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

 
Bin Laden joins the Murtha wing of the Democratic Party
Posted by: McQ on Friday, January 20, 2006

I guess you could interpret his message in some other way, but I'm having difficulty in doing so.

Divider

OBL:
But I wanted to talk to you because of the lies that have been given to you by your President Bush when he commented on the results of the opinion polls in your country that showed the majority was for the pull out of U.S. forces in Iraq.
John Murtha:

“They lost my trust when they did that, ... By not telling us, they lied.”

“The public turned against this war before I said it. The public is emotionally tied into finding a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is going to find out.”

OBL:
Our situation is getting better and better and your situation is getting worse and worse.
John Murtha:

“We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning.”

“There's no way we can win a war when you've lost not only the hearts and minds of the people (of Iraq), when you become the enemy.”

The army is "broken" and "worn out", living "hand-to-mouth" and "barely getting by".

“We’re overextended worldwide, ... We have too small an Army for the job that we’re doing, yet we can’t increase the size of the Army because it’s volunteer, and we can’t enlist anybody.”

OBL:
You [Bush] opposed this opinion by saying a pull out of U.S. forces would send the wrong message and that it is better to fight them in their land than they fight us in our land.
John Murtha:

"A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis".

OBL:
The result of the opinion polls are wise and Bush must follow it. Iraq has now become a point of attraction to all qualified people the mujahadeen who by the grace of God were able to infiltrate all the security measures that were taken by Coalition forces.
John Murtha:

“All of us want to support the president when he's at war, ... But you can't support him when he won't change directions, won't listen.”

“Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency, ... They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”

OBL:
So you see how Bush was misleading people. The opinion polls are for the pull out and it's important that opinion polls say the people didn't want to fight the Muslims in their land and they didn't want the Muslims to fight them in their land.
John Murtha:

Murtha said western Pennsylvania, where his district is located, is a "hotbed of patriotism and they've lost confidence in this effort."

"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy," Murtha said. "(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."

OBL:
I propose a long-term truce that will give the two sides stability and security.
John Murtha:

“[Now even the hawks say that Iraq is lost.] The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily, ... It is time to bring them home.”

Divider

So, if, as OBL is kicking kiester in Iraq, as he asserts, why ask for a truce? Why not finish us off?

Because, for al-Queda, the war is going much better on the US front than it is in Iraq and, if he can spin it right, he has all the help he needs to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. And if we're foolish enough to listen to people like Murtha, we can do the same ... in reverse.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn on OBL's tape:
Yeah, he sounds pretty desperate. And you know what is interesting to me? He basically has said don't believe this George W. Bush line that you need to come to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill us. That's just a waste of time. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and you'll save yourselves...he's essentially making Democrat talking points. He's saying you'll save yourselves billions of dollars. He didn't actually say that you could spend on reconstructing New Orleans or anything, or building that bridge in Alaska, but he was basically...you know, it's clear that he does spend some time studying opinion polls, and the talking points on cable news in the United States. And things are going very badly for him. He had four of his top guys killed in that bombing raid in Pakistan the other day, and you can tell that in actual fact, he hasn't really got much going for him, other than to bounce back some of these more ludicrous American media talking points.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
As long as you’re not questioning his patriotism....

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
As long as you’re not questioning his patriotism....
Who’se Murtha’s or Usama’s?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Note also that OBL offers the anti-war camp a new talking point:
The reason why we didn’t have any such an operation in the United States is not because of security difficulties...
Or: The only reason you haven’t had attacks on US soil is because we haven’t tried. Not only are you losing the WOT abroad, you’re losing it at home.

 
Written By: W
URL: http://
I guess you could interpret his message in some other way, but I’m having difficulty in doing so.
Riiiight,
So you’re saying that OBL’s comments are similar to some in the Democratic Party…
Ergo,
OBL is a Democrat?

Okay, I’ll forgive you, McQ, if you are having a “senior moment”,

But come on.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pogue, We might be saying that SOME Democrats, prominent ones, are in the Usama Party, rather than UBL being in the Democratic Party.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Just a case of great minds thinking alike, eh, PogueMahone?

After all, say whatever you want (so long as you say nothing good) about the Nazis, the Autobahn was a good idea ... same situation, eh?
 
Written By: Martin A. Knight
URL: http://
Is this sorta like the chicken and the egg...

Which came first.

Is UBL echoing the Democratic party, or is the Democratic party echoing UBL???

And what does it say when the enemy echos the "loyal opposition"???

Certainly shows that UBL knows how to wage 4th gen warfare.

If you are militarily outmatched, sap the political will of your enemy.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Pogue, We might be saying that SOME Democrats, prominent ones, are in the Usama Party, rather than UBL being in the Democratic Party.

Oh, come on, Joe. There are legitimate concerns over why we went to war and how it is currently being prosecuted. Although some in the Democratic Party regress into partisan nit-picking, some of those concerns are valid and worthy of debate.

Just because the ranting of a madman may mirror the legitimate concerns of others, does not dictate that the concerns in question are solely the product of madmen.

I also share some of the concerns of Murtha and other dissenters that happen to be in the Democratic Party. So does that mean that I’m in the Osama Party?

After all, say whatever you want (so long as you say nothing good) about the Nazis, the Autobahn was a good idea ... same situation, eh?

A non-sequitur Strawman. Not worthy of debate.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
After all, say whatever you want (so long as you say nothing good) about the Nazis, the Autobahn was a good idea ... same situation, eh?

insert italics. ↑
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pogue,

I don’t think this is about "legitimate concerns" over anything. The main point I took from McQ’s post is that the leader of our enemy is proposing the same war strategy as particular Americans (here, read Murtha) opposed to the current strategy. Now, how can it make sense, to anyone, to follow the tactical advice of the group you’re fighting? They are obviously advocating a strategy that will HELP them, and NOT help us! Agree with me or not, but Murtha’s strategy would be acquiescing to the enemy, as proven by the enemy’s own words.
 
Written By: Rebecca
URL: http://
McQ -

Usama is talking for the benefit of his followers. He is making the statement that progress is being made in the War for Terror. To his followers it plays as the great Usama is winning the war (as all can see by the willingness of the Americans to run) and in this moment he is offering a truce for the Americans to withdraw (probably like Saladin did back in...) that the barbaric Americans have rejected, thus ensuring them no mercy.

He is as likely to come out and say "our tactics are all wrong and we are losing" as Bush is. Everything he says is opposed to the President of the USAs actions so that when Hilary wins in 2008 and starts fighting, then Usama will miraculously join the Delay(?) wing of the Republican Party - he will continue to say he is winning.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Just because the ranting of a madman may mirror the legitimate concerns of others, does not dictate that the concerns in question are solely the product of madmen.

Well to get to that point you first have to agree the concerns are "legitmate", Pogue.

Bush lied ... (OBL: Bush lied)

Polls say ... (OBL: Polls say)

We’re losing (OBL "we’re winning")

We’re the enemy, broken and living hand-to-mouth (OBL: we’re taking a terrible toll in lives and material)

Oh, by the way ...let’s talk truce!

Heh ... you tell me where he got his talking points, Pogue, and also tell me how true and legitimate they are.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Agree with me or not, but Murtha’s strategy would be acquiescing to the enemy, as proven by the enemy’s own words.

Again,
THE RANTING OF A MADMAN. Who gives a shit what the motherfucker says. His ranting DOES NOT dictate what we debate about. Period.

Now, how can it make sense, to anyone, to follow the tactical advice of the group you’re fighting?

It’s called, disinformation. Your conclusions are no doubt, in the minds of our enemy, conceivable. We can’t trust ANYTHING the MoFo says, therefore his ranting should be discarded as antagonism or propaganda. The only thing useful from his sick diatribe is perhaps intelligence for his whereabouts.

To label OSB’s meaningless musings as in cahoots with a U.S. political party WITH WHICH HALF of the voting public has agreed with is nothing but more meaningless musings. And borderline disinformation and propaganda.

Got some of you riled up, didn’t it?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Heh ... you tell me where he got his talking points, Pogue, and also tell me how true and legitimate they are.

I don’t have to, McQ. I don’t regard talking points from a madman as in league with from where I form my opinion.

You want to talk about loyalty and patriotism, look no further, my friend. I’m all about the U. S. of fucking A. My paternal grandfather fought in WWI, my maternal grandfather in WWII, my uncle in Vietnam, and I don’t take their sacrifices lightly.

