Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Citizens Against the Troops
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Sometimes words fail. Sometimes you just have to point to something and let others form the words for themselves. From probably one of the vilest websites I've ever been unfortunate enough to find, a Dec. 2nd posting:
"I was surprised and elated to hear the news that 10 marines were killed in one blast yesterday. It just goes to show how poorly they were trained, and further proves that our tax money is being wasted every day that the military—no matter what the branch—exists. It also proves the point that they are not serving our country. Explain to me how they served our country and defended our freedom. They just served as puppet master for President Bush".
This was signed by some cretin named Khara Vogel who claims the title "Membership recruiter", whatever that might be. Yes her post is logically assinine ("they" are the puppet master" for Bush?), grossly uninformed and proves she's certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer (in fact she may be a spoon in a knife drawer), but to express elation over the death of a group of Marines is just sickening.

My bet would be that every one of those 10 Marines who died would have adamantly defended this sicko's right to post disgusting trash like that.

Me? I'll call it what it is even while I honor the right those 10 Marines would have claimed for this group of human filth that calls themselves "Citizens Against the Troops".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
That’ll be Crook, again.
No, that’s his name.... The guy who runs that website.

I wrote a bit on him some days ago, in response to something that Michelle had posted. He’s the one who posted that, in Michelle’s words, claimed he was responsable...and proud of it...

....
for the despicable death-wish greeting card received by injured soldier Joshua Sparling at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Recall that the card was signed "Miguel." Crook also claims that he sent similar letters to VFW halls across the country, as well as to the Veteran’s Hospital in Syracuse.

Bad as he is, I hold him to be the heart and soul of the Democrat party today. Think I’m kidding? Explain to me how this guy is saying anything different than what Howard the Coward Dean has been saying.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
What remarkable people... I couldn’t tell if they meant it or if this was some sort of cruel satire, akin to "Black People Love us."

They do make one good point, all the allowances and services really ought to go. If your actual compensation is "X" after base pay and allowances are totted up and if you include any commissary or PX benefits (don’t know if they operate on subsidized basis any more) into the TOTAL compensation package, I agree we ought to monetize it all. Just pay E-1’s to O-10’s that degree of compensation, in toto, and drop the allowances. We are spending a lot on troop compensation, just be honest about the total amounts.

As tot he rest of the site, I was "intrigued". What got these folks all riled up? It’s not the GWoT or OIF I or II, I mean they just seem to hate the troops, not matter who is the CinC and where they are.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’d further point out, where at the Democrats who will denounce Crook?

Or, Dean, for that matter.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Think I’m kidding? Explain to me how this guy is saying anything different than what Howard the Coward Dean has been saying.

No no no...........Dean SUPPORTS the troops!

Or so he’d have you believe anyway.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
C’mon, Bithead. That’s painting with a rather broad brush isn’t it? Even the worst defeatist language from Dean doesn’t compare to actively wishing the troops ill. I don’t buy the whole "we support the troops" mantra which tends to follow the anti-war rhetoric that comes from much of the left, but there’s not really much question that "bring them home now" is diametrically opposed to dancing with glee regarding the deaths of our soldiers. To be sure, there are those such as the Columbia professor who wished a 1000 Mogadishu’s on our troops and Ward Churchill who suggested that fragging was morally acceptable and should be actively supported. But these people aren’t the heart and soul of the Democrats, even if they are (unfortunately) tolerated within the party.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
"I’d further point out, where at the Democrats who will denounce Crook?"

Where are the Democrats who are even aware of this dipshit’s existance? Jesus Christ, Eric continues his descent into monomania and self-parody...
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
That’s painting with a rather broad brush isn’t it?
No.

Where do you think this "Bring them home now" mantra comes from, anyway?
The object is the defeat of America. It’s that simple, and that direct.
Where are the Democrats who are even aware of this dipshit’s existance?
Trust me; They know full well he’s out there...

The moron’s all the rage, over at the DU(h), for example.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
By the way, here’s a quick and dirty search of the DU(h) for articles pertaining to Mr. Crook, and his various websites.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I think it’s a bit harsh to tar the Democrats with this guy. It’s cherry-picking. He’s an idiot, OK. But he’s not the core of the Democratic Party, either.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Reality is often harsh, I’m afraid, Joe,a nd hardly cherry picking.


