« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | "Worst Person In The World" »

Cheney Ties Iraq War To Lack Of Terrorist Attacks In US

Vice President Cheney credits the War in Iraq as one reason there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

But three years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, the vice president still took pains to justify the war to a skeptical US public, saying that Saddam's ouster was a blow to international terrorism.


"Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists, it had a guy running it who had started two wars, who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction. Taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do," he said.

"It's also, I think, in part responsible for the fact that we haven't been hit again in nearly five years. That's no accident," Cheney said.

"The fact is, we've taken the battle to the enemy. That's been the key to the safety and security of the American people these last few years, and we need to continue to do it," he said.

"There have been attacks all over the world, in London and Madrid and Bali and Istanbul, as well as New York and Washington; that the key to our success to date has been to actively and aggressively go on offense," he said.


Comments (66)

How many lefty heads will e... (Below threshold)
jp:

How many lefty heads will explode over this comment, mean while Fox has another entry in their Saddam/Terror connections.

That doesn't sound like he'... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

That doesn't sound like he's "taking pains to justify" anything. It sounds exactly what it is: a litany of facts.

Isn't he quaint. The guy st... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

Isn't he quaint. The guy still thinks he's credible. How sweet! But do check that he's not mixing medications again, you know, like last time.

Like you were yesterday? </... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Like you were yesterday?

Doesn't sound like a defens... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

Doesn't sound like a defense of the Veep to me, Big Mo, not so much. So we agree that Cheney is no longer credible, if he ever was to begin with.

no, godless, we don't agree... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

no, godless, we don't agree on anything.

Someone or something gets c... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Someone or something gets credit for the fact we have not been attacked since we went on the attack. I seem to remember what? nine attacks on american interest in the 90's that killed hundreds of people and one completed on the World Trade Center and another planned since they condidered the first attack a success. 9-11 was a result of the successes of the 90's with no retaliation. I think the left wing is just sad because they haven't been able to gin up another attack on U.S. soil. Facts now prove that Saddam and the terrorists were playing footies all through the 90's and using Iraq as the playground. Keep up the attacks on the terrorist in Iraq and keep the worlds worst killers busy, and lined up at the cemetary, they came from around the world to die for the cause, make them happy.

That's unfortunate, Big mo,... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

That's unfortunate, Big mo, now isn't it. But, regardless, that Cheney isn't credible - should likely just stop talking (he hurts the President) - isn't something we have to agree on, nay, isn't something you have to believe: It's one of those litany of facts that doesn't agree with the Republican's laughable Weltanschauung. The thought of the day, again: Cheney isn't Credible.

Even conservatives have come to understand this.

I see GL simply asserts som... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

I see GL simply asserts something again. Cheny is far more credible than any liberal I've ever met. To think the Iraq war hasn't contributed to the lack of attacks is just the height of delusional thinking.

It's a classic military tactic when fighting a primarily guerilla war (and the WoT could be classified as a classic war with a nation) youfirst establish an area the guerillas can operate somewhat freely. You then proceed to defeat them in detail once they feel "safe" in that area.

It's a tactic dating back from Sun Tsu through modern strategists. It's so patently obvious as to be nearly a flashing neon sign.

Cheney isn't credible to WH... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Cheney isn't credible to WHO, godless? you? Oh, ok. Thanks. Good to know.

Do you know, actually care to refute anything Cheney said?

With, you know, actual facts?

If not, you can go back to typing "Weeeeeee!" like you were yesterday.

On mobile WMD labs, Cheney ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

On mobile WMD labs, Cheney said,

"We know, for example, that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program." NPR 7/23/2005

About the Insurgency, Cheney said,

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Larry King 6/20/2005

On Saddam's nuclear non-existent nuclear program, Cheney said,

"Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information, or trying to wish it away, would be irresponsible in the extreme," AEI 7/23/2005

On Iraq/9-11 connection, Cheney said,

" I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al_Qaeda and the Iraqi government...I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." NPR 1/22/04

On the mobile labs, again, Cheney said,

"we know... that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological labs, and we are quite confident that he did in fact, have such a program." NPR 1/22/204

On WMD, Cheney said,

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." 8/26/02

With a record of misstatements, lies and deceit as evidenced in just these few Cheney remarks (there are tons more), who in their right (no pun intended) mind would believe Cheney's absurd posturing about the explanation for no terrorists' attacks in the USA since 9/11. This man hasn't the capability to remember the false or lying statements he made in the past and ir is highly unlikely that he has any honest capability to assess the lack of subsequent terrorist attacks. Cheney is a liar and/or a fool if he thinks the claims reflected in Lorie's thread have any basis in reality.


What's also patently obv... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

What's also patently obvious is that the United States has never won a guerrilla war. Ever. No one wins guerrilla wars; you just decide to leave. If you know anything about military strategy, then you already know this.

Once again we're treated to... (Below threshold)

Once again we're treated to a Mak44 lecture on credibility. It's like Paris Hilton lecturing us on class.

McGeheeAs u... (Below threshold)
mak44:

McGehee

As usual, you have no credible counterpoint to my above post so you just make an assine response.

Yessir, fools like you have the answer.

Mak44, thanks for the assis... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

Mak44, thanks for the assist. To repeat: Cheney is not credible. He should, therefore, stop talking entirely.

mak44,I expect you... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

mak44,

I expect you've seen the statements by leading liberals about the certainty of Saddam having WMD and a nuclear program. Unless you're going to deny that's the case, there's no point in taking up the room to quote them.

By your logic then, none these people have the capability to remember the false or lying statements they made in the past and are highly unlikely to have any honest capability to assess the lack of subsequent terrorist attacks. these people are liars and/or fools.

Now that most elected representatives have been eliminated due to their bad character, why do you think there have been no successful terrorists attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11/01? Is it because the terrorists are just trying to lull us into a sense of false security, or are they really the nice peaceful folks others say they are?

Okay, one by one.M... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Okay, one by one.

Mobile WMD labs. CIA assessment from May 2003:
Wrong? Possible but unlikely.

June 05 Insurgency comment. "The level of activity, from a military standpoint, wil decline". Um, it has. Although I suppose your right, it DIDN'T happen within 3 days of Cheney's statement. Obviously he lied.

Nuclear program: "Non-existant" ? Are you kidding or just deliberately lying? We can argue about the EXTENT of the program, but there is no question as to whether or not there was one. Why exactly were the UN inspectors there? Oh, and here's an 01 intervwie with the former head of the non-existant program.

Ever here of Osirak?

Iraq-9/11 connection: Actually Cheney's quote references an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Big difference, but good effort with the straw man there. Which, as more information from capture documents appears, becomes more and more clear. Here's an 03 BBC article.

"No doubt that Husseing has WMD." Stated in 02. Well, that's is an accurate statement. I understand that you choose to believe it is not, but wishing doesn't make it so. I will concede that it IS possible (though unlikely) that by that time Iraq had no WMD. However, no one believed that to be the case. The Army, heading into Iraq was very much concerned about and prepared for chemical weapon attacks. They did not pretend to be concerned in order to justify the war. They were concerned because all available intelligence agreed that Iraq had weapons and would possibly use them. March, 03

Simply reiterating the way you want things to be is not an argument Mak.

Mike, Stop! That was utt... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

Mike, Stop! That was utterly incoherent. Bored me to tears, really. To repeat: Cheney isn't credible. Reasonable conservatives have already distanced themselves. They see the damage.

Godless Liberal,<bloc... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Godless Liberal,

No one wins guerrilla wars; you just decide to leave. If you know anything about military strategy, then you already know this.

You obviously don't know as much as you think about military strategy. The British Empire won the Boer war, which was a guerrilla war. Here's a statement about the outcome of that war. "The last of the Boer commandos, left without food, clothing, ammunition or hope, surrender in May, 1902 and the war ends with the Treaty of Vereeniging"

Guerrillas can only succeed when they have support of the local population and when the opposing force doesn't want to destroy that population. In the Boer way, the British Empire started treating the local population as collaborators, which broke the back of the guerrillas. Another strategy, which is what we the U.S. is doing in Iraq, is to get the local population to fight against the guerrillas. Actually, when the guerrillas kill Iraqis, they are helping the U.S. defeat them.

The only way the terrorists (guerrillas) can win in Iraq is to destroy the will of the U.S. people to stay until the job is done. To do that they will need your continued support along with that of many U.S. fools and liberals.

Godless Liberal,<bloc... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Godless Liberal,

No one wins guerrilla wars; you just decide to leave. If you know anything about military strategy, then you already know this.

