So why the quotes on the word "peace"...

Let me guess - your a traitor, support terrorism, and what else Mark???

You have to understand Mark - the answer to everything isn't bombs away...

From Dissent Magazine...

Enjoy

(Ed. Note: find a link or just take some selected quotes...cut and paste jobs taking up that much space are (a) lazy and (b) rude to everyone else who is then forced to scroll forever to get to something worth reading.)

kblack,

No, because all of the "peace" movements of the world have only made things worse. Peace is not something that just happens - it is the result of war, and one side has to lose and the other side has to win before there is peace.

You must have missed my "20th Century Victims of Peace" entry - it was on April 4th, 2007. Go ahead and check it out.

umm Mark
"Peace is not something that just happens - it is the result of war, and one side has to lose and the other side has to win before there is peace."

There is another way to have Peace - DONT START WARS THAT AREN"T NEEDED

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1539/

kblack,

It only takes one side to break the peace - and the peace between the United States and Islamo-fascism was broken by the Islamo-fascists. There are two ways to get to peace from the point they broke it - either we beat them, or they beat us. If the war isn't fought out to a conclusion then all the peace efforts in the world will, at best, work out a temporary truce, which will usually benefit the other side because they'll only want a truce when they are hard pressed.

kblack,

Allowing the bogus "assault weapons ban" to lapse is part of a timeline of failure?

How was invading Iraq fighting terrorism?
In fact - if you wanted to fight terrorsim - islamic terrorism specifically - why wouldn't you attack Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia is known to have supplied 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.
Elements of the Saudi royal family are known to give millions to various terrorist organizations.

If this war is about fighting terrorism? Why in gods name do we have a president who holds hands with the leaders of the leading terrorist state in the middle east?

umm - because there is no reason to own an assault weapon other to assault people. Look go read the second amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(a) I fully support the right of militias to keep and bear arms. The text of the second amendment explicitly spells out that the reason to bear arms is for the purposes of a militia.

(b) Do you believe this has no limit? Would you say if I could buy a nuclear weapon from Russia I would have the right to keep it because of this? I doubt even you would argue that. So clearly there have to be limits on this. assault riffles - such as AK-47s etc are weapons that only the military should have.

so what do you think of
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/LOCAL/70427046

personally I could care less who he had sex with - but since you guys make such a big deal out of this - will you now that its a Republican??

kblack,

Last comment then I'm off to bed - really feeling miserable right now:

A weapon is just an object; what makes is bad or good is the person wielding it. Banning things won't stop evil, no more than reforming institutions will do you any good if there's no change of heart in the people who man the insitutions. People matter, and that is all.

Sure Mark
I agree that its true that as long as nobody uses it for evil then its fine. So you would be fine with me having a nuclear weapon in my house??

And you have NEVER given an answer to the Saudi Arabia question - other to point out that others administrations were also friendly with Saudi Arabia - which is of course irrelevant (lots of people did lots of bad things - that doesn't mitigate this at all)..

Sorry your feeling sick- hope you feel better

There is another way to have Peace - DONT START WARS THAT AREN"T NEEDED

Great idea, kblack. Do you volunteer to travel and spread this to Bin Laden and the rest of the Jihadists? Maybe even to Ahmanutjob?

Shouldn't they also be included?

How was invading Iraq fighting terrorism?

I'll give you my answer, kblack.

Due to nearly every intelligence agency in the world saying Iraq had stockpiled WMDs, had ties to suppoting terror and was 12 years in violation of 17 UN resolutions, after 9/11, would you take the chance that those weapons wouldn't fall into the hands of Jihadists?

As for Saudi Arabia, the largest misconception in this war from the left is that we are fighting a country, as was done in the past. This fight is against a radical ideology of World Domination by a group located in several countries.

Maybe you missed today's articles where Saudi Arabia arrested something like 172 terrorist suspects and a large weapons cache that were slated for attacks?

Saddam was known to support terrorism and yes, there were known terrorists within Iraq prior to our invasion. Most notably was Abdul Rahman Yasin, wanted for the 1993 bombing of the WTC, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and some others.

