Triple Amputee US Veteran Destroys Obama in Open Letter

Senior Airman, Brian Kolfage Jr., is the most severely wounded Airman in US history–a triple amputee. Now the Veterans Admin is trying to force him to “pay back” $4,825 it claims he was “over paid” in benefits.

As reported by John DeMayo of Freedom Outpost, the Veterans Administration Debt Management Center informed Kolfage that he would be back charged for the $4,825. According to the VA, they had been overpaying Airman Kolfage for several years and now they want their money back.

DeMayor has the whole story of this cockup, but needless to say, Senior Airman Brian Kolfage is an American hero. He is a triple-amputee veteran of the War in Iraq who has surpassed all odds and made the most incredible recovery of any veteran to ever survive his injuries. He is a patriot–the kind of man you want your son to grow up to be.

But he seems to have had quite enough of this Obama character! Kolfage recently wrote an open letter to Obama that just puts this whelp of a President in his place.

So, here it is courtesy of Joe the Plumber:

Dear Mr. President,

I nearly died in a war that you and most of your colleagues supported overwhelmingly, including the two presidents who came before you. Many citizens may not agree with waging war in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi citizens, but it’s something that warriors like myself have zero control over. I joined to serve my country and to better my life. I’ve seen things that you could never imagine, and they have made me the person I am today.

Mr. Obama, even though we share extreme opposite views, we have one thing in common, we both attended school in Hawaii. However, that’s where the similarities end. You see, as you attended your exclusive, private school, I would ride my bike to Kaimuki High school in one of the roughest areas in Hawaii every morning and would ride past Punahou, the exclusive private school you attended. I would notice the Bentleys, Maserati’s, and fancy foreign cars that all the kids were dropped off in; wow it must have been extremely rough in Hawaii living that life, right? I could only imagine what it was like to have that kind of money. Fortunately for you, not many people are aware of the school and the upper class citizens who attended it. The tuition to attend your exclusive, private school was more than it cost me to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from the University of Arizona. You talk a big game when it comes to financial inequality, yet I’m quite sure you have no idea what it’s truly like to have sacrifice. You were one of the elitist children in Hawaii.

After High School, we each chose very different paths. You were able to attend Ivy League schools, and I sought out a military career to in hopes of earning a degree. What we have in life as children usually sets the tone for what we will face later in life that will make us successful. I worked to get where I am today, and YOU WERE HANDED IT….Mr. Inequality.

I volunteered to go to Iraq on both of my deployments, and the second time I begged to go even after I wasn’t selected, which ultimately got me placed on the team where I would lose both legs and my dominant arm. I’ve never asked myself was losing 3 limbs in a war worth it, even though many Americans were against it.

I am frequently reminded of the many young Iraqi children who would beg me for water, food, and toys while I was stationed in Iraq. Children, who in all aspects made the poorest of poor American children look rich. You have no idea what it really means to be poor. It’s laughable that you, who would have no idea what it means to be poor would so frequently play the inequality card.

While I was in Iraq, our mission was to liberate the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant and that’s what we did. Never forget, it was your people who sent us there, like the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi & Carl Levin. However, since the day you busted onto the scene you’ve been talking about ending the war and pulling the troops out, not understanding the blood sweat and tears that so many Americans and Iraqi’sinvested. And with complete disregard for every life sacrificed, every limb lost, and every broken family, you bailed on our mission to pursue an agenda that was completely centered on your re-election in 2012. If you didn’t bail on Iraq you were worried that you may not get re-elected and that’s a fact. Just before elections on Oct 11, 2012 you said “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Look at Iraq now, they are in shambles and the Al Qaeda flag is flying freely. Clearly, you’re unfit for duty as a Commander in Chief. You put your own agenda ahead of America’s agenda, and now you have single handedly ruined and destroyed nearly everything we gained in Iraq. It clearly means nothing to you, because the only thing that you’ve personally invested in that country was a promise to bail on them. However, people like me gave limbs, friends have died, and we’ve watched families destroyed by war’s aftermath.

I’m not placing blame on you for the war, I’m placing blame on you for destroying what we’ve worked so hard to build. You’re not a leader, you’re a community organizer. A leader would have stood up regardless of the situation and put America’s agenda first and that is ensuring a secure Iraq even after 10 years of war. But, you placed Barack first, just as Robert Gates confirmed in his new book. I can’thelp but think of those poor kids who I gave water and toys to 11 years ago. They’re probably 15 or 16 years old now, and I can only imagine what it’s like for them to have their nation being torn apart yet again; all because of your poor leadership qualities. Regardless of why we went to Iraq, its water under the bridge. We went there, we waged war, and we not only owed it to our KIA’s but we owed it to the citizens of Iraq. We invaded their country and turned it upside down, and you bailed on them. You bailed on our soldiers and you’ve wasted every death and every limb, it’s all for nothing. And to make matters worse you blame others for your failures.

You’re just another elitist rich thug who’s pretended to live the rough life growing up in the inner-city. You’re only worried about your own agenda and furthering your party instead of taking care of Americans. Your inability to be a leader at some of the most critical points has caused both of our wars to fail. You’ve been a joke to most of our veteran community and we have no faith in your ability to lead.

Senior Airman Ret Brian Kolfage USAF

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Educator Called 'Model for Racial Harmony' Hit by Lawsuit of Sex/Racial Harassment
  • Brucehenry

    It’s too bad the war cost this guy three limbs. However what happened to him doesn’t make him an authority on policy. He’s dead wrong on most of his points. Hard to blame him for his bitterness, though.

    • jim_m

      However what happened to him doesn’t make him an authority on policy.

      That’s funny because that was the lefty claim about Max Cleland. I guess it only works when you’re a leftist.

      • GarandFan

        It’s all in the lefty nuance. Kock BAD. Styer GOOD.

        King Barack probably doesn’t like people being reminded of his privileged background.

        • jim_m

          I think Kolfage does make a very pertinent point that obama gripes about inequality and equality of outcomes, but he has been handed everything he has ever had. He has never really worked for anything. His minority status has opened doors for him and after college his skin color and his ideology made him a useful tool for other, wealthier people who could place him in positions of prominence. That was how he became Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and how he got his appointment to U of C. Even his early political successes were pretty much handed to him as he ran virtually unopposed for Illinois Senate and US Senate.

          So for people who have actually had to work for what they got his bullshit is pretty insufferable. I suppose for people that want a handout (Bruce and Chico) his stuff goes down pretty well.

          • warnertoddhuston

            Oh, Jim. Now you KNOW that if you own a business or built a nice life… YOU didn’t build that. Obama and his government did it for you.

          • jim_m

            I know why obama says that, it’s because somebody else really did do that for him.

          • Brucehenry

            This poor guy and his letter, full of cheap shots itself, is a perfect opportunity to re-hash all the “Obama-is-affirmative-action-poster-child” talking points of the past 6 years.