Also, what I don’t take lightly, is being put in the same category with a ruthless murderer just because I don’t agree with the current administrations foreign policy.

And fuck any and all of you if you do that.
(assholes)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
ASSUMING the tape is authentic (which is a big assumption), most Americans don’t put much stock in what OBL has to say, if only because he obviously has a reason to lie and deceive. Nothing he says can be taken at face value.

But what they do notice is that OBL is still out there, still running around, more than 4 years after 9/11. He is either in our client state, Afghanistan, or in our ally, Pakistan.

So most Americans wonder: Why they hell hasn’t Bush gotten this guy? Why is Bush so incompetent? He promised to get him, and he has yet to make good on his promise. The tape, if anything, reminds them that Bush has failed to get this murderer, this butcher.

But then there are the diehard Bush supporters (some might call them dead enders). They seem little concerned with the fact that OBL is still running around. They don’t seem to care that the man who is most responsible for orcherstrating the deaths of over 3000 Americans - all 6’5" of him - is still on the loose in so-called friendly countries. And as they worship at the feet of the man who has utterly failed to get OBL, they have the temerity to suggest that those who criticize Bush for failing to get OBL are the ones actually lending him aid and comfort.

Bush’s job as commander in chief is to kill our enemies. And he has failed to kill our number enemy. That is the lesson of the tape. Not the ravings of some lunatic.

Imagine for one moment that a Democratic President so utterly failed. He would have been impeached long ago.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
No, MK, It’s not authentic.
It was all set up by Karl Rove.

(Waiting for the laughing to stop)

The lesson taught by this tape is, our enemy is defeated.

From the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": (Scene 4)

[battle sounds]
[Black Knight defeats a worthless-piece-of-crap-knight]
ARTHUR: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir knight.
[pause]
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
[pause]
I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my Court of Camelot.
[pause]
You have proved yourself worthy; will you join me?
[pause]
You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.
ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir knight, but I must cross this bridge.
BLACK KNIGHT: Then you shall die.
ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: ’Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn’t.
ARTHUR: Well, what’s that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I’ve had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-
[Black Knight kicks Arthur in the head while he is praying]
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you’ve got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[Headbutts Arthur in the chest]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I’ll have your leg. Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I’ll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You’ll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come ’ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I’m invincible!
ARTHUR: You’re a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we’ll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!



So, back here in the real world, it appears life is imitating the comic art. After losing a bunch of his biggest operatives, and after having lost Afghanistan and Iraq, BinLaden’s now ready to be magnanimous and call for a truce.... in effect calling it a draw.

The purpose, of course is to obtain in truce, what he could not on the battlefield. Thing is, the attempt to look like he’s dealing from a position of strength doesn’t ring anywhere near true; the stupid bastard has no arms or legs left.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Pogue

Iraq is a done deal. The Iraqis are taking charge and at last the well meaning but confused Murtha can look forward to tilting at windmills from his vantage point in the solarium.

Meanwhile the adults are focused on the next real threat to the world-the mad mullahs and their pit bull Almondjeans. Why don’t you put some of your intellect to use devising solutions to this problem. No one is interested anymore in the worn out dem Iraq talking points of the last three years.

Bush has given the lead to the vaunted EU and their nuanced diplomacy which he is too dumb to appreciate and in two years they they have delivered broken locks on Tehran’s nuke facilities and scheduled a big meeting in Vienna in a couple of weeks to discuss the strongly worded letter. Even Jack Chirac has stepped up to the plate and warned the Iranians about attacking France. Of course the German press villified him. Seems to me that Bush has mangled this just about right and the Old Europeans will soon be pleading with the Crawford Cowboy to once again pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

How about some help? Regards
 
Written By: Abu Qa’Qa
URL: http://
THE RANTING OF A MADMAN. Who gives a shit what the motherfucker says. His ranting DOES NOT dictate what we debate about. Period.

No one said it did. But for some reason he thinks it is an effective argument. Go figure.

It’s called, disinformation.

Oh.

So what are the Murtha quotes called?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I don’t have to, McQ. I don’t regard talking points from a madman as in league with from where I form my opinion.

Oh. Well just for my clarification, of which madman are we speaking?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
ASSUMING the tape is authentic (which is a big assumption), most Americans don’t put much stock in what OBL has to say, if only because he obviously has a reason to lie and deceive. Nothing he says can be taken at face value.

Again, not the point. Not the point at all. You can keep avoiding the point all you wish, but, then, there it is staring you in the face.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The lesson taught by this tape is, our enemy is defeated.
Usama still has a lot in play. Suicide bombers are active in iraq, so there is obviously a recruitment base still available. Usama is not dead and is producing the tapes, so a command structure exists. Few financiers have been taken out for their funding prior to 911, so they likely still exist. Men, organisation and money equals operational capability. A terrorist strike in the USA now will be fatal to the credibility of anybody who claims Usama is defeated.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I do think it’s bad for the Democrats that OBL is aligning himself with their side of the debate. If the Dems were smart, they would address their "OBL using Dems talking points" problem in a way that would help them look strong on National Security.
 
Written By: Monica
URL: http://
THE RANTING OF A MADMAN. Who gives a shit what the motherfucker says. His ranting DOES NOT dictate what we debate about. Period.

No one said it did...
Yes, you did. Or at least you inferred it. That OSB decrees Democratic position is preferable. Therefore, internal debate must consider the ranting of a madman.
But for some reason he thinks it is an effective argument. Go figure.
Go figure? I already did. Last night I was watching Joe Scarborough when he said the same thing. And I thought, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that either Dale Franks or McQ will repeat similar.

If it is an effective argument, then it has taken little time to come to fruition. It’s easy to imagine the response you’ve expressed. “Osama prefers Democrats”. And you don’t think that OBL might of thought of that after the great lengths and risk of life to communicate he has taken?

If it was easy enough for me to assume that you would take that position; you don’t think that OBL is capable of the same?
You and others suggest that OBL’s position = Democrat position. That’s crap, and you know it. And that OBL takes que from the Democrats.

Bullshit.
And if it isn’t, well then we should have caught him a long time ago.

So what are the Murtha quotes called?
Umm. Opinions expressed?
Certainly not propaganda from Osama Bin Laden.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
unaha-closp:
Usama still has a lot in play. Suicide bombers are active in iraq, so there is obviously a recruitment base still available
That’s quite true. However, it’s also true that it has no bearing on whether not OBL has been defeated. A suicide bomber by definition is taking the action that he or she is, because they are desperate. And OBL’s situation is looking pretty desperate.
Yes, you did. Or at least you inferred it
No, Pouge... It is, rather, the reverse. At least at the moment.

This OBL... He may not know much about American life, but he knows this much: The public relations war here in the US is at least as important as the war that he’s fighting in Iraq. This is not a situation of the Democrats adopting the terrorist plants but rather OBL, who has adopted the talking points of the left. he knows the biggest friend that he has in the United States is the American left and the democratic party. That’s what that entire speech was about yesterday; snuggling up to those on the left.

And, far from being uncomfortable about it, the Kossacks are eating it up.

But watch closely. Mark this well. It will be a very short time indeed before the usual leftist crazies are screaming that we are to take him up on his offer of truce. After all, OBL really isn’t a bad guy, and all.


Monica:
If the Dems were smart, they would address their "OBL using Dems talking points" problem in a way that would help them look strong on National Security.
The Democrats at this stage are totally incapable of looking strong on defense and national security, without performing a full scale retreat on positions that they’ve entrenched themselves in. They’ll never do it.

MK:
if only because he obviously has a reason to lie and deceive. Nothing he says can be taken at face value.
So, since the Democrats are saying exactly the same thing he is, are we to infer that what the Democrats say, (yourself included, of course) can’t be taken at face value, either?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Also, what I don’t take lightly, is being put in the same category with a ruthless murderer just because I don’t agree with the current administrations foreign policy.
If that’s true, maybe its time for you to look at Osama’s message and do some serious introspection.

Because there’s a difference between disagreeing and being defeatist. There’s even more difference between disagreeing and salivating at Bush’s perceived failures.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Bithead -

Yea, I know. I was just allowing myself to indulge in some wishful thinking.
 
Written By: Monica
URL: http://
If that’s true, maybe its time for you to look at Osama’s message and do some serious introspection.