Al Qaeda has declared Iraq to be the Central Front in their War against us and from that, we should cut and run?

What is it about the left that makes them want to run from battle (even though they are not fighting it themselves) when the going gets tough?

This is an excerpt from an important radio interview between Larry Elder and Brigitte Gabriel on our Islamic enemy. Kblack, you should read this.

Because They Hate, Part II
by Larry Elder (Human Events)4/26/2007

Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian who lived through jihad as a child, wrote "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America." This is an edited version of our interview.

Elder: Are there moderate Muslims who condemn the radicals, who don't feel threatened by democracy?

Gabriel: Yes. . . . I call it a practicing Muslim and a non-practicing Muslim. I think it is a better description than "moderate" and "radical." A practicing Muslim goes to mosque, prays five times a day, doesn't drink, believes God gave him women to be his property -- to beat, to stone to death. . . . He believes Christians and Jews are apes and pigs because they are cursed by Allah. He believes it is his duty to declare war on the infidels because they are Allah's enemies. That is a practicing Muslim. A non-practicing Muslim no longer goes to mosque or prays five times a day, has an occasional glass of wine and believes that a woman is equal to a man. . . . He believes he cannot murder his wife just because he wants to. He does not believe in taking four wives just for sexual pleasure. . . . He no longer believes that, as a Muslim, it is his duty to kill the apes and pigs that have been cursed by Allah. A non-practicing Muslim is educated, an intellectual who believes the Koran -- written in the 7th century -- doesn't apply to today's standards, and Islam needs to be reformed. Those Muslims do exist and live in the West. However, they are such a minority -- we estimate about 2 percent -- they are irrelevant because it is the majority that is causing the problem now.

Elder: What should be done?

Brigitte Gabriel: Shut our borders. We have terrorists coming through our borders. Al Qaeda is working with the MS-13 gang [El Salvadorian gang Mara Salvatrucha], smuggling al Qaeda terrorists into the country. Hezbollah is doing the same. . . . We estimate thousands have already been smuggled into America. . . . Hamas is here. . . . They have cells in over 40 states. . . . We also need to reform our immigration and visa programs. We need to monitor who is coming into our country and why. . . . [..]

Elder: What happens if a Democrat wins the 2008 election?

Gabriel: We are doomed. Our enemies want the Democrats to win. This last election, jihadist websites were playing victory songs and declaring the Democrats are our allies in the war against America. . . . Whoever comes next is going to have to deal with the same things Bush is dealing with.

Over 90 of our young people died in Iraq this month, non of which was a son or daughter of the 46 Republican Senators who voted against the funding our troops need for equipment and proper training.

My first thought is you have the "brown bottle flu". A few too many adult beverages. Stomach flu? Right.

But I believe it's the black ball of resentment that manifests itself in your stomach. Ugly roiling jealousy, resentment, and envy.

Your "stuffing" all that pent up resentment. You must let go and come to the light. Let go of all the war mongering, name calling, fear instilling, hateful ways that you seem to display in your recent work.

Join us on the left. Promote peace. Diplomacy. Work toward universal heath care. Become involved in a green earth program. Help ween us from the teet of the Arab oil machine. Work to organize labor. Work in your garden. Ride your bike to work.

Just let it go Mark. Breath. Slowly. Relax. Leave it to the Democrats. You'll feel better and the world will feel better too.

Peace.

"It only takes one side to break the peace - and the peace between the United States and Islamo-fascism was broken by the Islamo-fascists. "

Actually, the peace was was broken by Al Qaeda terrorists and led by Osama Bin Laden. More than five years later Osama is still free and instead we have wasted our time, treasure and risked the lives of our soldiers in Iraq, a country that had far less coneection to the people and events of 9/11 than our supposed allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt.

Terrorism is up 29% this year:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17145599.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

Saudi Arabia is known to have supplied 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

Strawman, Dr. Rerun. Saudi Arabia didn't supply anything, as a nation. You know, had you been here back when this talking point was first trotted out, you wouldn't be using it three years later.