You obviously don't know as much as you think about military strategy. The British Empire won the Boer war, which was a guerrilla war. Here's a statement about the outcome of that war. "The last of the Boer commandos, left without food, clothing, ammunition or hope, surrender in May, 1902 and the war ends with the Treaty of Vereeniging"

Guerrillas can only succeed when they have the support of the local population and when the opposing force doesn't want to destroy that population. In the Boer war, the British Empire started treating the local population as collaborators, which broke the back of the guerrillas. Another strategy, which is what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, is to get the local population to fight against the guerrillas. Actually, when the guerrillas kill Iraqis, they are helping the U.S. defeat them.

The only way the terrorists (guerrillas) can win in Iraq is to destroy the will of the U.S. people to stay until the job is done. To do that they will need your continued support along with that of many other fools and liberals.

Actually, we've won two gue... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Actually, we've won two guerilla wars. The union beat the Missouri guerrillas during the Civil War, and the U.S beat the Indians on the plains.

And we actually would have won Vietnam had the American left not taken over the counrty and forced us to cut and run. Tet was a huge US/ARVN victory where we actually smashed Charlie to bits, rendering the Viet Cong pretty much impotent, but that Napoleonic genius Walter Croncrank declared it a defeat and joined the hippie dippies in demanding we run away.

Actually, the irony is that... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Actually, the irony is that very few guerillas win guerilla wars.

Several people have already cited excellent examples, including the Indian Wars and the Boer War. The wars with the Indians would certainly fit as well.

But let's add a few to the list, shall we?

Filipino Insurrection, 1899-1902. Aguinaldo, thoroughly defeated.

Banana Wars, 1920s. Now, you might be cheering on Sandino, but he lost.

Philippine Hukbalahap revolt, 1946. The US and the RoPhilippines together thoroughly defeated a Communist insurgency.

Soviets in Ukraine, 1940s. The Soviets defeated the "men of the forest" in typical Soviet style.

Malaya, 1950s. The Brits helped write the book on counterinsurgency, and the MCP lost. Period.

Vietnam, 1965-1968. It's useful to remember that the Vietnam War ended, NOT with the VC overthrowing Saigon, but with an eminently conventional armored thrust along the coastal lowlands, by NVA regular forces.

Uruguay vs. Tupamaros. Urban insurgency, defeated by the Uruguayan government.

Peru vs Shining Path. Lima versus the loons.

And I'm sure that's only a very small sampling of defeated guerilla/insurgent movements.

Right, you cite two example... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

Right, you cite two examples that aren't even modern history or, for that matter, aren't guerrillas wars. Vietnam, theortically, would have never ended. Vietnam was tragic for having proved nothing but our own hubris.

Observer, what exists of th... (Below threshold)
Godless Liberal:

Observer, what exists of the country's that put down the guerrillas? And what of those country's that were put down? Again, you don't win a guerrilla war; you just decided to leave.

Substitute Wit for God and ... (Below threshold)

Substitute Wit for God and you might have more credibility, GL.

glodless liberal at 12:14 p... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

glodless liberal at 12:14 p.m.: "you cite two examples that aren't even modern history or, for that matter, aren't guerrillas wars."

godless liberal at 11:28 a.m.: "What's also patently obvious is that the United States has never won a guerrilla war. Ever. No one wins guerrilla wars; you just decide to leave. If you know anything about military strategy, then you already know this."


Weeee! Weeee! Weeee!
Posted by: Godless Liberal at June 15, 2006 03:53 PM


The simple fact that the men fighting those wars CALLED THEM guerrilla wars must mean nothing to you, godless.

You really are a blithering idiot.
Do us a favor and go back to "weeeing." At least you were entertaining then.

Reasonable conserv... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Reasonable conservatives have already distanced themselves.

Obviously you don't believe any conservative is reasonable, so it's a lie, and thus, Godless Liberal isn't credible. Apparently you feel that by repeating a statement it becomes more factual, so. . .

Godless Liberal isn't credible.
Godless Liberal isn't credible.
Godless Liberal isn't credible.
.
.
[trillions of repeats deleted]
.
.
Godless Liberal isn't credible.
Godless Liberal isn't credible.
Godless Liberal isn't credible.

It's now a fact, so reasonable conservatives can ignore anything you say from now on, if we want. You'll have to switch back to your other moniker.

GL you are a true liberal. ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

GL you are a true liberal. If the facts don't support your ideology, you just ignore them and keep repeating your phony talking points. You can say that "you don't win a guerrilla war; you just decided to leave" as many time as you want but it doesn't make it true. There are many more examples then those stated. However, I know you will keep repeating your brainwash statements.

GL, what are you blathering... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

GL, what are you blathering about?

Do you believe Carthage somehow won, because the Roman Empire eventually fell?

But let's review what happened to the nations that won, and the insurgencies that lost.

Malaya---UK still exists, Malaysia exists, MCP was gutted and didn't come back.

Huks---US still exists, Philippines still exists, Huk movement eliminated.

Philippine Insurrection---US still exists, Philippines gained independence on a US-set schedule (which had nothing to do w/ the insurgency), Aguinaldo ultimately makes peace with both the US and the subsequent Philippine government.

Shining Path---Lima holding regular elections, Shining Path decimated, Guzman rotting in jail.

"Better to be quiet and let others think you a fool, than to open yer trap and prove it beyond any doubt."

"Cheny is far more credible... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Cheny is far more credible than any liberal I've ever met."

lol

Howard Dean has been more correct on this war than anyone in this administration.

"I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators"

Cheney rule's while Mak dro... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Cheney rule's while Mak drool's!!

IN many places, we were, yo... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

IN many places, we were, you jackass.

Big MoYou d... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Big Mo

You drooled:

"And we actually would have won Vietnam had the American left not taken over the counrty and forced us to cut and run. Tet was a huge US/ARVN victory where we actually smashed Charlie to bits, rendering the Viet Cong pretty much impotent
"

That is the lamest extremist crap that you armchair generals love to keep passing around as your excuse for the outcome in VN. Tet was in 1968. After Tricky Dick assumed office in '69 and vastly increased US presence in VN and extended bombing everywhere in SE Asia, you would have us believe that Cronkite and the Left defeated the US in VN?

This is preposterous horse sh_t. typical of the lies that the extremist war-mongerers love to perpetuate, much as Hitler blamed the politicians for Germany's loss in WWI.

Arm chairt generals like you are always willing to order someone else into harm's way as you wage their military campaigns.

BTW what does "Big Mo" stand for? Is that short for what happens after you OD on a laxative?

MikeYou pos... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Mike

You posted:

"Ever here of Osirak?" and a lot of other attempts to deflect from the thrust of the Cheney quotes I posted above.

Cherney made those, and many other statements about Saddam & Iraq as statements of fact, not assessment as in:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"

You can bring up Osirak from vintage early '80's but that is a lame justification for 20 some years later.

The fact is, if you look at Cheney's assessments & statements of certainty about Iraq & Saddam, Cheney is either a liar or a moron. My diagnosis: a lot of both.

Clearly. with a record of ridiculous statements and assessments that Cheney has, his would be the least credible assessment as to why there have been no further terrorist attacks ob US soil.

That is the lamest extre... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

That is the lamest extremist crap that you armchair generals love to keep passing around as your excuse for the outcome in VN. Tet was in 1968. After Tricky Dick assumed office in '69 and vastly increased US presence in VN and extended bombing everywhere in SE Asia, you would have us believe that Cronkite and the Left defeated the US in VN?

Seeing as how they managed to take a huge win (Tet) and report it as a loss for the US --- yeah, they had a lot to do with the loss.
-=Mike

mak44: 1. Tet w... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

mak44:

1. Tet was a US victory. It gutted the Viet Cong infrastructure in the South. But that was not how it was reported at the time, nor for years afterwards.

2. US bombing was as illegal as the Ho Chi Minh trail. Take a look at a map sometime, and figure out where the Ho Chi Minh trail ran. You'll find that it ran, not in Vietnam, but through Laos and Cambodia. And where did Nixon authorize bombing? Laos and Cambodia---coincidence?

More to the point, nations which allow one side to engage in things like logistical resupply are not neutral. So, if Cambodia and Laos didn't stop Vietnam, then they were under international law de facto combatants on the side of Vietnam. And who was doing the violating of their neutrality in the first place? Why, the Hanoi regime!

But that's never a problem for the likes of you. Eggs, omelettes, eh?

3. What is this horses**t about Nixon "vastly expanding" the US presence in Vietnam? The force peaked in April 1969, and steadily declined after that. Given how military planning works, short of an order on 21 January 1969 to immediately cease and desist troop deployments (which would, in turn, violate a host of Army regs), this was probably about as fast as you were going to see a turnaround on troop deployments.

As for arm chair generals, you must be thinking of the likes of Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton, neither of whom ever served a day in the Guard, Reserves, or regular forces.