Fuck that.
I only look to OBL for two things… Jack and Shit,
And Jack left town.

Because there’s a difference between disagreeing and being defeatist.

Thanks, John. I’ll be sure to file that under, “no shit”.

There’s even more difference between disagreeing and salivating at Bush’s perceived failures.

And there’s a difference between one having valid concerns and one that is perceived as someone salivating over Bush’s failures.

But of course…

No shit.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Yes, you did. Or at least you inferred it. That OSB decrees Democratic position is preferable. Therefore, internal debate must consider the ranting of a madman.

Now you’re trying to put words in my mouth. I’m simply stunned at the similarity of the arguments. I don’t think there’s any question that OBL is borrowing from Murtha. I’d like to know why?

And I thought, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that either Dale Franks or McQ will repeat similar.

Imagine that. And I don’t even watch Joe Scarborough.

If it is an effective argument, then it has taken little time to come to fruition. It’s easy to imagine the response you’ve expressed. “Osama prefers Democrats”. And you don’t think that OBL might of thought of that after the great lengths and risk of life to communicate he has taken?

Obviously OBL thinks it’s an effective argument. Or at least you’d think he does since he’s repeating it. I just want to know why?

Umm. Opinions expressed?
Certainly not propaganda from Osama Bin Laden.


How do you tell the difference? After all, they’re saying the same things.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
OBL does show his intelligence and capabilities to work the politics angle incorporating insight and empathy for what half of Americans beleive. OBL is conveying this message into a cheap tape recorder while running for his life across the Middle East. OBL has no office, no pentagon, no studio, no speech writers, no security. Seems pretty impressive.




Then again, as long as OBL has access to a tv, access to Murtha’s comments, access to the rants/ polls of the American-left, and access to Al-Jazeera, then what else does he need?




OBL’s "waging war" against the US is a kin to telecommuting for work!!
 
Written By: Joseph
URL: http://
THE RANTING OF A MADMAN.


And yet, this latest terrorist pep talk is functionally identical to the "patriotic dissent" that we keep hearing from those opposed to the war in Iraq, from leading Democrat politicians down to garden variety lefty blog trolls. The non-dissenters have been pointing out for a while that this kind of "dissent" is untrue, unhelpful, damaging to our morale, and encouraging to our enemies.


I look forward to the campaign commericals showing Osama and Murtha (or Pelosi, or Dean, or Kennedy, or Kerry, etc.) in a split screen format, each spewing the same anti-U.S., pro-terrorist, defeatist propaganda. I agree that most people will see this tripe as the ranting of a madman, regardless of whether it’s coming out of the mouth of Osama or one of the Democrat leading lights.

 
Written By: Shad
URL: http://
Again, not the point. Not the point at all. You can keep avoiding the point all you wish, but, then, there it is staring you in the face.
To the extent you have a point, it is ridiculous, hackish, petty, trite, O’Reilyesque, Fox-like, juvenile and whacked. More fundamentally, the implicit premise of your point is that if our enemy adopts for propaganda purposes the criticisms of the American political party out of power, it shows that the political party is pandering to the enemy. Do you really believe that? Really? And if you do, you are essentially saying that no matter how badly our president screws up, one can never criticize him or her, because to do so would aid those who seek to harm us. After all, those who seek to harm us could always adopt the same criticisms.

My most basic complaint with you, McQ, is not your political positions. My problem is with the more fundamental premises on which you base your arguments. The most dangerous premise is the idea that criticism of government is treasonous. Now, you believe that you can distinguish between responsible and irresponsible dissent. You have said as much. But that distinction is so meaningless, so standardless, and so subject to abuse, it makes Soviet law look meaningful.

In other words, dissent does not equal treason. Until you really grasp that, and I MEAN REALLY GRASP THAT IN A WAY YOU DO NOT NOW, you will continue to produce this nonsense.

As for OBL, he is still out there. Bush has not killed him. You are ok with that, just like the rest of the wingers who comment here. I am not. I want him dead and I am willing to criticize the government stooges who have not killed him yet. You have given those same stooges a pass. That is the difference between you and me.




 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Just imagine a world where only Lieberman types were our loyal opposition.

Would Osama Bin Laden have sent the same message? My guess is NO. NO. NO.

He is echoing Democrat talking points, because if the USA were to follow those, it would be to his advantage.

Dems shouldn’t feel like people are saying they are "allied" to Al Qaeda, but should be very, very troubled that their positions apparently match the interests of Al Qaeda enough or would provide some sort of benefit to them that OBL is willing to spout them.

Let’s be brutally honest: OBL did not enjoy reading this speech. He’d rather be extolling holy warriors with Arabic poetic verse and preaching fire and brimstone than repeating Daily Kos positions. But he’s hurting now and has no choice. So, by that measure at least the left has caused him some discomfort.

Just wait until he start has to endorsing candidates for the Democratic primaries for 2008. And yeah, he will probably have to find some way to do that - must be tough speeches to write. It might be an interesting excercise to imagaine you are Bin Laden’s speech writer. How would you torpedo Clinton and assist, say, Kucinich, but not in a way to really anger the American public?

I’d probably bring up Clinton bombing Sudanese aspirin factories and Iraqi baby formula plants. That’s my prediction for 2008 election tapes from Bin Laden




 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Now you’re trying to put words in my mouth. I’m simply stunned at the similarity of the arguments. I don’t think there’s any question that OBL is borrowing from Murtha. I’d like to know why?

(sigh) Fine. If your desire is to psychology examine the ranting of a madman,…oh well, I guess.
I’d like to know why one would transcribe OBL along with opinions of the opposition if one’s intent was NOT to consider the RANTING OF A MADMAN.
Umm. Opinions expressed?
Certainly not propaganda from Osama Bin Laden.


How do you tell the difference? After all, they’re saying the same things.
Umm. Because one is the opinion of a decorated war veteran and honorable member of the UNITED STATES CONGRESS and the other is the ranting of a murdering psychopath.
That’s easy, McQ (yeah, I knew it was a “senior moment”)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
To the extent you have a point, it is ridiculous, hackish, petty, trite, O’Reilyesque,

Of course it is, MK. That’s because its uncomfortable, revealing and rather damning not to mention fairly convincing when one again reviews the argument of irresponsible debate and it’s effect, huh?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I’d like to know why one would transcribe OBL along with opinions of the opposition if one’s intent was NOT to consider the RANTING OF A MADMAN.

Simply a matter of compare and contrast. Seems to have upset you Pogue.

Umm. Because one is the opinion of a decorated war veteran and honorable member of the UNITED STATES CONGRESS and the other is the ranting of a murdering psychopath.

But they’re saying the same thing. So why is one credible and the other isn’t (as you might be able to tell, I don’t find your counter argument very credible either)?

That’s easy, McQ (yeah, I knew it was a “senior moment”)

That’s twice now Pogue. It was faintly amusing the first time. Now go take your blood pressure meds.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
bithead -
That’s quite true. However, it’s also true that it has no bearing on whether not OBL has been defeated. A suicide bomber by definition is taking the action that he or she is, because they are desperate. And OBL’s situation is looking pretty desperate.
A suicide bomber acting alone is a sign of desperation. A coordinated campaign using hundreds of suicide bombings is not.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
McQ has made an excellent point with this article. There are the quotes. Read ‘em and weep. It was amusing to watch the lefties howl and then try to refute the charge with their feckless protestations. They want there to be a difference between a Democrat spouting treason and defeatism and OBL saying exactly the same thing. The sum total of their arguments? “There is a difference even if we cannot say what that difference is.” Their comments are laughable.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
“There is a difference even if we cannot say what that difference is.”
The difference is not what they say but why they say it - the reason Usama has for wanting US forces out of Iraq is completely opposed to the reason the Democrats have for wanting US forces out of Iraq.

Democrats are saying get out of Iraq because it is hindering the fight against terrorists like Mr bin Laden. The Democrats call for a withdrawl of forces from Iraq so those forces can be redeployed to combat terrorism - in another way - using an immediate withdrawl as a strategic move that will assist in winning the WoT.

Mr bin Laden is saying accept defeat, withdraw out of Iraq and quit. Mr bin Laden believes that a withdrawl by America will be a meaningful victory for his cause, that will hasten the day America will quit completely the WoT.