Look, I won’t even limit my question to this specific moron;
Can someone/anyone show me a large groundswell within the Demoratic party against the kind of non-thinking this guy engages in?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Well your "quick and dirty" list of DU seems to have found a great number of articles where DUers condemn the hell out of Crook.

BTW ... Crook’s dead.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
BTW ... Crook’s dead.
Is he? Wikipedia says that him being beaten to death was a hoax. Now was wikipedia wrong, HORRORS or has he been killed again?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Is he?

Now that you mention it, and looking further into it, it seems he may not be.

What a surprise.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I’d double check that one. Bruce;
I didn’t bother checking back, but when Michelle’s story broke, there was some chatter about him faking his own death... which I found almost conseiveable,(May have been getting too hot) along with, of course, rumors about him being assasinated by Bush’s people. Niether one really passed the smell test, though.


And, yes, you’re right...there being some few in the DU trying to set him on fire wasn’t something that got by me. Note however they didn’t get much in the way of support from their fellow travelers.

But in any event, that goes right by the heart of the question. I didn’t just say /him/... I said the kind of non-thinking he engages in.

Yes, there are the odd assorted Liebermans of the world, but the party’s in the process of giving such people the bum’s rush, as I think you’ve noted previously.

When speaking of the Crooks of the world, the word ’radical’ leaps to mind as the best description, particularly in a literal sense... ’radical’ being from the Latin word, which translates "From The Root".

I would point to some of the more anti-military statements from both Dean and Kerry, (Particularly given Kerry’s voting record while in the Senate) and then point to what Crook mouths, and suggest you can’t fit water between them.

If Kerry and Dean are not the center of the party, then what in hell is?

At best, we could say that the party is ill-represented by such people. But where, then, are the voices of this increasingly hypothetical Democratic center? All we have to go on is what we’re hearing... and if there’s a more moderate rank and file out there, we’re not hearing from them.

Donald Lambro, in today’s WaTi suggests they’re uncomfortable with the state of affairs. But clearly, as Lambro points up, they don’t have enough power of numbers to turn the ship.





 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
And, yes, you’re right...there being some few in the DU trying to set him on fire wasn’t something that got by me. Note however they didn’t get much in the way of support from their fellow travelers.


Actually they did get support, quite a bit as a matter of fact.

Sorry, not buying this "heart and soul" premise Eric, no matter how hard you try.

Besides, that’s not the point of the post anyway.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
OK folks, to the "POINT" of the post. This moron-loser ain’t no traitor! Treason, to me, seems to be the levying of war against the United States. I don’t seem to recall calling for the reduction in troop pay or even calling them names to be treasonous. He’s an idiot, BUT the Constitution gives him every right to BE an idiot.

IF he were passing troop deployment figures on, operational plans of Ft. Drum, passing maps of sensitive areas of Ft. Drum to foreign or domestic terror groups, passing along classified information, planting explosives, fomenting mutiny, ... well you get the idea, THEN he’d be a traitor.

I’m sorry but speaking ill of the troops and even pulling for their death ain’t treason. Sorry, now many may THINK it treasonous, but how is it? What act has this loser-moron perpetrated that is TREASON?

As far as spreading gloom and gloom or demoralizing the troops, well he’s got that right. We can not call ourselves a free society and not have idiots or even non-idiots disagree with public policy and be labeled "traitors." They are not.

Mr Crook, Moveon.org, Michael Moore are NOT TRAITORS. Yes, they want the other side to win, but I believe that’s a CONSTITUITONAL RIGHT. I simply say let them speak and let the voting public judge. I think this crew will go down to the electoral defeat they so richly merit. But as far as calling them "traitors" well I’d just rather laugh at them. At least Mr. Crook, because well he’s sad and laughable.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Sorry, not buying this "heart and soul" premise Eric, no matter how hard you try.
Noted. However, I would urge you to watch the 08 cycle, and who it is who manages to get nominated in that party. If recent history is of any consequence, it’ll end up being someone the Crooks of the world can support. which will give further weight to my argument, here.

Which, means, yes, I am predicting Hillary doesn’t get the nomination unless she comes to the left more.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
And Joe;

Isn’t wanting the other side to win... and working toward that goal "aiding and abeting the enemy’? Last I knew, that was treason.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Isn’t wanting the other side to win... and working toward that goal "aiding and abeting the enemy’? Last I knew, that was treason.
No it isn’t. This is a liberal/Enlightenment state. You can BELIEVE what you want and within broad limits speak what you want, and assemble with those you chose to to petition for the redress of those needs and wants.

