I throw a hissy fit: I'll reach through your screen and choke the living crap out of you!

Now after you change your underwear, try to address the issue I brought up. Or is it too intellectual for you?

"But since Congress is the one who set the policy, under a Democrat President, and authorized the action, your disapproval is moot." -A10

I don't care what President signed the "Iraq Liberation Act," to be honest with you. What I'm asking is, do you think it's the United States' interest to be the World's Police? You didn't answer that question. Why are we the country with the so-called God-given right to nation build?

You on the right boast that we "liberated" 25 million Iraqis, and that in itself was reason to invade Iraq. Well, I ask you why we shouldn't invade other countries that oppress their people. Noonan has stated that Communism is as bad, if not worse, than Nazism - so surely you would seek to invade the evil countries of China & Cuba, no?

You can't practice freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Why is this okay with you? Why is this okay that these people are being oppressed? Do you smell hypocrite?

Why haven't we intervened in Darfur? Talk about genocide. I thought Bush was all about "liberating" people - why haven't we liberated those people? When's the last time B4B posted something about Darfur?

The bottom line is that we didn't invade Iraq to "liberate" their people. So stop saying that was the reason - the only people who belive that are the ignorant, uneducated people from Kansas. And to say that we invaded them for security reasons is also untrue - otherwise, N. Korea & Iran would've been first on the list.

Noonan states, "What we will do, however, is promote freedom at every opportunity and fight terrorism and tyranny where ever and whenever we can."

Well, freedom can be fought for in many other places than Iraq. There are many other opportunities. Again: N. Korea, Cuba, China, Libya, Iran. When are we going to invade?

As for Dbog - way to stay on topic. Just another useless sheep, you have proved yourself to be.

Out of curiousity, when did the U.S.A. switch from fighting to make the world safe FOR democracy to making the world A democracy.

Dear Ash, Bwawaahahahahahahhahahaaaahahaaaaaahahaaaaahahahaahahaaaahahahahhaahahaaaaa! wow, i'll bet dbog was scared to death!

Maf, as your buddy Ash said a few posts ago, it's not as simple as that!

And to answer your question, absofrickinlutely! At times that is. Always in every circumstance? No! Does that answer your pathetic twist of words?

Lest you forget conveniently
Maf, we HAD a strong case(worldwide) against Iraq! Multiple intel agencies in all parts of the world were in agreement as to the dangers of an unfettered Iraq. When did you forget all that?

If any of the liberals have taken the time to talk to the military and understand part of their dedication to Iraq is the fact that Clinton allowed us to become a "paper tiger" in the eyes of ALL countires. they are fighting a war they knew would be on American soil in the not too distant future. However, if they did any research they would have to quit blaming Bush for everything--we also have a senators and congresspeople that voted for this war before they didn't vote for it. Some days are just "head in the Oven" days. Dindy

maf53,

Do you read what other people post? Or do you just keeping posting the same silly questions and ignore the responses because they prove you wrong?

Now you ask: What I'm asking is, do you think it's the United States' interest to be the World's Police? You didn't answer that question. Why are we the country with the so-called God-given right to nation build?

It is not always in the US's best interest to be the World's Police. However, in some circumstances, when the UN passes a series of Resolutions, then refuses to enforce them, it is in the US's, and the world's, best interest that we step in and take action. We have, without a doubt, the most professional, most efficient, and most effective military in the world. In many cases, if the US does not step in and take action, no other country has the capability. There is no other country who could have gone into Afghanistan then Iraq and achieved what we did when we commenced hostilities, and three weeks later, had completely subdued their respoctive military forces. Witness the USSR in Afghanistan in the '80's. The spent 10 years and never accomplished what we did in three weeks.

Not to sound superior, but the American experiment is the most successful in the world. For all our faults, we have the most free society. Everyone has the opportunity to succeed, if they so desire. We have the world's leading economy. We have the world's most advanced scientific and industrial capabilities. We have the world's finest military. There is a reason why millions want to immigrate to the US each year. There's also a reason more than 40 countries have joined the National Guard "Partnership for Peace" Program where our state National Guard "adopts" a country and works with them to establish a National Guard. If a country wants to pattern themselves after the most successful country on earth, it is logical that they would choose the US of A. Who would you rather they pattern themselves after? Cuba? Mexico? North Korea? The Sudan? China?