            Congratulations, rubes, you haven’t had an original thought in 6 years.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, and you haven’t faced the truth for over 6 years. Your point?

          • Brucehenry

            Hate to break it to you, but Iraq was always going to turn out badly. It was predictable from before the invasion — many, including I, DID predict it.

            Because it was inevitable that we would have to leave after making a huge mess, it was also inevitable that there would be laments of people dying and being wounded in vain.

            Sorry, but it really WAS in vain. The only good thing about it was Obama stopping it before any MORE soldiers lost their lives or limbs.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I predicted this would happen too, once I knew that obama would sell out our military and allies and cut and run like a coward. That’s probably why Chico like him so much.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet you couldn’t see it was going to be a mistake BEFORE the adventure. Or rather misadventure.

          • jim_m

            No, it wasn’t a mistake until a leftist decided to side with the enemy and sell out our soldiers. We had already won the war if you recall. obama’s feckless betrayal of our allies lead inexorably to this result. I knew once he was elected that he would sell out anyone who allied themselves with the US and he has done so consistently.

          • Brucehenry

            Which Iraqi ally among the many shifting factions did Obama fecklessly betray, Mr Historian?

            Guys like you kill me. Willing to let our soldiers, at the cost of their lives and limbs and at the taxpayer cost of hundreds of billions, squat indefinitely in a desert shithole with no aim except some vague claptrap about “democracy.”

          • jim_m

            They had an elected government dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            A weak, corrupt, feckless (haha) elected government. And they STILL HAVE IT dumbass.

          • jim_m

            We still betrayed them.

          • Brucehenry

            But yet the elected government still holds power. Of course it’s an ally of Iran, as all sentient observers always knew a Shiite government would be, even though it owes its existence to the US.

            Thanks, George, Don, and Dick!

          • jim_m

            I did not claim that the elected government was deposed. It was not an ally of Iran until obama screwed over Iraq. If anyone is to thank it is him. You can’t blame Booosh for everything you ideological idiot. Only an uneducated moron would blame Bush for the result of actions that obama took. Oh wait, you just did.

          • Brucehenry

            There were many who predicted, before the invasion, that whatever government emerged in Iraq post-Saddam would be an Iranian ally.

            This was foreseeable, and foreseen, before anybody ever heard of Barack Obama, you amnesiac idiot.

          • jim_m

            And they could not have been sure of that as you well know. The only reason they predicted that is because they worked as hard as they could to betray our nation and befriend our allies. Once we elected such a man as President this was assured.

          • Brucehenry

            Look, dumbass, suppose this was a “betrayal” of allies — it wasn’t but suppose it was. It was done in America’s best interest, just as Nixon and Ford’s “betrayal” of Thieu in Vietnam was done in America’s interest.

            An ill-advised war, inherited by a President who did not start it, was weakening our military and tearing the country apart. It had to end.

            It’s okay that you’ll never be persuaded of that, but there it is. What’s funny is your assertion that it is I who hasn’t “faced the truth” for 6 years. You’re a fucking hoot.

          • jim_m

            You’re right. I won’t be persuaded. It took years to de-Nazify Germany. After VE Day groups of Germans still conducted partisan actions against the allies for a long time. If we had cut and run after WWII you would have ended up with another fascist Germany rising from the ashes of the 3rd Reich. Even decades later Germans who fought against the Reich were discriminated against and shunned in West Germany.

            But don’t worry, the left will always find a way to blame America.

          • so what was you prediction about the Afghan war ?

          • HappyCanadian

            Pisses me off when people compare the invasion of Georgia by Putin on Bush’s watch to Ukraine under Obama’s watch. Georgia is insignificant compared to Ukraine. No comparison. Hussein is a coward and a liar.

          • Seraphina Cagna Malandrina

            President Obama followed George Bush’s Iraq exit strategy almost to a T. You guys bragged about that. I guess you don’t remember.

          • jim_m

            A wise leader adapts their plan to the circumstances. Bush changed the strategy when the insurgency showed that what they were doing wasn’t working.

            obama failed because he announced when he would leave and then did so, enabling the islamists to wait him out. This was the move of an idiot. Seeing that the government in Iraq would have continued problems with the islamists Bush would have changed his strategy. obama lacks the wit or experience or frankly, the desire to care about anyone other than himself, to adapt his policy to circumstance.

            A smart president (as opposed to a worthless ideologue devoid of any foreign policy experience or understanding) would have managed to pull out of Iraq without betraying the government and the people who we left behind. But obama seems to want to betray everyone who allies themselves to the US and has been alarmingly consistent in doing so.

          • HappyCanadian

            Obama is a master magician but worse yet people that voted for him are those that benefited from business, appointments etc. or were just fooled. He is a man that looks good in a suit, gives a great speech with a teleprompter, has beautiful children and a wife that some think is so wonderful. He has none of the experience that would make a good leader. He thought he could change things by NOT getting to know republicans or even members of his OWN party. He does not know politics; except what is written in textbooks maybe. I am Canadian so you may think it’s none of my business but US leadership affects the whole world because of it’s power and the good values that it promotes. He spoke in Cairo and apologized for America thinking that he could change things. Obama is Putins dream come true.

          • Commander_Chico

            Does anyone think GW Bush got into Phillips Andover, Yale and HBS on merit?

            Classic rich “legacy” affirmative action. Not to mention the Air National Guard to dodge Vietnam. And all the while he’s drinking a fifth a day.

          • jim_m

            He didn’t get there on his skin color. And he actually managed to get in. DO we presume that John Kerry failed to get in to Harvard based on his connections? White people still need to have ability, even at Harvard and Yale.

          • Commander_Chico

            Kerry went to Yale, of course his family got him in. At least Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, even if he decided to GTFO once he got there, saw it was a waste, and got mortared a few times.

            I’ve seen SAT scores of some rich legacies to Ivy League. An average middle class kid with those scores would be going to UT or UMich. Which are not bad schools, but.

          • jim_m

            Kerry got his law degree from Boston College because he couldn’t get in to Harvard. That was what I was referring to. Of course, apart from his being an idiot, there was the fact of his other than honorable discharge.

          • Commander_Chico

            he got an honorable discharge. Do you have proof otherwise? I do not mean a nutball blog link.

          • jim_m

            I stand corrected. He failed to serve his reserve commitment so it had to be reviewed but he did get the honorable discharge. So the slacker failed to get into Harvard based solely on his inability to cut it academically.

            UMich students are far smarter than the Harvard and Brown students I have encountered. And if you are a white, middle class male, you have to be at the very top academically for the fascists in Ann Arbor to even give you a glance. The fact that Kerry, with all his connections and money could not get into Harvard shows that he really is a moron (a fact validated by his political career).

          • Lurch never released his actual original discharge, the “Honorable Discharge” he has produced is a product of the Carter Amnesty.

          • got mortared a few times ? more like got 2 bruises and a self inflicted scratch … no mortars involved …

          • Retired military

            Gee this is a hard one.