The purpose of the US Constitution was to guarantee that, to limit the government’s ability to interfere with what you believed and how you expressed that belief. There were to be no "wrong truths", no double plus ungood words.

Were does it end? I opposed the Kosovo War. Was I a traitor? Why can’t I want the US to lose? Were the folks that wanted Nazi Germany to lose traitors? Sometimes my country IS wrong and it ought to lose... You may not agree with that, BUT that’s what the basic idea of an Enlightenment Constitution is, a right to disagree and a guarantee of my right or Mr. Crooks’ right to disagree and to propound that disagreement.

If you can find any "Clear and Present Danger" in his site, any call to action, revolution or insurrection you could make a legal case for "treason." Otherwise you are simply name calling. I guess I do to, I call him a "Loser-moron", but I don’t use words and names that could result in a person’s imprisonment or execution, "treason" and "traitor" do.

A man or women can be wrong, dreadfully wrong, but they still have the right to speak their "wrong ideas."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Isn’t wanting the other side to win... and working toward that goal "aiding and abeting the enemy’? Last I knew, that was treason.
Let’s break this down:

1) "Wanting the other side to win" is not treason. I know this may come as news to you, Bithead, but there is no such thing as a thought crime in this country. I may want you dead, but that doesn’t make me guilty of murder. (Do I really have to explain this?)

2) "Working toward that goal ’aiding and abetting the enemy.’"

Now - let’s break this down further. First, who is the enemy in Iraq? At a minimum, it would be those persons shooting at and trying to blow up American soldiers, right? But it would also include anyone actively trying to undermine the goals the United States government is attempting to achieve. It would therefore include those persons who are actively trying to undermine the current Iraqi centralized government. By extension, therefore, the enemy in Iraq is anyone preparing for or attempting bring about the break up of the Iraqi state itself.

But a government can crumble from within as well. So the enemy must also include anyone within the government using extra-judicial/illegal means and force against their political opponents. After all, such persons are a threat to the government inasmuch as the debase and deligitimize the government both from the perspective of Iraqi citizens and from abroad.

So the question becomes this: Why aren’t the Kurds the enemy? After all, it was reported today that the Kurds and their militias are actively laying the groundwork to move south and seize Kirkuk for a future Kurd state. Imagine for a moment that a 10,000 militia members in Washington were gearing up for a fight with the majority of Americans in order to seize Oregon for a furture country carved out of the Pacific Northwest. We would certainly call such persons enemies of the United States, wouldn’t we? And we would certainly call them traitors.

Which brings us back to Bithead’s question. Who is aiding and abetting the enemy? Well, George Bush, for one. After all, he is responsible for arming the Kurds and supporting them. In other words, Bush is providing means and support to a militia that is preparing to bring about the breakup of the Iraqi state, i.e., he helping the enemy.

Likewise, the same thing can be said of our support for the Shia. They too are preparing for the breakup of the current Iraqi state. Moreover, they are using government equipment and material to wage an illegal war against their political opponents, thereby deligitmizing the very government that we are fighting to support.

Ironically, the one ethnic group seeking to keep Iraq whole are the Sunni guerillas, whom we of course consider to be the enemy.

All of this, of course, is way over Bithead’s head. But the question remains: who is the enemy?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
1) "Wanting the other side to win" is not treason. I know this may come as news to you, Bithead, but there is no such thing as a thought crime in this country. I may want you dead, but that doesn’t make me guilty of murder. (Do I really have to explain this?)
OK, MK nails this one PERFECTLY! As we say down here, "A blind sow will pick up an acorn now and again."

The rest, was Bush Derangement Syndrome... BUSH is the enemy? Who knew?

Bithead, I’d put your statement of Crooks "aiding and abetting the enemy" in the same category as MK claiming Bush is the enemy. They are BOTH rhetorical excesses and if one or both of you believe your statement then they simply are wrong-headed and founded in HATE.

Aiding and abetting the enemy is giving food, money, ammunition, information to the enemy, not simply wishing them well. Treason, murder and the like require ACTIONS, not merely expressions of opinion to be criminal. And if speaking your mind is ACTION, then I’m afraid that you and I live in different America’s is all I can say, and honestly I hope that your America stays well clear of mine.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
OK folks, to the "POINT" of the post. This moron-loser ain’t no traitor!

Uh, no ... that’s not the point either.