As far as nation building, where we have done national building, we have a fairly successful record. Japan, since WWII, has been an unqualified success. So has Germany. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are not shoving our exact type of government down their throats. Their constitutions are democratic in nature, but reflect the culture and social environment of the country.

I do not understand why the left has a problem with us spreading democracy throughout the world. Aren't you proud of the successes of the US? Aren't you proud of our record of coming to the aid of countries in need? Aren't you proud of the fact that if it wasn't for the intervention of the US during WWII, Europe would be speaking German and all Jews and those not of Arian descent would have been killed, and the Far East would be dominated by Japan? Aren't you proud of the fact that, on whole, we haven't been imperialists, regardless of what the liberals preach? We gave Cuba, the Phillipines, Germany, Japan, and countless other countries their freedom after we had defeated them in battle.

Finally, you ask: "Well, freedom can be fought for in many other places than Iraq. There are many other opportunities. Again: N. Korea, Cuba, China, Libya, Iran. When are we going to invade?"

I answered your question earlier on this post. Why are you asking it again? Is it because you were proven wrong and don't want to admit it?

Keep it up and we're going to have to start ignoring you because you refuse to listen to reason and keep asking the same questions, which are answered.

maf53,

Are you and Ash twins separated at birth? You both have the lucidity of mold. You both seem to just churn out the same tired, pointless drivel.

You rarely, if ever, respond to challenges to your assertions. And when substantive rebuttal occurs on one or more of your pointless points, you change the subject for a while, then come back to your original talking points - as if no one had successfully and adequately refuted all the bilge that you generated.

Why don't you take the same "high road" as Ash, and pitch a hissy fit, unplug your keyboard, and vow to boycott BlogsforBush? Oh - that's right! Ash can't be taken on his word, because he changes the rules when it suits him - just like you do!

People, please stop feeding these moronic trolls. They have nothing to contribute except their bitter, self-loathing bile. Let's just comment and debate with one another.

If we continue to enable these trolls, then they are essentially playing the same role as Harry Reid does in the U.S. Senate - setting the agenda as the discredited minority party. Their potty-mouthed rants should be relegated to where they belong - in the black hole of cyberspace known as dailykos.com...

While Senator Frist and the Republicans seem to constantly cave in to this tactic, we could serve as a role model for them to grow a set and start acting like the majority party. If we continue to respond to these trolls, not only are we not advancing our beliefs, we are validating the beliefs of these delusional misfits...

Ash,

I don't feed trolls, so I won't respond to your drivel, except to state:

I thought you were so incensed a while back because someone called you "obtuse," that you pitched a hissy-fit, picked up your keyboard and vowed to boycott this blogsite.

So much for keeping your word...

Oh! I forget! You're a liberal! That means you can change the rules when you see fit, as you see fit. No one should take anything that you post as worth the bandwidth you wasted to express it.

Go crawl back under that bridge that you live under. Leave the adults to engage in substantive debate. You haven't the skill or intelligence to make the cut...

dbogdan,

I'm for ignoring them. Maybe in a couple of years, after they have grown out of diapers, they'll return with a more lucid point of view.

The only benefit in their posts is reassurance that the left is no threat politically.

A-10,

If THEY are representatives of the left, I believe you are 110% on target!

They do so hate being irrelevant. But they do it so well!! LOL!!

dbogdan,

What really irks me is when you challenge them to come up with an alternative plan to address the issues, and they change the topic or re-ask questions that we have answered 10,000 times.

I take delight in debunking their baseless claims, especially when it comes to the War on Terror and Iraq. Of course, they never have an answer to your responses beyond "you are a mindless Bush-lover" or a "warmonger".

Methinks A-10 and dbog just had some kind of wierd, redneck, lovefest, conservative orgie.

Ash,

I've noticed you have a distinct modus operandi when you post in this blogsite. In keeping with the standard that you have so clearly set down, I'd like to state...