You're a useless piece of crap. Too bad your parents were pro-life...

I love open threads; they give me the leeway to express my views.

kblack is a useless piece of poop, and should be banned.

raker is a retarded spoof, and should be banned.

Freedom1 is a genious and should be a guest blogger. As should Almiranta and AAR.

I should never be banned, because my hatred of the left is rooted in the truth. And THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Folks, Dr. Rerun's first link, "A Timeline to Failure," is from October 2004. I'm sure it's been discussed widely before, but let's all thank Dr. Rerun for reminding us, again, that he is full of redundant talking point crap.

His second link, however, is about a USAID chief, Randall Tobias, who is allegedly guilty of using the Washington escort service that's tied to prostitution. This guy worked for Condi, guys--maybe it's time to subpoena her once again, for some testimony as to whether the State Dept was funding this escort service. This could go all the way to the top! Subpoena Rove! Subpoena Cheney! Get Dubya! Maybe President Bush needs to read the fine pring on that war funding bill before he vetoes it--there could be some pork included to keep the DC madam's business going. Pork for the porkers, if you will.

Thanks, Dr. Rerun, for providing us with this bit of critical info. I'm sure you as pure as the driven snow. I'm also sure you'd never be in danger of using the DC madam's services. I mean, why pay, when you can get it free, from Handora, right, Dr. Rerun?

why yes, we should let dems make the decision for us. after all, peace is great. it doesn't matter who we praise, as long as there is peace. so let dems win, it will be peaceful, since we will all be the same, under the watchful eye of allah.

until the next one comes along of course, but we can depend on the dems to have peace talks with them. then we hail them as our truth.

/sarcasm off

keefer - like always you haven't said anything of interest (just insults and your favorite statement "they say the same things") so I am going to just stop responding to you until you grow up...

As to the other comments
(1)
"Due to nearly every intelligence agency in the world saying Iraq had stockpiled WMDs, had ties to suppoting terror and was 12 years in violation of 17 UN resolutions, after 9/11, would you take the chance that those weapons wouldn't fall into the hands of Jihadists?"
- First of all - this this of course simply not true. The only agencies claiming this were the American and British - all of which were later shown to be either fabrications or incredibly bad work. So stop repeating this lie.
- Secondly - as we know now there were no WMDs
- Third - as to the UN resolutions - recall that the Bush administration tried to get the UN to authorize use of force but because it was going to be blocked they just side stepped them. So you cant bring that in

-Finally, are you forgetting the intelligence estimates that 16 different agencies that put out that showed that the invasion of Iraq has made the threat of terrorism WORSE.
So on all fronts (motivation, execution, and results) it was a complete failure.

As to Saudi Arabia - you say its a misconception to say we are fighting a country. Um.. Ok so when we invaded IRAQ, attacked the IRAQI army, setup an IRAQI government that had nothing to do with a specific country?

And it still doesn't answer the question. If Bush is so concerned with terrorism - why was he and is he such good friends a state that is known to have such strong ties and financial backing to so many terrorist organizations. Why?

Madeline Albright (D), February 18, 2002...

Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the RISK that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the GREATEST NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT we face -- and it is a THREAT against which we MUST and WILL stand firm."

Hillary Clinton (D), January 22, 2003...

"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the PROSPECT of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can THREATEN not only his neighbors but the STABILITY of the REGION and the WORLD, a very serious THREAT to the UNITED STATES."

AAR

Common sense is inversely proportional to the time spent in liberal colleges and universities.

AAR

ARR- Yep Hillary and the rest of them were either swindled into believing this and/or made horrible decisions themselves. Not going to defend that - don't have to. Doesn't change the fact that it was stupid

f Bush is so concerned with terrorism - why was he and is he such good friends a state that is known to have such strong ties and financial backing to so many terrorist organizations. Why?
Posted by: kblack77 at April 28, 2007 10:35 AM

I asked this question on a previous thread a while back and the consensus, in one word, 'OIL'. Forget everything else, it doesn't matter a hoot. Bush, well, he knows what is important to Americans; just leave it alone, kb77, don't question the motive. Move on.