The point is that no matter how disgusting, perverted, sick and nasty this assh*le is, she has every right to say what she says thanks to those 10 Marines - who’s boot laces she isn’t worthy to carry - and their willingness to go to war.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The point is that no matter how disgusting, perverted, sick and nasty this assh*le is, she has every right to say what she says thanks to those 10 Marines - who’s boot laces she isn’t worthy to carry - and their willingness to go to war.


Oh OK, Bithead and Book seem to think its about treason....or so it seemed to me. Which put sin the realm of literary criticism, is this "Authorial intent" or "Reader response"?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
1) "Wanting the other side to win" is not treason. I know this may come as news to you, Bithead, but there is no such thing as a thought crime in this country. I may want you dead, but that doesn’t make me guilty of murder. (Do I really have to explain this?)
No, but then again, that’s not what I said, was it?
Context, MK, Context. In this case, removing the ’and working towards that goal’ is the context removed. Cute trick, if you don’t get caught.

You did.
Aiding and abetting the enemy is giving food, money, ammunition, information to the enemy, not simply wishing them well
So is bucking for our withdrawl,... which is substantially more than ’wishing them well’. Consdier; Defeat in abstentia was the goal in Vietnam, if you’ll recall. We won that one, but pulled out because of the activism here, thus turning victory into defeat. I would include that on the list of ’working for our defeat’.
founded in HATE.
No, Joe... it’s a response to hate.
information to the enemy
Like this, for example?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"Wanting the other side to win" is not treason.

Treason = providing aid and comfort to the enemy. You can try to make a case (albeit probably a weak one) that those idiots running the website and working to see the other side win through their activism are providing aid or "comfort" (lots of ways to define that word) and are in fact committing treason.


However, we can all agree that wanting the other side to win, is disgusting.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Bithead, a its a FOIA REQUEST! Note REQUEST... since when did ASKING for information become aiding, abetting, or passing information to the enemy? The Administration is NOT BOUND to provide the information and may contest in court the request, and in fact might win. And CAIR is asking for a legal justification? Since when did asking UNDER WHAT LAW OR SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION THE GOVERNMENT PRESUMES TO ACT BECOME PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE ENEMY?

And bucking for our withdrawal is policy advocacy, it ain’t aiding and abetting the enemy, Bithead. Reasonable people may disagree agree over policy...is it your contention that the President, Bush Hillary or whomever makes policy and to disagree or to advocate different policy, even radically different policy, is WRONG, TREASONABLE or "aiding and abetting the enemy"?

You don’t like Michael Moore, fine neither do I. You don’t like Murtha’s proposals neither do I, BUT neither man is aiding the enemy in any way that a liberal might care to view aid... because your "aiding" seems to be indistinguishable from my idea of "Speaking.

And note the use of "liberal" refers to it’s use in a Lockean, Mill, Smith sort of philosophic way
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You missed the point, Joe.
The request wouldn’t have existed but for the initial leak.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Ironically, the one ethnic group seeking to keep Iraq whole are the Sunni guerillas, whom we of course consider to be the enemy.
Ah yes, those freedom fighters of the heroic Sunni revolution... How naive can you get, mk?

I really don’t believe that you honestly think that what they are fighting for is to "keep Iraq whole". Rather, I’m sure you realize that the beneficiaries of minority rule governments get used to the perks and there’s a reason that democracy is anathema to them.

However, mk, you, like many Democrats and the ’anti-war’ movement, are simply blinded by your hatred of the Bush administration. Like them, you will use anything you can as ammunition to attack them and their efforts for political gain. All without regards to reality, reason, or the incidental collateral damage you cause to your nation. Grow up.
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
I don’t know of anyone who is against the troops other than who they are fighting in the middle east. In all fairness, people who are anti war are not anti troops, they are anti killing. Claiming they are against the troops therefore makes no sense because it implies they have little regard for their safety. I’m pretty sure that ideology is the antithesis of anti war.

And to those people who love to say solders risked their lives so Americans could maintain the freedom to do things like protest wars, even though some people think doing so makes them lowly slugs. Well, this is just my opinion but if I risk my life to preserve my fellow Americans liberties you damn well better believe I want to see them enjoying and utilizing everyone of those liberties that I fought for, even those I may take issue with. Anything less than that would mean a solders effotrs, risks and sweat, were all for naught. I think that would be really...pretty nutty.