You rarely, if ever, respond to challenges to your assertions. And when substantive rebuttal occurs on one or more of your pointless points, you change the subject for a while, then come back to your original talking points - as if no one had successfully and adequately refuted all the bilge that you generated.

People, please stop feeding these moronic trolls. They have nothing to contribute except their bitter, self-loathing bile. Let's just comment and debate with one another.

If we continue to enable these trolls, then they are essentially playing the same role as Harry Reid does in the U.S. Senate - setting the agenda as the discredited minority party. Their potty-mouthed rants should be relegated to where they belong - in the black hole of cyberspace known as dailykos.com...

While Senator Frist and the Republicans seem to constantly cave in to this tactic, we could serve as a role model for them to grow a set and start acting like the majority party. If we continue to respond to these trolls, not only are we not advancing our beliefs, we are validating the beliefs of these delusional misfits...

I won't waste any more time or effort in responding to your posts except to copy and paste from a template I've saved on my computer. That's all the time, energy or consideration that I'm willing to devote to commenting on what you have to say... and that's apparently exactly what you do as well!!

Come back sometime in the future, when you've grown into adulthood and joined the rest of the world, outside of your delusional, parallel universe.

"I've noticed you have a distinct modus operandi when you post in this blogsite."

Back at ya pal. My original post on this thread concerned our role in the world politic. I asserted that we have no moral right to "police" the world.

And you responded:

"thought you were so incensed a while back because someone called you "obtuse," that you pitched a hissy-fit, picked up your keyboard and vowed to boycott this blogsite.

So much for keeping your word...

Oh! I forget! You're a liberal! That means you can change the rules when you see fit, as you see fit. No one should take anything that you post as worth the bandwidth you wasted to express it.

Go crawl back under that bridge that you live under. Leave the adults to engage in substantive debate. You haven't the skill or intelligence to make the cut...

NOW WHO AVOIDED THE DISCUSSION? LOTS OF CLASS.

I am not offended in the least that you are going to put your fingers in your ears and shout lalalalala whenever I post. I can listen to the Republican talking points and here what you have to say.

Ash,

Funny how, when the shoe is on the other foot, and we engage in your posting practices, you talk out of the other side of your mouth!! Now you're sounding like A-10, bearmanUSMC, Almiranta, etc.

Gotcha!!

You rarely, if ever, respond to challenges to your assertions. And when substantive rebuttal occurs on one or more of your pointless points, you change the subject for a while, then come back to your original talking points - as if no one had successfully and adequately refuted all the bilge that you generated.

People, please stop feeding these moronic trolls. They have nothing to contribute except their bitter, self-loathing bile. Let's just comment and debate with one another.

If we continue to enable these trolls, then they are essentially playing the same role as Harry Reid does in the U.S. Senate - setting the agenda as the discredited minority party. Their potty-mouthed rants should be relegated to where they belong - in the black hole of cyberspace known as dailykos.com...

While Senator Frist and the Republicans seem to constantly cave in to this tactic, we could serve as a role model for them to grow a set and start acting like the majority party. If we continue to respond to these trolls, not only are we not advancing our beliefs, we are validating the beliefs of these delusional misfits...

dbog, I must disagree with you on this one. I think without people like Maf & Ash this world would be too perfect and this website would be semi-boring! Don't get me wrong, I love your well thought out posts as well as A-10, Almiranta etc. But,If you have been around for awhile you will have noticed that alot of B4B vets have moved on or taken the same route as I have. We simply state the common sense of an issue and lol at the libs sputtering at their PC on the other end! I will not waste prescious time and thought on libs that never think there is a reason good enough to fight! They are literaly LAME DUCKS and useless to those of us that believe in a strong, fair America!

bearmanUSMC,

If any of these people had anything of significance to state, other than the same, tired pap, I'd agree with you. However, it has become abundantly clear to me that they have a few set-in-concrete talking points that they generate in response to any of the posted topics. Then, they respond to criticism or rebuttal by ignoring the challenges, and reasserting the same, tired drivel. I would really, really like to hear from someone on the opposition's side that's honestly willing to state their opinion and respond with respect, maturity and dignity, instead of the disingenuous method of avoidance of the subject matter when directly confronted, relying on name-calling (see the above post about A-10 and my "wierd, redneck, lovefest, conservative orgie"), and otherwise muddying the dialogue with their preposterous, partisan assertions. That's what passes for intellectual give-and-take for them... how pathetic.