"Vastly increaed US presenc... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

"Vastly increaed US presence in Vietnam"

WRONG, drooler. JFK and LBJ increased the US presence until the maximum troop strength of 500,000 in 1968.

Nixon started the drawdown--demanded by likeminded jackasses such as yourself--in 1969. He only expanded the war to Cambidia and Laos to hit the enemy where he was hiding.


Unless you can crack open a history book, please leave it to those who actually know something about it, loser.

If you must know, Mak44, "B... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

If you must know, Mak44, "Big Mo" is an homage to my Grandpa, who was known as Big Mo in the Army in WWII because of his 6'6" skinny frame.

So please take this with all the venom I can muster: FUCK YOU AND THE LIBERAL HORSE YOU RODE IN ON.

Generals Mike SC & Lurki... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Generals Mike SC & Lurking Observer

The fact that the US might finally weary of having its sons fed into an endless meat-grinder for a LYING WAR in VN based on the silly Domino Theory propounded by armchair generals of that era was part of the Giap strategy.

And, of course, there was no valid domino theory. To the extent that the Left, & eventually most of this country, tired of the barbarism in VN is more a reflection of a return to humanity than that the Left forced this country to take "defeat from the jaws of victory."

It was Tricky Dick Nixon & his horsesh_t about Communism over-running the world that led to a series of US blunders in SE Asia from 1956 on.

You cannot go into a country to perpetuate the colonial tyranny that had been imposed upon VN since the French, and after you had persuaded Ho Chi Minh during WWII that the US would support VN's independence in exchange for Ho's resistance to the Japanese, and expect to not have to pay the price for deceit afterwards.

The Diem SVN regime was the equivalent of attempting to impose roughly a French or pro-West puppet regime on a people who wanted independence.

So all your pseudo-military assessments are nothing but vain attempts to explain away the hideous & deceitful blunders the US made in SE Asia, driven by the anti-communist malarkey of Nixon, and earlier, McCarthy and a gnerous portion of Republicans.

Big MoTouch... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Big Mo

Touche re troop strength.

Nonetheless, Nixon campaigned saying that he had a plan to end the VN war. Had he implemented the plan soon after innaugaration, he would have saved roughly half of the US death VN toll, not to mention the VN toll.

In the end, his plan was nothing other than to pull out, something he could have done 10's of thousands of lives earlier in 1969 but for the communist hysteria in this country of which Nixon had contributed so much to generate in the '50's and '60's.

Impressive, mak. Y... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Impressive, mak.

You manage to argue about the wrongness of Vietnam, and not once mention Kennedy (who, of course, expanded the advisory presence in Vietnam, and thanks to the Laotian crisis of 1960-1961, concluded that we would actually fight there) nor LBJ (who, of course, actually introduced US combat forces into Vietnam in 1965).

You utterly misrepresent the Giap strategy, which had nothing to do with a "lying war" and everything to do about taking a cue from how the press was reporting the war.

You completely leave out the role of the "best and brightest" of the JFK/LBJ administrations, or the impact of losing China (during the Truman Administration) on decision-making about Vietnam, or the fact, as Leslie Gelb, former NYT reporter and State Department official, entitled his book, that the sad truth was that Vietnam was how the system worked.

As for the lack of dominoes, perhaps you might explain the relationship between Vietnam's fall and the fates of Cambodia and Laos?

And as for the supposed failings of the Domino Theory, Lee Kwan Yew, former head of Singapore, and other Southeast Asians have observed that Vietnam, in fact, bought time for much of Southeast Asia to mature their economies and their political systems, so that local Communist parties found themselves defanged.

But then, you're probably one who believes Korea, the brooding archetype overhanging Vietnam, was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Because, at the end of the day, the people of Vietnam suffered the same fate that other peoples did under Communist regimes, or have you forgotten about the boat people?

BTW, how the failures of the French to honor promises to Ho Chi Minh is somehow the fault of Vice President Nixon, or why Nixon would be at fault when Ike himself refused to extend support to the French during and after Dien Bien Phu is a leap in "logic" that I've come to expect from you.

The fact that the US mig... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The fact that the US might finally weary of having its sons fed into an endless meat-grinder for a LYING WAR in VN based on the silly Domino Theory propounded by armchair generals of that era was part of the Giap strategy.

If people are told, over and over, that we're losing, they will stop wanting to fight.

And, of course, there was no valid domino theory.

Yup, Cambodia didn't go Communist. No sir.

To the extent that the Left, & eventually most of this country, tired of the barbarism in VN is more a reflection of a return to humanity than that the Left forced this country to take "defeat from the jaws of victory."

Yet when somebody like Joan Baez, who opposed the war mind you, tried to raise awareness about the humanitarian catastrophe that was N. Vietnamese control of S. Vietnam (more deaths in 2 years after we left than in the 10 years before we left), YOUR side condemned her for mentioning it.

The left doesn't care about darker-skinned folks. Never did.

It was Tricky Dick Nixon & his horsesh_t about Communism over-running the world that led to a series of US blunders in SE Asia from 1956 on.

Yes. Watching how the USSR treated E. Europe after WW II does make a concern about Communism taking over the world all the sillier.

You cannot go into a country to perpetuate the colonial tyranny that had been imposed upon VN since the French, and after you had persuaded Ho Chi Minh during WWII that the US would support VN's independence in exchange for Ho's resistance to the Japanese, and expect to not have to pay the price for deceit afterwards.

We never advised him of that.

And it seems odd that you don't care --- at all --- about what happened AFTER we left. The N. Vietnamese engaged in ethnic cleansing of a barbaric nature.

The Diem SVN regime was the equivalent of attempting to impose roughly a French or pro-West puppet regime on a people who wanted independence.

Except that there was no native S. Vietnamese resistance after Tet. It was ALL N. Vietnamese.

You know, an INVASION.

So all your pseudo-military assessments are nothing but vain attempts to explain away the hideous & deceitful blunders the US made in SE Asia, driven by the anti-communist malarkey of Nixon, and earlier, McCarthy and a gnerous portion of Republicans.

And you don't care about the disaster that your supported policies caused. YOUR supported policies led to many more deaths than the "evil" policies of LBJ in Vietnam. It led to, quite possibly, the worst massacre in history in Cambodia (in terms of percentage of the population slaughtered).

Don't lecture us on humanity. You are sorely lacking in that area.
-=Mike
-=Mike

"Touche"?? Only a ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

"Touche"??

Only a complete idiot would conclude that something as factual as troop strength is actually a debating technique.

So much for the "reality-based" community's respect for reality. Sorta like the idea that you could draw down 500K troops in, what, a few days, mak? Or would you give them a month?

As for tolls, why, just think of it!

An extra three years of Communist rule, including "reeducation camps" and boat people.

An extra three years of executions like those in Hue during Tet.

An extra three years for Pol Pot to run Cambodia.

Yah, wouldn't that be just wunnerful?? Ho, and Pol Pot, ain't they just dreamy??

Mak44- "Tricky Dick Nixon &... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Mak44- "Tricky Dick Nixon & his horsesh_t about Communism over-running the world"

You are an ignoramous. You have such a twisted lack of understanding that no amount of facts, history, reasoning or debate could ever penetrate that fog in your brain. Your basic premise is Democrat/liberal = good. GOP/conservative = bad.

My proof? nowhere in that stupid, brainless diatribe of yours do you mention Truman, whose Truman doctirne was created expressly to stop the spread of communism around the world, nor is there any mention of JFK or LBJ, the two presidents most responsble for Vietnam. They STARTED it. Nixon ENDED it.

Good day to you.

Try reading : 9/11 Truth .... (Below threshold)
Christie:

Try reading : 9/11 Truth .org on who is responsible for 9/11
Try reading: [email protected] on two stolen presidential elections
Try some critical thinking.
Then go back to posting opinions on Web Sites.
Unless, of course, you are a Troll.

In that case, when the dangers of supporting this regime become clear to you, repent at leisure in the world in which we will be then living. (Hint: chisel with rock on stone)

Cheney has no facts correct... (Below threshold)
martin arrowsmith:

Cheney has no facts correct, and his opions are downright delusional. 2 Wars by Saddam. Remember that the US (reagan, bush I and their minions - e.g. Cheney) were buddies and allies with Saddam in the 1980s and supported him and his efforts when he waged the war with another member of the axis of evil - Iran.

Also, remember there were no WMDs found - that is why Bush II and his cadre of war criminals have changed the story again and again and again as to why we went. Saddam was a secularist who was hated by islamist theocrats and now Iraq lurches toward sectarian war based on religon. Which terrorists was Saddam harboring? They weren't there until we opened the floodgates.

Go on offense? We send brave americans to iraq on a lie and now 2500 are dead (not much less than 9/11) more than 18,000 wounded, and no one will ever know how many innocent Iraqis are dead. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Perley - "men" who have never seen the horrors of war, who sat out other wars due to connections and because they had "other things to do," have no problems sending others to death. The bravery of being out of range. Any of their loved ones going? Of course not. As Babs Bush said, she doesn't want to disrupt her beautiful mind with visions of dead soldiers, which is what her son has produced.

We have squandered the nation's wealth on this disaster - all the while the rich get richer. As Bush II said himself on the campaign trail in 2000 - "My base is the haves and the have mores" He supports private splendor and public squalor. Take a look around - the largest deficits ever from the surpluses that he inherited from the last democratic president (no one died when clinton lied).

And while I am a liberal, I fully supported the Afghan war - I just thought maintaining focus and fixing that nation was a better idea than being distracted by a lie. Notice that the lid is beginning to come off in Afghanistan now. Should've gotten bin laden when we had him on the ropes. Ofcourse, maybe Bush II wouldn't have been re-elected then - just like pappy. Nope - had to keep the fear alive. Now it won't matter if we get bin laden - just as it won't matter that we got Zarqawi. People are ready to take their place. Last I looked dozens of people are still dying every day in Iraq. War profiteers have made a killing although reconstruction has been largely non-existent. Iraqi oil paying for this debacle as our "leaders" stated would happen? Think again. Oil output in Iraq is decreased since 2003. Oh the littany could go on forever, but clearly many of you simply feel that the entire world is wrong and that your "fair and balanced" media at Fox and the former CEO of Haliburton - our vice president - are the only one's who could be correct. EVERYBODY else just doesn't understand and has their facts wrong because they listen to the biased liberal media. Look up the facts they are still freely available at your local library on the web. Go back to periodicals of the 1980s and see how the big tough leaders of today were sleeping Saddam back then. He was bad boy back then, but at least he was our bad boy.

Quick! Look over there. Let's make a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. That will keep the frightened distracted. That's right up there with the amendment that outlawed alcohol (#18). Oh wait. That one was repealed (#21). Pay no attention to the real horrors going on.

martin arrowsmith - ....</p... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

martin arrowsmith - ....

ah, hell , what's the point?

everything in your fevered post has been refuted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It's so damn tiresome.


But here's one: We were "in bed" with Saddam because Iran was the bigger threat. Just like we were "in bed" with Stalin because Hitler was the bigger threat. Once Hitler went bye-bye, we turned our watchful eye toward Stalin and his commie goons.

You oh-so-superior liberals just absolutely refuse to understyand things like that because you hate Bush so much.

Big Mo, what exactly in my ... (Below threshold)
martin arrowsmith:

Big Mo, what exactly in my fevered post has been refuted?

The WMD or lack thereof?

That we had a surplus and now it is gone into a pointless deficit on a pointless war?

The 2500 dead americans? The 18,000 injured? The countless dead innocent iraqis?

The people still dying everyday by the scores despite getting Zarqawi.

That we lost focus on the important issue of Afghanistan and bin laden to pursue a lie?

The quote from Bush on who is political base actually is?

What his mommy dearest said about not wanting to see the coffins of dead US servicemen and women?

That rummy, cheney, bush, et al didn't go to war but hid out? and now they send people to an illegal and immoral war? Whereas Gore and Kerry are cowards for actually going?

And "Sleeping" with Stalin because Hitler was a bigger evil as justification of partying with Saddam. Dude - evil is evil. We were getting Saddam's oil. Sleeping with saddam was OK because Iran was a bigger threat? How was Iran so threatening to us in the 1980's? They couldn't bring Iraq to its knees in many years of bloody war, but we brough Iraq down VERY quickly -twice.

That Haliburton has made lots of $$$$ on reconstruction, but Iraq has not been reconstructed?

That we were not greeted with flowers and peace did not break out everywhere?

That oil production is still below pre-war levels and it is unlikely that it will ever pay the financial costs of the war. No way can it pay the emotional costs of war.

Exactly which of these statements have been refuted?

What's the point?
Many people are needlessly dead. Children don't have fathers, mothers don't have sons and daughters, wives don't have husbands. Is that really so trivial to you?
then how about the more tangible. we have spent our nation's wealth and good name on a lie. That this adminstration can distract so many Americans from the real problems facing this nation by striking fear into people's hearts. That people are willing to give up freedoms and the constitution. As Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Godless Liberal? duh, thats... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Godless Liberal? duh, thats a no brainer oxymoronic moniker to be sure.. I will pray for Your Godless soul..my friend..

virgo1godless libe... (Below threshold)
martin arrowsmith:

virgo1

godless liberal is oxymoronic? I'd be surprised if YOU meant it the way you used the word oxymoron.

the definition of oxymoron
n : conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence')

Although I do know many liberals who are not godless. In fact, in his day Jesus most likely would have been considered a liberal or a progressive. You know - new enlightened thought for the time that professed the concept of loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek.

Not simply hating or killing those who simply disagree with your your perspective of the world.

Virgo1 your moniker implies a belief in astrology - is that compatible with an all powerful GOD.

The fault lies not in our stars but within ourselves.

Try reading : 9/11 Truth... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Try reading : 9/11 Truth .org on who is responsible for 9/11
Try reading: [email protected] on two stolen presidential elections
Try some critical thinking.
Then go back to posting opinions on Web Sites.
Unless, of course, you are a Troll.

Can I read NON-psychotic sites? The "stolen elections" have been shot to hell for years now. That your side cannot handle reality is sad for you.

Cheney has no facts correct, and his opions are downright delusional. 2 Wars by Saddam. Remember that the US (reagan, bush I and their minions - e.g. Cheney) were buddies and allies with Saddam in the 1980s and supported him and his efforts when he waged the war with another member of the axis of evil - Iran.

No, they weren't "buddies". He was the lesser of 2 evils, but the goal was for both militaries to wipe one another out. If Iran was slaughtering Iraq, we'd have given Iran arms.

Also, remember there were no WMDs found - that is why Bush II and his cadre of war criminals have changed the story again and again and again as to why we went. Saddam was a secularist who was hated by islamist theocrats and now Iraq lurches toward sectarian war based on religon. Which terrorists was Saddam harboring? They weren't there until we opened the floodgates.

Salman Pak was used regularly for training. Zarqawi was there. Families of suicide bombers were given money regularly.

Long before we did anything.

Hold on to the myth that the "secularist" Saddam didn't work with Al Qaeda.

Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Perley - "men" who have never seen the horrors of war, who sat out other wars due to connections and because they had "other things to do," have no problems sending others to death.

Bush served in the Air Nat'l Guard.

Rummy DID serve.

Continue with your usual talking points, though.

We have squandered the nation's wealth on this disaster - all the while the rich get richer. As Bush II said himself on the campaign trail in 2000 - "My base is the haves and the have mores"

...at a charity dinner where candidates regularly (Al Gore was ALSO there and ALSO did a schtick routine that, because Moore didn't want to crucify him, hasn't seen the light of day) did self-depricating comedy routines.

And "Sleeping" with Stalin because Hitler was a bigger evil as justification of partying with Saddam. Dude - evil is evil.

Funny, if I were to condemn FDR for it, you'd go nuts.

That we had a surplus and now it is gone into a pointless deficit on a pointless war?

Surpluses based on absurd economic assumptions expecting unmaintainable rates of growth indefinitely.

That rummy, cheney, bush, et al didn't go to war but hid out? and now they send people to an illegal and immoral war? Whereas Gore and Kerry are cowards for actually going?

He was a "journalist". Less dangerous than Bush's military service and Rumsfeld's service.

That Haliburton has made lots of $$$$ on reconstruction, but Iraq has not been reconstructed?

They haven't made money on it. The subsidiary in charge of the reconstruction is losing money.

And the mere fact that the soldiers appreciate what they do is immaterial, huh?

That we were not greeted with flowers and peace did not break out everywhere?

We were initially, actually.
-=Mike

My moniker simply imply's a... (Below threshold)
JEFF:

My moniker simply imply's a spur of the moment choice, much like all of life, it was not meant to convey spirituality or "godlessness" one way or the other? I simply picked the month of My birth!
I dont hate or kill anybody or anything with malice or forethought,I will stand by my statement however: (Godless liberal) is a self declared state of rebellion against the God of the universe! I did not pick the moniker? but I sure as hell no what it implys....

in response to MikeSC:... (Below threshold)
martin arrowsmith:

in response to MikeSC:

No, they weren't "buddies". He was the lesser of 2 evils, but the goal was for both militaries to wipe one another out. If Iran was slaughtering Iraq, we'd have given Iran arms.
Can you say Iran-contra. I know kind of after the fact MAYBE, but funny to provide arms to a mortal enemy. Probably just liberal bias.
No we were allies with Iraq implying something along the lines of friendship or common goals. Or were we just being so sneaky and calculating. How cynical. Providing arms to people to kill each other as you watch on gleefully?!? Gee real surprise that they may not like us too much. But a mortal threat - please!