Chew on that for a spell, spin it around, spit it out. The freedoms we have as Americans are each and everyone precious, all fought and paid for. It’s part of what makes America beautiful.

Lets stop beating one another up for being the Americans we all have the right to be, for now anyhow.
 
Written By: Rayzon
URL: http://
As for Michael Crook: I think he’s really nothing more than an attention whore. The best thing you can do is to ignore him. And stop sending his website traffic.
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
The request wouldn’t have existed but for the initial leak.
And yet your point is? It is still only a REQUEST. In two parts it seems, one asking for a legal justification, the other a straight forward request that the government can reasonably deny. And a denial which most likely a court would uphold.

I care about the leaks, but the request is NOT aiding the enemy...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Pretty obvious this is a hoax. The website is tacky enough to be Pentagon— or Jeff Gannon. I’m guessing a half-assed GOP psy-ops effort. Crook indeed.
 
Written By: Jason
URL: http://
And yet your point is? It is still only a REQUEST.
You don’t really think it’s gonna stop there, do you?
And again, the cite was WRT the leak, not the request resulting from it.

See also, doughnut,hole.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
However, mk, you, like many Democrats and the ’anti-war’ movement, are simply blinded by your hatred of the Bush administration. Like them, you will use anything you can as ammunition to attack them and their efforts for political gain. All without regards to reality, reason, or the incidental collateral damage you cause to your nation. Grow up.
Funny, but the minute anyone suggests that things are more complicated in Iraq than the administration is portraying them to be, they immediately are accosted by a Bush cult member. This is a typical line of attack.

Of course, they never want to engage the subject matter. Like this poor soul I just quoted. The multiple interests and aspirations of the various ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq make it a very complicated place. Very complicated. Making sense of it all and at the same time making sense of it in a way that shows that Bush knows what he is doing is way beyond the intellectual abilities of most Bush cult members, especially the one I quote. It is no simple task to make sense of Iraq and at the same time make Bush look good.

It is a lot easier to simply respond that the person raising the question hates Bush and hates America.

Seriously. I would love to a real debate over our strategy in Iraq and whether it is counter-productive. For instance, I would love a decent explanation of why the Kurds are NOT trying to undermine the Iraqi state. Point me to the article showing that they are making efforts to expose torture by the Iraqi security forces. Or that they are not signing secret oil deals behind the national government’s back. Or that there are re-education efforts underway by the Kurds themselves to convince Kurds to let go of the idea of an independent Kurdistan. Give some brilliant analysis that explains why current social, cultural and political pressures are pushing them toward integration into the national government and state, instead of the opposite direction.

C’mon - you can do it.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
...is this "Authorial intent" or "Reader response"?

Commenters often wander off on tangents or invent new topics within the comment section, but the only guy who knows what the intent of the post was is the guy who wrote it ... uh, that would be me. And I’ve told you what the intended point was meant to be.

You guys want to play with treason, be my guest, but don’t try to pass it off as the intent of the post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Maybe this is why Bithead never, ever criticizes the Bush administration on Iraq. He really thinks it’d be treasonous.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No, Jon, Untrue.

I questioned, before the invasion, if we had anough people to get the job done.
That ended about a day into the event, however.

There’s a major difference though between questioning how we get the job done , and whether or not we should. There’s a difference between questioning the work of the administration, and questioning whether are not the front liners are in fact murderers. That’s something John Kerry did, not something that Michael Crook did, and THAT is treason.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
mk: I have OFTEN called you out on your ’views’ on Iraq, and you strangely never seem to respond. I’ve been reading your posts for a while now, and what you quoted is the conclusion I have drawn about you. I am not saying that based simply on your comments above. You have shown a consistent pattern in your moonbat partisanship. You remind me of the type of person who was saying that President Bush ordered the New Orleans levee to be surreptitiously demolished.

I’m a "Bush cult member"? Really? I am very critical of the Bush administration, but I am not critical of it as an end in and of itself. That’s the difference.

Since it seems you might actually stick around for a debate this time, let me get this straight... You think, that by supporting representative government in Iraq, that we are the shills of the Shi’ite Arabs... because they are the majority in Iraq. By deduction then, perhaps you believe we should support the minority Sunnis? Would that not be flying in the face of democratization in the first place?

Whoever raises a weapon against an American servicemember or places explosives is our enemy and needs to die. Period. I don’t care what religion or race they are. But at the same time, I believe that the majority of the violence in Iraq is coming at the hands of the Sunnis. Like I said before, they have the most to lose to democracy, after all.