The purpose of my cut-and-paste postings over the past several hours was to elicit exactly the type of response that I got from Ash. All of the sudden, the issue becomes for him, that I am not responding to the substance of his so-called thoughts. "I am not offended in the least that you are going to put your fingers in your ears and shout lalalalala whenever I post. I can listen to the Republican talking points and here(sic) what you have to say."

When I purposely engaged in the same type of repetitive posting that he and his ilk practice, regardless of the feedback that was offered, suddenly, Ash seems to think that I'm being hypocritical, disengenuous, and unwilling to discuss the issues at hand. It is a perfect illustration of how, when we (those of us who are not lefties) mimic their method of obfuscation and denial of criticism, suddenly we're being terribly un-intellectual and hypocritical. But he seemed fine with it when he and his coherts systematically engaged in precisely that modus operandi. I've noticed this tendency ever since I first started reading posts on this website. I deliberately set out to replicate the pattern of "give and take" that I see him and his ilk engage in every single day. His response was precisely as I thought it would be.

Lefties can dish it out, but they cannot take it!

I agree that this site would be much more boring if we all agreed with one another (which we do not) without the glaring discrepancy, divorced from reality, of the comments by the lefty trolls. I'm convinced that, somewhere on the left, there exists people who are rational and willing to SERIOUSLY engage us in honest debate. So far, with few exceptions, I haven't read anyone who fits that description.

On the other hand, I have great respect for Ricorun, Almiranta, you, A-10 (notwithstanding our "wierd,(sic) redneck, lovefest, conservative orgie."

As you may or may not have noted, there have been several significant areas of disagreement in many topics. When that occurs, I have asked for, and successfully received, clarification from each of these individuals. That's what blogging is all about - fleshing out our positions to see if they hold water. Sometime they do. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes I alter my perception of their ideas. Other times, we agree to continue to disagree. But there is little, if any, animus involved. That's a major difference between those of us who are serious about voicing our opinions, and those of us, like Ash, maf53, et. al. who seem more intent on bashing their opinions down our throats and telling us what creeps we are...

My concern with responding to the loonies on the left is that we spend too much time responding to their bizarre assertions. In the process, we're often not fleshing out our positions, we're responding to the agenda that they have set forth. Hence, my comparison to Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate. If Bill Frist and the allegedly conservative leadership in the Senate and House were to simply move forward with their initiatives, instead of wasting their time and energy trying to overcome the Dems' maintaining control of the national agenda, they'd have accomplished a good amount of progress on several items of national importance.

Among them:
• Opening up ANWAR for its resources;
• developing a sensible approach to upholding and reinforcing our immigration laws;
• containing the out-of-control spending habits of those who seek to "earmark" their pork into critical legislation;
• developing alternative sources of energy to wean ourselves off of petroleum in general and, by proxy, our support for the jihadist establishments who take our money and work toward our downfall.

As things stand right now, the Republicrats seem more intent on out-democrat'ing the Demublicans as they pander to the illegals who MIGHT in the future, be allowed to vote for donks, intent on out-democrat'ing the Demublicans as they vilify the capitalists behind our oil infrastructure crisis, and intent on spending our money like there's no tomorrow.

I enjoy reading coherent and lucid opinions such as exhibited by Ricorun, Almiranta, yourself, A-10 (can I have a smoke now?!), and others who take the time to pause, think things through, research, and make their opinions known.

If we spend too much time and energy in trying to defuse/refute the ignoramuses and outright liars, it is that much less time we have to advance our concepts in the arena of ideas.

Thanks again for your feedback. I look forward to reading more from those who have something of significance to offer. As you probably can infer, maf53 and Ash are not among those I put in that category...