            Is it Option E. Oh look a shiny.

            Or is it Option B. Obama is bad but XXXX was worse.

            That is the question.

            Speaking of questions

            “As I said before, try answering what people say, and not try to put words in others’ mouths, debate goes better” – Chico, Famed Wizbangblog poster

            How about practising what you preach Chico.

            1 Oprah,the Lamestream media, Reid, Pelosi, and other major dems have called people racist simply because they oppose Obama’s

            policies. Yet when they oppose those same policies when espoused by Bill, Hillary. Reid, Pelos, Gore, Kerry, etc etc they weren’t considered racist then by Oprah, etc etc (I don’t know isn’t good enough)

            Do you feel that it is because the left is just playing the race card?

            2. People were called racist anarchist terrorists when they tried to delay Obamacare yet Al Franken who did the same thing wasn’t called Racist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the call just playing the race card because that is all they have?

            3. People were called racist anarchist terrorist when they called for the delay of all or part of Obamacare and Obama who is unconstitutionally doing the same thing is not called a racist anarchist terrorist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the calling are just playing the race card because that is all they have?

            4. Chico stated ” They (duck dynasty guys) were clean shaven before they pitched the TV show.” yet you provided zero proof of this statement. Please do so now.

            Examples of statements 1, 2, and 3 (since you reject the premise)

            Salon writer Joan Wals

            It’s simply stunning: Longtime Republican imagemaker Ailes figured out how to make sure that our twice-elected Democratic president, backed by a coalition that represents an emerging, multiracial America, must periodically be checked and hopefully shamed by a representative of the angry right-wing white male minority that barely considers him a legitimate leader…

            O’Reilly and Ailes and their viewers see this president as unqualified and ungrateful, an affirmative action baby who won’t thank us for all we’ve done for him and his cohort. The question was, of course, deeply condescending and borderline racist. Obama has been afforded “so much opportunity”? What about O’Reilly, who pretends he’s a working-class son of Levittown, Long Island, when he’s actually the kid of an accountant who grew up in Westbury and went to private high school and university


            Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore: “This is still a pretty conservative country and people are upset about the policies in Washington and they don’t think the politicians are listening.”

            Host Chris Matthews: “Okay, I think, I think some of the people are upset because we have a black President.”

            Talking about the town hall protests against ObamaCare on MSNBC’s Hardball, August 11, 2009.

            If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of democracy, or the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.”

            — MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, March 22, 2010.

            “The Republican Party in this country has been running on hate and division for the last 50 years….What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim American in their right mind would vote for the Republican Party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying, ‘I hate myself.’”

            — Fill-in host Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, August 26, 2010

            Clip from RNC ad: “Stop Obama and his union bosses today. The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

            Host Lawrence O’Donnell: “The Republican Party is saying that the President of the United States has bosses, that the union bosses this President around, the unions boss him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that, of course, of course a black man can’t be the real boss?”

            Ex-Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI): “Wow, I hadn’t thought about the racial overtones….”

            — MSNBC’s The Last Word, February 25, 2011.

            “The interesting question is: what is it about this President that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the office of the President? Why do Republicans think this President is unpresidential — unpresidential, and shouldn’t dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008, or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin.”

            — MSNBC political analyst and ex-Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe talking about the brief contretemps over scheduling Obama’s speech to Congress, The Last Word, August 31, 2011.

            “I get out of all of these things that many of these [Republican] candidates would rather take legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where we had, you know, no women voting, slavery was cool. I mean, it’s just kind of ridiculous.”

            — Daytime anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, September 23, 2011, talking about the previous night’s GOP debate.

            “Plus, what Mitt Romney has in common with the KKK. Details on a rare Romney campaign blunder ahead….So you might not hear Mitt Romney say ‘keep America American’ anymore. That’s because it was a central theme of the KKK in the 1920s. It was a rallying cry for the group’s campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews.”

            — Anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, December 14, 2011.

            Host Chris Matthews: “How does this guy [Mitt Romney] go from hard right, severely conservative, to this new regular mainstream character he’s portraying himself as?…He ran as a full mooner, Michael. You know, he was saying ‘There’s no such thing as science.’… How can he go from Flat Earth, ‘I don’t believe in evolution,’ to all of a sudden, ‘I’m teaching biology’?… It certainly was in the Grand Wizard crowd over there, okay?”

            Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Wait, I resent that! No. Come on, what is this ‘Grand Wizard’ nonsense? Are you saying that we’re Ku Klux Klan?”

            Matthews: “Okay, I’m just saying, the far-right party.”

            Steele: “Give me a break! Don’t go there with me on that.”

            — MSNBC’s Hardball, April 23, 2012.

            You notice he [Romney] says ‘anger’ twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama. The other-ization, he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing to say. I don’t say it lightly. But this is niggerization, ‘You are not one of us,’ and that ‘you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.’”

            — Co-host Touré on MSNBC’s The Cycle, August 16, 2012.

            Host Martin Bashir: “Of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration, can I quote something [to] you? ‘For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems. He hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He’s been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour.’ How about that?”

            MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there….These people reach for every single possible racial double-entendre they can possibly find in every one of these speeches.”

            — MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, August 29, 2012, talking about McConnell’s speech at the Republican National Convention.

            They hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred — hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the South, and looking at these numbers we’re getting in the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president. They want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even if it’s to the left on issues, as long as they get rid of this guy.”

            — Chris Matthews during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage, October 22, 2012

            “I look at Obama as a perfect American. I don’t mean politically. We can disagree left and right on him. You can argue about the drones. Argue about the fiscal policy, all that stuff. But as a citizen. The guy went to school, he never broke a law. He did everything right. He raised a wonderful family. He’s a good husband, a good father. My God I don’t think he’s ever gotten a speeding ticket. The guy does everything right and these right-wingers — and he’s really been pretty moderate on guns until the horror of Newtown — and I don’t know what they’re so afraid of, except that he happens to be black.”

            — Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 6, 2013

            What does your study tell you about the nature of the racial piece here of the Tea Party?…Is it sort of a resumption of the Old South, of the way things were before the Civil War, for example? Is it like that old dreamy nostalgia you get in the old movies, Gone With the Wind? Is it that kind of America they want to bring back or what? When there were no gays, where blacks were slaves, Mexicans were in Mexico? I mean, is this what they want?”

            — Chris Matthews to author Christopher Parker on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 20, 2013

            The problem is there are people in this country — maybe 10 percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe 20 percent on a bad day — who want this President to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn’t President….They can’t stand the idea that he is President, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group. So what? It is the sense that the white race must rule. That’s what racism is. And they can’t stand the idea that a man who is not white is President.”

