4,000 dead Americans

[Art Sandusky 0]

I might despise the administration, but even I wanted him to have his ears ring for a while at worst.

[Slayer 0]

Consider yourself reprimanded, VX.

I laughed at this

[Guest CWMwasmurdered]

Obviously, though, it sucks that it happened.

 

You mean it sucks that it didn't actually do anything to him, right? Because that's what I was definitely thinking.

 

 

Paging Slapnuts.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/03/0...view/index.html

 

So he's still out there. Okay.

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IC01Df03.html

 

THEN WHY THE HELL IS OUR CHIEF ALLY IN SOUTH ASIA HELPING THE TALIBAN?

 

If only we'd gone with the rah-rah "go big, go long" strategy for the necessary war.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

That kind of reaffirms what I've thought for a long time, that Pakistan is basically playing both sides against each other in this to gain more power in the region (the US and the Taliban, specifically).

[snuffbox 0]

That crazy ol' General uh General General.

[snuffbox 0]

9 more dead.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070306/D8NMMLUO1.html

 

And Libby is guilty. Sounds like the jury was upset they had to lockup the fall-guy instead of the actual people turning the cogs of bullshit war.

[SuperJerk 0]

A new candidate for "Stupidest Thing I've Ever Read."

 

Would Bush-Hating Dems Also Have Wanted to Impeach Abe Lincoln?

Friday , March 09, 2007

 

By John Gibson

 

The Dems are fighting with each other over how to lose in Iraq quickly enough. And to make sure there is something they can all agree on they're also organizing something called Impeach '07, which is aimed at, well, I'm sure you know who. You may also recall that Democrats briefly argued whether they could or should actually go back in time in order to take back their vote authorizing the Iraq war.

 

So combing the two — impeaching a president who violated the Constitution and pursued a very unpopular war, and the urge to go back and redo things that should have been done right the first time — we must conclude the Democrats would want to go back for a huge impeachment do-over: the impeachment of Abe Lincoln.

 

This idea comes from columnist and talk show host Mike Rosen out in Denver. He points out that like Bush, Lincoln used the military to attack a sovereign state — in this case the Confederate South — and that he lied to the American public about its true reasons for the war. First it was to save the union, and then it was to free the slaves. And you could impeach Lincoln for trampling the rights of citizens, particularly the right of habeas corpus. Lincoln put his enemies in jail so they couldn't interfere with his war plans. And like Bush, Lincoln can be impeached for his incompetence at managing the war. It was a mess until Ulysses S. Grant showed up and saved Lincoln's bacon.

 

This is an exercise in calling their bluff. No. 1, the Democrats don't want a Bush impeachment. Too messy. However, the nutjobs on the far, far left do. So the logic here is OK, if Bush goes up on these charges so should Lincoln, right?

 

Well, even Democrats have a hard time publicly denouncing Abe Lincoln. It is, after all, a party founded on the descendants of the very slaves Lincoln freed. So you won't see that time-machine impeachment of Abe Lincoln, and if they have any sense they'll just make noise about impeaching Bush and return to shooting themselves in the foot over their 10,000 war exit plans.

 

That's My Word.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258107,00.html

 

I'm not sure if he's being sarcastic, or he really thinks that (a) the Confederacy was a soverign state, (b) Lincoln lied about the reason for the war, or © Lincoln mismanaged the war, even though he fired the incompetent people below him that screwed up instead of promoting them as Bush does.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I can't imagine why Dems wouldn't want to go on Fox News.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Would liberals have killed Jesus?

 

News at 11.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Also, like how he brings up that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Well, ya know, the Constitution actually says that habeas corpus can be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion. What it doesn't say is that it can be suspended whenever the hell the President, the VP, or the Attorney General feels like it.

[snuffbox 0]

Gibson makes it seem like the Civil War was some obscure point in our history where the basic facts are still murky & up for his own personal interpretation. Basically, he received a crash course on that time period from a few of the kookier testimonials from GOP folk during the House debate on the Iraq Resolution a couple weeks ago.

 

"Lincoln didnt pull out of the South so we MUST stay the course in Iraq!"

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The thing that's ridiculous is it the president could've said "Well, we've achieved our objective in Iraq" about six - twelve months ago and started a withdrawal. Iraq is no longer a "threat", Iraqis have a democracy, etc. Probably would've made his presidency look much better in a historical context.