The Democrats are not saying "pull out of Iraq so that we can surrender to Usama" and Usama is not saying "reposition your forces so that you can destroy my terrorist network".

 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
In other words, dissent does not equal treason.

But that doesn’t mean they are disjoint sets. Dissent certainly can be treason. Treason is a version of dissent.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
The Democrats call for a withdrawl of forces from Iraq so those forces can be redeployed to combat terrorism

Oh? Where else are we going to use military forces to combat terrorism? Won’t we have to invade somewhere else to do that?

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Where else are we going to use military forces to combat terrorism?
That is the big question, where can they be more effective? Perhaps one of the Democrats here will tell you.



My personal favorites are Syria and Saudi, but I don’t think thats on the cards.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
If you do happen to believe that eviscerating Al qaeda will be easier with troops deployed elsewhere then you hold views that dissent from current strategy and find yourself agreeing with Mr bin Laden wrt moving forces out of Iraq.
But that doesn’t mean they are disjoint sets. Dissent certainly can be treason. Treason is a version of dissent.
It’ll be a judgement call.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Oh please, PogueMahone, unoha-closp and the crazed ultra-moonbat ...

If two people, X and Y, both say "2 + 2 = 4", there is no way one can be wrong and the other can be right. They’re either both wrong or both right. Murtha and Osama are saying and advocating the exact same thing. It matters not what they’re maotives are.

Both are saying America is losing in Iraq and Al Qaeda is winning. Both are saying American troops are defeated, broken and worn out. Both are advocating the immediate ceding of the field to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Murtha (even if he were a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor), most of the Democrat base and Osama are of the same mind on Iraq. Bush, the GOP and the overwhelming majority of the troops serving in Iraq share a different opinion.

Deal with it. Try this slogan: "Our Iraq policy is so wise even Osama agrees with us. Vote Democrat."
 
Written By: Martin A. Knight
URL: http://
There are the quotes. Read ‘em and weep. It was amusing to watch the lefties howl and then try to refute the charge with their feckless protestations.

Read them and weep!?! Weep over what, I ask. Verbal garbage spewed by a demon??? (go on,… if it amuses you,…think of the demon I’m referring to as Murtha and not Osama…sick partisan hacks!)

That’s my point, I didn’t read them. The remarks have no place with which from where I form my opinion. I don’t care if Osama says the sky is blue…I’m not taking his word into consideration. Period.

Putting those useless remarks next to remarks made by patriotic, concerned citizens and servants of this country serves only one purpose. To ridicule, defame, and slander dissenting opinions. That’s all it does.
To me, you can take OBL’s useless remarks and compare them, contrast them, or shove them up your own ass…and you’ll still have the same useless remarks from a madman. Normally, playing these little “gotcha” games from partisan hacks bothers me nay, but I draw the line at being put in the same camp as a homicidal thug and sworn enemy of me, my country, my fellow citizens, and ALL of my forefathers and their forefathers. Not now, not ever.

BTW, Murtha’s remarks have no high place with which from where I form my opinion, although I share SOME of what he and other dissenters say. And to compare his remarks to that of a murdering madman is to compare me to murdering madman. I realize that to do so behind the anonymous glare of a monitor is easier done than to someone’s face. I caution those who might do the latter, especially if that someone is me.

Simply a matter of compare and contrast. Seems to have upset you Pogue.

Damn straight it upsets me. But what surprises me, it that you somehow don’t get that comparing patriot dissenters to a raving homicidal lunatic is somehow acceptable in polite society.
(sorry ‘bout the “senior moment” thing. I’ve got a bad case of the Wankers. And being compared to OBL is just bad medicine.)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"If two people, X and Y, both say "2 + 2 = 4", there is no way one can be wrong and the other can be right. They’re either both wrong or both right. Murtha and Osama are saying and advocating the exact same thing. It matters not what they’re maotives are"

That seems to be the whole theme of the discussion here, the implication that their motives are the same.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Again, their motives are of course different.

The very very worst anyone would say about the Murtha-ites is that they are saying things for domestic political points, are wrong, and are defeatist. That’s a far cry from saying things specifically to help AQ.

Osama is exploiting such feelings. It’s different. Osama doesn’t realy want to make peace and open up a starbucks for the handicapped in Kabul.

But it still sucks for the left to realize what they think will work and make the world better seems to be very agreeable to OBL...which probably means they are wrong.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Damn straight it upsets me. But what surprises me, it that you somehow don’t get that comparing patriot dissenters to a raving homicidal lunatic is somehow acceptable in polite society.
(sorry ’bout the "senior moment" thing. I’ve got a bad case of the Wankers. And being compared to OBL is just bad medicine.)
The arguments are what we’re talking about Pogue, not who said them. If they’re fine for one, why aren’t the fine for another. Either the argument is a valid one or it’s not. Who says it shouldn’t matter.

Either Bush lied or he didn’t. Either you find the polls a compelling reason to leave or you don’t. Either we’re losing (and they’re winning) or we’re not.

You continue to want to defend these arguments because of who said them (or not) and not on the legitimacy or illegitmacy of the arguments themselves.

And claiming on the one had they are the ’arguments of a patriot’ and on the other the "propaganda of a madman" isn’t very convincing.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
A suicide bomber acting alone is a sign of desperation. A coordinated campaign using hundreds of suicide bombings is not.
Oh, yes it is. They perform those kind of attacks because they know there is no other way to create any damage... and even in that they’re able to create damage, they know there’s no military victory in it.

Tell me, what Army.... and what mob, for that matter, has ever won a war, that employed such tactics?

Don’t bother, I’ll save you the trouble: None.

Now... that said... I turn our attention to the other half of the scenario; The political end... where our own leftists start feeling symapthy for those poor suicide bombers, and arrange by way of political pressure to bargain away at the ’peace talks’ what the attackers could never gain on the battlefield.

Which, is precisely what BinLaden was about the other day... and why his mumbling sounded like it’d been issued by the DNC. He’s got freinds there, and knows it... and he’s capitalising on that. BinLaden knows he’s lost on the battlefield. Indeed, he’s always known it... even before 9/11. However, combined with the political pressure of his Demacrat freinds, he has a chance of winning; it’s his only chance, in fact.

His winning or not depends utterly on what the willing idiots in the DNC do now.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Precisely my point; that "2 + 2 = 4" is a fact irrespective of whether a PhD in Mathematics said, or the insane man in the asylum down the street.

Both Murtha and Bin Laden say that US troops are broken and losing. Bin Laden finds Murtha’s arguments to be valid and echoed them to the world.

And if Osama’s opinion on an issue is worth shit, and he shares the same opinion on the same issue as X, then X opinion must also be worth shit.

Capiche?
 
Written By: Martin A. Knight
URL: http://
That seems to be the whole theme of the discussion here, the implication that their motives are the same.
Not at all. I’ve said that their arguments are the same. Why does OBL feels compelled to use that argument? He obviously thinks it is one which helps his cause. Why?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The difference is not what they say but why they say it - the reason Usama has for wanting US forces out of Iraq is completely opposed to the reason the Democrats have for wanting US forces out of Iraq.
But the difference in this case doesn’t matter. No matter what the motives are behind Democrats wanting our troops out of Iraq, if that goal is exactly what Al Qaeda wants us to do, then that is the wrong thing to do. Why won’t the Democrats see that?
Damn straight it upsets me. But what surprises me, it that you somehow don’t get that comparing patriot dissenters to a raving homicidal lunatic is somehow acceptable in polite society
It’s bitter medicine to swallow, Pogue, but now you know how it feels when Republicans get compared to Nazis and Klansmen.

I’m happy to stipulate that the motives of the Democrats are patrotic, but you must admit that if AQ wants us to do the what the Democrats want us to do, then perhaps the Dems need to rethink their options.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Simple;

Because he considers what the Democrats are arguing for, to be helpful to his obtaining victory.

Like I keep saying Bruce... most recently about Gore... and about Book, before that... when such people are arguing for your position, it’s time to seriously re-examine that position.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Like I keep saying Bruce... most recently about Gore... and about Book, before that... when such people are arguing for your position, it’s time to seriously re-examine that position.
And like I keep saying Eric, the words and ideas stand on their own regardless of who’s saying them ... and this is a perfect example.