P.S. I'm sorry that I didn't include any of the particularly poignant passages from "muiergeo." I hope that this oversight didn't result in any hurt feeling to the ever-insulted and angry persona that is exhibited by this particularly midguided individual...

I will cede a very important point made by Ash yesterday in response to A-10's notification that he had a medical situation within his family.

A-10:
"I may not respond until tomorrow. We had to hoapitalize my mother early this morning (like 2:00 am) and I'm operating on zero sleep. The sandman is calling.....
Posted by: A-10

Ash:
:Get some rest. Your mother is more important than our silly little debate.

Hope she is better."

Thank you, Ash for your humane response and wishes for A-10's mother's recovery. I second both the letter and intent of his comments...

Ash,

Hardly - as a Catholic, I view Islam as a Christian heresy; they are still of the Body of Christ, just mistaken in some of their theological views.

You are making a large error - it is because I don't want this to become a clash of civilizations that I support this effort. We could very well have gone in for the clash of civilizations after 9/11...the American people would have supported it, and once in, you're in for good until its all over.

President Bush, a fellow Christian, took the more merciful course of action - the more generous, loving and compassionate course. Instead of viewing Islam as a monolithic enemy to be destroyed, President Bush - with the eager support of people like me - choose to view Islam as something hijacked by hatred. In this interpretation of events, it is the creation of Arab/Moslem democracies which will cure the ill - by providing freedom, we provide hope; with hope, we take away the primary recruiting tool of the enemy, despair.

Going in, everyone recognised that it might not work - that the socio-political ground might prove too intractable. As it is, the votes of the Iraqis and Afghans is showing that the theory is correct...our only problem now is the so-called "anti-war" left. With stunning victories already attained, the anti-war left is making a desperate play to undo it all...to so talk down the success and talk up the problems as to convince a majority of Americans to turn power over to the Democrats this November, who will scuttle Iraq and impeach President Bush.

They will fail, because right makes might - we have done the right thing, and that will be rewarded with success all down the line.

Yes, everyone recognized that it might not work -- except the people executing the war, running the war, and selling the war. According to them his war has been over for years, we have about $200 billion more in the bank, and we're on our way to the other two Evils of the Axis. Now the righties are reduced to we did the right thing and liberals must want Saddam in power -- reason #9 why we went into Iraq.

Must be nice to be able to rewrite half of history and ignore the other half, especially when it is so well documented straight out of the mouths of those who took us into this war in the first place.

Hey TheDemsisdead (AKA GOPisDying),

Your problem is that the President was right, we are winning, and you can't deal with it. You cannot accept that the "bumpkin" from Crawford has developed a plan to fight and defeat terrorism and it is working. That's OK. Just leave the heavy lifting and fighting to the adults on the right.

The President never said that "his" war has been over for years. On the contrary, he reiterates that we are in this for the long haul. I assume you are referring to the "Mission Accomplished" banner proudly displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln. That banner reflected that the crew of the Lincoln had accomplished their mission of defeating the Armies of Saddam, not that the overall Global War on Terror was over.

Its nice that you can ignore history and make up stories and post them on this blog. Ain't America great.

"Ash seems to think that I'm being hypocritical, disengenuous, and unwilling to discuss the issues at hand.

Allow me to add, dbog, I was manipulating you as well. One of the rightwing tactics is to ass-u-me (sic) certain things and assign values en masse. (seems to think, libs feel, all left wing loonies isn't very analytical, dbog)

I also wanted to elicit name calling that is rampant on this blog, donks, left wing loonies, etc. And of course you played right into my hand.

I am emotional and write emotionally. Do not confuse that for writing without research. Do not assume you are any more intellectual than I because you use words like obfuscate and mocking a typing mistake by using (sic) in parenthesis.

I am more than happy to ignore your ostentatious self dbog (only pseudo-intellectuals use obfuscate), and will kindly request you return the favor.

Bearman, thanks for your opinion. I will tone down my emotions. I visit this blog and make postings because it focuses my attention on topics that are important in todays world.

Ash, please do not tone down your emotions! I believe in passionate & emotional debate & dissent! I have always been a strong proponent of passionate blogging! With that passion will most definitely some finger pointing & namecalling! It must be accepted, especially if you don't want to go thru to many keyboards, lol. I was telling dbog that I don't waste my time on long passionate postings anymore because it is like beating my head against a brick wall, & I do not have time for that! So, I stick to short common sensical postings and leave all the deep intellectual debating to those with time! I'm to busy trying to make peoples dreams come true! Well back to it I go! Rock on Ash, just don't get stuck........on stupid that is!!!LOL

GOPisdying, Bwahahahahahahaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you know why I laugh dimwit, cause we will never die, & never go away(kinda like Billyboy), we will always be there to haunt your every thought! Bwahahahahaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaa! So sorry to dissapoint you!

To answer questions previous posts past, the United States has the omnicorrect right to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves and our allies.

I wouldn't take to kindly to a person who knows where I live threatening to kill me. If that person knows how to get to me, and conceivably has the means to do so, then I could run away or get him before he gets me.

Now to analogize to the debate: Iraq threatened the US with WMDs and there's significant evidence that Iraq supported terrorism, i.e. the recent ABC investigation into the Saddam-AlQueda links. Being a country of nearly 300 million, we don't have the option of running away, so we threw the first punch. Or course, we could have had a good laugh and joked that "Ol Saddy is at it again". But had a biological weapon gone off in the streets of LA, it wouldn't have been so negligible.

We cannot afford to have a reactive goverment in reference to terrorism. We have to be proactive if we hope to keep unneccessary slaughter of civilians from repeating. We cannot let thousand of people die everytime there is a need to justify subduing a nation who has threatened us.

We cannot wait till a country is capable of harming us, and we definetly cannot wait until they've done the deed. Consider it: police will shoot to kill if a suspect they think is armed makes an agressive move. Not because they are police, but to protect themselves and the people they serve.

I watch the Iranian ambassador and president openly threating the West with "suicide bombers" and "harm" in public forum, and am so confused when people still aren't sure if they should be taken seriously. Not to mention they can cause a major hinderance in the Iraq theater of the GWOT if they should decide to.

Waiting for terrorism to strike is unacceptable if we hope to keep America in the majesty it is now. Having to wait to be attacked to confront a threat is equivalent of saying that the spilling of innocent blood is the same requisite.

"only pseudo-intellectuals use obfuscate"

All kinds of people use the word "obfuscate," when it is applicable in describing those who are attempting to twist, manipulate, and render obscure, unclear, or unintellible some port of substance - such as you do with a consistency of the sun rising and setting...

I've usually been called pedantic, which I believe far more describes my writing style. But "ostentatious?" Perhaps - if the purpose is designed to impress or attract notice, then so be it. In either event, both adjectives are accurate and apparently my efforts were greatly rewarded!!

Ooops!

"All kinds of people use the word "obfuscate," when it is applicable in describing those who are attempting to twist, manipulate, and render obscure, unclear, or unintellible some port(sic) of substance - such as you do with a consistency of the sun rising and setting..."

I can also be self-deprecating!!!

"Ash, please do not tone down your emotions!"

You got it Bearman. I think dbog thinks I ignore his dissertations because I have no defense or just chose to ignore them. But I'm like you. I haven't got the time to go through long winded posts.

Get to the point. I'd read War and Peace if I had that kind of time.

I couldn't care one way or the other if you do or do not ignore my posts...

I don't feed trolls.

On the other hand, if you actually took the time to read one of the long posts, you might actually learn something. Of course, if you never read them, you can't be persuaded to change your mind. Clever ruse.

Wow, didn't mean to get Dbog & A10's panties all caught up in a bunch. Spin it all you want - the United States should not be engaging in Nation Building. We hold no moral authority to act as the World Police.

Iran is a threat to Israel? Well, last time I checked, Israel has a military & can take care of themselves ... If you're willing to let Kim Jong whither away & hope for change in N. Korea, then why not the same for Sadaam & Iraq? You sidestepped the Communist nations, China & Cuba - I thought Communism was as great an evil as Nazism? Why aren't those people worthy to be "freed" by us too? ... And you made no mention of Darfur. Big surprise.

