« Life Is Precious | Main | What if they gave a war and only one side came? »

Time To Plant The Goalposts

One thing to look for over the coming week or so is for announcements of troop reductions to be met with the claim that those reductions are a result of John Kerry/John Murtha's calls to cut-and-run. The very idea is ridiculous and dishonest, which means it is likely that someone will pick it up and run with it. (It has already been floated in several comments here over the past week.) Not only is it wrong that future troop reductions in Iraq are due to any pressure from Democrats, I believe many of the Democrats' calls for troop withdrawal were made in anticipation of the reductions President Bush spoke of a year or so ago. Here is what I wrote about John Murtha's cut-and-run strategy on November 17, 2005:

Here is my take on this strategy. The more I think about it, the more I believe this is just a way to diminish any political goodwill that will accrue to the Bush administration when troops do begin leaving Iraq. I think the same can be said for the timetable Democrats wanted to impose in the Congress. With upcoming elections and the trial of Saddam, and more and more Iraqi troops and police being trained daily, it is likely, and I think the President has even stated, that the American military presence will start being scaled back within the next 6 - 12 months. When that happens, Democrats will try to claim it was the pressure they exerted that caused it. We all know that is what the President has said all along - that we will leave when the Iraqis no longer need us there. The public, however, has heard a constant drumbeat from Democrats and the media that there is no exit strategy. This war has become the Democrats' best hope for 2006 and they are going to do whatever it takes to get the maximum advantage from it.
Since everything that happens in Iraq is eventually spun by Democrats to support their belief that George Bush is a liar and that Iraq is a disaster, I think it is time for those on the left to tell us exactly what success in Iraq would look like. Stop moving those goalposts. Tell us all where they stand and plant them there.

Granddaddy Long Legs has a post on a broader version of this topic that should be bookmarked. In it he asks, "What if Bush didn't lie?" I know, there are some liberal heads that might just explode, but what Granddaddy did was wonder what, if anything, it would take to convince those diplaying "Bush Lied" bumper stickers that they were wrong and that Bush had been telling the truth. He then went through some of the "Bush lied" claims and provided evidence to debunk them. He has updated the post several times over the past few months as new information comes to light. His goal is clear:

As the rationales behind the Bush Lied! mantra are shot down, one by one, there must come a point where logic insists that the absence of any proof that Bush lied means accepting that Bush might not have lied at all.

I'm not suggesting that all of these people should become Bush supporters or even Republicans, but rather that they merely drop the Bush Lied! refrain due to intellectual embarrassment.

Critics of the Bush Administration constantly complain that he and his supporters always "move the goalposts" on every issue. So to help them avoid being hypocritical, I would like to propose that they set their own goalposts firmly in place regarding the Bush Lied! claim.

This can be done easily:

1. Specifically explain what Bush lied about.

2. If those accusations are disproved, then the facts must be accepted and the mantra renounced.

I am not even going as far as that. I am just asking liberals to set the goalposts for measuring success in Iraq. I know they will never admit that Bush didn't lie. There is just too much tied up in that claim.

UPDATE: Sara said in the comments section that the storyline Democrats are peddling is not going to be that pressure from Murtha or Kerry triggered troop reductions, but that they are a result of politics, just in time for the November elections. I missed the Sunday morning shows today, but caught a clip of Carl Levin making such a claim. So, the Bush administration reducing troop levels prior to the end of this year is playing politics, but when John Murtha and John Kerry were calling for troop withdrawals in a similar time frame that is not political? Isn't it funny how that works? See why I am practically begging for those goalposts to stop moving?

UPDATE II: President Bush made some remarks about how decisions on troop strength in Iraq will be made and he again defined success in Iraq:

THE PRESIDENT: "First of all, I did meet with General Casey, and I met with him because it's very important for me, as well as Secretary Rumsfeld, to meet with our commander on the ground. I've told the American people our commanders will be making the decisions as to how to achieve victory, and General Casey, of course, is the lead person. So we had a good visit with him.

"And we talked about a lot of things. The first thing we talked about was the joint operations with the Iraqi forces to secure Baghdad and how that's going. We talked about the actions we're taking in Ramadi. The coalition is in the lead in Ramadi, and we're trying to make sure Ramadi does not become a safe haven for al Qaeda. And so he explained to me the tactics on the ground, what we're doing to secure that city and to run the al Qaeda-types out.

"We talked about the Iraqi training mission. And as you well know, our standards are, as Iraqis stand up, the coalition will be able to stand down. We talked about that kind of progress.

"But in terms of our troop presence there, that decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground. And one of the things that General Casey assured me of is that, whatever recommendation he makes, it will be aimed toward achieving victory. And that's what we want. And victory means a free government that is able to sustain itself, defend itself; it's a government that will be an ally in the war on terror. It's a government that will be able to fight off al Qaeda and its desires to have a safe haven.

"And so I did visit with General Casey, and I came away once again with my trust in that man. I've told the people here around the table that the decisions that I will make will be based upon the recommendations of people like General George Casey."


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Time To Plant The Goalposts:

» bRight & Early linked with First Cup 06.26.06

» Flopping Aces linked with The Best Kept Secret?

Comments (72)

If tonight's news commentar... (Below threshold)

If tonight's news commentary is any indication, the claim will not be that troop reductions are due to John Kerry and Jack Murtha (I actually think both of them are now laughingstocks, even in their own party), but the new mantra will be that "it is all political!" AND that the troop reductions will come just prior to the elections in November, thereby proving "it is all political."

These completely insane moonbats never ever listen to themselves and that's why the goalposts move. They learned well how to hold their finger to the wind and change their message accordingly. They learned from the master, Bill Clinton. The problem is they never stick their finger anywhere but up their own you know what so they only get crap for a reading, which they promptly run to the keyboard to regurgitate on the rest of us.

You might be interested in the latest WSJ Opinion piece which calls Jack Murtha the "male Cindy Sheehan"

Excellent point, Sara. I a... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Excellent point, Sara. I added it in an update to this post. I suspect that if the troop reductions do successfully take place before November that we will be hearing additional talking points from the Democrats trying to convince the public that whatever we are doing is a sign of failure.