So, where does Presidential Medal of Freedom winner George Tenet stand on the Blogs for Bush list of 'People to Smear'?

Cheers!

Hey, Mark, you really should watch Saw III while you are home in bed sick :D)

"Common sense is inversely proportional to the time spent in liberal colleges and universities.

AAR"

Umm, hate to point this out but George bush went to Yale and then Harvard. Perhaps he wasn't paying attention.

William,

Thanks...I think.

No, kblack77.

It just goes to show that some Democrats are, in fact, on occasion, capable of logic, reasoning, and common sense, and of knowing and understanding what is in the best interest of America's citizens, national defense, and security...

Of knowing it is far better to take actions to prevent or reduce the destruction of cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. rather than wait until after the fact, and after the deaths of many, many thousands, or perhaps millions of American citizens...

IF... IF... they will just stop listening and catering to the likes of you and the rest of the looney left-wing nuts!

Bill Clinton (D), February 17, 1998...

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They WILL BE all the more lethal IF WE ALLOW them to BUILD arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply CANNOT ALLOW that to HAPPEN. There is no more CLEAR EXAMPLE of this THREAT than SADDAM HUSSEIN."

Unfortunately, most Democrats don't care anything about the defense and security of America and its citizens... especially those Democrats on the far left Liberal fringe.

Unfortunately, most Democrats care only about their own ideology, agenda, and political gain... regardless of who suffers or dies to achieve their political goals!!!

AAR

Anybody think it is weird that this recent raid in Alabama of a "militia" makes no mention of them being terrorists?

keefer,

Thanks for the vote; although I wouldn't put my writing and literary skills in the same league as that of a "guest blogger"!

B4B wouldn't be the same without your humor, wit, and your succinct, concise, and accurate (and truthful) comments and commentary on Democrats, Liberals, and Liberalism!

AAR

kblack77,

Prior to President Bush removing Saddam Hussein...

Did Saddam Hussein have WMD?

Did Saddam Hussein ever use WMD?

Was there any proof that Saddam had destroyed his WMD?

Was there any proof that Saddam didn't still have WMD?

AAR

Anillo,

Who did those men attack? Who were they going to attack?

According to CNN, the men "...had no apparent plans to use the weapons..."

According to CBS News, "...prosecutors say the ragtag group called the Alabama Free Militia had no intended target and was simply stockpiling munitions..."

AAR

AAR

I don't need to answer those questions. It is always on those who would advocate and or use military action to justify their position. Not for me to justify why they shouldn't.

None the less..

Saddam's military power was laid waste to after the first gulf war. There was no and is no evidence that Saddam had any WMDs or the ability to use them. Did he *ever* have them? Yes - he had chemical weapons when we (Regan and Rumsfield) supported him during the 80s.

But again - if the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq - it is on them to prove that Saddam had the ability and the desire to use WMDs and that this constituted a threat to our security. As we have found out - this wasn't the case..
at best - this represents gross incompetence of the Bush administration

kblack77,

From a recent post by A-10...

According to UNSCOM (That would be the United Nations Special Commission overseeing the weapons inspections in Iraq), the following WMD are STILL unaccounted for from the amounts declared by Iraq:

Scud missile components, warheads and propellant
17 tons of growth media for the production of BW agents
Items of CW production equipment
4000 tons of CW precursors
750 tons of VX precursors
100 al-Hussein missiles
31,000 CW munitions
20 R-17 Scud-B -type missiles
40-70 CBW-capable missile warheads
Significant quantities of biological warfare agents
Significant quantities of 155-mm ammunition rounds

One report -- after the fact -- says much of the missing WMD "may" be the result of "accounting" errors. If so, why wasn't that determined by the U.N. inspectors before the war? Those are some mighty big "accounting" errors!!!