Hey, Happy 3 year Anniversary, everyone! It's Mission Accomplished Day! Mark, I hope you'll be having an open thread for this one. Check this out over at Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005

maf53,

Yes, Israel can take care of themselves. If fact, they can turn Iran into a glowing parking lot. But they are one of three democracies in the Middle East and they are our allies. You see, the US can be counted on to support and defend our allies. We would prefer that Iran come to their senses and stop threatening Israel. They have vowed to wipe out Israel and we cannot afford to ignore their threats. We ignored the threat from '93 to '2000 and we got attacked on 9/11. We don't want the same to happen in Israel.

Why not Saddam & Iraq? I refuse to waste my time telling you what I have already told you time and time again. Go back and read my previous posts on this and other threads.

China? Duh. Does a population of over 1,000,000,000 mean anything to you.

Cuba? Already answered that. Read.

I'm surprised you aren't celebrating May Day along with your leftist buddies in Cuba, China, and North Korea.

A10,

So if Iran is going to be pre-emptively attacked (pre-emptive strikes to spead democracy, gotta love that "Bush Doctrine"), you're saying the US should be the ones to do it? Or Israel?

So China's citizens don't mean anything to us because their Army would whoop our ass?

Cuba - still a Communist nation. Communism = biggest threat in human history. Still side-stepping that issue. I'm not talking about sponsored terrorism. I'm talking about Communism.

And, once again, you fail to answer to Darfur. There is genocide going on over there. This isn't important to Bush? Why doesn't B4B even discuss Darfur?

Maf, and now for the million $ question! What would YOU & your lefty buddies suggest we do about Darfur! Personally, If I were pres.(good thing I'm not), i would tell you and your buddies to get the hell out of my way, go in and rescue another nation! I would also tell you to take your beloved U.N. and shove it up your you know what! It amazes me how you lefties can talk out of every holes you possess! You tell us we were wrong for going in and liberating 25 millions Iraqi! They beg to differ. Now you ask us what WE are going to do about darfur! Sit down ans STFU unless you have some viable solutions of your own! So far your 0 for 0!

Are you and Ash twins separated at birth? You both have the lucidity of mold. You both seem to just churn out the same tired, pointless drivel.

You rarely, if ever, respond to challenges to your assertions. And when substantive rebuttal occurs on one or more of your pointless points, you change the subject for a while, then come back to your original talking points - as if no one had successfully and adequately refuted all the bilge that you generated.

Why don't you take the same "high road" as Ash, and pitch a hissy fit, unplug your keyboard, and vow to boycott BlogsforBush? Oh - that's right! Ash can't be taken on his word, because he changes the rules when it suits him - just like you do!

People, please stop feeding these moronic trolls. They have nothing to contribute except their bitter, self-loathing bile. Let's just comment and debate with one another.

If we continue to enable these trolls, then they are essentially playing the same role as Harry Reid does in the U.S. Senate - setting the agenda as the discredited minority party. Their potty-mouthed rants should be relegated to where they belong - in the black hole of cyberspace known as dailykos.com...

While Senator Frist and the Republicans seem to constantly cave in to this tactic, we could serve as a role model for them to grow a set and start acting like the majority party. If we continue to respond to these trolls, not only are we not advancing our beliefs, we are validating the beliefs of these delusional misfits...

maf53,

You can talk about communism all you want, I was talking about terrorism and countries that support it.

If you get your head out of your fourth point of contact (my airborne friends will know what I'm talking about) and read the news, you would know that we just sent the Deputy Secretary of State to Sudan to help resolve the issue. Personally, I think that the situation in Sudan is tailor made for the UN. If they are to be an actual force for good in the world, they need to step in during times like this.

I'll echo bearmanUSMC's remarks: Since you are so quick to criticise anything the Bush administration does, please enlighten us about the liberal plans to deal with Iraq, North Korea, China, Cuba, and Sudan. And don't give us any "we're not in power, so we don't have to come up with solutions" crap. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Maf, when are you going to answer the question? You know the one about what you would do about Darfur! Come on, give me one, just one good reason to vote for a democrat! I dying to hear your answer!

bearmanUSMC,

You may die waiting for an answer.