You can’t have it both ways.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Nor can you.
If you’re going to insist on that argument, then none of what Gore said is true, given that so much of it’s rooted in the same muck what BinLaden came up with.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
If you’re going to insist on that argument, then none of what Gore said is true, given that so much of it’s rooted in the same muck what BinLaden came up with.
What part of "the words stand on their own" don’t you understand and why are you trying to pretend that you disagreed with that previously?

Gore’s baggage is irrelevant to the argument (and that was the point I made then and am making now) and that’s something you don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If two people, X and Y, both say "2 + 2 = 4", there is no way one can be wrong and the other can be right. They’re either both wrong or both right. Murtha and Osama are saying and advocating the exact same thing. It matters not what they’re maotives are.
No. 2 guys are having a fight in a parking lot. 1st guy tries to ram 2nd guys head into a wall to win the fight. 2nd guy tries to ram his head own into a wall to win the fight. They are opposed to each other but they both advocate the same action. I think one is right and the other one wrong.
Not at all. I’ve said that their arguments are the same. Why does OBL feels compelled to use that argument? He obviously thinks it is one which helps his cause. Why?
Plainly stated because Usama bin Laden agrees with George W. Bush in thinking an American presence in Iraq is important. Both Bush and bin Laden believe that Iraq is a drag down fight where they are pounding on the other guy. George wants Usama to withdraw so that he can build democracy and freedom that will instigate wholesale change in the Middle East, Usama wants George to withdraw so that he can take a big step towards an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq that will change the Middle East.

Murtha doesn’t think Iraq is important. Murtha calls occupying Iraq akin to ramming Americas own head into brick wall. That America would be better to stop it and do something different. (The something different is the problem, he does not say what he would like to have done with 150,000 soldiers and leaves himself open to the charge that withdrawing them would be just so they could be sitting on their ass in America - which no one thinks is going to help. Now he might have a different plan and brilliant plan for utilising them, but he hasn’t said.)

Personally - as it stands I favor Bush, but if Murtha can provide a better way of utilising the 150,000 troops then...
No matter what the motives are behind Democrats wanting our troops out of Iraq, if that goal is exactly what Al Qaeda wants us to do, then that is the wrong thing to do. Why won’t the Democrats see that?
The Dems think Usama is mistaken and that ending American presence in Iraq is ultimately more harmful to Usama. If the enemy is committed to a flawed plan, then is it better to let them carry it out to their ultimate destruction or forcibly prevent them from make their mistake?
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Tell me, what Army.... and what mob, for that matter, has ever won a war, that employed such tactics?
Tamil Tigers - now rule in their homeland, they were under Sinahlese rule.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
why are you trying to pretend that you disagreed with that previously?
I’m not; I’m saying that if your going to apply that standard equally, then nothing of what Gore said is valid.
Gore’s baggage is irrelevant to the argument (and that was the point I made then and am making now) and that’s something you don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
Quite correct; I don’t. The reason is simple; Gore’s baggage is the very basis of his position.

I’ve read Gore’s speech on several occasions since it was released in text form. The idea is you say Gore was expressing, were nested in some very serious nonsense. The result is to come to the stand you have, you have to do some very serious cherry picking up his speech. It troubles me that I’m seeing so little in the way of qualification about what he said from those ostensibly agreeing with Gore. I also find certain omissions troubling. for example;

Don’t misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is real and the concerted efforts by terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction does indeed create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power conferred by the Constitution to the any President to take unilateral action when necessary to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat. And it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.
That’s really the bottom line in this entire situation. I’m amazed the slime ball like Al Gore had the integrity to even mention this point. This paragraph alone invalidates the entire speech. However; Even Gore himself tries to back out of it with a "Yeah, but", Which means he says it, but he doesn’t really believe it.

And you seemingly ignored this passage and this point, altogether.

Here it is; I am forced by logic to take Gore’s speech as a whole.. and add it to Gore’s history, and come to a conclusion about what he saying based on all that information.

Words don’t speak for themselves. People speak. (And, occasionally, computers do too. ... Chuckle) You seem willing to attempt a separation of what the man is about, and what he’s saying. I’m not willing to do so because I don’t think the two can be separated, in the end. They are not two separate things. Back to the topic, then.

The main thrust of what the Gore came up with the other day, what BinLaden came up with a couple of days before, and what the Democrats are been coming up with since before we invaded Iraq, are one in the same. This point and not be qualified, nor danced around. The (rather lame) responses from the usual suspects in this thread demonstrate that clearly. They are, therefore, equally invalid.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Tamil Tigers - now rule in their homeland, they were under Sinahlese rule.
If you think politics didn’t enter into that situation, you’d better reread that history.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Smart patriots did not need OBL to know that Murtha was mistaken (that is the very best face I can put on his remarks). Some Democrats are so anxious to jump on any idea that constitutes “NotBush” that they endorse the worst kind of folly if it appears to be a way to elect a Democrat. The Democrats who underwrote Murtha were idiots before OBL said one word. Ignorant dolts that they are, they ignored the vilification that loyal Americans heaped on them and encouraged their followers to do the same. Now, thanks to OBL, the party’s over and Murtha’s position has been certified for the travesty that it is. Smart lefties who fell for Murtha’s pitch will now be asking themselves “What was I thinking?” We have seen in the comments on this site what the others are doing.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
If you think politics didn’t enter into that situation, you’d better reread that history.


So you do understand suicide bombing to be a tactic that, when used as part of a strategy including politics, can win. This provides a validation for suicide bombing, that may convince a functional organisation to use the tactic.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I’m not; I’m saying that if your going to apply that standard equally, then nothing of what Gore said is valid.
What standard do you think I’m applying? I’ve pointed out the similarities of the argument and then asked why Pogue finds one to the the "opinion of a patriot" and the other to be the "raving of a madman" when they’re the same argument.
Quite correct; I don’t. The reason is simple; Gore’s baggage is the very basis of his position.
Irrelevant. The issue is either legitmate or it isn’t. You keep claiming it’s illegitimate because of the speaker, as does Pogue (in this case). That’s not an argument.
I’m amazed the slime ball like Al Gore had the integrity to even mention this point. This paragraph alone invalidates the entire speech. However; Even Gore himself tries to back out of it with a "Yeah, but", Which means he says it, but he doesn’t really believe it.

And you seemingly ignored this passage and this point, altogether.


Not at all. Who says what doesn’t matter. What matters is the legitimacy of the argument.

While it is apparent you agree with the portion of his argument you’ve highlighted, you apparently disagree with his "yeah, but." If, as you claim, his arguments are illegitimate simply because he’s a hypocritical slime ball, then how can you agree with the highlighted portion?

You can’t have it both ways.
Words don’t speak for themselves. People speak.
Yeah, and they speak words which usually are formed into ideas and concepts. And we consider those ideas and concepts and determine, to ourselves, their legitimacy or illegitimacy. Who says them isn’t particularly important.
You seem willing to attempt a separation of what the man is about, and what he’s saying. I’m not willing to do so because I don’t think the two can be separated, in the end. They are not two separate things.
But you’ve already done that with the portion of his speech you highligted and agreed with. I assume you found that acceptable because it mirrors your thoughts on the subject. If you can’t separate the man from his words, then shouldn’t you disagree with everything he says simply because of who he is?

You say his whole speech is invalid because of who he is, yet there you are agreeing with a portion of it.


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
So you do understand suicide bombing to be a tactic that, when used as part of a strategy including politics, can win.
Apparently, you can read the remainder of my comment, because it addresses tha issue head on;
Now... that said... I turn our attention to the other half of the scenario; The political end... where our own leftists start feeling symapthy for those poor suicide bombers, and arrange by way of political pressure to bargain away at the ’peace talks’ what the attackers could never gain on the battlefield.

Which, is precisely what BinLaden was about the other day... and why his mumbling sounded like it’d been issued by the DNC. He’s got freinds there, and knows it... and he’s capitalising on that. BinLaden knows he’s lost on the battlefield. Indeed, he’s always known it... even before 9/11. However, combined with the political pressure of his Demacrat freinds, he has a chance of winning; it’s his only chance, in fact.

His winning or not depends utterly on what the willing idiots in the DNC do now.
Or perhaps I should use smaller words?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
While it is apparent you agree with the portion of his argument you’ve highlighted, you apparently disagree with his "yeah, but." If, as you claim, his arguments are illegitimate simply because he’s a hypocritical slime ball, then how can you agree with the highlighted portion?
Simple; I’m including the reason he said it. That reason is simply he’s trying to block any criticism of the remainder of his comments... Comments which are completely out of character with what I highlighted. That’s a vital clue.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
His winning or not depends utterly on what the willing idiots in the DNC do now.
Your whole point is utterly contingent on a weak Usama/Al Qaeda.

You were saying that a sign of Usama/Al Qaeda weakness is using suicide bombers. Yet here we are agreeing that suicide bombers can be used to achieve victory. So it may be a legitimate tactical choice of a relatively strong Al Qaeda.

If Al Qaeda is strong, it is because the WoT is not having the desired effect. If Al Qaeda is strong, then a redeployment of forces to attack in a different manner may hurt Al Qaeda more or it may not. To redeploy requires a withdrawl from Iraq, even though this is what Al Qaeda wants America to do, if it were to result in the destruction of Al Qaeda then it might be beneficial to do so. Usama thinks an American redeployment away from Iraq will help him win the war - he might be wrong.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
You were saying that a sign of Usama/Al Qaeda weakness is using suicide bombers. Yet here we are agreeing that suicide bombers can be used to achieve victory. So it may be a legitimate tactical choice of a relatively strong Al Qaeda.
No, I’m saying Al Qaeda is weak, and is taking therefore the only option open to it, save surrender.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I should add; the only way Al Qaeda can win now, is if we take the advice of the Democrats and fold. That is precisely why that tape contained DNC talking points, delivered in Farsi.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
The Dems think Usama is mistaken and that ending American presence in Iraq is ultimately more harmful to Usama. If the enemy is committed to a flawed plan, then is it better to let them carry it out to their ultimate destruction or forcibly prevent them from make their mistake?
Bad analogy. Bin Laden is advocating that we take the action, not that he do so. Come back when you have a better response.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
The Dems think Usama is mistaken and that ending American presence in Iraq is ultimately more harmful to Usama. If the enemy is committed to a flawed plan, then is it better to let them carry it out to their ultimate destruction or forcibly prevent them from make their mistake?
Bad analogy. Bin Laden is advocating that we take the action, not that he do so. Come back when you have a better response
If the Democrats as loyal opposition see the Republican Party has committed America to a flawed plan, then is it better to let them carry it out this plan or forcibly prevent them from making their mistake?

When bin Laden asks you to withdraw he might be making a strategic stuff up - the Dems believe he is. Both Al Qaeda and the American Dems belive that American withdraw will help defeat the other - either Democrats are wrong or Usama is wrong.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
BIN LADEN JOINS THE MURTHA WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
QandO title circa December 8 1941?

HITLER JOINS THE CHURCHILL WING OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

By declaring his wish that the USA becomes involved in the war Hitler is mirroring calls made by the leader of the Consevatives...
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
unaha-closp, I gotta tell ya... that is probably the most scrambled parallel I’ve seen anybody offer myself included, In all the years I’ve been on line, from the BBS days in the late 70’s forward... That’s right... 110 baud dial up. And, given that some of mine have been fairly well scrambled over that time, that’s really saying something.

I stand, in humble awe, at a master.

(Shake of the head)
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"if that goal is exactly what Al Qaeda wants us to do, then that is the wrong thing to do. Why won’t the Democrats see that?"
The solution is obvious; we just do the exact opposite of whatever our enemies say. Think of all the money we can save by getting rid of all those expensive advisers and generals. And think of all the headaches we can avoid by not having to think.

"If you think politics didn’t enter into that situation, you’d better reread that history"
War and terrorism are political acts, so of course politics was involved.

"BinLaden knows he’s lost on the battlefield"
The battlefield is not just a place where soldiers shoot at each other, it includes civilians and their opinions and morale.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
CODA:

This post is warmed over McCarthyism. If we were commenting in that era, you can bet the house that the Bitheads and the Notherbobs of the world would have gotten behind the junior sentator from Wisconsin. At long last, they seem to have lost their sense of decency.

As for Bin Laden, he is still out there. Bush has not caputred killed him. And wingers seem to love him in spite of - or more likely because of - this.

Why? Because wingers care more about Bush than the good old USA. Always have. And Bush needs OBL more than OBL needs Bush.

If I were OBL, I would want to keep the Republicans in office. After all, after four years, they still haven’t killed him. Moreover, OBL is obviously not the suicidal type. So why would he want to upset the status quo.
What standard do you think I’m applying? I’ve pointed out the similarities of the argument and then asked why Pogue finds one to the the "opinion of a patriot" and the other to be the "raving of a madman" when they’re the same argument.


If a southerner and a northerner had both told Lee that Pickett’s charge was foolish, would they have been wrong? No. Would the southerner have been a traitor to his cause? No.

Would McQ have defended Lee for ordering the charge? Hell yes.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
If the Democrats as loyal opposition see the Republican Party has committed America to a flawed plan, then is it better to let them carry it out this plan or forcibly prevent them from making their mistake?
No, of course it is not better to let them carry it out. But that’s not the issue here.
When bin Laden asks you to withdraw he might be making a strategic stuff up - the Dems believe he is. Both Al Qaeda and the American Dems belive that American withdraw will help defeat the other - either Democrats are wrong or Usama is wrong.
If you are doing exactly what your enemy wants you to do, then that’s prima facie evidence you’re doing the wrong thing. Do you have any evidence to suggest the Dems are right on this one?


As for Bin Laden, he is still out there. Bush has not caputred killed him. And wingers seem to love him in spite of - or more likely because of - this. The cheap shot aside, this is a war on terrorism, not a war on Osama bin Laden. OBL is just one guy, he’s not the embodiment of terrorism. In fact, if OBL were captured tomorrow, you and a host of other Dems would be crying out that the war is over, so we should bring all our troops home.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Simple; I’m including the reason he said it. That reason is simply he’s trying to block any criticism of the remainder of his comments... Comments which are completely out of character with what I highlighted. That’s a vital clue.
And my question is simple as well ... do you or do you not agree with what Gore said in the quote you cited?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If a southerner and a northerner had both told Lee that Pickett’s charge was foolish, would they have been wrong? No.
Specious argument. It assumes Murtha and OBL are right.

All evidence I’ve seen directly argues against that.

This is more akin to the anti-war effort during Vietnam and their characterization of a winning effort as a losing effort.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/

As for Bin Laden, he is still out there. Bush has not caputred killed him. And wingers seem to love him in spite of - or more likely because of - this.

Why? Because wingers care more about Bush than the good old USA. Always have. And Bush needs OBL more than OBL needs Bush.

[...]


If a southerner and a northerner had both told Lee that Pickett’s charge was foolish, would they have been wrong? No. Would the southerner have been a traitor to his cause? No.

But the northerner would have been a traitor to his cause.

Are you stating that Osama is a traitor to his cause? If so, why are you so keen to get rid of him?

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
“Because wingers care more about Bush than the good old USA. Always have. And Bush needs OBL more than OBL needs Bush.”
This is what passes for learned discussion in the liberal cocoon. Note the unpatriotic sneer about the USA. And the meaningless slogan. How much does OBL need Bush? Therefore, even if Bush needed OBL more, as the slogan suggests, the difference in need is meaningless. No matter. Sneering about America and meaningless slogans have become mantras to progressives, despite their lack of any content or applicability. This whole thread is an example of lefties defending the indefensible. Aren’t they ridiculous? Yes, pointing out their fatuousness does seem a bit indecent, like drunken guests who disturb others at a party, what is one to do with them?
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Reading about the kerfuffle at the WaPo and about Chris Matthews comparing OBL and Michael Moore, it appears that the Big Lie created in the liberal cocoon is starting to break down. When liberal icons like the WaPo and Matthews are attacked by the faithful as deviationists... well, where is a Murrow when you need him?
As liberals gear up for the 2006 elections they are surveying a mostly-empty arsenal of issues that they can win on. Having committed their oil tanker to a course of “Bush was wrong about everything” they cannot turn it fast enough to “Well, OK, he was right about some things, but we can do them better.” And a good portion of the faithful are still mired in “Pay no attention to those facts over there behind the green curtain, Bush is still wrong.”
That, plus the fact that they don’t understand that the Independent’s support for Bush at the polls is not really “for” Bush, but “against” the feckless Democrats.
Until they start moving away from their far left base and toward the centrist wing of their party I don’t see that changing. Just look at the bile heaped on Lieberman, a guy I could vote for in a NYT minute.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
The battlefield is not just a place where soldiers shoot at each other, it includes civilians and their opinions and morale.
Not particularly. At the least, war that is not terrorism does not depend quite so heavily on the political angle, as does what we’re involved with now.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
. In fact, if OBL were captured tomorrow, you and a host of other Dems would be crying out that the war is over, so we should bring all our troops home.
Quite true, they would be. However once the terrorism kept going on in his name once he was captured, I suspect that the cry would be that bush lied to us and miss identified OBL is the central problem, and focused us on the wrong guy.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"As for Bin Laden, he is still out there"

The FBI has a long list of criminals that are still out there, ones that are easier to find than someone hiding in a foreign country.