Why did Saddam do so much to interfere with and misdirect the U.N. weapons inspectors prior to the war? Why did Saddam refuse to allow U.N. inspectors to interview key scientiest prior to the war?

In any case, we must go back to what was known and believed BEFORE the war... not second guess based on perfect 20/20 hindsight and the knowledge gained and revealed after-the-fact from subsequent historical events.

Prior to the war, most people believed Saddam did still have WMD, and Saddam did nothing to prove otherwise!

Nancy Pelosi, October 10, 2002...

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Johnny Edwards, February 6, 2003...

"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

AAR

I was reflecting on the ride into work today that it has almost been 8 years of Bush and hence B4B. I don't recall when you started but I remember being around at the begining and I have to say it's been a fun ride. While I'm not here as often as I was, you can bet I'll be around to the end when you close B4B and start whatever your next project will be guys.

Get Well Soon Mark.

Hmmm,

I've never posted here before, but I can't ignore what I keep reading any longer. Best I can understand it, these guys who claim to support the democrat idiotology apparently also aren't able to get a really firm grasp on reality of any sort!

"John Kerry, October 9, 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

ohn Kerry, January 23, 2003:

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

I believe that segment was posted on this blog a few weeks back. It bears repeating over and over and over and over and over.

There is nothing but hypocrisy from the demoncrats. Their own words betray them every time they open their mouths. In fact, if it weren't for their LIES, such as those above, the President might not have made some of the decisions that are now in question!

If Bush is so concerned with terrorism - why was he and is he such good friends a state that is known to have such strong ties and financial backing to so many terrorist organizations. Why?

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia, Dr. Rerun? The same Saudi Arabia whose government just arrested some 190 terrorists who were intent on doing major damage to Saudi Arabia's oil fields?

As we have found out - this wasn't the case...

No, you, influenced by your dear leaders, have cherry-picked reports, such as the Kay report, and determined, with the help of the MSM, that "this wasn't the case."

at best - this represents gross incompetence of the Bush administration

At best, this represents BDS at its finest. And you really ought to learn when to and when not to use hyphens, you stupid ass.

Dr. Rerun, I couldn't care less whether or not you respond to my posts. Regardless of what your sorry ass chooses to do, I'm still going to call you every name in the book, because I consider you the stupidest person ever to pollute this blog with your redundant b/s. So go Cheney yourself, little boy, and say hello to Handora for me.

Hey keefer, liberalism is about finding the truth. J S Mill one of the key liberal writers said that to be able to find the truth people had to have freedom of speech to say what they liked because only then would we find the truth as the lies would be unsustainable and die off. The same for different lifestyles types only the true lifestyle would survive thus would come to be the dominant lifestyle.(paraphrased from J S Mill's, On Liberty) Some people may argue that hetrosexuality is the 'true' lifetyle and homosexuality is not thus will die out. (Not my opinion btw)

Hey keefer, liberalism is about finding the truth.

Maybe in Luton Town, weefee; here in America, liberalism is about acquiring power and running people's lives. And the libs here will do and say anything to get that power. They do the same in England, but you're too thick to get it...

Why are so many of my fellow conservatives cut 'n runners when it comes to marriage?

I am not English so I don't really care what they do in England. You are evidently thick if you can not understand the concept of the United Kingdom or Britan. It is made up of FOUR nations not just England and apart from England we all have our own parliaments (Wales has an assembly Scotland and NI have more powerful parliaments)politics is different in the different nations.

I suggest you read Mill and Burke in regards to the liberal and conservative ideologies. Mill states that government should not interfere in peoples lives unless they are doing something that harms someone else or their self-interests. Government should be neutral and if it harms your self-interest you are able to walk away and not follow the laws. Burke on the other hand believes in order and stability. Tough punishments for disobeying the law, religious guidelines etc thus he is his running peoples lives. It is to long to explain all here so try reading On Libert and Reflections on the Revolution in France.

Yes keefer I realise that should have been too and not to, again I apologise for poor typing.