Salman Pak was used regularly for training. Zarqawi was there. Families of suicide bombers were given money regularly.

Long before we did anything.

Hold on to the myth that the "secularist" Saddam didn't work with Al Qaeda.

No. I'm talking about the WMDs professed by OUR government that IRAQ supposedly had. Where were the bioweapons that Colin Powell discussed in front of the U.N? Where were the nuclear weapons and the yellow cake that Bush, Rummy and Cheney talked about and the "mushroom cloud" that Condi talked about. Most everything that I have been inundated with about Zarqawi referred to his training in Afghanistan. Remember we helped the Mujaheedin dispatch those pesky russians in the 80's there.

Bush served in the Air Nat'l Guard.
Rummy DID serve.
Continue with your usual talking points, though.

Bush avoided viet nam and stayed in the states partying. Rummy - which war and where? Maybe. I also know he was a participant in the decision making process of the disaster of Viet Nam - a non-combatant however. What about the others? In the words of Wolfy - hard to imagine. hard to imagine. Nonetheless, men who have not seen or participated in the horrors of war are blithely sending men off to a war of agression to die with no clear purpose.

We have squandered the nation's wealth on this disaster - all the while the rich get richer. As Bush II said himself on the campaign trail in 2000 - "My base is the haves and the have mores"

to this you state that it is self dprecating humor. OK. But the rich have gotten richer and we have squandered our nation's wealth on a lie instead of helping our own. The "death tax" only helps those with estates in excessof $2,000,000. If you've got that much good for you and i can now understand your republican stance.

Funny, if I were to condemn FDR for it, you'd go nuts.

Didn't think I would have to state the obvious that Hitler waged a war of agression, and was a REAL threat. HMMMM.

He was a "journalist". Less dangerous than Bush's military service and Rumsfeld's service.
Goree was in Viet Nam. You ignore Kerry. Hope you are not a swiftboater. Bush was in the U.S. In the rear with the gear. Hardly dangerous. Rummy - still honestly don't know what he did - if anything. Considering his callous nature i still can't imagine he has seen hjorror or a bump on the old noggin made him forget.

They (Haliburton) haven't made money on it. The subsidiary in charge of the reconstruction is losing money.
And the mere fact that the soldiers appreciate what they do is immaterial, huh?

Man for all the $$$ we're spending on them they are more incompetent than I could've imagined. I thought we were supposed to rebuild IRAQ - not FOBs. Though i do have a relative who is making a shwack of cash as a mercenary for KBR.

That we were not greeted with flowers and peace did not break out everywhere?

We were initially, actually

What happened since? Or might that have been a PR stunt? I guess you can always blame liberals and cronkite. Wait - I think cronkite is dead.

Surpluses based on absurd economic assumptions expecting unmaintainable rates of growth indefinitely.

Look we had money - now we don't. We burned alot of in it on a lie and death. Take a look at the services and diminishment in all sectors - libraries, national parks, research, all kinds of enriching activities for the average american and those less fortunate. Again , if your rich - no problemo. Have fun hanging out with vacuous types like the Cheney's

You mean deficits are OK? You mean ledgers don't mean anything? Does anyone ever have to pay?

Look wanton death as a result of a war of agression, based on lies is just not very smart or a good time. Too much death not enough love.

Mak331/3Why? do yo... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Mak331/3

Why? do you continue to babble about war casualties and the sort? When it was "Your Boy" LBJ that got us there!VNam.
So Nixon campaigned to get us out of Nam! now thats a bad thing?
I supposed We can all look back on what We shouldacoulda done? or not done and the world would be a lot better for it..

So! You blame Nixon? coz He didnt Murtha? but on the otherhand? the left is all for the extermination of thousands/millions of unborn children????

I think that is spelled with a small h...^^^^^.

~SIGH~ martin arro... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

~SIGH~

martin arrowsmith, the junk in your fevered post has been refuted time and again over the last three years on hundreds of web sites, columns, magazines and newspapers - ones not controled by Bush-haters, that is.

Only Kos kiddies and other assorted far lefties believe the nonsense in your post.

Cheney defeats liberals by ... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Cheney defeats liberals by linking Iraq and terrorism! no shit Shurlock....

Now that's rich. I like ho... (Below threshold)

Now that's rich. I like how Cheney uses the fact that Saddam "started two wars" as a premise for starting, well, a second war. Cheney knows his followers have no standards.

If interested, have a look at my Iraq war timeline. There are some other quotes in there too, at least one from Cheney, when he said the insurgency was in its "last throes." That was over a year ago. What a psycho.

in response to MikeSC:... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

in response to MikeSC:

Can you say Iran-contra. I know kind of after the fact MAYBE, but funny to provide arms to a mortal enemy. Probably just liberal bias.

You arm two mortal enemies of yours in the hopes that they wipe one another out. A brilliant, brilliant strategy.

No we were allies with Iraq implying something along the lines of friendship or common goals.

Just because you BELIEVE something to be the case does not make it the case. Saddam was, to use a phrase, "our son of a bitch" --- definitely not a friend.

Or were we just being so sneaky and calculating. How cynical. Providing arms to people to kill each other as you watch on gleefully?!? Gee real surprise that they may not like us too much. But a mortal threat - please!

It is brilliant and it is highly cost-effective.

Salman Pak was used regularly for training. Zarqawi was there. Families of suicide bombers were given money regularly.

Long before we did anything.

Hold on to the myth that the "secularist" Saddam didn't work with Al Qaeda.

No. I'm talking about the WMDs professed by OUR government that IRAQ supposedly had.

Actually, what you said was:

"Saddam was a secularist who was hated by islamist theocrats and now Iraq lurches toward sectarian war based on religon. Which terrorists was Saddam harboring? They weren't there until we opened the floodgates."

I explained it to you.

You're welcome.

Where were the bioweapons that Colin Powell discussed in front of the U.N?

The ones he used a few years earlier and that nobody knows what happened to them?

Those bioweapons?

Where were the nuclear weapons and the yellow cake that Bush, Rummy and Cheney talked about and the "mushroom cloud" that Condi talked about.

No, they said that if they allowed Saddam to become an imminent threat, the first warning we'd get that he had the bomb was a mushroom cloud.

Not that he HAD them but that he was actively SEEKING them.

Most everything that I have been inundated with about Zarqawi referred to his training in Afghanistan. Remember we helped the Mujaheedin dispatch those pesky russians in the 80's there.

Learn a little history. We funded the Afghan nationals. The Saudis funded the groups that included folks like OBL.

Bush served in the Air Nat'l Guard.
Rummy DID serve.
Continue with your usual talking points, though.

Bush avoided viet nam and stayed in the states partying.

Nat'l Guard pilots got injured far more often than soldiers in Vietnam got purple hearts due to being hit with rice in the ass.

Rummy - which war and where?

He was a Navy pilot and instructor between 1954 and 1957.

Again, you're welcome for the education.

Maybe. I also know he was a participant in the decision making process of the disaster of Viet Nam - a non-combatant however. What about the others? In the words of Wolfy - hard to imagine. hard to imagine. Nonetheless, men who have not seen or participated in the horrors of war are blithely sending men off to a war of agression to die with no clear purpose.

So, you advocate ending civilian control of the military?

Got it.

Presidents without military history cannot possibly lead soldiers, eh?

Using that logic, if Hillary DOES win the Dem nomination, every American should do the right thing and vote against her --- since she can't possibly lead troops and all.

Also, where was this mentality in 1992 and 1996, when REAL military heroes lost to a draft-dodger?

We have squandered the nation's wealth on this disaster - all the while the rich get richer. As Bush II said himself on the campaign trail in 2000 - "My base is the haves and the have mores"

to this you state that it is self dprecating humor. OK. But the rich have gotten richer and we have squandered our nation's wealth on a lie instead of helping our own.

Economic growth is matching what it was under Clinton.

AND without massive corporate corruption.

Go Bush!

The "death tax" only helps those with estates in excessof $2,000,000. If you've got that much good for you and i can now understand your republican stance.

What right does the government have to tax income they taxed previously after somebody dies?

Funny, if I were to condemn FDR for it, you'd go nuts.

Didn't think I would have to state the obvious that Hitler waged a war of agression, and was a REAL threat. HMMMM.

What threat did Hitler pose us? He didn't attack us. We attacked him, right?

He was a "journalist". Less dangerous than Bush's military service and Rumsfeld's service.

Goree was in Viet Nam.

As a reporter.

You ignore Kerry.

Doing you a favor.

Hope you are not a swiftboater. Bush was in the U.S. In the rear with the gear.

Bush actually volunteered to go but didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. I'd imagine he'd avoid sketchy purple hearts and questionable discharges as Kerry had.

Hardly dangerous. Rummy - still honestly don't know what he did - if anything. Considering his callous nature i still can't imagine he has seen hjorror or a bump on the old noggin made him forget.

You can spend five seconds and google "Rumsfeld military career". Not that difficult.

They (Haliburton) haven't made money on it. The subsidiary in charge of the reconstruction is losing money.
And the mere fact that the soldiers appreciate what they do is immaterial, huh?

Man for all the $$$ we're spending on them they are more incompetent than I could've imagined.

They weren't given a big profit margin to begin with and they have to pay for their own security forces.

I thought we were supposed to rebuild IRAQ - not FOBs. Though i do have a relative who is making a shwack of cash as a mercenary for KBR.

And I'm sure he/she is QUITE appreciative of being called a "mercenary".

Why do you hate your own family? Do you hate them as much as you clearly hate America?

That we were not greeted with flowers and peace did not break out everywhere?

We were initially, actually

What happened since?

Doesn't quite disualify how we were greeted, does it?

Or might that have been a PR stunt? I guess you can always blame liberals and cronkite. Wait - I think cronkite is dead.

No. His brain died years ago but his body hasn't quite gotten the update.

Surpluses based on absurd economic assumptions expecting unmaintainable rates of growth indefinitely.

Look we had money - now we don't. We burned alot of in it on a lie and death.

We also had A LOT of people burned by corruption in corporations that Clinton turned a blind eye towards.

Enron occured on CLINTON'S watch.
Global Crossing --- Clinton's watch.
Tyco --- Clinton's watch.

It took a Republican to actually enforce some laws.

Take a look at the services and diminishment in all sectors - libraries, national parks, research, all kinds of enriching activities for the average american and those less fortunate.

Feel free to, you know, provide evidence of any of this, please.

Again , if your rich - no problemo. Have fun hanging out with vacuous types like the Cheney's

Of course, without the megarich, the Dems have no fundraising capacity.

You mean deficits are OK?

Nope. You must've missed the widespread conservative condemnation of Bush and the House GOP spending. I can see how you'd miss it --- as every single conservative site has criticized him.

You mean ledgers don't mean anything? Does anyone ever have to pay?

Seeing as how it took Republicans to balance the budget in the first place (and even that was an accident caused by the stock bubble caused by --- well, the massive corporate corruption that Clinton allowed to happen).

Look wanton death as a result of a war of agression, based on lies is just not very smart or a good time. Too much death not enough love.

We could cut and run.

God knows that has never backfired.

I mean, running away from --- say, Somalia -- that didn't come back and hurt us.

Unless you count 9/11 as "hurting us".

Which the left doesn't.
-=Mike

Nicely done MikeSC. Unfort... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Nicely done MikeSC. Unfortunately, it will be met with fingers in ears and chants of "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN"T HEAR YOU!"

Enjoy your fear and hatred ... (Below threshold)
martin arrowsmith:

Enjoy your fear and hatred MikeSC and Mike
Now chant your mantra
War is peace.
Ignorance is Strength
Hate is Love.
Arbeit Macht Frei

You arm two mortal enemies of yours in the hopes that they wipe one another out. A brilliant, brilliant strategy.
They are still there - guess the strategy didn't work. Also we are there now dying and burning our wealth.
You also don't say anything how they were a significant threat to us.

Just because you BELIEVE something to be the case does not make it the case. Saddam was, to use a phrase, "our son of a bitch" --- definitely not a friend.
We paid lots of many for his OIL. And yes they were friends. Look it up. It may not be on FOX news, but there are sources that provide real information - like old newspapers and periodicals of the time.

The ones he used a few years earlier and that nobody knows what happened to them?
Those bioweapons?

Colin Powell has even come out regretting that lie.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm


Not that he HAD them but that he was actively SEEKING them (nuclear weapons)

No evidence for that either, but you do need a reason for this disaster.
Cheney said he was working on them
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/index.html
remember yellow cake.


Learn a little history. We funded the Afghan nationals. The Saudis funded the groups that included folks like OBL.
We funded anyone and everyone who wanted to dispatch those pesky russkies.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84601/peter-bergen-alec-reynolds/blowback-revisited.html
You need to get more sources than FOX news. Broaden your little mind dud

Nat'l Guard pilots got injured far more often than soldiers in Vietnam got purple hearts due to being hit with rice in the ass.
Wow - didn't realize being a flyboy on the home turf was so much more dangerous than being in a rice paddy with Charlie. More than 50,000 dead in viet nam. Had to conscript the underclass of America to go to that Disneyland, while the privileged class (Bush, Qualy, etc, did the dangerous stuff on weekends.) Man - when you actually think that national guard service is more dangerous than someone shooting real bullets and using IEDs that's just crazy. I wonder if the national guard in Iraq now would prefer to be back here?

He was a Navy pilot and instructor between 1954 and 1957.
Conveniently missed all war that way and therefore never saw its horrifying face. (WWII, Korean, Nam, etc)
Didn't say tanks, so no point in saying your welcome

So, you advocate ending civilian control of the military?
Got it.
Presidents without military history cannot possibly lead soldiers, eh?
Using that logic, if Hillary DOES win the Dem nomination, every American should do the right thing and vote against her --- since she can't possibly lead troops and all.
Also, where was this mentality in 1992 and 1996, when REAL military heroes lost to a draft-dodger?

Clinton didn't lead men to war of aggression. He didn't squander wealth on a lie, and didn't oversee the pointless death of thousands of Americans with no clear metrics of success or point.
No. I didn't say relief of civilian control. What I was saying was that stupid, egotistical men, filled with hubris and delusional ideas of how to make the world better through hatred and death may have obtained a different view of it all if they or the one's they love actually did some of the heavy lifting. So you think, in addition to Cheney, that Wolfy, Feithy, and Perley got it right. Sorry that is so very sad.

Economic growth is matching what it was under Clinton.
AND without massive corporate corruption.
Go Bush!

Dow is flat in the 6.5 years of this disaster. Poverty has increased.
Corporte corruption? Ken-boy Lay, Skilling and Enron. Adelphia, Tyco. Sorry Bush's watch. Must have been out biking.

Nope. You must've missed the widespread conservative condemnation of Bush and the House GOP spending
But you still say Go Bush! (see above) What has been his major successes?
Welcome to the real estate bubble

Of course, without the megarich, the Dems have no fundraising capacity.
Nor would the Republicans. That's the problem - they both have sold out. That's how they can sell you on the idea of the "DEATH TAX", and you blindly buy it.
Rich Americans should be willing to pay back to the country that has allowed them to prosper. They will still be very very rich. And they could help the country that they love

Seeing as how it took Republicans to balance the budget
All 3 arms are controlled by conservative republicans, but...
Budget is not balanced - worst it has ever been. I'm sure you think it's Clinton's fault. Why do hate America so much?

I don't hate America. I love America. Pay my taxes, vote, obey the laws of the land, obey the constitution. I educate, I don't spy on people, I don't want innocents to die for a lie.
"The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition.; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."

I have called my relative a mercenary to his face.
- we love each other, but simply disagree. He also can't resist that 6 figure salary
Of course 9/11 hurt us. So did Oklahoma City, but I suspect you don't remember that.
Threaten us and our way of life? Only by our response. Remember in my first post I said that I supported the Afghan War - I just thought getting the job done was what was important. Not the lie of Iraq. Now we are getting nothing done.
Nope unfortunately can't cut in run - it's the long war - with a faceless enemy that will never end. Just like Orwell wrote about in 1984. The Horror of Bush.


Cheney is full of sh_t with... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Cheney is full of sh_t with regard to his claim of no terrorist attack in the US and attributing it to the Iraqi war.

And the foolish Wizbangers gobble it up & repeat this bilge just like well-trained poll parrots who forgot a recent headline in the WaPo about a State Department memo, "Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says"

The Post story of April 29, 2006 goes on, "The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday"

So, using Cheney-speak, one could say that while the Bush/Cheney war of choice appears to have possibly diverted terrorists' attacks in the US, this 4 fold increase in terrorists' attacks in the rest of the world is his & Bush's gift to the world.

Cheney's statement is as assinine as all his pre-war lies about Iraq and his lies about the status of the Iraqi war post-invasion.

Enjoy your fear and hatr... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Enjoy your fear and hatred MikeSC and Mike
Now chant your mantra
War is peace.
Ignorance is Strength
Hate is Love.
Arbeit Macht Frei

Man you lefties are a treasure trove of totalitarian slogans.