We should not expect the at... (Below threshold)

We should not expect the attack-Left to drop the "Bush Lied" mantra under any circumstances. They've built an entire religion around the notion that Dubya is the Devil -- Father of Lies, right? -- and Karl Rove is Screwtape, his principal advisor. One cannot defeat a faith with reason; it's impossible in the nature of things.

"You cannot reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into." -- Multiply attributed, but probably G. K. Chesterton.

If you think the left is go... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

If you think the left is going to admit they have been lying about the president for three years, even with the tons of WMD showing up, go ahead and schedule an MRI on your head. You are suffering from a severe head injury.
Like the antique MSM they never admit a wrong nor print a correction. Fortunetly the public is much smarter than the left gives them credit for and are fast figuring out the lies passed out by the leadership of the democratic party. All of the lies originate at the highest level of the party, not from the people which only pass them along as ordered. And they talk about lambs following the leaders to slaughter, they line up and beg for slaughter.

Why should the moonbat left... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

Why should the moonbat left give up on the "Bush lied" strategy? Look how well it has done for them over the last two election cycles.

Just ask anyone in the reality-based community.
It got them control of both houses of Congress in 2002 and won them the Presidency in 2004. They will tell you the only reason it does not seem that way is because of all of the crooked judges the Republicans put on the bench, so that the Will of the People keeps getting overridden.

This is Bush's war. It's no... (Below threshold)
T:

This is Bush's war. It's not up to the Democrats to tell us what "success in Iraq would look like," it's up to Bush. And therein lies the rub: no supporter of the war can tell you what success in Iraq will look like, because there is no way to do so, which is why this war was a disaster from the get-go.

Dems can't tell you what su... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Dems can't tell you what success is in Iraq since they don't want the U.S. to be successful there. It is outside their abilities to want success for us, much less to envision what it would look like.

Dear T ...It just ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Dear T ...

It just shows you haven't been paying attention. Time and time again I've heard George Casey, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and George Bush explain exactly what success in Iraq would look like; a stable democracy with the wherewithal to provide for its own security.

To that end, America sherperded Iraq through three elections and the establishment of a permanent government. The Iraqi government, much to the dismay of the Left worldwide recently came to full strength with the three security related cabinet positions being filled with overwhelming support from the rest of the parliament.

The Iraqi armed forces are also gradually coming on line, the number of trained Iraqi soldiers/units more than doubled in the past six months and they have been increasingly taking more of a lead in taking the fight to the Left's "Freedom Fighters".

There's still quite a ways to go but we know we cannot count on the Left to assist with anything other than demands for America to declare defeat, pack up and go home with its head low. But that's okay.

Either way, just because you do not like the fact that the President is a Republican does not mean that the Administration didn't say something when it obviously has. It's okay to disagree that it's a viable endpoint (a stable and capable Iraq) but it's not okay to assert that nobody actually has elucidated what that endpoint is going to be.

They have ... you simply chose not to listen.

Time and time again I've... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Time and time again I've heard George Casey, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and George Bush explain exactly what success in Iraq would look like; a stable democracy with the wherewithal to provide for its own security.
Martin A Knight

That's a lot to ask for right now. If those are the goalposts, then the left hasn't moved them at all because we haven't gotten there yet.

All the "moving of the goalposts" as you call it is actually attaining measurable successes, or, to continue the analogy, like getting first downs. Elections, check, fully-formed gov't, check, increasing security forces, check... Stability, BIG NO CHECK. Providing for their own security, NO CHECK.

The next measurable success I would like to see is the ability for the gov't to function outside of the green zone. This is not even asking for complete stability in Baghdad, just sufficient Iraqi security to defend their own gov't w/o US assistance. If they do that, we can at least begin to bring some troops home.

Does that recommendation from a moonbat sound OK to you wingers?

The democrats were right to... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The democrats were right to call for troop reductions, ad demonstrated by Casey's agreement and recommendation. The republicans who voted against troop reductions ar enow back pedaling, and looking ridiculous.

Wow, this republican flip-flopping on ending the war has got to stop!

I've been saying for a year... (Below threshold)
jp:

I've been saying for a year now that part of the DNC "troop withdrawal" PR campaign is nothing more than them realizing how successful the formation of the Iraqi Govt. and new Iraqi Army was going and doing all they can to not let the Repubs. and Bush take credit for it.

I believe that during the s... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

I believe that during the same debate I heard a couple of Democrats call on President Bush to have the sun continue to rise in the East and, behold, the sun did rise in the East this morning! Clearly the administration is using the sun as a political football and scared of the Democrat storm to come in November.

It's the republicans "flip-... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It's the republicans "flip-flopping" on troop reductions that will nail their *sses come this November.

I, personally, will be happ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I, personally, will be happy when our troops are out of harm's way, and I don't care who gets the credit.

Hey pucker puss (also known... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey pucker puss (also known as lee lee) like to bet on that?

Um, Lee, the Republicans we... (Below threshold)

Um, Lee, the Republicans weren't AGAINST troop reductions. They're against reducing troops just to do so, regardless of the military situation in Iraq. Apparently, Iraq is improving enough that the military doesn't need as many of our guys over there. So, naturally, some can come home. That's not a ringing endorsement of the Democratic position of Iraq as dangerous, abject failure.

Heh heh heh ...Lee... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Heh heh heh ...

Lee, as well as his alter egos, Lint, Armyguy and InfantryOfficer are really desperate to see a link between the Democrats moaning and whining and General George Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq.

Lee seems to honestly believe that the GOP wants US troops to remain in Iraq forever. And so he continues to delude himself that Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq came from comparing notes with Jack 'Okinawa' Murtha and John Kerry.

This point will sail right over Lee and his compadres' collective heads: But ... nobody on the Right objects to a withdrawal plan drawn up by the Commanding Generals on the ground in Iraq. A withdrawal plan cooked up by Congressional Democrats in Washington DC is another thing entirely.

It is the militarys continu... (Below threshold)
914:

It is the militarys continued success that will thwart the Democrats once again come November.

Hey Lee? I thought it was going to be the "Culture of Corruption" that nailed the repubs this fall?

Heh heh heh ...Lee... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Heh heh heh ...

Lee, as well as his alter egos, Lint, Armyguy and InfantryOfficer are really desperate to see a link between the Democrats moaning and whining and General George Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq.

Lee seems to honestly believe that the GOP wants US troops to remain in Iraq forever. And so he continues to delude himself that Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq came from comparing notes with Jack 'Okinawa' Murtha and John Kerry.

This point will sail right over Lee and his compadres' collective heads: But ... nobody on the Right objects to a withdrawal plan drawn up by the Commanding Generals on the ground in Iraq. A withdrawal plan cooked up by Congressional Democrats in Washington DC is another thing entirely.

Heh heh heh ...Lee... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Heh heh heh ...

Lee, as well as his alter egos, Lint, Armyguy and InfantryOfficer are really desperate to see a link between the Democrats moaning and whining and General George Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq.

Lee seems to honestly believe that the GOP wants US troops to remain in Iraq forever. And so he continues to delude himself that Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq came from comparing notes with Jack 'Okinawa' Murtha and John Kerry.

This point will sail right over Lee and his compadres' collective heads: But ... nobody on the Right objects to a withdrawal plan drawn up by the Commanding Generals on the ground in Iraq. A withdrawal plan cooked up by Congressional Democrats in Washington DC is another thing entirely.

Lee, I'm sorry, but you hav... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Lee, I'm sorry, but you have been playing this game for far too long. You seem to have a vested interest in seeing Bush and Republicans embarrassed, thrown down and stomped underfoot.

There is no Bush or Republican "flip-flop" concerning troop withdrawals, and you know it.

It has been the long-standing plan that troop strength would be determined by the situation on the ground. If more were needed, more would be sent. If less were needed, less would be rotated in. As the situation became more and more stable, and the Iraqis became more confident in their abilitiy to take over, we would "stand down," to use President Bush's oft-repeated phrase.

For you to ignore these simple facts is disingenuous, if not an outright attempt to deceive.

I can only conclude that you are either just a bombthrower out to have some fun, or you are so consumed with hate at Bush and conservatives and Republicans that you will twist and contort anything and everything to make them look bad and make liberals look good.

Either way, you are a sad, pathetic individual, and you have my pity.

Heh heh heh ...Lee... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Heh heh heh ...

Lee, as well as his alter egos, Lint, Armyguy and InfantryOfficer are really desperate to see a link between the Democrats moaning and whining and General George Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq.

Lee seems to honestly believe that the GOP wants US troops to remain in Iraq forever. And so he continues to delude himself that Casey's plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq came from comparing notes with Jack 'Okinawa' Murtha and John Kerry.

This point will sail right over Lee and his compadres' collective heads: But ... nobody on the Right objects to a withdrawal plan drawn up by the Commanding Generals on the ground in Iraq. A withdrawal plan cooked up by Congressional Democrats in Washington DC is another thing entirely.

Sorry for the triple posts ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Sorry for the triple posts ...

Big Mo....how uttelry blind... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Big Mo....how uttelry blindly committed you are. The Bushies don't go potty without examining the politics involved. Everything, yes everything, this disaster of an administration does is governed by politics and money. Of course, the withdrawal is based on politics. Kinda like...well those yellow alerts that mysteriously disappeared after the last election.

And yes, some of us have a vested interest in seeing Mr Bush, his cronies and cohorts go. The country and the world will be a better place when they're gone. I'm proud to believe that.

Hugh...You mean THIS... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

Hugh...
You mean THIS?

Hugh...You mean <a h... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

Hugh...
You mean THIS?

Why does seeing the forest ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Why does seeing the forest for the trees make me "blindly committed"?

Why does listening to what Bush says, what his generals say and what the Iraqis say make me "blindly committed?"

Why does recognizing that events are finally unfolding in a manner favorable to a disciplined withdrawal of troops make me "blindly committed?"

Why does recognizing that neither John Kerry, Jack Murtha, nor any liberal to the left of Hillary Clintron gives a DAMN about this war or the Iraqis or our troops in the field or their mission and only cares about defeating Bush no matter what, makes me "blindly committed?"

In other words, why should I, Bush, Gen. Casey, or the Iraqis give a flying F about what you or Lee or Kerry or Murtha or any liberal has to say about troop withdrawals?

Gives a damn about the war?... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Gives a damn about the war? That's an absurd statement on its face. Thanks for making my point about blind committment. You drank your kool aid today I see.

Yes, plant the goalposts - ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Yes, plant the goalposts - please -- another example --the conservatives are in favor of border security... unless the plan means they can't jail the illegals --

Flip - flop - flip - flop.

WE CANNOT CUT AND RUN FORM IRAQ unless it is indeed the right time afterall....

Flip - flop - flip - flop.

You guys don't STAND for anything, you just flip flop around according to which way the political wind is blowing this morning.

Sepaking of wind, when there were discussions of oil company windfall profits a while back -- suggestions made by democrats that developing alternative energy sources instead of drilling in ANWR was deeded to be a stupid idea because alternative energy sources weren't viable - now we see posts here crowing about Texas' windfarms as being so smart...

Flip - flop - flip - flop.

Come in guys, you're looking really spineless these days. Plant the goalposts and leave them there, and we can debate the issues and turn the country around -- quit the d*amn flip-flopping!

Yes, plant the goalposts... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yes, plant the goalposts - please -- another example --the conservatives are in favor of border security... unless the plan means they can't jail the illegals

Opposing a bad plan means we support illegal immigration?

Got it.

WE CANNOT CUT AND RUN FORM IRAQ unless it is indeed the right time afterall....

Seeing as how it was never once stated as being permanent --- and there is a dramatic difference between troop reduction and an immediate "redeployment" to Okinawa --- I'm sure you think you have a point in there somewhere...

Sepaking of wind, when there were discussions of oil company windfall profits a while back -- suggestions made by democrats that developing alternative energy sources instead of drilling in ANWR was deeded to be a stupid idea because alternative energy sources weren't viable - now we see posts here crowing about Texas' windfarms as being so smart...