[SuperJerk 0]

I still can't get over that "the Confederacy was a soveriegn state" thing. Man, that's fucked up.

[snuffbox 0]

Sounds like we need support troops for the surge troops. Yay!

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I keep thinking of those old Surge soda commercials when I hear the phrase "troop surge". Maybe President Bush could get some guys like the ones in those commercials to go to Iraq.

[snuffbox 0]

Will the next invasion at least utilize the Goldwater/Powell doctrine of overwhelming force? Or will the Bush Jr Admin, if we go into Iran or something, give the Rumsefeld sleek/agile force with gradual escalations if the Party loses an election another try?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What force do we have left for an invasion either way? I mean, I'm asking seriously.

[snuffbox 0]

The last remaining forces in Afghanistan. It's not as important to the War On Terruh as Iraq is.

 

More 3rd and 4th and beyond tours of duty.

 

Less & less retirements and leaves allowed.

 

More money spent on tv recruiting ads and sign-up bonuses in lieu of medical care after serving.

 

More National Guard troops sent overseas.

 

Plenty of great ways to escalate!

[snuffbox 0]

I wish we could resurrect Warren Harding to deal with this Walter Reed stuff.

[Hasbeen1 0]

The last remaining forces in Afghanistan. It's not as important to the War On Terruh as Iraq is.

 

More 3rd and 4th and beyond tours of duty.

 

Less & less retirements and leaves allowed.

 

More money spent on tv recruiting ads and sign-up bonuses in lieu of medical care after serving.

 

More National Guard troops sent overseas.

 

Plenty of great ways to escalate!

 

 

How many serving were not volunteers?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

How many serving were not volunteers?

 

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

 

No one is disputing that the troops volunteered to serve. The problem is that the administration is misusing the troops and stretching our forces thin.

[snuffbox 0]

They're not meant to be GI Joe dolls in the hands of child-minded politicians. Each risks their life daily. Is it simply too much to ask that the decisions on those lives not be absolutely retarded, hasbeen?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

They're not meant to be GI Joe dolls in the hands of child-minded politicians. Each risks their life daily. Is it simply too much to ask that the decisions on those lives not be absolutely retarded, hasbeen?

 

Exactly. What's worse is that both the Republicans and Democrats are formulating their policies and stances based on politics, not what's best for the troops and the nation.

 

Hey, snuffbox and I agree on something. Film at 11.

[hyperchord24 0]

What's more is that Bush says he plans to veto the plan to remove troops starting in March 08. What sense is that? It's going to be passed in 2 years when there's a new president? Politically, I see nothing for Bush to gain by vetoing.

[snuffbox 0]

7 more dead.

 

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney plays with GI Joe dolls in a land of fairy tales & happy bunnies

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&amp...07&id=20830

 

It's stuff like this which totally discredits anyone wanting to end the war in Iraq:

 

"Police have arrested four people and are questioning about 20 more in connection with vandalism that took place at an east side Army recruiting office Monday night.

 

Officers were called to the 3100 block of Oakland Ave. around 8 p.m., where Iraq War protesters clad in black, carrying torches and wearing ski masks were reportedly setting off smoke bombs and throwing paint as they approached an Army recruiting center on the block, said Sgt. Eric Pfeiffer, of the Milwaukee Police Department.

 

Someone threw an object through the recruitment center's window and spread what appears to be human waste inside before running off, Pfeiffer said.

 

Four people were in police custody and nearly 20 more were being questioned nearby about their involvement in the vandalism, Pfeiffer said.

 

A definitive arrest total was not available.

 

Monday was the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq."

[Art Sandusky 0]

Man, when shit like that is happening it just reinforces their stance. No way would such things be considered sensible if this hadn't been such an all-around godawful idea and then pursued for four(!!) years. I doubt we'd have smoke bombs being hurled towards military recruitment centers and shit if we were conducting counter-terrorism measures in the proper manner, something that everyone I've known across the political spectrum has wanted. Think about it: If Vietnam hadn't been such a clusterfuck, there's no way you have four students being shot on campus by the state.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Just because a situation is bad, doesn't mean you justify your cause with violence.

[EricMM 0]

I don't think they were trying to justify themselves

 

If you're saying the cause didn't justify violence, well, thats another question.