You arm two mortal enemies of yours in the hopes that they wipe one another out. A brilliant, brilliant strategy.
They are still there - guess the strategy didn't work. Also we are there now dying and burning our wealth.
You also don't say anything how they were a significant threat to us.

We have democracy forming in Iraq and anti-government groups mobilizing in Iran.

It's working splendidly.

And I didn't mention them being a threat for the same reason I don't mention oxygen as a necessity for human life --- namely, that it is so obvious that I doubted anybody would not realize it.

I overestimated you, and for that, I apologize.

Just because you BELIEVE something to be the case does not make it the case. Saddam was, to use a phrase, "our son of a bitch" --- definitely not a friend.
We paid lots of many for his OIL. And yes they were friends. Look it up. It may not be on FOX news, but there are sources that provide real information - like old newspapers and periodicals of the time.

We pay money for Chavez' oil, too. We don't like him, either.

And, if you check out those old newspapers and periodicals, you'll never see the government describing Saddam as a friend.

Not once.

The ones he used a few years earlier and that nobody knows what happened to them?
Those bioweapons?

Colin Powell has even come out regretting that lie.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

Missed him gassing the Kurds in '88, eh?
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/03/980328-iraq2.htm

Missed his own revelation of chemical weapons to the UN in the run-up to the war, eh?

Not that he HAD them but that he was actively SEEKING them (nuclear weapons)

No evidence for that either, but you do need a reason for this disaster.
Cheney said he was working on them
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/index.html
remember yellow cake.

You mean the yellow cake story that British Intel still stand behind? That one?

And every study of the situation indicated he had every intention of resuming it the moment sanctions were lifted.

That is, unless the CIA, Kay Report, and every study of the situation is to be believed.

Learn a little history. We funded the Afghan nationals. The Saudis funded the groups that included folks like OBL.

We funded anyone and everyone who wanted to dispatch those pesky russkies.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84601/peter-bergen-alec-reynolds/blowback-revisited.html
You need to get more sources than FOX news. Broaden your little mind dud

Man, it gets irritating having to educate you from scratch.

OK, bin Laden said he didn't receive one red cent from us, nor would he accept it ever. There is no evidence --- no cancelled checks, no former officials, etc --- who have ever once said that we funded OBL. No news accounts indicate we funded OBL.

Who we funded is common knowledge. We funded the Afghan nationals while Saudi Arabia funded the foreign Islamists who fought.

Hell, even Al Qaeda makes the distinction between mujaheddin from Afghanistan and from foreign lands (al-Zawahiri wrote a book in 2001 clearly stating that the FOREIGN BORN fighters were funded by Saudi Arabia and we funded Afghan nationals).

OBL associates all vigorously deny any tie to the CIA at any point in history.

There is LITERALLY no evidence, whatsoever, to back up your insepid assertions.

Hell, from the VERY PIECE you quoted:
When the United States started sending guns and money to the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s, it had a clearly defined Cold War purpose: helping expel the Soviet army, which had invaded Afghanistan in 1979. And so it made sense that once the Afghan jihad forced a Soviet withdrawal a decade later, Washington would lose interest in the rebels. For the international mujahideen drawn to the Afghan conflict, however, the fight was just beginning. They opened new fronts in the name of global jihad and became the spearhead of Islamist terrorism.

Notice the DISTINCTION between the 2 groups? Probably not.

Nat'l Guard pilots got injured far more often than soldiers in Vietnam got purple hearts due to being hit with rice in the ass.

Wow - didn't realize being a flyboy on the home turf was so much more dangerous than being in a rice paddy with Charlie.

It wasn't. But it was riskier than being on a barge with a sack of rice and then dropping munitions into the rice, causing you an "injury" and getting a Purple Heart for it.

More than 50,000 dead in viet nam. Had to conscript the underclass of America to go to that Disneyland, while the privileged class (Bush, Qualy, etc, did the dangerous stuff on weekends.)

Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, but didn't have enough flight hours to go. Hate to break it to you. And, yes, fighter pilot DOES tend to be a bit of a risky undertaking.

Man - when you actually think that national guard service is more dangerous than someone shooting real bullets and using IEDs that's just crazy.

One of Kerry's Hearts was self-inflicted.

I wonder if the national guard in Iraq now would prefer to be back here?

And have the left mock them? I doubt it.

He was a Navy pilot and instructor between 1954 and 1957.

Conveniently missed all war that way and therefore never saw its horrifying face. (WWII, Korean, Nam, etc)
Didn't say tanks, so no point in saying your welcome

Damn him for serving anyway, huh? You said he didn't serve. I pointed out that he DID serve. He even TAUGHT pilots.

And the youth are seldom appreciative of education, so I'm not shocked you aren't either.

So, you advocate ending civilian control of the military?
Got it.
Presidents without military history cannot possibly lead soldiers, eh?
Using that logic, if Hillary DOES win the Dem nomination, every American should do the right thing and vote against her --- since she can't possibly lead troops and all.
Also, where was this mentality in 1992 and 1996, when REAL military heroes lost to a draft-dodger?

Clinton didn't lead men to war of aggression.

Turned Somalia from a humanitarian mission into a mission to capture a warlord, then ran away. Sent troops to Bosnia. Fired missiles into Iraq to cover up for him committing perjury.

He didn't squander wealth on a lie, and didn't oversee the pointless death of thousands of Americans with no clear metrics of success or point.

Notice how Iraq has a government now?

That's called a "clear metric of success".

No. I didn't say relief of civilian control. What I was saying was that stupid, egotistical men, filled with hubris and delusional ideas of how to make the world better through hatred and death may have obtained a different view of it all if they or the one's they love actually did some of the heavy lifting. So you think, in addition to Cheney, that Wolfy, Feithy, and Perley got it right. Sorry that is so very sad.

No, what you are saying is that people who don't serve cannot lead the military. YOU are seeking to tear down one of the most pivotal aspects of our government system.

Economic growth is matching what it was under Clinton.
AND without massive corporate corruption.
Go Bush!

Dow is flat in the 6.5 years of this disaster. Poverty has increased.
Corporte corruption? Ken-boy Lay, Skilling and Enron. Adelphia, Tyco. Sorry Bush's watch. Must have been out biking.

Actually, they were PROSECUTED under Bush's watch. The corruption occurred under Clinton's. You MIGHT want to do a LITTLE research.

And the Dow tanked when Clinton gave Bush a horrendous economy that was in free fall. Bush's tax policies saved it and minimized the recession Clinton's culture of corruption hoisted upon the country.

Nope. You must've missed the widespread conservative condemnation of Bush and the House GOP spending

But you still say Go Bush! (see above) What has been his major successes?
Welcome to the real estate bubble

Said it to piss you off --- and I did good with that.

As for the real estate bubble --- if you're REALLY going to sit here and defend Clinton's economic performance and condemn a "bubble" here --- you're just plain stupid.

Of course, without the megarich, the Dems have no fundraising capacity.

Nor would the Republicans. That's the problem - they both have sold out. That's how they can sell you on the idea of the "DEATH TAX", and you blindly buy it.
Rich Americans should be willing to pay back to the country that has allowed them to prosper. They will still be very very rich. And they could help the country that they love

Hell, I can give you a concrete example.

The 2000 election recount funds, where the Dems tried to steal an election.

Bush raised 4 times as much as Gore with no donation higher than $5,000. Gore had $500,000 donations. The idle rich are Democrats.

Seeing as how it took Republicans to balance the budget

All 3 arms are controlled by conservative republicans, but...
Budget is not balanced - worst it has ever been. I'm sure you think it's Clinton's fault. Why do hate America so much?

Wow, nice non-sequitur.

And considering that the Dems have already promised to "ear-mark the shit out of the place" if they get into office, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't hate America. I love America.

Your comments and constant belief that we're always the bad guy reveals your true hatred for this country and its people. It's shameful, but the people you mock and condemn died to allow you to mock them.

Pay my taxes, vote, obey the laws of the land, obey the constitution. I educate, I don't spy on people, I don't want innocents to die for a lie.

Seeing as how there was no lie, it's a nice, useless phrase you wrote there.

"The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition.; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."

So, you're a massive failure? Got it.

I have called my relative a mercenary to his face.
- we love each other, but simply disagree.

No, you clearly do not love them. You insult them. You mock them. All because they don't live up to your ideals.

Seriously, on behalf of your family, go fuck yourself.

Of course 9/11 hurt us. So did Oklahoma City, but I suspect you don't remember that.

Just like 9/11, we cleaned up and moved on.

Threaten us and our way of life? Only by our response. Remember in my first post I said that I supported the Afghan War - I just thought getting the job done was what was important. Not the lie of Iraq. Now we are getting nothing done.
Nope unfortunately can't cut in run - it's the long war - with a faceless enemy that will never end. Just like Orwell wrote about in 1984. The Horror of Bush.