"If you are doing exactly what your enemy wants you to do, then that’s prima facie evidence you’re doing the wrong thing"

Assuming, of course, that your enemy is correct and you are not.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
...they don’t understand that the Independent’s support for Bush at the polls is not really “for” Bush, but “against” the feckless Democrats.
Until they start moving away from their far left base and toward the centrist wing of their party I don’t see that changing. Just look at the bile heaped on Lieberman, a guy I could vote for in a NYT minute.


Amen. This is the problem for the "Murtha wing of the Democratic Party". I bet that if we only counted votes of those that voted "for" someone, Kerry probably would have won easily. Mine was definitely an against vote. I had hoped and prayed that Lieberman would get the nomination. My prayers weren’t answered, so I’m just a winger.
 
Written By: Wilky
URL: http://
I don’t think that qando is one of the sites (if there are any) that are saying that liberals support terrorists by pointing out the fact that OBL is using liberal spin in his remarks. Liberals are upset that an internet magazine would make such comparisons. Well, yeah, liberals do make many remarks that, ugh, do support terrorists, but liberals don’t actually support terrorists. Ugh, not really support them.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
As for Bin Laden, he is still out there. Bush has not captured killed him. And wingers seem to love him in spite of - or more likely because of - this.

Why? Because wingers care more about Bush than the good old USA. Always have. And Bush needs OBL more than OBL needs Bush.
More and more it becomes apparent that one of the biggest problems we have is one of communication. Gitmo is a gulag; Roberts and Alito are extremists; bad intelligence are lies. I’d guess that MK deems anyone with whom MK disagrees a "winger." It’s evident that this thought process has manifested itself in the left wing. And it blinds them to reality.

Most "wingers" I know don’t particularly care for Bush. We find him lackadaisical on key domestic issues, myopic in tactical planning, and inept in communicating the purposes of his policies. But here’s the thing MK, we agree with his strategic goals. Moreover, we view the Democrats as totally inept, mired in a bankrupt 40-year-old worldview.

In fact, I’d posit that most "wingers" wishes another administration were controlling this nation in these times - Maggie Thatcher with idealism and charisma of Reagan for example. But that’s not what we have - nor are there any prospects of such a person even on the horizon.

The choice we have then is our current administration or someone from the opposition stable. And when the opposition is constantly giving statements that our real enemies repeat, it’s a fricken easy choice.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I’ve pointed out the similarities of the argument and then asked why Pogue finds one to the the "opinion of a patriot" and the other to be the "raving of a madman" when they’re the same argument.

You misunderstand, McQ. I’ll repeat it, yet again. THE RANTING OF A MADMAN.
It matters not, what he says. I don’t care what he says. It has no bearing. Therefore, it’s not what he says that becomes irrelevant. HE IS IRRELEVANT.

The arguments are what we’re talking about Pogue, not who said them. If they’re fine for one, why aren’t the fine for another. Either the argument is a valid one or it’s not. Who says it shouldn’t matter.


If it is indeed “The arguments are what we’re talking about”, then WHY, McQ, do you put these arguments up next to OBL???
It seems clear to me, that doing this is to illustrate specifically WHO SAYS THEM.
Very true… “Either the argument is a valid one or it’s not.” Which is why putting them up next to OBL’s pointless uttering to “compare and contrast” them is solely to demean, deface, and slander those to whom you compare them to. This is why it upsets me.

It’s much akin to saying, “well…Osama says the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, PogueMahone says the same thing… therefore, Osama joins Pogue.” It’s just silly. It’s also meaningless, malicious, and insulting.
Comparing these opinions serves no other purpose. Period.
It’s bitter medicine to swallow, Pogue, but now you know how it feels when Republicans get compared to Nazis and Klansmen. - Steverino
See what I mean, McQ. (btw, Steverino. I don’t do that. So I don’t care to be compared to OBL, thank you please. And doing so makes you no better than those who compare Bush to Hitler.)

You’ve eloquently expressed your disagreement with Murtha and others regarding foreign policy in the past, so why put them side by side with OBL? For shits and giggles, maybe??
I didn’t find it funny.

=======================

If you are doing exactly what your enemy wants you to do, then that’s prima facie evidence you’re doing the wrong thing.
– Steverino

And how, exactly, do you or anyone else here know what our enemy wants us to do.? Because Bin Laden says so!? I can only hope that our leaders are not prosecuting the WoT in this manner.
Angels and Ministers of Grace Defend Us
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"The arguments are what we’re talking about", then WHY, McQ, do you put these arguments up next to OBL???
It’s the same argument being used by both ... why?

Obviously OBL thinks it’s an effective argument.

Why? To what end does he think it to be effective?

Rallying his troops? Effecting US public opinion? Both?
You’ve eloquently expressed your disagreement with Murtha and others regarding foreign policy in the past, so why put them side by side with OBL? For shits and giggles, maybe??
I didn’t find it funny.
I don’t find it to be funny either. In fact, I find it to be downright scary.

Again, why does OBL think the same arguments certain Democrats are using is an effective enough argument to use himself?

Any ideas or are you just going to whine "no fair?"
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
You’ve eloquently expressed your disagreement with Murtha and others regarding foreign policy in the past, so why put them side by side with OBL?
maybe because they are saying the same thing...
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
If you are doing exactly what your enemy wants you to do, then that’s prima facie evidence you’re doing the wrong thing. Do you have any evidence to suggest the Dems are right on this one?
Not as such, no.

I think that by committing so many troops to Iraq it limits the ability to use force against Syria, Taliban and Iran or to threaten N. korea, Saudi and Sudan - freeing up troops could be a good idea, it all depends on what they are used to do. I think that if force is applied to Al Qaeda in other locations it will degrade Al Qaeda and lead to a reduction in violence in Iraq (violence being carried out by foriegners allied to Al Qaeda), allowing more troops to be freed up.

If the Democrat plan is take all the troops, move them back home and have them sit on base doing nothing then it is worse than having them in Iraq - but is this their plan? I can’t find detail of what Democrats would have done with the army after it is freed from Iraq.

 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Any ideas or are you just going to whine "no fair?"

I don’t think most reasonable people would consider what I’ve written so far as “whining”. You really don’t either, huh?

I am no terrorism expert. So I can’t rightly tell you what OBL is thinking when he says what he says. He is Mad. I can’t delve into the mind of a monster and tell you what his reasoning is. Hell, I can’t even begin to understand the concept of suicide bombers.

Truth is, I don’t wish to understand “why” he says what he says. I’ll leave that to the studied individuals who get paid to do that. And if you want to psychologically examine the words that he uses, fine. But don’t think that when you compare opinions from a monster with the opinions of other Americans, that it won’t be used against them.

You see it in a number of comments here. As if Osama is holding up a placard reading, “Hillary in ‘08”.

Rallying his troops? Effecting US public opinion? Both?

Yes. No. Maybe.
I personally don’t think that it will be effective in turning public opinion against Bush. It seems that every time he communicates, he effectively rallies up public opinion in support of the WoT.
And rallying up his troops?
Yeah, got me. What do you tell someone who is about to blow himself up?...
“umm, it won’t hurt that much.”

Or maybe he’s reading this right now. And he likes to laugh at Americans who are at each other’s throat.

Possible.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I don’t think most reasonable people would consider what I’ve written so far as “whining”.
Only as long as you define "reasonable people" as those that already agree with you...

Hey Pogue, why should bin Laden hold up a "Hillary ’08" placard when he’s already quoting "Murtha ’06"?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
(btw, Steverino. I don’t do that. So I don’t care to be compared to OBL, thank you please. And doing so makes you no better than those who compare Bush to Hitler.)
I never once compared you to OBL, nor did I ever say that you compared Republicans to Klansmen and Nazis, so don’t throw me in that pile...doing so would make you no better than what you claim I am.
It’s much akin to saying, “well…Osama says the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, PogueMahone says the same thing… therefore, Osama joins Pogue.” It’s just silly. It’s also meaningless, malicious, and insulting.
Comparing these opinions serves no other purpose. Period.
You’d be right if we were talking about something like solunar tables, but we’re not. We are talking about the morale of US troops in a war zone, and deployment of US troops. If the enemy weighs in on THAT subject, then what he says is not to be dismissed.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
And how, exactly, do you or anyone else here know what our enemy wants us to do.? Because Bin Laden says so!?
Our enemy says we should do something, and now you’re saying that he doesn’t really mean it. Come on, Pogue, you’re sinking into absurdity now.

FWIW, I’m a reasonable person, and I think you’re whining.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Steverino,

Osama might kill thousands, cut off heads, blow up children and whip puppies, but to suggest he might be lying is sinking into absurdity?

Like McQ suggests he is putting up arguments similar to the Democrats for a reason - making a case for American withdrawl. Either he is telling the truth and believes that he can convince the American people to follow his advice; or he is bluffing and believes that the American people will do the opposite of what he suggests.

Pogue has suggested that he is a madman saying these things (and telling the truth as an insane person might) or that he is lying. To disprove both of Pogues suggestions all you have to do is convince Pogue that Usama bin Laden (the most evil man on the planet) is a rational and honest individual - good luck.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
am no terrorism expert. So I can’t rightly tell you what OBL is thinking when he says what he says. He is Mad. I can’t delve into the mind of a monster and tell you what his reasoning is. Hell, I can’t even begin to understand the concept of suicide bombers.
That’s a pretty convenient out, isn’t it Pogue? "He’s mad, so I don’t have to explain it."

He’s obviously not so mad that he doesn’t recognize what he considers to be an effective argument. Why do you think he considers it to be that?
Truth is, I don’t wish to understand “why” he says what he says. I’ll leave that to the studied individuals who get paid to do that. And if you want to psychologically examine the words that he uses, fine. But don’t think that when you compare opinions from a monster with the opinions of other Americans, that it won’t be used against them.
But he used them after they said them. So again, my question is why? The only answer which makes any sense is he feels it’s an effective argument (I mean why else would he make it, for heaven sake?). Again, the question of why he considers it to be effective comes to mind.
Yes. No. Maybe.
I personally don’t think that it will be effective in turning public opinion against Bush. It seems that every time he communicates, he effectively rallies up public opinion in support of the WoT.
I happen to agree with you, but then it wouldn’t be the first time OBL miscalcuated would it? But again, even if we agree he’s miscalculated one has to ask why he chose that particular argument. It should be obvious that his intent is to influence more than his faithful. They couldn’t care less about whether Bush lied or what polls say. So why repeat the same arguments some Democrats have used if not to try to sway US public opinion?
Or maybe he’s reading this right now. And he likes to laugh at Americans who are at each other’s throat.
Well he’s not the one who’s argument has done that, is he? He’s just repeating it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
That’s a pretty convenient out, isn’t it Pogue? "He’s mad, so I don’t have to explain it."
Took you a while getting around to that one. (Grin)
Anwyay, You’re quite correct.

But then again, it kinda makes ya wonder about the Sanity of the Demoacrts and their arguments, huh?


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I never once compared you to OBL, nor did I ever say that you compared Republicans to Klansmen and Nazis, so don’t throw me in that pile...doing so would make you no better than what you claim I am.

Umm. Okay...
Damn straight it upsets me. But what surprises me, it that you somehow don’t get that comparing patriot dissenters to a raving homicidal lunatic is somehow acceptable in polite society
It’s bitter medicine to swallow, Pogue, but now you know how it feels when Republicans get compared to Nazis and Klansmen.
So. What were you doing? And what "bitter medicine" would you have me swallow?

Our enemy says we should do something, and now you’re saying that he doesn’t really mean it. Come on, Pogue, you’re sinking into absurdity now.

What? To suggest that OBL is a deceitful, untrustworthy, and insane is to sink into absurdity. Right… I must be falling off the deep end!?!
Pogue has suggested that he is a madman saying these things (and telling the truth as an insane person might) or that he is lying. To disprove both of Pogues suggestions all you have to do is convince Pogue that Usama bin Laden (the most evil man on the planet) is a rational and honest individual - good luck.
Yeah. What Angus said... Good luck with that.

________________________________

That’s a pretty convenient out, isn’t it Pogue? "He’s mad, so I don’t have to explain it."

Well.., what can I say.., sometimes honesty, truth, and rationality are convenient. Whudayagundo.

When we are subjected to communications from Bin Laden, the most common reaction,.. I can assure you.. , is, “That motherfucker is still alive! … Fucker! Kill that Fucker!”
And when his rambling is translated and broadcast across the world, Americans rightly dismiss his diatribe...
…death to America… infidels will perish… Allah will crush you…
Most Americans react, “blah blah blah… Right, … death to us … yeah, yeah, yeah… Just wait till we get our hands on you, pigfucker.”

I’m tellin’ ya’. That’s what’s going outside of the “blogosphere”. Trust me, I’ve been there… recently. ;)

So notherbob2, shark, Steverino, bains, and others… “Bin Laden is a Democrat”… umm, well, …
Put your peckers back in your pants; it’s just not that sexy.

Oh yeah, … and Bithead,
Words don’t speak for themselves. People speak. (And, occasionally, computers do too. ... Chuckle)
I’m just glad I don’t have to psychologically examine you.
(People speak!?!)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
So. What were you doing? And what "bitter medicine" would you have me swallow?
1. I suspect it has something to do with your cranial denisty.
Oh yeah, … and Bithead,
Words don’t speak for themselves. People speak. (And, occasionally, computers do too. ... Chuckle)
I’m just glad I don’t have to psychologically examine you.
(People speak!?!)
2: See point one
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
So. What were you doing? And what "bitter medicine" would you have me swallow?
Apparently my nuance was lost on you, Pogue. Given your reaciton to McQ’s statements, I’m not too surprised.

The point I was making is that those on the left routinely and vociferously call Republicans Nazis, Klansmen, and worse. Just in the past few days, we’ve had Harry Belafonte say the Bush was using Gestapo tactics and Hillary Clinton say that the House of Representatives was being run like a plantation. Yet no one has gotten up and said that’s not proper for polite company. Until the left starts protesting its own name-calling, then turnabout is fair play.

But that is beside the point: show me one instance anywhere on this blog where I have compared you — or any other liberal — to OBL. Unless you produce such evidence, you owe me an apology for saying I’m no better than those who compare Bush to Hitler.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
What? To suggest that OBL is a deceitful, untrustworthy, and insane is to sink into absurdity. Right… I must be falling off the deep end!?!
To suggest that OBL really doesn’t want US troops to leave Iraq is absurd. Look at his past statements, especially those regarding Mogadishu. OBL believed the US was a paper tiger, incapable of decisive action, and ready to flee at the sight of blood. For the US to leave Iraq would only prove him right. So, yes, he really does want us to leave Iraq. If you say otherwise, then you don’t know what you are talking about.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
But that is beside the point: show me one instance anywhere on this blog where I have compared you — or any other liberal — to OBL. Unless you produce such evidence, you owe me an apology for saying I’m no better than those who compare Bush to Hitler.
What we’ve got here is... failure to communicate.

Shakin’ it here, boss.
It’s bitter medicine to swallow, Pogue, but now you know how it feels when Republicans get compared to Nazis and Klansmen.
Ah, well. Where you had never directly compared me to OBL, it was the, “now you know how it feels”, part that led me to believe you indirectly did so.
I had said, “…comparing patriot dissenters to a raving homicidal lunatic is somehow acceptable in polite society”, then you followed with, “Now you know how it feels”. I hope you can understand the perceived inference.

That being said, you’re right. You never did compare me to OBL. And I rightly owe you an apology.

Mea Culpa
(it’s not the first time, and it probably won’t be the last)

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
To suggest that OBL really doesn’t want US troops to leave Iraq is absurd.
Show me one instance anywhere on this blog where I said OBL doesn’t want us to leave Iraq.
You owe me an…
(just kiddin’)
;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
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