No. We said since alternative sources aren't nearly enough to fix the problem IMMEDIATELY, we need to take care of the IMMEDIATE problem.

I know, arguing against your straw men is easier, but try and be intellectually honest.

For once.

And stop with all of the gimmick seconary names here. It's beyond pathetic.
-=Mike

Yes, plant the goalposts... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yes, plant the goalposts - please -- another example --the conservatives are in favor of border security... unless the plan means they can't jail the illegals

Opposing a bad plan means we support illegal immigration?

Got it.

WE CANNOT CUT AND RUN FORM IRAQ unless it is indeed the right time afterall....

Seeing as how it was never once stated as being permanent --- and there is a dramatic difference between troop reduction and an immediate "redeployment" to Okinawa --- I'm sure you think you have a point in there somewhere...

Sepaking of wind, when there were discussions of oil company windfall profits a while back -- suggestions made by democrats that developing alternative energy sources instead of drilling in ANWR was deeded to be a stupid idea because alternative energy sources weren't viable - now we see posts here crowing about Texas' windfarms as being so smart...

No. We said since alternative sources aren't nearly enough to fix the problem IMMEDIATELY, we need to take care of the IMMEDIATE problem.

I know, arguing against your straw men is easier, but try and be intellectually honest.

For once.

And stop with all of the gimmick seconary names here. It's beyond pathetic.
-=Mike

OK, Hugh - How did that mak... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

OK, Hugh - How did that make your point? Explain, please.

And nope, I didn't drink Kool-Aid.

I meant to say, give a damn about winning this war.

Hugh, do you have any idea ... (Below threshold)

Hugh, do you have any idea how foolish you sound? Have you no shame at all? You would think that by nearly six years in, that you guys would have finally gotten it. As a student of politics and human behavior, I love watching the whole show. GWB just keeps on winning and winning and winning and you guys just keep spinning and spinning and spinning. It is a sight to behold. You are up against one of the most savvy opponents we've seen in politics in many generations and he counts on you continuing to misunderestimate him.

You've got John Kerry trying to relive 1968, you've got Murtha trying to move off the back bench by reliving Somalia, you've got Peolosi and Boxer trying to foist the San Francisco model on the rest of the country and you've got Reid who is just plain clueless. You guys are always a day late and a dollar short on every issue. I know it must be frustrating to think that "this time" you are going to get there first, only to find that Bush and friends have not only been there, but been there, got the job done, and moved on to the next issue. When you continually try to relive the past, it should come as no surprise that the other side has your playbook.

Shame? Shame? Talk about sh... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Shame? Shame? Talk about shame......2500 dead US soldiers lost for a war that had and continues to have no rational planning. Shame? Billions and billions wasted on disgusting no-bid contracts with unfinished shoddy work by Bush cronies. Shame? Thousands living in shanty trailers in New Orleans. Shame? "Brownie, you're doing a fine job." Shame? Tom Dealy. Shame? $100,000 gets you an entree with Bush via Abramhoff. Shame? The White House procurement officer just convicted of a felny. Shame? Oh God, the list is endless.

Foolish? Please.....you need to look in the mikrror and get some intellectual honest.

Don't preach to me lady about shame. Just drink your Kool-Aid.

And he proves my point. So ... (Below threshold)

And he proves my point. So predictable, so been there done that. [email protected]@@@@@@@@@

I said: "Yes, plant the ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I said: "Yes, plant the goalposts - please -- another example -- the conservatives are in favor of border security... unless the plan means they can't jail the illegals"

MikeSC said: "Opposing a bad plan means we support illegal immigration?"

No, falsely stating that the goal was "border security" when in fact it was largely just a group of racists trying to jail working, family-supporting Mexicans means that you "Secure Our Borders! conservatives are nothing more than lying hypocrites, Mike. Keep up here, you're slipping.

Lee's idiot logic is frankl... (Below threshold)
rich:

Lee's idiot logic is frankly why the moonbat left will never give up the Bush Lied meme.

His first point for border security unless it means amnesty is a little like "you said you wanted a million dollars, but then you flip-flopped when it was conditional on cutting off your balls first" DUH!

His second point suggests that the "Bushies" are cutting and running at the "right time". Actually, if you first win and then leave, it's not called cutting and running, it called "game over - you lose". The Dems are simply saying let's cut & run before we win in Iraq. Period. That BS will grow louder the closer and closer we get to a clear and obvious victory.

The energy point is just dumb, dumb, dumb. He takes the lib talking point that conservatives are racist, gas guzzling, greedy rich people to heart apparently. First, conservatives like and want alternative energy sources. Second, we think it is plain DUMB that our domestic oil production has gone down instead of up even though we have the resources simply because of the enviro wackos.

Sara....my daddy was a lawy... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Sara....my daddy was a lawyer and he told once that in the courtroom if the facts were on your side argue the facts, if the law was on your side argue the law. If neither were on your side, yell the loudest. Your version of a gale of laughter reminds me of that. Been ther, done that? Yes we have. And it will be to the long lasting regret of this country. And of course, you have no reasonable response to the facts. More Kol-Aid?

Yep, Hugh is deeply into hi... (Below threshold)

Yep, Hugh is deeply into his cups with that Kool-Aid.

"No plan suvives first contact with the enemy."

Something taught in the military and the wise ones learn to factor Murphy into their OpPlans. The fools create these fabulous plans that cause unmitigated disaster because they do not account for Murphy, like the French counter-offensive in WWI that caused the French troops to mutiny.

The progressives like Hugh beleive if there is one plan written in stone that explains everything that it must be good and adhered to. Hey wait I just described the Ten Commandments to which Hugh and fellow ilk are opposed to. Which shall it be Hugh?

The Coalition strategy in Iraq has been evolving and adapting but the goal is still the same - a stable democratic Iraq that is not a menace to its neighbors.

Well Hugh sweetie, my Daddy... (Below threshold)

Well Hugh sweetie, my Daddy died in 1958, so I can't quote him on current affairs, but that's okay because I was there in 1968 and I can quote myself when a quote is needed. I was there when we instigated the Kerry "winter soldier" cut and run policy in Vietnam and remember clearly the issues as I was also a military wife with a husband in Vietnam, not just once but 4 tours. And I clearly remember the millions who died as a result of that policy. I was there for the disasterous Carter years and remember those interest rates at 19%. I was there when Reagan came and gave us back our national pride, I was there when Clinton and your ilk were spouting their "I despise the military" rhetoric and I was there when you all looked like fools after 2000 and again in 2004. As to the rest of your points, I think you need to stop listening to "loser" Dean and the "nutroots." And as to New Orleans, if there was ever a poster child for why the welfare state is a total disaster, there you have it. Look no further than the corrupt democratic machine that is Louisiana. But don't worry dear, Mommy and Daddy will probably continue to pay your rent and provide your food while the rest of us take care of business.

Thanks for the bedtime stor... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thanks for the bedtime story Sara. I served in the US Army from 1968 to 1975 so, once again, don't preach to me. Look in the mirror and try to find that intelluctual honesty that must be buried down deep inside you somewhere. You were nowhere in danger from anything lady. So don't give me the I was there silliness.

I notice you once again changed the sybject. Must be in the Kool-Aid directions as you all use the same silly buzz words etc. etc.

So....the Bush FEMA folks undertake with our billions to help out our people and foul it up and it's the old Ronnie "welfare state" retort silliness. Welfare to Iraqi's anytime....help the poor at home. Forget it....they are of no use to the wingnuts grand notions of what's best for the world.

God bless you Sara....you need it with that kind of attitude about the people in your own country.

Absolutely, Anna puna, "Tha... (Below threshold)

Absolutely, Anna puna, "That's why they're called the enemy."

Thanks for the bedtime stor... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thanks for the bedtime story Sara. I served in the US Army from 1968 to 1975 so, once again, don't preach to me. Look in the mirror and try to find that intelluctual honesty that must be buried down deep inside you somewhere. You were nowhere in danger from anything lady. So don't give me the I was there silliness.

I notice you once again changed the sybject. Must be in the Kool-Aid directions as you all use the same silly buzz words etc. etc.

So....the Bush FEMA folks undertake with our billions to help out our people and foul it up and it's the old Ronnie "welfare state" retort silliness. Welfare to Iraqi's anytime....help the poor at home. Forget it....they are of no use to the wingnuts grand notions of what's best for the world.

God bless you Sara....you need it with that kind of attitude about the people in your own country.

Thanks for the bedtime stor... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thanks for the bedtime story Sara. I served in the US Army from 1968 to 1975 so, once again, don't preach to me. Look in the mirror and try to find that intelluctual honesty that must be buried down deep inside you somewhere. You were nowhere in danger from anything lady. So don't give me the I was there silliness.

I notice you once again changed the sybject. Must be in the Kool-Aid directions as you all use the same silly buzz words etc. etc.

So....the Bush FEMA folks undertake with our billions to help out our people and foul it up and it's the old Ronnie "welfare state" retort silliness. Welfare to Iraqi's anytime....help the poor at home. Forget it....they are of no use to the wingnuts grand notions of what's best for the world.

God bless you Sara....you need it with that kind of attitude about the people in your own country.

Spoken like a true "Winter ... (Below threshold)

Spoken like a true "Winter Soldier" Hugh. Like I said, been there, done that. You need to find a new tune. And that's Mrs. Lady to you!

Hugh, you've got no idea at... (Below threshold)

Hugh, you've got no idea at all about Sara's attitude about the people in her own country. Lee is just about as bad today. What you see as a choice between compassion and uncaring is predicated on your (and apparently Lee's) unquestioning assumption that government is the answer. BECAUSE government is the answer, and you know that it is, when you see a problem and someone disagrees with your solution, you have to assume that they are cold hearted bastards.

The rest of us *expect* the mess. We don't think our "parent" is or even can be perfect or solve our problems or the problems of the world. We don't see failure in imperfection. And rather than solving social problems we see how the State often creates more problems or even makes them worse. Good intentions are worth less than nothing. Only results matter. "They meant well" is a hollow consolation and doubly insulting when the people responsible haven't stopped patting themselves on the back for their noble compassion.

So Lee accuses people of being racist when they oppose illegal immegration or the sub-culture it supports living "below the radar" of the social protections the rest of us take for granted. Hugh feels betrayed by the bumbling of government response after Katrina (since government is *supposed* to take such good care of us) and castigates Sara for not "caring" about the people in her own country.

Though quite frankly, I find the argument that we should care about our own exclusively to be a very un-liberal belief. Certainly true compassion for other human beings would not know political boundaries.

Still waiting for you to ex... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Still waiting for you to explain how I "made your point" Hugh.

Synova, I agree with your l... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Synova, I agree with your last sentence. Funny though that you accuse me of having no idea about Sara's attitude yet that is exactly what you have just done about me. A little inconsistent there perhaps? And by the way I think Sara made her attitude clear. The old fallback to the welfare state mentality. Lets see: poor people lose everything from a natural disaster and damn that welfare state for helping them.

You assume what my attitude is about other people. Let me state if for you clearly. We should take care of the people in our country who need it...not who want it...but who need it. We should help the people of Iraq because we destroyed it (lets not get into Sadam etc....I am only talking about the damage caused by the war). Of course you assumed what my attitude is about all the world from one comment about the "shame" of the bungling of post-Katrina.

Next time ask what i think or what my attitude is and I'll gladly share it.

Hugh, I'm not damning "the ... (Below threshold)

Hugh, I'm not damning "the welfare state for helping them." Far from it. I'm damning you for blaming Bush for the fact that they are poor in the first place and that the scoundrels are on the Federal side when the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans are the real villains. And where is your compassion for all those others who lost everything? Things haven't exactly been too rosy in Missiissipi along the Gulf and yet I never hear any wailing or see any hand-wringing over them. Aren't those in Missiissipi and in other areas outside the city of New Orleans equally deserving?

And where were you when we, as a Navy family, lost our home to Hurricane Hugo? No one came with Visa cards and offers of temporary housing. We were left on our own to deal with the tragedy of losing everything we owned.

I don't think George Bush and, what was it you called them, "disgusting no-bid contracts with unfinished shoddy work by Bush cronies," are very happy about the milions we've seen spent on Hooter's drinking sprees and porn movies. I find this particular remark particularly offensive as one of those "no bid" contractors is my son-in-law. No bid because for months, he has been volunteering his services to rebuild homes and businesses at huge personal expense and losses to his business while my daughter works two jobs to pay their bills. They do this because it is the right thing to do and because they know that, but by the grace of God, it could easily have been their home or their business and they do it all while they opening up their home to more than one family for temporary shelter.

Now spout some more of your BDS-laden rhetoric because it has been a couple of hours and I'm ready for another good laugh.

Sara: Show me one word in w... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Sara: Show me one word in what I've written where I blame Bush for making people poor. Once again, blinded by your own ideology you attribute thoughts and beliefs without asking me what they are. it tells me you're just shallow and bankrupt. I blame Bush for a lot but of course I don't blame him for making people poor. That's a silly and inane response Sara. If you're going to attribute belifs and attitudes to me back them up with what I said.

Why can't folks like you engage in dialogue with opposing views? You seem so bitter and so incredibly defensive. And God bless you Sara for having the means to recover from Hugo. So, those who don't should do what? You folks always like to throw out that old strawman argument. Come on Sara, some people abuse the system and so condemn them all. What would you do with the poor Sara? Herd them into cattle cars and what?

If you are so blind to your ideology you deny that billions of dollars have been wasted on no-bid contracts in Iraq than I feel sorry for you. Either that or you're just ignorant. And please, don't cry me a river about you son-in-law. Good for him volunteering and good for him being paid what he deserves for whatever he does. That's a pathetic reply from you.

What does BDS-laden even mean? I don't know what you're talking about. You really ought to get a TS chit and go see the chaplain. That, or start taking drugs...you seem to be one angry lady.

blinded by your own ideolog... (Below threshold)

blinded by your own ideology
you're just shallow and bankrupt
silly and inane response
folks like you
You seem so bitter and so incredibly defensive
You folks
What would you do with the poor Sara? Herd them into cattle cars
you are so blind to your ideology
you deny that billions of dollars have been wasted on no-bid contracts in Iraq
you're just ignorant
a pathetic reply
you seem to be one angry lady

WOW! This is only from one of your messages and you call me angry and defensive. Did your Daddy also tell you about ad hom attacks when you don't have facts on your side. And talk about changing the subject, how did we get from New Orleans to Iraq?

And for the record, Navy families do not have the "means" to deal with tragedies of this magnitude any more than anyone else. It took us 10 years of hard work and lots of Top Ramen to get back to square one. No kool aid though.

Hugh you revealed yourself in your very first response. And my reaction is still the same in this one ... [email protected]@@@@@@@@@@ You are a silly little man, but that's okay, there is room in Sara's world for all kinds.

Well Sara, this will be my ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well Sara, this will be my last post to you as I have become bored with you and your blinded ideology. Boo hoo for the 10 years it took you. And if you think for a minute you didn't benfet from the teat of the govt after Hugo and that you don't suck from the teat of the govt on a regular basis than I actually feel sorry for you.

Tend to your web site and preach on....the gospel of intolearnce, the gospel of "I got mine, to hell with the rest of you." I don't hate you or Busf. I just pity you ads I sit here in my sandal sipping my latte. Adieu. My guess, by the way, in that you look as bitter as you sound. Am I right?

Actually Hugh, I've been to... (Below threshold)

Actually Hugh, I've been told that my smile lights up a room, but I'll let others be the judge. I have plenty of pictures up and make no attempt to hide who I am, what I stand for, or where I'm coming from. Life is far too short to spend this much time dealing with an angry man whose self-esteem seems to depend on how much personal abuse he can level. I will pray for you that you may find some peace. And thanks again for a good laugh. Bye.

A post-script. Sara, the g... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

A post-script. Sara, the grin looks forced. Sorry, the bitterness oozes through. My latte is getting cold and I need to change my sandals. My efite and superior intellectual friends are over to discuss the state of the world. God bless.

Hugh, I'm STILL WAITING for... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Hugh, I'm STILL WAITING for you to explain how I "proved your point" early today.

Or have you not finished picking on Sara?

Aaaah Big Mo, don't be too ... (Below threshold)

Aaaah Big Mo, don't be too hard on Hugh, at least when he is attempting to pick on me he isn't beating up on his wife and kids(figuratively speaking, of course, or we hope anyway) or kicking his dog. Macho B.S. is just that, B.S. I am long past the age where I can be intimidated by anyone.

"We should help the people ... (Below threshold)

"We should help the people of Iraq because we destroyed it (lets not get into Sadam etc....I am only talking about the damage caused by the war)."

We should help the people in Iraq because they are human beings who *deserve* the blessings of liberty.

A *liberal* attitude would see all human beings in the world as equally deserving of our compassion. That includes the various genocides that we've ignored. It's true that resources are limited and there are reasons, including sovereignty, not to intervene anywhere and everywhere just because we feel compassion for them. But I'm not imaginging anything at all when I state that your own words make your views on the relative worth of people elsewhere very clear.

If you don't think so, perhaps you need to examine your own assumptions and get some clarity before reflexively arguing against whatever someone else has said... particularly if the result has you ending up saying what you don't mean to say.

Bottom line here, Lee, Hugh... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Bottom line here, Lee, Hugh, assorted others of similar inclination.

No regular Joe is going to trust the Dems. with national security. They may decide to forget it for a while, and get tired of the incessant back and forth created largely by the liberal media which dominate the newspapers and tv. But they will never, as long as there is kerrymurthakucinichbergerclintonpelosireidwatersrangelgore, etc. ever trust you guys on something as serious as this.

They'll trust you with the touchy feely stuff like gay marriage, abortion, welfare programs. They'd feel fine with you taking care of their poodle, but not protecting their families from terrorists.

If you could find a way to overcome the damage you've caused yourselves these last 6 years with the offensive, nasty, selfish partisanship, then you might be able to carry on as a responsible oppositioin party. But to be clear: no one respects you guys, or thinks you're honest.

So, you've got work to do. All I see on this site (and in the News), is the same old stuff that hasn't worked. And it's getting worse--c'mon, Kos? Kos?? Please.

Bravo Zulu Synova.... (Below threshold)

Bravo Zulu Synova.

Sara you have greater patience than I. As for the Gulf Coast. They are squabbling over Waveland not letting in pre-fab homes. Ocean Springs delayed the rebuilding of the Ocean Springs-Biloxi bridge for Hwy 90 by 6 months because it is designed to support the amount of traffic the old bridge [4 lanes] could not due to casino traffic. Pass Christian is still trying to rebuild and evict their no-show mayor. Long Beach is thinking gambling will save them from Katrina wiping out their tax base.

As for Hugh, am reminded of protestors from Justin Leiber's Sally Cadmus/Ismael Forth trilogy starting with Beyond Rejection. They get into such a rythmn of chanting their slogans, they become indistinguishable from chimpanzees declaring what their territory is.

If you don't thin... (Below threshold)
Lee:


If you don't think so, perhaps you need to examine your own assumptions and get some clarity before reflexively arguing against whatever someone else has said... particularly if the result has you ending up saying what you don't mean to say.

Pot, Clarity, Lacking.

You guys are tooooo funny f... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

You guys are tooooo funny for words. You have maybe 40% of the country. Pol after poll after poll after poll after poll (get the point?) says the opposite Mitchell. Oh I know, the old MSM. (By the way have you ever thought that the MSM is the MSM because more people read it and watch it than what the right puts out? Oh , I forgot there's the FAUX fair and balanced folks.

Wake up!!!! Smell the coffee. Failure after failure is the stamp of the right and this administration. Oh, I forgot,,,those of us with some money got some more. As for the rest...the right could care less. You pretend to care of course, and that is the core of the dishonesty of the right. Xenophobia, jingoism, false patrotism and i got mine is what you folks stand for...really now admit it. You all walk lockstep tohether, I imagine after checking what Rush the Puff and Sean the Hun have vomited out for the day. You use the same words, the same phrases, the same old tired ideas. Say what you want about the left and the dems but they are not robots spewing the days catch phrases or call to blow up the NY Times or kill muslims or kill dictators or kil, well just kill ala St Ann or St Savage.

As for Kerry, Clinton, Reid and Pelosi etc I'd gladly help them with their social prgrams as I sip on my latte, get there in my limo and wear my sandals. And then watch as they protect us and get us out of the mess Bush has admitted can't even be solved by the time he leaves us to ride off to his library to read his comic books.

You folks are better than the funny papers.

Hugh - while you're sipping... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Hugh - while you're sipping you're latte, you STILL haven't explained how I "proved your point" almost 24 hours ago.

I will now take that to mean that no point was in fact proven, and you're just an ass.

Good day to you.

Good Lord Mo that was too m... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Good Lord Mo that was too many posts and too many laughs ago. it may have been that i was wrong after you corrected your post, but I am too full of belly laughs to be bothered. Unlike righties I am not mired in the past nor in trying to beat a dead horse. Maybe I was wrong, maybe not.

An ass I'm not. A donkey I am proud to be.

God bless.

Well, FINALLY, Hugh! I only... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Well, FINALLY, Hugh! I only asked you right away after you made the claim.

Big Mo, he has no answer, h... (Below threshold)

Big Mo, he has no answer, his handlers didn't cover your question in their daily talking points.

Awww Sara there you go agai... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Awww Sara there you go again. Spouting sweet nothings and I REALLY do mean nothings.

Say, speaking of talking points what do Rush the Puff (aka Mr.Blue Pill) and Sean the Hun tell you all to say about General Casey and troop withdrawal. I guess the general's just another of those cowards and America haters too eh? Another cut and runner? Also, what about the USA Today poll about majority support for withdrawl of the troops from Iraq?. Please don't spout the MSM nonsense or the skewed polls nonsense (have some kind of inteeligent reponse please).

Your friendly donkey.

LOL. Why don't you tell me ... (Below threshold)

LOL. Why don't you tell me what they say? I have never listened to either of them and I don't take USA Today, so I don't know what their poll says either.

Hugh, you must have me confused with a Right Winger or ultra-conservative. I'm neither. But don't count on my vote for any democrat, I don't vote for cowards, racists or ivory tower/limousine liberals.

Sara you truly are better t... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Sara you truly are better than the funny papers. On the one hand you so dishonestly disassociate yourself from the wingnuts and then spew the hatred vis a vis Savage, Culter and their ilk. Exactly which folks are cowards or racists whom you wouldn't vote for??? By the way, your president was a coward while allegedly in the Guard; Ms Malkin is a xenophobic racist if ever there was one....Savage as well. As for the ivory tower/limosine crack, well I expected more from you. That's just plain silly.

See there you go again. Sav... (Below threshold)

See there you go again. Savage? I think I heard him once about 5 years ago. It was late at night and I was driving across country and that was the only radio station I could pull in.

Malkin is way too far right for my taste, although I admire her as hard-working woman writer.

I assume you mean Coulter with your Culter reference. Yes I like her, but probably not at all for the reasons you think. Hint: politics is not the reason. I also like Laura Ingraham and Tammy Bruce.

I don't like Sean Hannity and never watch or listen to his show.

My favorite TV newsman is Britt Hume. Although I rarely watch MSNBC because I can't stand Matthews, Abrams or Olbermann, I do like Tucker Carlson's show because of the humor.

As to racists ... all democrats that advocate that minorities need special treatment because they are too stupid to think or act for themselves. I despise the "big Daddy" mentality of democrats, whether it has to do with race, gender, or sex. I don't want, nor do I need, someone else to tell me how to think, how to conduct my business, what I can say (i.e., political correctness), or how to raise my kids (no I do not believe it takes a village, I do believe it takes a Mom and Dad). The biggest racist in the country ... Jesse Jackson with Al Sharpton a close second, although Cynthia McKinney is vying for the honor.

Did you think the words "libertarian pragmatist" were a lie? Or was it just that they were too big for you to understand?

To make it easy: I am a pro-military Libertarian and a registered INDEPENDENT.

I have no position on gay rights as it does not apply to me.

I am pro-life as a choice for me alone. What anyone else choses is her business and men should keep their mouths shut about the issue.

I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but not harder drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, or crank.

I intend to support Mitt Romney, if he decides to run because he is a brilliant businessman and I think would make an excellent President. I could care less what his religion is, as that is his business.

Hugh, I know this comes as a shock to you, but there are many people in the world who do not need to take their marching orders from self-appointed leaders like you do. Try it. Thinking for yourself can be very enlightening.

There, I know that's a lot of words for you to master at one time in your limited mindset, but that's the way it is.

Sara....I'd love for you to... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Sara....I'd love for you to tell me which democrats adocate special treatment for minorities because "they are too stupid....." I assume you have the statments and the quotes from "these" democrats. Pleae give me the cites. I notice you didn't name those "cowards" you wouldn't vote for either.

You may hide behind whatever label you wish....libertarian or whatever...but you sound just like Ms Coulter and Mr Savage et al....interesting how you name black people as the racists.(I'm not denying people of color can be racists...Ms Malking being one from my perspective.) But I really want to know when and who advocated special treatment for minorities because they are stupid.

You continue to prove my belief that the right side of this country is all about themselves. I wonder why folks like you never condemn the hate and advocacy of violence that spews from Coulter and Savage, Could you explain that to me?

I can explain nothing to yo... (Below threshold)

I can explain nothing to you about Savage, let me repeat, I don't know what he says, I do not listen to talk radio, except by accident.

And I don't know any rich Republicans, most everyone I know votes Republican because they are in the military or are retired military. And you sure don't get rich in the military. I believe in saving for a rainy day and donating a part of my income to legitimate charities. I believe in giving back to my community through volunteering.

All democrats who advocate set asides, affirmative action, or the ones who think that the black citizens of New Orleans were too stupid to help themselves and that the white citizens didn't need any help (both positions being wrong as everyone needed help). It is a mindset that has destroyed entire groups and thank goodness that the African-American voting block is wising up and realizing that they have a far better future under Republicans than remaining chattel for the democratic party. Look what the dems. are doing to Michael Steele in Md, who happens to be a black Republican. I do not believe in preferential treatment for any interest group. I believe totally in individual responsibility and I sure don't believe it is the government's job to take care of us. I don't categorize people by their skin color, their gender, or their sexual preferences. People are people, some good, some bad, some smart, some not so capable. I tend to accept people for the individuals they are.

Coulter tells it like it is and I like her for her honesty, if not the harshness sometimes of her political rhetoric.

In a nutshell:

Absolute belief that the Bill of Rights, which limits government and guarantees the rights of the individual, gives me the right to be biased against those (can you say liberals) who try to legislate my mind with their ridiculous political correctness and other huge government social programs designed to control rather than enhance me as an individual. I strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. I believe government's prime purpose is to defend and protect its citizens from foreign and domestic terror through a well-trained and well-equipped military. I believe in capitalism, competition, and the right to keep what I earn and I think corporations are better equipped as business managers than the government ever could be. I believe in the right to own property and the right to be left alone on that property, should I desire to be left alone. I believe that the human conscience is the closest thing I can explain as being the "spirit of God" and that the absence of a conscience (or God or good) is the definition of evil. I celebrate life and I'm very happy that I was lucky enough to be born in America. I believe in patriotism for my country, my family, my faith, and love. I am definitely a live and let live person and have no interest in telling anyone else how to live his or her life.

And finally, I believe in honoring our elderly and that it is our responsibility to take care of our parents and grandparents and help them retain their dignity and not warehouse them in nursing homes when they can no longer tend to their own needs. This I can tell you from personal experience is 180 degrees out from the liberal position. Their answer to everything is call social services, which is the last thing I would ever do.

Thanks Sara... I appreciate... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Thanks Sara... I appreciate your point of view and I respect what you just wrote for the most part. Here's my rub with you and some on the right. You ASSUME you know what we think. You have no specific evidence about your sweeping statements that I and other democrats think poor or black people are "stupid." That's the rhetoric of the right - that's the rhetoric of empty ideas. It's baseless - again tell me where anyone from the left of center has siad anything that shows we believe what you just said.

You have also accused lots of folks of being "cowards" - another conclusion that you haven't backed up by name or behavior. Another tactic of the right. Throw words around and around and soon thay might stick. If you lump into the coward category Murtha and Kerry you dishonor yourself and your husband and anyone else who has served in combat.

But that's what the right does -toss enough mud and hope it stcks. I'm disappointed a libertarian would admire Ms Coulter. She's either a snake oil salesman or a hater monger. Do you sgree the NY Times should be blown up as advocated by her? Sounds like an act of terror to me. On my good days I think she really doesn't believe what she says and is laughing all the way to the bank. On other days, I despise her - because she advicates violence and I find that beyond understanding.

I actually agree with some of your social views. I don't think anyone should be given a free ride anywhere. I do believe the poor and the sick (who don't have the means of people like me or the family I have) need the help of the government at times. I too believe in individual rights and I believe there needs to be a balance between those rights and the obligations necessitated by the war. But I don't believe the executive branch is beyond scrutiny or above the law, and I do believe this administration believes it owes no one an explanation about anything and believes it is above the law.

I don't hate George Bush but I do so dislike him on a personal level. But even more so, I think he's inept and has done great and lasting damage to this country. There are Republicans I would vote for -Lindsey Graham, maybe McCain for two. Here's a surprise...Hillary Clinton - never. I don't have a much higher opinion of her than I do of Bush.

Once again you end by a sweeping silly statement Sara. The answer to everything is compassion for others (and sometimes that involves social services) and I think that's a good liberal position.

I really want to know who those "cowards" are.




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