You know the liberal modus operandi, drop into a conservative blog, throw out some outrageous claim, get thoroughly refuted, then refuse to answer any challenges sent their way. If they do return to the blog, they'll change the subject, call President Bush incompetent, then flutter away.

"You may die waiting for an answer." - A10

I'm sorry I can't blog for a living, A10. Mark & Matt put up new threads every couple hours - some of the older ones get lost. You know how it is.

Anyway ... if you couldn't tell, my reason for bringing up that list of other countries (Saudi Arabia, Cuba, N. Korea, etc) was to illustrate that there are countries, other than Iraq, that oppress their citizens.

You on the right just loooooove to assert that one of the main reasons (after the first 12 proved to be fabricated, of course) for invading Iraq was to "liberate" their citizens. So I simply asked what about those other countries - why not them? If your main objective was to "liberate," then why stop in Iraq? Predictably, from your responses, you have shown that, at bottom, you don't give a crap about these people.

Not that you should, really. I have maintained (have you not read?) that it is not the job of the United States to act as World Police. Israel has a problem with Iran? Let Israel take care of it. They're plenty capable. Cubans feel oppressed by Castro? Well, do something about it yourself. Same thing goes for China. Don't rely on this country to always bail you out. That is my point.

A10 does make a good point about Darfur - I agree, that is the job of the UN, not the US. But you guys don't believe in the UN anyway, so what does it even matter?

maf53,

Sure other countries oppress their citizens. But they haven't recently attacked two of the neighboring countries, produced and used WMD, actively support terrorism *what a lovely combination WMD and terrorism), are in material breach of a Ceasefire and 17 UN Resolutions, and attempted to assassinate a former US President. That makes them a special case.

Additionally, there's "oppression", then there's raping women and children in front of fathers, then killing the whole family. There's mass executions and graves with thousands of bodies. There's feeding people, alive, through plastic shredders. There's tying people to poles to be eaten alive by starving dogs. There's "oppression", then there's sadistic murdering.

Would you care to list the 12 reasons you think are "fabricated". I'll be glad to give you 12 that are in no way fabricated:

1. Invaded Iran and Kuwait, two soverign nations (that actually could be two separate reasons, but I'll combine them into one).

2. Used WMD against the Iranian Army.

3. Used WMD against the Kurds.

4. Violated the 2001 Ceasefire Agreement.

5. Fired at US and UK aircraft patroling the No-Fly Zone.

6. Was training terrorists at Salmon Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi.

7. Continued WMD programs in violation of UN Resolutions.

8. Failed to fully declare all WMD and WMD programs (they actually issued at least five "full and final declarations" only to have inspectors discover additional WMD).

9. Refused to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq after the 1st Gulf War.

10. Attempted to assassinate President George H. W. Bush.

11. Harbored known terrorist leaders, such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal.

12. Failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.

Here's a few bonus justifications:

13. Purchased prohibited weapons systems and materials in violation of the UN Resolutions.

14. Paid surviving family members of terrorist bombers $25,000.

15. Diverted billions of Oil-for-Food payments meant for food and medicine and spent it on palace construction, bribes, and prohibited weapons.

16. Bribed the French, Germans, and Russians to oppose UN military action.

I'm not even going to mention the rape rooms, murders, plastic shredders, etc., instead we'll lump them all under "oppression".

I challenge you to show how any of these 16 reasons are "fabricated".

You know, I have read dozens of blog and comments that have posted, by conservatives and by liberals. And I have never once see a post by a liberal that has said that freeing the Iraqi people from oppression was a good thing. That preventing Saddam from supplying terrorists with WMD is a good thing. That enforcing the UN Resolutions was a good thing. But now I've called you on it. The only thing out of a liberal's mouth is "Bush lied" and that we were wrong to invade Iraq.

We say freeing them from oppression is a good thing and that we care about the Iraqi people. You call us hyprocrites and claim we fabricated the justification, yet you profess no feelings towards the Iraqi people. I don't think you are a liberal. I think you are a self-absorbed, self-centered, self-righteous, negative #%&@$.