If the United States was acting in a way that appeared to favor the Sunni minority, why do I have the uncanny feeling that you would be screaming about American pandering to Ba’athists. You would be on here ranting and raving about how Bush is orchestrating an apartheid in the Middle East.
For instance, I would love a decent explanation of why the Kurds are NOT trying to undermine the Iraqi state. Point me to the article showing that they are making efforts to expose torture by the Iraqi security forces...
What incentive WOULD the Kurds have to undermine the Iraqi state? People aren’t inclined to do things by asking "why not?" after all.

’Iraqi Kurdistan’ is virtually a nation apart as it is. They police themselves, and they live in peace. Why would they want to work against the democratization effort in Iraq? Perhaps it has a little to do with the fact that the last Sunni minority-rule government in Baghdad nerve gassed them and strafed them with Hind gunships. Why aid the enemy in Iraq and delay or destroy the establishment of a republican government which would deny the Ba’athists a reclamation of power.

I am standying by to hear your alternative ideas for governance in Iraq.
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
In fairness, Book, I’ve yet to see any effort on the part of any of the participants here to silence me on this blog. Indeed, what I have been witness to, is other people responding use of my right of free speech by exercising theirs. So it should be, since that’s how we boil ideas down to their essence; a little heat.

Some ideas require a little more heat than others.(See also; kitchen emergency exits for possible future use)

But let’s get something straight. A right of free speech has nothing whatever to do with whether not the owners and operators of this blog, or any other, shut me or anybody else off of the blog, or any other privately held medium, including radio and TV. All that ’free speech’ means is, the government cannot touch you for saying things, until such time as the line of treason has been crossed.

Nothing about it prevents me or anyone else, for jumping all over your backside because we think you screwed up.

For my own part, I’ve never done anything else than this; If I think somebody’s right I back them.... vigorously. If I think somebody’s wrong I use the flamethrower... vigorously.

That said; We certainly agree in the reading of treason in the quotes that you posted. That in the it certainly provides enough other examples on that site. So too, do many others, on Err America,As an example. Or as I mentioned before many of the things that come out of senator John Kerry’s mouth,and Howard Dean’s, can and certainly should be considered treason.

It is, I think, to our longer term detriment that we don’t consider them so.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
You guys want to play with treason, be my guest, but don’t try to pass it off as the intent of the post.
Fair enough. But understand, that the reason the subject line gets crossed in this case is none other than Crook himself.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Oh, Jon; Nearly forgot;
I was critical of Bush signing on to McCain’s ’torture’ bill.

I suppose to your mind, that doesn’t count.
(Shrug)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
If anyone honestly takes the Westboro Baptist Church seriously as a spokesperson for anything, they really need their head examined.

Those people preach hate at anything that moves and they pick some of the most controversial positions just for the media attention. I honestly have my doubts as to the sanity of their membership, but they are of course free to continue spewing their hate in every which direction while more rational minds laugh at them.
 
Written By: Stephen VanDyke
URL: http://hammeroftruth.com/
Stephen?
Your comment about Westboro bears on this discussion, how?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Bithead, I believe Stephen is referring to the photo at the top of the linked web page which supports Fred Phelps. It bears on this discussion as much as this thread bears on the post.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
PPPPpppfffffftthhhhh.....

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I’m not sure whether to be more disappointed that people like "Citizens against the Troops" actually exist, or that the inane ramblings of some little known extreme fringe group are held up representative of, well, anything but themselves.

 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
Good comment, Rosensteel.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I’m not sure whether to be more disappointed that people like "Citizens against the Troops" actually exist, or that the inane ramblings of some little known extreme fringe group are held up representative of, well, anything but themselves.

Agreed.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
So tell us, then; When may we expect to see large numbers of Democrats going after John Kerry with pitchforks tar and feathers for smearing the millitary;
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the --of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...Iraqis should be doing that."
No. Kerry gets praise from Democrats for his smear of our troops, and the Liebermans of the world get the bum’s rush for praising them. Does anyone recall him being taken to task for his smear?

Similarly, when will we see large numbers of Democrats punce on Howard Dean for his comments about how America will lose this war?

Same answer for both; I’ll tell you when... When hell freezes.