The country does not want to be governed by petulant children such as yourself. People who will condemn their own family because they're not mind-numbed robots who will do whatever they say. You are no different than Cindy Sheehan, pissing all over your family for not being just like you.

You are beneath contempt. Words cannot describe how utterly loathesome you are. You are a black-hearted, moronic, hate-laden sociopath. You wish to see dark-skinned people die because it's too much work to help them. You want to see democracy crushed because the majority doesn't agree with you. You want to turn us into a military junta because you believe the military supports you.

You are a cancer on this country. I'd spit on you, but I don't waste my saliva on the likes of you.
-=Mike

Enjoy your fear and hatr... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Enjoy your fear and hatred MikeSC and Mike
Now chant your mantra
War is peace.
Ignorance is Strength
Hate is Love.
Arbeit Macht Frei

I always feel the need to bow down to the lefties when it comes to knowledge of totalitarian slogans. You can't beat a progressive in that area of trivia.

You arm two mortal enemies of yours in the hopes that they wipe one another out. A brilliant, brilliant strategy.
They are still there - guess the strategy didn't work. Also we are there now dying and burning our wealth.

"Burning our wealth"? Do I dare ask what inane site you got that talking point from?

You also don't say anything how they were a significant threat to us.

I don't discuss how we can't live without oxygen, considering that it's a fundamental reality. But, hey, I won't make the mistake of overestimating you.

Just because you BELIEVE something to be the case does not make it the case. Saddam was, to use a phrase, "our son of a bitch" --- definitely not a friend.
We paid lots of many for his OIL.

Wow. That's proof of friendship. I never would have guessed that we were friends of Hugo Chavez. I mean, we buy his oil and all.

And yes they were friends. Look it up. It may not be on FOX news, but there are sources that provide real information - like old newspapers and periodicals of the time.

Feel free to post one where we ever said that he was a friend. I'll be waiting patiently.

The ones he used a few years earlier and that nobody knows what happened to them?
Those bioweapons?

Colin Powell has even come out regretting that lie.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

Missed him gassing the Kurds in 1988, eh?

Not that he HAD them but that he was actively SEEKING them (nuclear weapons)
No evidence for that either, but you do need a reason for this disaster.
Cheney said he was working on them
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/index.html
remember yellow cake.

Every study stated he'd IMMEDIATELY resume the moment sanctions were lifting (which, mind you, people like you would've applauded).

Learn a little history. We funded the Afghan nationals. The Saudis funded the groups that included folks like OBL.
We funded anyone and everyone who wanted to dispatch those pesky russkies.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84601/peter-bergen-alec-reynolds/blowback-revisited.html
You need to get more sources than FOX news. Broaden your little mind dud

Note that the Foreign Affairs piece could differentiate between Afghan and international mujahedeen.

Why is it so hard for you to follow?

We have OBL saying it didn't happen. We have no proof saying it happened. We have books from associates of his (al-Zawahiri, for one) saying it didn't happen.

Nat'l Guard pilots got injured far more often than soldiers in Vietnam got purple hearts due to being hit with rice in the ass.
Wow - didn't realize being a flyboy on the home turf was so much more dangerous than being in a rice paddy with Charlie. More than 50,000 dead in viet nam. Had to conscript the underclass of America to go to that Disneyland, while the privileged class (Bush, Qualy, etc, did the dangerous stuff on weekends.) Man - when you actually think that national guard service is more dangerous than someone shooting real bullets and using IEDs that's just crazy. I wonder if the national guard in Iraq now would prefer to be back here?

More fighter pilots died in training than swift boat soldiers got rice embedded in their buttocks, giving them a Purple Heart.

He was a Navy pilot and instructor between 1954 and 1957.
Conveniently missed all war that way and therefore never saw its horrifying face. (WWII, Korean, Nam, etc)

Yes, it was part of his diabolical master plan.

Didn't say tanks, so no point in saying your welcome

The uneducated don't appreciate learning.

So, you advocate ending civilian control of the military?
Got it.
Presidents without military history cannot possibly lead soldiers, eh?
Using that logic, if Hillary DOES win the Dem nomination, every American should do the right thing and vote against her --- since she can't possibly lead troops and all.
Also, where was this mentality in 1992 and 1996, when REAL military heroes lost to a draft-dodger?

Clinton didn't lead men to war of aggression.

Missed his turning Somalia from humanitarian to aggression, huh?

He didn't squander wealth on a lie, and didn't oversee the pointless death of thousands of Americans with no clear metrics of success or point.

Notice that Iraq has a gov't? That's a success.

No. I didn't say relief of civilian control. What I was saying was that stupid, egotistical men, filled with hubris and delusional ideas of how to make the world better through hatred and death may have obtained a different view of it all if they or the one's they love actually did some of the heavy lifting.

Yes, no Bush family members served. Rumsfeld served. The military THAT SUPPORTS THIS --- they don't matter.

Economic growth is matching what it was under Clinton.
AND without massive corporate corruption.
Go Bush!

Dow is flat in the 6.5 years of this disaster. Poverty has increased.
Corporte corruption? Ken-boy Lay, Skilling and Enron. Adelphia, Tyco. Sorry Bush's watch. Must have been out biking.

Bush did have a stock market crash to deal with after the bubble Clinton championed burst.

And Bush PROSECUTED the criminals. Clinton APPLAUDED them and weakened the SEC.

Nope. You must've missed the widespread conservative condemnation of Bush and the House GOP spending
But you still say Go Bush! (see above) What has been his major successes?

Massive economic recovery. Cleaning up Wall Street. Fighting terrorism. Pretty successful. Far better than what his predecessor did.
Welcome to the real estate bubble

Of course, without the megarich, the Dems have no fundraising capacity.
Nor would the Republicans. That's the problem - they both have sold out. That's how they can sell you on the idea of the "DEATH TAX", and you blindly buy it.

The death tax doesn't impact me. Doesn't mean that I don't find it morally reprehensible.

Rich Americans should be willing to pay back to the country that has allowed them to prosper. They will still be very very rich. And they could help the country that they love

They provide jobs.

You do...what?

Seeing as how it took Republicans to balance the budget
All 3 arms are controlled by conservative republicans, but...
Budget is not balanced - worst it has ever been. I'm sure you think it's Clinton's fault. Why do hate America so much?

Said the guy who mourns for the days of massive corporate corruption.

I don't hate America. I love America. Pay my taxes, vote, obey the laws of the land, obey the constitution. I educate, I don't spy on people, I don't want innocents to die for a lie.
"The definition of success--To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition.; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded."

In simple terms, you're a massive and total failure?

I have called my relative a mercenary to his face.
- we love each other, but simply disagree. He also can't resist that 6 figure salary

Wow. I can't fathom hating my family the way you do. Way to insult family members who don't want to be just like you. I mean, you're perfect and all.

Of course 9/11 hurt us. So did Oklahoma City, but I suspect you don't remember that.

If there was a persistent domestic terrorism group, it'd be a problem.

But there isn't.

Threaten us and our way of life? Only by our response. Remember in my first post I said that I supported the Afghan War - I just thought getting the job done was what was important. Not the lie of Iraq. Now we are getting nothing done.
Nope unfortunately can't cut in run - it's the long war - with a faceless enemy that will never end. Just like Orwell wrote about in 1984. The Horror of Bush.

You are truly beneath contempt. The sheer hatred you show to your OWN FAMILY is truly horrendous.

I don't even pity you.
-=Mike

MikeSC That... (Below threshold)
mak44:

MikeSC

That post above is a massive P.O.S.

Martin Arrowsmith</p... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Martin Arrowsmith

Thanks for taking the time to refute all the BS, especially from armchair general Mike SC.

You'll likely never get through to the brainwashed, but to anyone of reason, you did an excellent job.

These people have spent so many years as slavering puppies at the feet of Limbarf, Insanity, the aptly named Savage et al that their thought processes are thoroughly atrophied.

The armchair generals are forever promoting or waging wars wherein they support sending someone else off to do the dying for their perverse skew view of evil in the world.

As one of the you links cited above illustrates, this Iraqi war will generate a new bumper crop of terrorists trained on Bush's battlefield that will make the crop from the Afghani war pale by comparison, thus giving rise to war forever.

A series of articles called Once Upon a Time by Arthur Silber, whom you might enjoy reading can be found at this link: search.blogger.com/?as_q=&ie=UTF-8&x=50&y=6&q=blogurl:powerofnarrative.blogspot.com&ui=blg&scoring=d

All I have is proof and evi... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

All I have is proof and evidence.

Mak, you have --- well, diddly.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy