That was FREAKIN' AWESOME.

It is people like Bob Parks that gets our soldiers killed. What a load of crap. The MSM is against the troops because they report causality rate? Please!

How about a little rage against the bastards that put the troops in a no win situation?

What a coward to suggest that fighting over there is preventing road side bombs from blowing up over here. Securing the weapon depots over there would have prevented IEDs from blowing up over there.

Is there a PC reason why this person left out the Coast Guard in his roll call of in-theater services? (Yes, OUR Coast Guard; we're stretched that thin!)

And the "semi-automatic machine gun fire" phrase is technically incorrect, though a good finger CAN pop off one at a time, the guns can't talk together, nor lay down a base of fire, so what the hell is he talking about?

I know. Rifle. Machinegun. Navy. God bless him.

(Now, where'd I put that Village People record?)

(Now, where'd I put that Village People record?) Posted by: bryanD at April 6, 2007 11:17 PM

Ahh...the tolerance of the left. Why don't you little turds go to Kos and kiss up to him and his "zionist" rambling co-horts. They'd love you guys there.

Barney is such a pussy. Whine, whine, whine. You crack me up though. Your whiny posts are entertaining when you think that the left cost of full of ignorant self absorbed people like you.

You remind me of a South Park episode where all the "Smart People" sniffed their own farts like a fine wine.

Barn, it wasn't a no-win situation until people started working for that result.

Still isn't, for that matter, despite your articles of faith.

And casualty counts? Ours are counted and will be and should be, but *only* ours? I'd be interested in knowing what the kill ratio is. Mr. Parks has a point. It might seem crude to look at how many people they have to sacrifice to get one of ours but if we're going to talk about effectiveness or claim that our guys aren't effective it would be a useful number to have.

Steve of Norway,

I was waiting to apologize to a Navy vet, but homosexuals deserve an apology, too. Sorry.

Barn, it wasn't a no-win situation until people started working for that result.___Synova

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133593200/Opening_Fire_on_Civilians

I ask again-are barneygoogle and bryanDirtbag really Americans? They seem to take anything and turn it into a wee wee match. That video should be required viewing for all kos kiddie rejects before they can post here. That was one of the best explaintions of what is going on in the left wingers world that ever been put forth. Hats off to BOB PARKS!!!!

Any kill ratio should include the civilians. You know the people we liberated.

Bob forgot one thing. The left did not ask for this war, we did not want it and we do not support it. If you do not like the way that is going, don't blame us. You wonder why the American people do not understand or take ownership of this war when you are the people that tell us everything is fine. That the war wont last six months. When you appropriate $500 billion for the war and $1-trillion to rich in tax cuts?

Don't blame me!

Barneygoole lives in la la land.

The Park segment was one of the best explanations I have heard as to why we need to complete the task in Iraq. The Democratic mantra of "...we support the troops, but not their involvement in the war" is like saying we like firemen but not that whole putting out fires and saving victims thing they do.

It is depressing to think that the best arguments Barney can make in response is some well worn democratic talking points. They were weak arguments back when they were originally raised by better writers.

"Any kill ratio should include the civilians. You know the people we liberated."

Only the ones killed by American troops with a count for the ones killed by terrorist or "insurgent" activity. Guess who is killing Iraqi civilians, Barn.

It's not us.

And the "left" Barn, it voted for this. Then changed its mind and started working for failure. Not your fault? Sure it is. Because you'd rather be right with the blood of thousands on your hands than see any good result.

"disgust for liberals"

Hatin libruls: the thing (and only thing) the right-wing blogosphere is good for.

Liberals didn't want the war? Barney might just be a lying Liberal. OK, he is. They wanted the war and supported it until the 2004 elections started. I even dedicated a whole post you Barney, go watch the video and tell that lie again. I dare you.

I don't believe Barney is a real person. I think it's a random phrase generator that spews out crap that has no logical or factual relevence. Just BDS buzzwords and Kos-generated BS.

NO actual human could be such a caricature of the moonbat left.

I'm gonna do the unspeakable here and stand up for Barney. He's half-right -- we SHOULD count the civilian deaths. But he's not quite right, in that he seems to say that the responsibility should lie solely at the feet of the US. There are two sides in this conflict; one of them is deliberately targeting civilians, killing them by the score, while the other side is doing everything it can to protect them. To blame the latter side for all the deaths is fundamentally wrong.

Further, Barney has actually toned it down a bit in his comments, and I appreciate it. I would urge Steve, BillyBob, jhow, Bullwinkle, and metprof to do likewise.

Strongly urge.

J.

I called a liar a liar and proved it. If there's something wrong with that I'd like to know what it is.

This is the most heartfelt, accurate, and to the point essay on the state of affairs in our country I have seen. And I support it 100%.

Bullwink, you didn't prove anything. Show me a quote from a liberal that was for invading. The war powers resolution called for force as a last measure not the first. Bush violated the trust given to him by the Congress.

We are responsible for the deaths of the civilians. We brought this war to Iraq, and it was our responsibility keep them safe. We did not provide the force strength necessary to keep the peace, and every political decision has been wrong (looting, debathazation...).

Who's Bob Parks?

Wow! Almost a majority of congress supported going in to Iraq and now the lefties are claiming they never wanted to go in? Wow! Truly a sad bunch. Actually, the lefties here started fighting against anything GW wanted to succeed in since 2000. Thus someone's nickname. There has never been a president until GW that had to rise up and face the challenges coming at us over the last few years. Not one president. Also, he is the first president that has to face enemies world wide and here at home. ww

Who the fuck is bob parks? anne coulters lover?

Who the fuck is bob parks? anne coulters lover? Posted by: jeff at April 7, 2007 09:58 AM

And you are? Mr. piss-ant?

Awesome and timely.

I'm here at Fort Bragg bidding farewell to my son before his deployment in a couple days to Afghanistan.

I will show this to him and his mother today.

Thanks!!

This guy was a candidate for Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party. I spoke with him for quite a while. Kind of a nut job, IMO.

Nice message though.

Watch the video again Barney, I can put up a slomo version if you need it.

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/

Is Nancy Pelosi Liberal enough for you Barney?

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/

How about Harry Reid?

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103

Maybe John Kerry? I have a whole page of them that you apparently ignored. Facts hurt when you live in dreamworld.

Sounds as if Bob Parks regrets he served in 'peacetime'.

Bull, you still have not provided one quote that says: "hell let's go invade Iraq".

In 1997 we launched Desert Fox. It was highly successful and did not require an invasion. The inspections and sanctions were working. The weapons inspectors concluded, prior to the invasion, that Saddam did not have a Nuke program. Inspectors had completed hundreds of inspections at the most sensitive locations provided by the CIA and found nothing.

Sure some people talked big just prior to an election (10/02) and based on the cherry-picked Intel provided by Bush, but no one on the left was calling for an all out invasion.

The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Is that too nuanced for you? John Kerry SUPPORTED THEM REMOVING SADDAM. Can that be any clearer?

Bush cherry picked intelligence?

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.
I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi applauding the actions of the president isn't supporting him? And she based that on that 10 years of Bush's cherry picked intelligence, from back when he was governor of Texas! Give up, you've been nailed every time you opened you mouth. All you're acomplishing now is making yourself look even more foolish.

Bull, the Nuke treat was cooked-up by Bush on forged Doc and aluminum tubes. Attack was the last resort, and you know this is true from reading Kerry's and Clinton's statements on the floor.

Please, don't pass this mess off on the Dems. Nobody is that stupid to believe you.

Hut oh what did I do (say) now that everyone else is not doing (saying)?

Uh Barn' does your glasses make their words come out differant then the ones I read? You are kidding yourself when you say they did not support the war. It is right there in plain writing. But of coarse if you only read it the way you want it to sound, then you have just proved that you make about as much sense as Pelooser and her trip.

Bush cooked up the nuke threat? I guess that's another magical feat he accomplished as Governor of Texas:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html

http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Is that enough or do you need more?

Here's one more for you. Read it and whine.

Joe Wilson Lied; People are Still Dying.
========================

do you notice that liberal posts are pointing out details of why this war is bad for american and republican posts are just really pissed off, name calling posts with no good points or facts. people who do stupid stuff normally show anger when its exposed.

so listen up republicans. if you want the country to take you seriously, you need to stop acting like children. children fall off the playground, get hurt, then throw a temper tantrum blaming everyone else.

republicans need to take some responsibility. who put the troops in iraq? republicans. who attacked the wrong country with no weapons? republicans. oh, and who completely froze up and did nothing for almost 10 minutes while "the country was under attack" on the morning of 9/11? a republican.