            — Chris Matthews appearing as a guest on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation, May 15, 2013

            “The IRS is being used in exactly the same way as they tried to use the President’s birth certificate…Despite the complete lack of any evidence linking the President to the targeting of Tea Party groups, Republicans are using it as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House….This afternoon, we welcome the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this President — the IRS. Three letters that sound so innocent, but we know what you mean.”

            — MSNBC host Martin Bashir, June 5, 2013.

            ¦ “At least back in 1939, when Marian Anderson had to sing here, ‘My Country ‘Tis of Thee’ rather than at the Constitution Hall, because — they said the reason was she was black. At least they were honest back then….[Today] you’ve got people talking about nullification of the law of the land [ObamaCare]. You got people talking impeachment like [Senator Tom] Coburn. You got Ted Cruz out there. They never say their problem with Obama is that he’s black, but look at the pattern….At least the Daughters of the American Revolution knew what they were saying and they said it out loud: ‘He’s black, she’s black, she can’t sing here.’ These guys today use all the techniques of nullification and talking about illegitimacy and accusing the President of being a crook, basically, for even being president, because he’s here illegally. And then they talk about impeaching him on grounds they can’t even come up with. At least in the old days they were honest about it. Today, they’re not.”

            — Chris Matthews during MSNBC live coverage of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, August 28, 2013.

            ¦ “I want to talk today about a controversial word….A word that was originally intended as a derogatory term, meant to shame and divide and demean. The word was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man, to render him inferior and unequal and to diminish his accomplishments…. Y’all know the word that I’m talking about: ‘ObamaCare.’”

            — Host Melissa Harris-Perry on her MSNBC show, December 8, 2013.

            Host Ed Schultz compared Tea Party activists to Nazi brownshirts and said that the Republican Party stands for racism; and accused Texas Gov. Rick Perry of referring to Obama in racial terms when he described the national debt as a “big black cloud” hanging over the heads of the American people.

            Reporter Lawrence O’Donnell accused Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell of using a “racial double-entendre” when McConnell complained that Obama spends too much time golfing;

            Daytime anchor Thomas Roberts famously claimed that Republicans want to go back to a time when “slavery was cool;”

            Contributing analyst Toure – so self-important that he goes by only one name – accused Romney of participating in the “niggerization” of Obama;

            PRESS: I just think the whole thing is outrageous. I hate this apology, I think it was unnecessary and just, just played right into their hands. And, I mean, they won’t (laughs), they’re not going to let conservatives watch MSNBC, fine! You’re not even going to notice that. How many conservatives, seriously, are watching Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow, you know, or Al Sharpton every night?

            JEREMY HOLDEN OF MEDIA MATTERS: Yeah, yeah, I don’t know, but, uh, I’m just …

            PRESS: It’s silly.

            HOLDEN: I want to see how this probation looks and when it ends. (Alluding to RNC chair Reince Priebus’s response to Cheerios ad tweet). And what, you know, is there going to be a soft landing from the probation? This is kind of silly at this point.

            PRESS: It is and, you know, first of all, good for Cheerios for bringing that spot back and not bowing into the pressure and as far as this tweet goes, again, “maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everybody else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/ biracial family,” that’s the truth. That is the truth! The right winger, the racist right winger will hate it. Everybody else will like it. It’s a beautiful spot.


            Hunter – Daily Kos

            MSNBC bending over themselves to apologize for someone in the network thinking the American right wing was made up of people who pore over the nation’s television commercials to find companies acting Not Bigoted Enough is, and there’s no other word for it, pathetic. As are, of course, the predictable reactions from the right wing themselves. You would think that people who get so very, very, very mad whenever someone suggests that they might be bigoted simpletons would be able to go at least one weekend without proving to be exactly that, but no. Never quite works out that way.


            Ron Fournier – Twitter

            The GOP argument on Obamacare has more than a whiff of Reagan-era racial “welfare queen” politics —>


            Ron Fournier – Twitter

            In light of today’s #Obamacare column, a little background: “How and Why Romney is Playing the Race Card.”


            “There are certain elements of the party who go out of their way to demonize people who don’t look like the way they’d like them to look like or came from some other place,” Powell said. “I think

            the party has to deal with this.”


            Markos MoulitsaS

            …[T]he GOP has a problem. It can’t win national elections without getting some support from immigrant demographics—Asians and Latinos, the fastest growing in the country. Yet conservatives hate brown and different-looking people. They speak foreign languages and eat weird stuff and play strange music and vote Democratic. Those are all unforgivable sins.



            “What we had here with you and President Obama was a culture class… It was the president of most of the white guys of America, that’s you. And, Barack Obama the president of almost everybody else. And the discussion was at that level… To watch it was some ways unsettling to me… What you did was strip him of his majesty…”



            From An examiner story about congressman Cummings

            In fact, the authors of the very report cited by Cummings, Devin Burghart and Leonard Zeskind also “exposed” alleged links between “certain Tea Party factions and acknowledged racist hate groups,” for the NAACP in 2010, as reported by Jack Cashill at the American Thinker, who writes wryly that Zeskind “could find racists in each of the nine choirs of angels and feel comfortable designating at least three of those choirs as hate groups.”

            At the time, Burghart and Zeskind wrote in part that Tea Party members were

            “defending their special pale-skinned privileges and power.”


            HOWARD FINEMAN (on MSNBC): And as if that’s some kind of explanation, some kind of explanation for the weird phenomenon of the fact that the Republicans didn’t win. There was this extraterrestrial force out there of African-Americans and Hispanics.


            CHarlie Crist – ““Sadly I think another part of it was that he was a Democrat, but not just a Democrat, an African-American.””


            MSNBC interview regarding rejection of union.

            WAGNER: – nails this a little bit. And he talks about the UAW has, or the idea of organized labor and finds, y’know, great welcome in NYU and in bastions of sort of liberal, progressive thought. But then when it comes down to it, here you have workers on an assembly line in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who have turned down the option. And he makes a point that, “As many unions have discovered, generally to their woe, the politics of race and culture often eclipse those of class in the United States.” [1]

            NOAH: Right.

            WAGNER: And these sort of cultural means around unions, um, distracted from the actual economic benefits of them. [2]

            NOAH: The South has always been hostile territory for union organizing. Y’know, as Harold said, the culture war in the South trumps the class war. [1] You already have in a number of Southern states right to work laws, which means that even if they had unionized the plants, those who benefitted from the presence of that union wouldn’t have had to pay union dues if they didn’t feel like it.

            So you’re in an overwhelmingly hostile climate. And the opposition I gather, through, portrayed this as a kind of northern invasion, a refighting of the Civil War. [3] Apparently there are not a lot of, uh, black employees in this particular plant. [4] And so, that kind of, uh, uh, uh, waving of the Confederate flag was an effective strategy. [5]

            WAGNER: That would explain also the sign, “United Obama Workers,” which speaks volumes [6] in terms of the, uh, cultural differences in certain parxts of the country. Author Timothy Noah, thank you as always for your time and thoughts.


            In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted

            Harry reid – ““We’re not going to bow to tea party anarchists who deny

            the mere fact that Obamacare is the law. We will not bow to tea party anarchists who

            refuse to accept that the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional,”


            Former Wash Post Editor Robert Kaiser

            “The base consists principally of white evangelical Christians who, the pollsters tell us, fear that their America is disappearing. Of course they are right; it has probably disappeared already. Their America would not have elected a black president.


            From Wash times regarding Obama appointee

            A furious Mr. Reid hinted that Republicans’ opposition was based on racism, pointing to to several other black nominees that GOP senators had opposed earlier. But in the case of Mr. Adegbile, his defense of Abu-Jamal was too much for even some Democrats


            Andrew O’Hehir

            When you think of the face of white rage in America, it belongs to a red-faced Irish dude on Fox News.


            Paul krugman NY Times

            Indeed, race is the Rosetta Stone that makes sense of many otherwise incomprehensible aspects of U.S. politics.

            We are told, for example, that conservatives are against big government and high spending. Yet even as Republican governors and state legislatures block the expansion of Medicaid, the G.O.P. angrily denounces modest cost-saving measures for Medicare. How can this contradiction be explained? Well, what do many Medicaid recipients look like – and I’m talking about the color of their skin, not the content of their character – and how does that compare with the typical Medicare beneficiary? Mystery solved.

            One odd consequence of our still-racialized politics is that conservatives are still, in effect, mobilizing against the bums on welfare even though both the bums and the welfare are long gone or never existed. Mr. Santelli’s fury was directed against mortgage relief that never actually happened. Right-wingers rage against tales of food stamp abuse that almost always turn out to be false or at least greatly exaggerated. And Mr. Ryan’s black-men-don’t-want-to-work theory of poverty is decades out of date.


            Huffington post 8 apr 2014

            There has been a long-simmering controversy about whether supporters of the Tea Party are more racially prejudiced than the average American, with some solid public opinion evidence suggesting that they are. However, well beyond the Tea Party hard core, there is evidence that race does play a role.

            Is the problem of relentless partisan animus in the Obama era one of lingering racism?


            Candy Crowley: Do you think your Republican colleagues are racist?

            DCCC Chairl Steve Israel: Not all of them, no. Of course not. But to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism.


            Pelosi : Racist GOP won’t deal with immigration.


            WAPO article entitled “Democrats are talking about race and the Republican Party an awful lot lately. Is it a smart midterm strategy?”


            The New Republic – The Right’s Racial Blinders What really explains the politics of the Obama era


            Dana Milbank – “Let’s compare Holder to Kathleen Sebelius, who has presided over Obamacare, which is the thing that has most antagonized the Right and the Republicans over all these years. You’re not seeing calls for her impeachment, you’re not seeing the same level of personal vitriol.

            I think, that’s why, again, it’s fair to ask the question, and let every individual say why it is that they have that particular antipathy toward this attorney general, toward this president, and why not, say, toward Kathleen Sebelius, who they’re obviously much more at odds with.”


            Salon: ABC News ‘Bending Over Backwards’ to Offer Laura Ingraham a Platform for ‘Vile Racism’


            WAPO article

            “Baseball great Hank Aaron is catching hell for telling the truth. Actually, the Hall of Famer is catching hell from racists because he had the temerity to point out that racism still exists. Those who think otherwise are delusional and willfully ignorant of the racial state of play in the United States.

            Aaron’s alleged offense occurred in a USA Today interview with sports reporter Bob Nightengale. Aaron explained why he still has the racist hate mail he received as he closed in on breaking Babe Ruth’s all-time home run record 40 years ago last week.”


            Hank Aaron

            “Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated. We have moved in the right direction, and there have been improvements, but we still have a long ways to go. The bigger difference is back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.””


            Yahoo news article by Matt Bai

            So now it’s out there. After five years of studied reticence (unless they were talking privately to one another or their supporters), Democratic leaders in Washington finally went public last week with what they really think is motivating Republican opposition to Barack Obama. As Steve Israel, one of the top Democrats in Congress, told CNN’s Candy Crowley, the Republican base, “to a significant extent,” is “animated by racism.”


            Leonard Pitts – Indy Star

            Race plays part in how Holder, Obama are treated

          • his grades said he got in on merit …

    • jim_m

      I’d say that he is dead right on the Iraq issue. obama has not lead he has fled. obama puts himself before everyone else and does not care what it costs others as long as he looks good and gets his way. obama has never been a leader he has only ever been a figurehead, he lacks the motivation to lead as he is far more interested in golf and the NCAA final four.

      • Retired military

        Part 2 since proof of Dems calling republicans racist have outstripped the capacity of a DISCUS reply.


        Frank James NPR “Social scientists who have studied voters have found that voter participation rises when voters are emotionally engaged,” he noted. “For some voters, suggestions that some of the opposition to Obama and his policies is more than just honest disagreement – and is indeed racially based – could help do the trick.”


        Pelosi tweet – Over 50% of food stamp recipients are people of color. The GOP Budget takes food out their mouths


        Brent Terry, professor at Eastern Connecticut “If racist republicans win than colleges will start closing up”


        Jonathon Chait “”America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,”


        WAPO columnist Jonathan Capehart “republicans extolled the wonders and the virtues and the beauty of slavery,”


        Dem Ill Gov Quinn “Black republicans are like Jews (who) collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, helping them to round up their own people in the hopes they’d be the last to go.”


        Ed Schultz MSNBC

        “So the president goes to the other side of the world and that’s what he gets asked about, racism. How sad is that? But you know what? When you’re the first, you always get picked on. And I have to tell you that this president, I think, is very bold, very strong, very well guided, and has a moral compass. And there’s absolutely no question about it that he has been picked on because of the color of his skin. And there’s no doubt that he has been called many names by conservative talkers in America, many names. He has been targeted, he has been obstructed. And I think that the way this president has been treated empowers jokers like this (alluding to Sterling), like, well, the government does it, we all see it. I guess we can say whatever the hell we want and act however we want. That’s my take on it. I, I, I think that this is a scab that’s been ripped off again and it’s a scab that really, undoubtedly is gonna happen again and again on America. But I believe, I pin this attitude that we have in society being inflamed by right-wing talkers who hate this president, that embolden people such as this guy to go on and act disrespectful against society.”


        Dorian Warren, Columbia professor “There’s a distinction we should make between racist words and speech, and racist practices and policies. We should be focused on the policies and the racial impact of policies that those Republican leaders frankly stand for,”


        MSNBC’s Touré “Some of these folks who own these NBA teams, and this is breaking news, Ari. Some of them are not the most savory folks. Some of them are bankrolling anti-gay marriage initiatives. Some of them got rich off of fracking. Some of them are Russian oligarchs.”


        Dem Rep. Bennie Thompson “Let’s face it, pretty much all criticism of Obama is racist”


        Eugene Robinson WAPO ” This worldview has found a home in the tea party movement, which harbors — let’s be honest — a racist strain.”


        Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson ” Justice Thomas is an Uncle Tom” “Sen. McConnell is a racist”


        “Voting Rights Erosion Is Greater Racist Outrage” Albert Hunt Bloomber


        New York magazine Jonathan Chait, “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery.”


        Dem Rep Bennie Thompson told a radio show. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States … that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”

        For good measure, Thompson added that Clarence Thomas “doesn’t like black people, he doesn’t like being black.”


        “I think not raising the minimum wage is a racist policy,” stated Ed Schultz


        Charlie Crist “Crist: Race Motivates GOP Opposition to Obama”


        Speaker at Democrat sponsored White Privilege Conference

        “The longer you are in the Tea Party, the more racist you become.”


        • jim_m

          Your point on this is?

    • Commander_Chico

      Yeah, it would be hard to acknowledge it was a total waste.

      If Obama didn’t get out if Iraq, they’d be a few score more triple amputees now.

      • actually there are hundreds more right now … but they are all Iraqi citizens so they don’t count …

        • Commander_Chico

          They would be killing themselves without our help. There might be more dead Iraqi civilians because we killed them, too.

    • Brett Buck

      So, I seem to recall Cindy Sheehan, a housewife and self-described socialist with an IQ barely above room temperature, being granted “absolutely moral authority” to speak on matters of defense policy. Now, this guy, who has lost far more than Cindy Sheehan, and clearly intelligent and well-spoken, and was actually in the war Cindy only heard about, should just shut up because he is not an “authority”?

      • Brucehenry

        I didn’t say he should shut up. I just said he is wrong. The “in my opinion” was implied.

        • Brett Buck

          No, you suggested that anything he might have to say should be dismissed because he is “no authority”.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t say that either. Is Jim’s inability to read contagious or something? I said he is wrong on most of his points. The fact that he is no authority because of his wounds is incidental. Warner is implicitly claiming his injuries give him some expertise in both “how (not) to be a leader” and international relations. This is not the case.

          • jim_m

            Somehow I don’t think you ever said that about Max Cleland.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know that Max Cleland was ever quite as wrong as this poor schmuck. Matter of fact what was YOUR problem with him? He did a good job at Veteran’s Affairs as far as I’m aware, and was a conventional blue dog Democrat senator.

          • jim_m

            Cleland’s supporters claimed that because he was a wounded vet that everything he said and did was sacrosanct. It was abundantly evident in his last desperate campaign where the message was that you were unAmerican for questioning anything he did.

          • Brucehenry

            We’ve had this argument. You have it backwards still, of course. Let’s move on.

          • jim_m

            You mean I won last time too? Darn.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes Jim, if it’s important to you, let’s say you won.

          • Brett Buck

            “However what happened to him doesn’t make him an authority on policy”

          • as opposed to Obamas experience which apparently gives his some authority on international relations and policy …
            seems like this guy has SOMETHING to base his authority on (i.e. personal experience) as opposed to Obama …

          • The truth hurts

            No, he didn’t you red neck moron.

          • jim_m

            Umm. To quote Bruce, “what happened to him doesn’t make him an authority“. Brett is correct in claiming that Bruce said that kolfage is not an authority. He is also correct in that Bruce claims that Kolfage is wrong and should be dismissed.

          • Brucehenry

            Kolfage is wrong on the assertions he makes, as I have explained to LN below.

            He is an authority on how badly he was hurt. For all I know he is an authority on many different things. But just as being injured in a car accident doesn’t make one an authority on automotive design or trauma medicine, being wounded doesn’t make one an authority on defense policy or international relations or leadership.

            So to the extent he, or others, is claiming that it does, those claims should be dismissed, yes. If he, with his tragic and terrible wounds, had written a letter to George Bush blaming him for fucking up Iraq (which is very arguably closer to reality) you geniuses would be saying so, and saying so loudly.

            Let’s say that a wounded soldier wrote a letter to Bush complaining of too few troops to do the job, the surge coming too late, inadequate body armor, repeated deployments, or whatever. How many here would say that his wounds gave his complaints validity?

            That said, as an American citizen he is entitled to his opinions. To the extent those opinions are based on facts they are valid. To the extent they are based on talking points and false narratives they are not.

          • jim_m

            Was I talking to you? The other idiot was not giving you credit for what you said. I offered no criticism of your comment in my comment above, I merely tried to summarize ( I think accurately) what you said.

          • Brucehenry

            Just clarifying to make myself clear. Just chose to reply to you and not to another because it seemed “linear” if you know what I mean.

      • jim_m

        It only works if you’re a lefty.

      • The truth hurts

        “Brett Buck” (obvious redneck) needs to make straw men arguments because he can’t defend his beliefs in a legitimate fashion.

        • Brett Buck

          If you want to play, twit, going to need to try a lot harder than that. Or, keep making a fool of yourself, it’s really up to you.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Which points was he dead wrong on?

      • Brucehenry

        He’s wrong in his very first sentence when he states Iraq was a war that “you and most of your colleagues supported overwhelmingly.” Obama NEVER supported the Iraq invasion and said so as a state senator before achieving national notoriety.

        He’s wrong that the decision to leave Iraq was based on Obama’s desire for reelection. Obama ran and won his FIRST term largely because he promised to wind Iraq down and focus on Afghanistan. That’s what he did.

        He’s wrong that Obama shouldn’t have “bailed” on Iraq after 10 years of war, and that “America’s agenda” is a “secure Iraq.” Iraq, having been freed from Saddam and stood on its feet by American might, must now make its own way — which it WANTS to do. Iraq didn’t WANT the US to stay — at least the elected government didn’t.

        So, those.

        • LiberalNightmare

          So when Obama kept the war going for 5 years after he got elected, it was because he didnt support it?

          • Brucehenry

            Obama wound the war down in Iraq and got us responsibly out. He did it as fast as was feasible, politically and logistically and with an eye to Iraq’s security.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Why did it take so long? Didnt Obama have a phone and pen at that time?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes haha good snark but your question has been asked and answered, seriously.

    • alanstorm

      You need to proofread – you typed in “dead WRONG” instead of dead ON”. Could happen to anybody.

  • Ahnenerbe

    Sorry Brian you fought a wrong war for the mason/jews. Like going against Hitler and Germany, the perfidious mason/ jews instigated a war against Saddam’s Iraq. You made the pact with the devil, You sold your soul. Stupid goyim. Did you not ever hear the jew Henry Kissingers quote that military men are dumb,stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy?

    • jim_m

      Oh look. Chico has a sock puppet.

      • Ahnenerbe

        Oh looky a jewbag named Jim. Fu*k you pedophile Talmudists

        • warnertoddhuston

          I would instantly ban anyone that uses such taunts as “jewbag” were I in charge.

          • Ahnenerbe

            I’ll add my ban to a long list of free speech hating neo-Bolsheviks that pervade the internet, unscrupulously wielding their egotistical power with keyboard buttons.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, like it has nothing to do with how vulgar you are. Even the lefty anti-semites here don’t like it.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder

          • warnertoddhuston

            You have a right to say what ever you want in your parents basement where you are living out your parole, but you have NO right to say whatever you want here. Further if you are banned it is NOT a breach of your free speech. Only government can violate free speech by quashing it. For everyone else it is THEIR free speech to disassociate themselves with you and yours. So, your poor me whining is neither legitimate, nor of interest.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Are you going to make a refutation on my original post or just attack me with erroneous fantasies in means to defame and whine about me saying jewbags. YOU are the little turd that sounds like a child. Go to bed a long day at high school tomorrow for you, Mod of clod

          • warnertoddhuston

            LOL. Why would I treat you as important enough to engage with serious discussion? You are a creep, a troll, and a racist. You are beneath my consideration.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Yes I’m a creepy, albino ice giant with hatred for other sub-species.

          • warnertoddhuston

            Oh, poor, poor you. Look folks, another gutless, ignoramus hiding behind a fake name and making it clear he has no idea what “freedom of speech” even means or how it works. Brainless, moron.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Explain how Free Speech works then. I say, you read, you say. It’s called discussion.Also your little fake pic and name is not fooling me and I would say the same things to your face in person. I don’t follow the new milksop normalcy of the weaklings, like you

          • jim_m

            Speech is free. Not every private forum (which a blog is) has to sponsor your speech or provide you access. You see, a blog is a place of free speech for its owners. You cannot force them to allow you to speak in their name(which is what you do by posting here). They have free speech rights too.

            Seems that the one who is unclear about free speech rights is you.

          • JWH

            Certainly. He who owns the press owns the freedom. You, me, all of us — we post here, at Wizbang, on this “press” as it were, at the sufferance of one Kevin. If he chooses to disallow a person, then that is his right …

            Now, if you feel like your freedom to speak has been infringed, what would be your recourse? A court order requiring that you be free to speak? That order, I am afraid, would infringe on Kevin’s own freedom.

          • jim_m

            Warner, this guy is a Holocaust denier. His hatred of Jewish people knows no bounds. He is an irrational ideologue that cares nothing for facts or truth and only knows hate.

          • Ahnenerbe

            Yeah Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and myself have lunch every now and then. You holohoax contrivers are so gullible

          • Frank Morris

            Good thing for free speech that you’re not in charge, you censorious donkey! Would you ban people who use such taunts as “censorious donkey?” And I’m not talking about free speech in the sense of 1st Amendment rights, I’m talking about the free exchange of ideas in these forums, so you can can that BS I’ve seen you pull out of your ass elsewhere.

          • warnertoddhuston

            I would ban you because you are stupid.

          • Frank Morris

            Thanks for admitting that you are completely arbitrary and totalitarian. Funny how small-minded people go all to water over the microscopic amount of power being a mod brings them. Fuggoff!

          • jim_m

            Too bad you think that free speech means never being criticized. Too bad you think that free speech means that others have to be forced to sponsor your speech.

            Good thing that you are completely wrong.

          • Frank Morris

            Too bad you are a complete fool who reads things into comments that obviously aren’t there, you asshat!

          • jim_m

            If you bothered to spend any time here, which you have not, you would know that the comments section does allow a broad range of commentary and only bans people when they are well over the top with racist, bigoted or vulgar and offensive comments.

            But you don’t come here, so you speak out of complete and utter ignorance. Your comments here show you to be a complete fool, spouting off in a crude manner about things you know nothing about.

            My response still applies to you. You are not guaranteed an unlimited right to post here. If you want that start your own blog and I am sure that you will attract a lot of bigoted assholes like yourself.

          • Frank Morris

            If you bothered to read my comment and comprehend it, you’d see I made no criticism whatsoever of this site, I merely criticized this guy who said he’d ban for this or that if he was in charge.

          • jim_m

            you need to get a sense of humor. Some things are sarcasm. But I would say that anenerbe deserves to be considered for banning. What he hsa already posted and his posting history suggest that he is a complete bigot.

          • Frank Morris

            I have several blogs and websites of my own. They’re doing quite well, TYVM!

          • You should go tend to them.

          • Frank Morris

            They are administered quite capably, TYVM.

          • Frank Morris

            Oops, I saw you use the word bullshit in another forum. You should be banned!

          • JWH

        • JWH

          Play him off, Keyboard Cat.

      • Brucehenry

        Where’s Mr Soi Disant? Useless as usual.

        • jim_m

          I fail to see a difference between this guy and Chico.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course you do. Neither you nor The Voices can see the difference.

          • jim_m

            No, seriously. I don’t think Chico disagrees with a single word he says. I don’t think Chico would say it that way, but still…

          • Brucehenry

            Well then, either you’re dishonest, delusional, or as I have noticed over the years, you can’t fucking read. But my favorite explanation is that you read words invisible to others, which is undeniable.

          • jim_m

            Chico has repeatedly referred to an oligarchy that controls the US government and he has also made claims that the Jewish lobby controls the government. Insofar as this idiot makes the same claims there is really not much difference between the two. I doubt that Chico would denounce what he says. I think he would defend it and try to point out how it is correct.

          • jim_m

            I will note that Chico has already read this thread and voted up your comments. That means that he has not been concerned with this idiot or what has been said.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, that means I’m going with “delusional.”

          • Commander_Chico

            Chico’s just getting up in his time zone now.

          • jim_m

            On reviewing this jerk’s posts on places like The Atlantic, I see that he is a Holocaust denier. I don’t think even Chico goes that far (at least he hasn’t gone that far here). SO I stand corrected, there is at least a little difference.

          • Brucehenry

            So dishonest of you to act as if this guy is anything but a troll at the Atlantic. His real home, as you know is at sites like Council of Conservative Citizens, American Renaissance, and some place called Epoch.

          • jim_m

            No I really didn’t look that deep into it. I saw enough at the Atlantic.

          • Brucehenry


          • jim_m

            Whatever. I didn’t look at any of those other places. However the Atlantic seems to have an alarming infestation of Holocaust deniers. Not that such a thing is all that surprising in a left of center publication.

          • Brucehenry

            Probably the same thing happened as when Warner posted his anti-Islam pieces here recently. It got linked to at some nutball site like American Renaissance and the next thing you know there were scores of comments from screaming xenophobic crazies we never heard of before. Hell, someone replied to me on one of those threads just the other day and they’re at least 6 weeks old.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, there seem to be a lot of them here today too.

  • Yeah? This guy may have lost three limbs, but Obama has been surviving all these years without a spine! A little sympathy please!

  • JWH

    The real problem with this letter is that there are a hell of a lot of moving parts when you’re talking about Iraq.

    Just focusing on the withdrawal, one HUGE problem was that the Iraqi and American governments could not agree on a framework for the continued American presence in Iraq. The US government wanted soldiers to (rightly, in my view) have immunity from prosecution in Iraq courts; the Iraqi government did not want to extend that concession. [1] I don’t think that President McCain, President Clinton, or President Romney could have negotiated past this point with the Iraq government.

    Furthermore, if Airman Kolfage blames President Obama for the withdrawal, I think that blame is misplaced. It wasn’t just President Obama that wanted the US out of Iraq. By the 2008 election, more than 60 percent of the American people thought that the Iraq war was a mistake. [2] By the time US troops withdrew from Iraq, the decision enjoyed huge support with the American people. [3] If Airman Kolfage wishes to assign blame for America withdrawing from Iraq and forsaking what it had built, then that blame lies with the greater American public, not merely with its president.


    • jim_m

      Yes, by all means let’s take public opinion polling as a yardstick for foreign policy. You might do well to remember that public opinion was dead against getting involved in WWII right up to Dec 7, 1941. Had Pearl Harbor not happened the US public would have been content for Nazis to rule over all of Europe and to exterminate millions of Jews and slavs.

      Yes, public opinion should be the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.

      • JWH

        There are indeed times when a president should go against the public will. But when a president acts in accordance with the public will, one cannot simply blame the president.

        • jim_m

          Yes you can. Whenever the President makes an error in judgement you can criticize him. Otherwise I would suggest that the lefties on this board STFU about Iraq since the majority of the public was in favor of it at the time.

          See how well that works? I suppose that this is one of those things that works different when you’re a lefty.

          • JWH

            Excuse me, what? I haven’t said that one cannot criticize the president. I said one should not criticize the president alone. Note the placement of the word “simply” between “cannot” and “blame.”

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry it still sounds as though you are absolving the President of any responsibility if he follows the will of the people. Iraq enjoyed a 70+% favorability rating at the beginning. Yet somehow people manage to blame Bush ALONE for that war.

            Still seems like you have an amazing double standard going on here.

          • JWH

            What double standard? Here’s what you’re saying:

            “1) JWH thinks that Airman Kolfage should not solely blame President Obama for the withdrawal because popular opinion is on Obama’s side;

            “2) Liberals blame George W. Bush for the Iraq War, and he had popular support at the time; therefore,

            “3) JWH has a double standard.”

            Your logic is erroneous. To wit: “JWH” is not synonymous with “liberals” in general.

          • jim_m

            It’s more like this:

            1) JWH is a lib and speaks (generally) on behalf of the liberal point of view

            2) JWH thinks that when a President follows public opinion that he should not be held solely accountable for the actions of his government.

            3) Bush acted in a manner consistent with public opinion at the time.

            4) the left criticizes Bush and blames him as solely responsible for Iraq despite the fact that many on the left voted in favor of the action and popular opinion was running over 70% in favor at the time.

            Conclusion: Leftists are hypocrites because they claim that obama should not be blamed for his actions because he was only doing what the majority of the public favored. However, Bush is to be blamed solely for Iraq and he deserves all criticism that can be leveled because shut up!.

            There is really no escaping the fact that the left believes that obama should be let off the hook because he acted n concert with public opinion at the time and therefore the results of his action should not be criticized, yet they believe that Bush deserves all criticism for hs actions and their outcomes despite the fact that they fall under the same conditions.

  • DisasterPlan

    The Iraq War was not waged “to free the oppressed Iraqi citizens.” It
    was waged because Americans were scared. Dubya told us Saddam Hussein
    had weapons of mass destruction and was allied with Al Qaeda. After 9/11
    Americans were scared enough to attack anybody our leaders deemed a
    threat. Long after the invasion, when our excuses proved false, the Bush
    administration decided we were really there to spread democracy. But
    all we accomplished in Iraq was to replace a brutal, but stable Sunni
    dictatorship with a brutal, but unstable Shia dictatorship.

    Also, Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. His
    Oct. 2, 2002, speech gives his reasons. He said he did not oppose “all
    wars,” but he opposed “dumb wars,” and wanted to finish the job against
    al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan rather than start a new war
    in Iraq. He predicted that “even a successful war against Iraq will
    require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost,
    with undetermined consequences.”

    After the invasion his
    position changed. He said we needed to stabilize the country so we could
    withdraw. In the end, he wanted to keep a U.S. force there to train and
    support Iraqi forces. But the Shia Muslims we installed in power
    refused to give U.S. servicemen immunity from Iraqi law. We pulled out
    rather than surrender our men and women to the mercy of Iraq’s justice

    So what’s your plan to honor the lives and limbs lost
    and the families broken in Iraq? Stay and lose more lives and limbs
    while destroying more families, I guess. It’s only natural that you want
    to assign meaning to your personal sacrifice. But how many others need
    to lose their limbs until YOU feel whole?

    Go ahead, turn your
    suffering into hate and turn your hate on Obama. You won’t be the first
    or the last to waste your life that way. I feel sorry for you.

    • Public Law 107-243
      107th Congress

      Joint Resolution

      To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
      Iraq. <>

      Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and
      illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
      of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
      national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
      Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

      Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
      United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
      unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
      biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
      and develop them, and to end its support for international

      Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
      intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
      Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
      biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
      weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
      nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

      Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
      attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
      and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
      development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
      of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

      Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
      Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
      vital United States interests and international peace and security,
      declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its
      international obligations” and urged the President “to take
      appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
      laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
      international obligations”;

      Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
      the United States and international peace and security in the
      Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
      of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
      to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
      capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
      supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

      Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
      Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
      civilian population thereby threatening international peace

      [[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

      and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
      account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
      including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
      wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

      Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
      willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
      and its own people;

      Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
      hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
      including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
      and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
      Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
      United Nations Security Council;

      Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
      attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
      the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in

      Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
      organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
      safety of United States citizens;

      Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
      underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
      weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist

      Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
      mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
      employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
      States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
      terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
      would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
      attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend

      Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
      the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
      Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
      and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
      international peace and security, including the development of
      weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
      Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
      Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
      in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
      (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
      in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
      949 (1994);

      Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
      Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
      “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
      Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
      implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
      665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;

      Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
      “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
      United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
      with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

      [[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

      Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its
      civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
      Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
      security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that
      Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
      goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;

      Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
      the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
      States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
      regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
      replace that regime;

      Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
      States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
      our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary
      resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council
      resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
      security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;

      Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
      terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
      groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
      in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
      other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
      is in the national security interests of the United States and in
      furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
      Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
      of force if necessary;

      Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
      terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
      by the President to take the necessary actions against international
      terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
      organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
      aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
      harbored such persons or organizations;

      Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
      all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
      terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
      persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
      attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
      persons or organizations;

      Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
      action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
      against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
      resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
      107-40); and

      Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
      restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
      Now, therefore, be it

      Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
      States of America in Congress <> assembled,

      • jim_m

        Sure Rodney, this idiot is obviously impervious to facts.