If... and I say if... there are good Democrats out there... and I have every reason to doubt there are... why are they holding silence?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
They’re aghast?
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Since it seems you might actually stick around for a debate this time, let me get this straight... You think, that by supporting representative government in Iraq, that we are the shills of the Shi’ite Arabs... because they are the majority in Iraq. By deduction then, perhaps you believe we should support the minority Sunnis? Would that not be flying in the face of democratization in the first place?
No government that practices torture, intends to enact Sharia law, or allies itself with Iran deserves our support. That you do not seem to understand this speaks more than I can say.

If a majority in Germany voted for the holocaust, would you have supported them?
If the United States was acting in a way that appeared to favor the Sunni minority, why do I have the uncanny feeling that you would be screaming about American pandering to Ba’athists. You would be on here ranting and raving about how Bush is orchestrating an apartheid in the Middle East.
The US should act in a way that ensures that the rights of all persons are not violated. My problem with wingers is they seem to have no problem with the Shia majority torturing and oppressing Sunnis. That the Sunnis may have been in charge previously makes zero difference.
What incentive WOULD the Kurds have to undermine the Iraqi state? People aren’t inclined to do things by asking "why not?" after all.
Oil. Money. Freedom.

Now you are just arguing to be obstructive.
’Iraqi Kurdistan’ is virtually a nation apart as it is. They police themselves, and they live in peace. Why would they want to work against the democratization effort in Iraq?
See my answer above. Also, the new government will likely be very religious, theocratic even. The Kurds are largely secular.

Again, you cannot be this dumb.
Why aid the enemy in Iraq and delay or destroy the establishment of a republican government which would deny the Ba’athists a reclamation of power.
Now you really are being stupid. They want their own country so they don’t have to live under the boot of Sunni or Shia oppression. Or anyone, for that matter.

See how being a Bush cult member gets you in trouble?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
notherbob2
If... and I say if... there are good Democrats out there... and I have every reason to doubt there are... why are they holding silence?
They’re aghast?
(Chuckle)
Yeah, you may have something there.

I know, for example, that words often utterly fail me when I’m watching MK in action.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Now you really are being stupid. They want their own country so they don’t have to live under the boot of Sunni or Shia oppression. Or anyone, for that matter.

Except that makes them a bigger problem for Turkey, who used to control the entire area.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
mkultra you can insult me all you want; it doesn’t make you look smarter, me look stupider, or your views seem more rational.
No government that practices torture, intends to enact Sharia law, or allies itself with Iran deserves our support. That you do not seem to understand this speaks more than I can say.

If a majority in Germany voted for the holocaust, would you have supported them?
Sharia? Alliance with Iran? The Holocaust? They haven’t voted for anything like that so far as I recall. We are giving them the opportunity for self determination. What you are saying, if I can decipher it correctly, is that democracy will never work in Iraq because they have insurrmountable ethnic divisions. Maybe, maybe not. I happen to think that the best hope for Iraq is democracy. Go figure.
The US should act in a way that ensures that the rights of all persons are not violated. My problem with wingers is they seem to have no problem with the Shia majority torturing and oppressing Sunnis. That the Sunnis may have been in charge previously makes zero difference.
Granted, and the best way to ensure the protection of individual rights is to put in place a constitutional republic. I think Iraqis should have equal rights protected by their constitution... which is what the October referendum did. That there are acts allegedly in violation of that, they need to be rectified. It’s not incentive to simply scrap the whole democratic effort altogether.

When did I excuse torture of anyone? Grow up, and think of some actual legitimate points to debate me on, instead of putting words into my mouth to set up your little strawman arguments.
Oil. Money. Freedom.

Also, the new government will likely be very religious, theocratic even. The Kurds are largely secular.
The Kurds, if they decide to, will break ranks from Iraq at a time of their own choosing. Now is certainly not that time from their perspective.

I KNOW that the Kurds certainly do not want the Sunni insurgents to take power. They have already suffered at the hands of Sunni Arab minority rule.
Why aid the enemy in Iraq and delay or destroy the establishment of a republican government which would deny the Ba’athists a reclamation of power.
Now you really are being stupid. They want their own country so they don’t have to live under the boot of Sunni or Shia oppression. Or anyone, for that matter.
If anything, I think the Kurds want to ’wait and see’. I doubt they will sit idle if the installation of a theocracy is attempted. And then of course, the one main thing preventing them from declaring autonomy or independence is the threat of invasion by Turkey.
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
I think Mr. Crook is a perfect representative example of the America of 2006, and your responses support my claim.
 
Written By: Spin Boldak
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider