Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, December 09, 2007

NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to air a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops. The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season. NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

oohrah

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Didn't the DR recently have a thread concerning FOX banning some commercial? Apparently it cuts both ways. In this case, "NBC said it declined to air the ad because it refers to the group's Web site, which the network said was too political, not because of the ad's message."

So it would appear as though the ad itself was benign enough, but if someone visited the sponsor's web site, that's where the problem lies.

Oops, forgot to add this part:
I wonder whether ad would pass muster if it simply voiced or showed the NAME of the sponsor without showing the URL.

Good for NBC. NBC has a First Amendment right to reject what it deems offtensive, and lord knows that politicizing GI deaths during this holiday season is as offensive as it gets. herm

and lord knows that politicizing GI deaths during this holiday season is as offensive as it gets. herm

Since when is "thanking the troops", politicizing GI deaths?

Just more proof that the the phrase voiced by Liberals "hate the war; love the troops" is bullshit.

"NBC said it declined to air the ad because it refers to the group's Web site, which the network said was too political, not because of the ad's message."

Like NBC has never run political ads before.

"This particular ad, in and of itself, is fine. It thanks the troops for their action overseas. We asked them to eliminate a URL address where a person is asked to contact elected officials and told not to cut and run on the war on terror."

War Eternal is "winning".

Bringing Troops outta Iraq after confirming the lack of WMD and helping to install a democratically elected government is "cutting and running"

Spud luffs the part where they whine about not having a permanent right wing force to counter the nasty left wing forces.

Spud to RT ass-wipes everywhere.

Ever here of the American Enterprise Institute?

The Cato Institute?

Fox News? Rupert Murdoch?

BushCo? The MIC?

Right Wing forces are perpetual and more powerful than they should be because their bucks outnumber their membership by a large margin.

The American Media in the main is Pro Corporate much more so than it is either left or right leaning.

Not so much in the business of informing and reflecting public opinion it exists to distract and under-inform and shape public opinion by repeating endlessly the sound bytes that represent the two main arguments decided upon by the elites both Neo-Con and Neo-Lib. the parameters of the national debate are set by these folk and most political discussion in the country is just echoes of those debates.

Here's another clue from Spud.

This has been going on since before any of us were born.

Kay?

Spud believes that most Americans would be properly horriefied to learn the real history of their country rather than wot they read in the papers and see on teevee.

Be Well.

Spud believes that most Americans would be properly horriefied to learn the real history of their country rather than wot they read in the papers and see on teevee.

You are right -- based on the standard Lefties set today for our President and military -- many of our past presidents would be brought up on charges of being "war criminals" as would many of our troops who fought in WW2 -- the "greatest generation" it turns out was just a bunch of murderers and torturers.

How ever did the Constitution survive this long? -- Based on waht liberals say about the current state of affairs, it should never have survived all the atrocities committed by Lincoln, Sherman, Grant etcv. etc.

Jesus Fucking Christ do I love Religious threads!!!

White Bread America and their imaginary friend that was probably Black but looks lily White or 21 Mooselum Virgins that screw like Porno Rock Star groupies?

I HATE TOUGH CHOICES!

Good for NBC. NBC has a First Amendment right to reject what it deems offtensive,

I agree. NBC has the right to reject what it wants and it can take whatever criticism for it that follows.

All is fair..

many of our past presidents would be brought up on charges of being "war criminals" as would many of our troops who fought in WW2

Wrong as usual, Bowa.

WWII was a winner take all knock down drag out fight in which everybody knew the stakes and acted accordingly. Spud has no problem with anything that happened in WWII with the exceptionof the unneccessary internment of Japanese Americans which everybody in their right minds recognises today as being a little overboard.

The Firebombings of Dresden etc were a natural reaction to Hitlers Mmad bombing of British civilian targets.

The Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Just today Spud recieved an e-mail which highlighted the service records of many famous hollywood actors who served honorably in that war.

It ended with a warning that "Hollyweird Lefties" had they been empowered in WWII woulda lost the war or not supported it.

It's a perrenial Right Wing talking point and like most right wing talking points it's 100% innacurate.

No, Dude, Spud is thinking of more recent history.

Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile etc etc.

After Sukarno was overthrown by General Suharto with the help of American (CIA) money (70% by some accounts), weapons and especially economists, the General was given a list of "dangerous lefties" compiled by the CIA that were to be killed right away in order to bring the country in line.

And so it began.

Some rivers in Indonesia were so full of bodies at one point that shipping was actually blocked.

Imagine that.

Democracies subverted and Brutal dictatorships installed so that American Multinationals could enhance their profits.

Most Americans tend to think of the US as a country which supports democracies around the world when that's not the really the case.

The Shah fer Mossadegh, Pinochet fer Allende, Suharto fer Sukarno and so on and so forth.

But never mind that... American Idol is on!

Ooh Look ...sommat shiny!!

Left wing media conspiracy? Don't make Spud laff.

Be Well.

ust more proof that the the phrase voiced by Liberals "hate the war; love the troops" is bullshit.

But the righties "love the war, hate being the troops" is God's honest truth. especially the Mormon God.

Bowa: The NIE, the surge and the Israel/Palestine talks are undercutting RudiG's tough talking image.

Why does Bush hate the rudester?

Simple questions... maybe someone here will know the answers.

Does NBC ever allow adds that point back to websites?

Do any of the websites promote controversial issues (say, stem cell research or moveon.org)?

If so, and if they are using the public airwaves, can they have their license pulled?

Fox news, being a cable channel, are under different rules. Just like Sat. radio does not have the same restrictions as terrestrial radio.

I think this would be a good way for congress to spend the next 6 months... investigating this NBC crisis. [heck, its not like they are busy passing tax reform bills or anything, right?]

There is absolutely a separation for the military and America's foreign policy (blunders). The last refuge of the neocon is to hide behind our ACUs and do their best to bluster about how not supporting Bush is not supporting the military. Bushit! Especially considering the contempt this administration seems to have not only for those of us in uniform but also the people in general (save the "base" of have's and have more's). Everything thus far has benefitted the energy and defense industries and has done nothing to help American people and our own safety and infrastructure. Just follow the money trail, it's not coming back to us, believe that.

And the American people do support the military. Any time I am in uniform people are exceptionally nice and go out of their way to talk to me. The people are supportive, the politicians, not so much.

ROC: IIRC, I'm pretty sure that most of the prescription drug ads point you to web sites.

EVA-
I referenced you and Hans earlier today. Don't know whether you saw it. Check today's 1125am post my friend.
www.drudge.com

The right supports the troops as long as it doesn't take any more than a bumper sticker, a lapel pin of the flag or a feelgood TV commercial complete with soothing music. Ask them for some real sacrifice such as actually paying for the war with taxes and the involvement of their family members and they attack your patriotism. Doesn't make any sense but then when do they ever make any sense?

WWII was a winner take all knock down drag out fight in which everybody knew the stakes and acted accordingly. Spud has no problem with anything that happened in WWII

So spud supports the murder and torture committed by our troops during WW2 -- good to know.

The Firebombings of Dresden etc were a natural reaction to Hitlers Mmad bombing of British civilian targets.

And what is the natural reaction to IED's and beheadings?

Just today Spud recieved an e-mail which highlighted the service records of many famous hollywood actors who served honorably in that war.

Except of course all those WW2 soldiers who refused to take any prisoners after they saw how the enemy treated their fellows -- so they just murdered them instead.

But that's OK with Spud.

Tell you what... as one of the rabid right wingers you are bitchin about... I'll make you a deal.

I will pay higher taxes to support the military... if you will agree that I never have to pay for another liberal social program.

Damn, I would save a flippin fortune! No more welfare payments. No more social security (that I will never collect), no more drugs for old farts, no more of any of that shit.

I would love to have such a huge cut in my tax burden.

FuzzyBrains,

That military that you are so eager to support while society crumbles around you because you don't want any of your taxes, nosiree, to be wasted on social programs and non-military things like prisons, infrastructure, environment, health and the like, just what do you expect that military to do while all this is going on? More likely than not pry that gun from your flabby fingers and put you in Gitmo if you do the rightwing chickenhawk squawk about it.

So, blue...

I am supposed to just roll over and pay for all the little bastards out there... then tell the military that they are not allowed to go fight against someone who attacks us in NY and DC.

Let me guess... your French?

PS. And, for the records... if we put land mines along the borders, we would need a lot fewer jails!

And what is the natural reaction to IED's and beheadings?

You really don't get it do ya Bowa?

Silly question really, of course Bowa don't get it.

IED's and Beheadings are the natural reaction to having your country invaded and occupied by a superior military force.

Wot were you expecting?

Flowers and Chocolates perhaps?

Except of course all those WW2 soldiers who refused to take any prisoners after they saw how the enemy treated their fellows -- so they just murdered them instead.

Bowa, are you calling America's fighing men and women of WWII murderers?!

Wow, dude, yer fucked up!

Did ya manage to catch any of the documentary "The War" by Ken Burns or do you simply not watch public broadcasting cos yer afraid their lethal left wing mindrays will find their way through yer tin foil beanie?

There was this one guy in the Pacific.

After a night battle against the Japs he went out on patrol the next day and found several American bodies not only dead but horribly and deliberately mutilated.

They were his friends.

He sez to the camera kinda softly...

"After that I don't believe any of my unit took any prisoners alive"

Spud had no probs with that response.

Do you?

Do you understand the difference between WWII, a war of self defense when liberty and democracy were on the line, and Iraq, where corporate concern and AIPAC called the shots?

Cos it'd be Spud pleasure to explain it to ya.

Over and over again if ya'd like.

Spud's good like that.

Be Well.

PS: Don't wanna touch Spud's assertion that America has deliberately taken down democratically elected governments purely so that American based multi-nationals could make greater profits?

Yeah, Spud kinda figured.

PPS: America did not systematically torture prisoners during WWII, in fact Americans on the whole treated their POW's much better than the Japanese and Germans.

Systematic torture of prisoners didn't beome a policy till Vietnam.

See: Operation Phoenix.

O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are getting mileage from this tonight. I agree with them. Mr Newt has called for a boycott of NBC. Not sure how effective that might be but time will tell. NBC seems to have historically been the most liberal of the networks - just a sense for me. What do other cons think about where NBC ranks in that regard?

Bowa, are you calling America's fighing men and women of WWII murderers?!

Nope. What I am saying is that if Lefties applied the same rules of engagement to our WW2 troops that they do to our troops today -- then they would be calling them murderers and war criminals.

Not sure how effective that might be but time will tell. NBC seems to have historically been the most liberal of the networks - just a sense for me. What do other cons think about where NBC ranks in that regard?

Oohrah, I really can't tell the difference between NBC, CBS, and ABC -- they all seem to lean left to me.


"Let me guess... your French?"

Posted by FuzzyBear at 2007-12-07 08:27 PM


Let me guess... English is a
foreign language to you.

Hans

"Oohrah, I really can't tell the difference between NBC, CBS, and ABC -- they all seem to lean left to me."

Posted by
bow wow, the racist

Y'all are absolutely right! Those ASSHOLES at NBC have every right to refuse an ad honoring our troops and their sacrifices.

www.freedomswatch.org

Do you understand the difference between WWII, a war of self defense when liberty and democracy were on the line, and Iraq, where corporate concern and AIPAC called the shots?

I understand that you don't know what you are talking about. In a world where WMD's create scenarios where a nation might not have the opportunity to strike back, the concept of pre-emptive self-defense is sound.

Given that Bush used essentially the same rationale that Bill Clinton had used to attack Saddam a few years before -- and based on the same consensus view by the intel community around the world as to Saddam's threat level -- one of the biggest myths the Left has promulgated is that Bush knew, beyond any doubt, that Saddam did not have WMD's, and he "Lied Us Into War".

Lefties like yourself can continue to live in denial and believe that we are not in a global war against islamo-fascism that threatens Western Civilization.

And frankly, sometime it is easy to live in such denial when our entire nation is not called on to make any sacrifices like we did during WW2.

But that is only because we have so far been succesful in preventing the escalation of the war after 9/11 -- which is a tribute to the Administration who realized that the best way to defeat our enemies was to take the fight right to them -- and begin a transformation (reformation?) of the Middle East ...liberating 10's of millions in the process.

Imagine if Hitler and the rise of Nazism had been nipped in the bud with "pre-emption" -- think of the hundreds of milliuons of lives that would have been saved.

So the difference between WW2 and now -- is that we refuse to repeat the past -- while you it seems are desperate to relive it -- and doom millions to their deaths.

Nope. What I am saying is that if Lefties applied the same rules of engagement to our WW2 troops that they do to our troops today -- then they would be calling them murderers and war criminals.

Do you actually find WWII and the War in Iraq comparable in the least?

A neccessary defensive world war fought against a well armed and determined axis of facist states who's stated goal was world domination and an unneccessary and counter-productive pre-emptive resource war fought to achieve a corporate agenda against a people just a little bit more advanced than the Flintstones?

And before you go on to tell Spud all about how the open ended war against communism has now been replaced by an open ended war against terrorism allow Spud to just call bullshit on that scare-mongering action.

Yes, there are terrorists in the world.

There have always been terrorists of one stripe or another in this world.

There prolly always will be, unfortunately.

None of that justifies wot has gone on and continues to go on in Iraq.

Just as Israeli policies in Palestine were tailored to keep the place in a state of perpetual rage allowing the Israeli government to say "We can't leave YET!" (tm) So have BushCo armed and funded opposing sects in the civil war in Iraq that is ongoing through-oput the resistance that you call an insurgency in order to say the same thing.

Yer idea that lefties aren't willing to fight for a good cause or understand the realities of war is complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the truth. The so-called fiscal conservatives on the right are more greedy, less caring about America or her troops than folk on the left. Yer non-point about lefties calling the servicepeople of WWII murderers and criminals may get around of applause at a GOPher convention but in the reality based community it's an obvious lie and a slur.

Spud thinks that BushCo are deliberately bankrupting the US of A (while enriching themselves and their cronies obviously) so that after they leave office it will force whoever comes along after them to cut back on social programs and turn the US into more of a third world shithole than it's ever been before.

Worse than the Great Depression.

Now, at least try to argue honestly fer a change.

Be Well.

PS:Spud's out of here fer a bit. See if you can start making at least a semblance of sense in the meanwhile.

Y'all are absolutely right! Those ASSHOLES at NBC have every right to refuse an ad honoring our troops and their sacrifices.

Kerrin, seems like by rejecting he ad, NBC has helped many more millions of people aware of it.

if this was reverse psychology by "Freedom's Watch"...It worked!!!!!

www.freedomswatch.org = a Web site owned by pussies too afraid to let their real names known.

Domain ID:D148128735-LROR
Domain Name:FREEDOMSWATCH.ORG
Created On:15-Jun-2007 22:26:29 UTC
Last Updated On:01-Oct-2007 22:09:49 UTC
Expiration Date:15-Jun-2008 22:26:29 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-033737308
Registrant Name:Registration Private
Registrant Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Registrant Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:Arizona
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.4806242599
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:
FREEDOMSWATCH.ORG@domainsbypro
xy.com

Admin ID:GODA-233737308
Admin Name:Registration Private
Admin Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Admin Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Scottsdale
Admin State/Province:Arizona
Admin Postal Code:85260
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.4806242599
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:FREEDOMSWATCH.ORG@domainsbypro
xy.com

Tech ID:GODA-133737308
Tech Name:Registration Private
Tech Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Tech Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Scottsdale
Tech State/Province:Arizona
Tech Postal Code:85260
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.4806242599
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:FREEDOMSWATCH.ORG@domainsbypro
xy.com

Name Server:NS43.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server:NS44.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Interesting "source," kerrin.

Hans

"In a world where WMD's create scenarios where a nation might not have the opportunity to strike back, the concept of pre-emptive self-defense is sound."

What an idiotic concept. Using that doctrine, China has every right to attack, invade, and occupy the United States.

In a world where WMD's create scenarios where a nation might not have the opportunity to strike back, the concept of pre-emptive self-defense is sound.

Spud once owned an Andy Capp funny book.

The cover was kinda interesting.

Spud'll never fergit it.

A very drunk Andy was being talked to by a Bobby (English Policeman) while another guy lay unconcious on the floor of a bar obviously beaten up by Andy.

The Copper sed...

"So let me get this straight... you thought he was gonna hit you so you hit him back first in self defense?"

In case you missed the joke there only someone drunk out of their minds would consider that a rational excuse.

Spud aint drunk out of his mind ergo yer bullshit excuse doesn't hold water.

Also... "not have the opportunity to strike back"?

Hellooo Einstein, wot the fuck do you think nuclear subs are for?

To insure second strike capability.

Yer as nutty as a fruitcake, you know that?

Yer as bad as Cheney with his bullshit talk about using an actual nuke on Iran to prevent a possible nuke from being built and used.

Do you have even half a clue how crazy that sounds?

How crazy that is?

Also Iraq isn't WWII.

The so-called war on terror isn't a war.

Do you think that just by repeating the biggest lies you cn think of over and over you will convince folk?

Spud means other than the brain dead right who are incapable of thinking for themselves who are reprehensible cowards.

Hitler thought that too.

It didn't work fer very long, did it?

Be Well.

PS: Off to read.

Hang on a second.

I just watched the clip from Kerrin's link at 2137 (almost typed 5467, must be falling asleep). Their objection is that the commercial points to a conservative website?

I have a suspicion as to what's happening here. Remember back when this whole things started, the media organizations were told (by the WH if memory serves, but I might be wrong, someone clarify if you can, my brain is running on vapors-- no, not a doobie, I mean dangerously low on consciousness) that they wouldn't be allowed to use the names or photograph the coffins of those who died in this action, because it would be used for political gain?

Sounds like NBC is trying to play a little "good for the goose" with this one. I also think it's gonna bite them in the ass.

Now, ROC, I'll take a stab at your questions as of 1917:

Does NBC ever allow adds that point back to websites?

Do any of the websites promote controversial issues (say, stem cell research or moveon.org)?

If so, and if they are using the public airwaves, can they have their license pulled?

1: Of course. Hell, I think a majority of the commercials for just about every damn thing under the sun have a weblink of some kind or other.

2: This I honestly don't know, but if they do...

3: I might be wrong, but I don't think their license can be yanked, as they're still a private company. But they can be fined to hell and back (isn't there some sort of Fair Use Act nowadays, I don't remember the name of it).

"sometime it is easy to live in such denial when our entire nation is not called on to make any sacrifices like we did during WW2."

Except for habeus corpus, our privacy, and our financial legacy.

"But that is only because we have so far been succesful in preventing the escalation of the war after 9/11"

Iraq wasn't an escalation? Madrid, London, and Bali weren't escalations? When Bush said "you're either with us or your against us, was that a one-way street, or are we "with them", too?

What an idiotic concept. Using that doctrine, China has every right to attack, invade, and occupy the United States.


The idiotic concept is that you compare the stability of the US government to that of a madman like Saddam Hussein.

Gee BOWA

Saddam with his 600 mile range missles meant any of his weapons would have fallen in the ocean. Or, the terrorists who can't board a flight would have had to lob them from 200 miles out to sea. What a double threat and reason to kill so many!!

SPLASH !! FIZZLE !!

Oh, ya. They wouldn't even have reached the ocean. The Mediterranean Sea perhaps. Maybe.

I remember all the righties cheering FAUX Noise when they wouldn't show an ad.

I hope you're not going to whine now.....but I know better.

Spud, you sure spend an awful lot of time telling us about other peoples movies, songs, books, sayings, ideas, etc. How about coming up with something original of your own someday.

The media is controlled by left wing lunatics not global corporations they just fund it for the lefties.

Nothing about our modern society or economy could equal the conditions during the great depression and to think so shows how out of touch with reality that spudz really has become.

Spudz knows that his fanatical ideas are really just bullshit with perfume on it.

Spudz thinks it will pass the smell test on lefties anyway.

Spudz knows anyone who thinks for themselves will dismiss his childlike spew for the liberal sewage that it is.

So let me get this straight... you thought he was gonna hit you so you hit him back first in self defense?"

In case you missed the joke there only someone drunk out of their minds would consider that a rational excuse.


So maybe you can tell the class when Germany attacked us before we entered the war?

What you say? They declared War on us?

Ok... so by that rational, if the guy had simply talked tough to Andy, but didn't hit him, then Andy would have been justified?

Are you SURE you aren't drunk, Spud?

Maybe you are just fermenting. I love vodka, but in this case I think the poor quality might induce blindness, as evidenced by your post.

SPUD is brilliant. The fact he can refer to a myriad of sources speaks of a very good education and a sharp mind.

He's undoubtedly the most original blogger I've ever seen.

So maybe you can tell the class when Germany attacked us before we entered the war?

MOOMANFL


There were multiple skirmishes between German ships, subs and American destroyers escorting merchant ships. The Germans sunk the Destroyer Reuben James (DD245) in 31 Oct 1941. (Before Pearl Harbor and the entrance of U.S.A. in the war.)

That an act of war? Most of the world would think so.

Germany was attacking Our shipping vessels Pre Pearl Harbor and they officially declared war upon us December 11 1941. Iraq neither attacked us nor declared war upon us.

Larry Mohr

LARRY

You do any more on the search we talked about?

AU

What you say? They declared War on us?

MOOMANFL

"...they officially declared war upon us December 11 1941"

LARRYMOHR

"There were multiple skirmishes between German ships, subs and American destroyers escorting merchant ships. The Germans sunk the Destroyer Reuben James (DD245) in 31 Oct 1941. (Before Pearl Harbor and the entrance of U.S.A. in the war.)"

Hmmm We didn't attack the Germans until they attacked us and then declared war against us. That should be a sufficient answer MOOMANFL

AU

Yeah AU Sent away for a birth certificate. I am still waiting.

Larry Mohr

While I understand your point, AU... the US had already been giving substatial economic and military aid to Britain. While I personally think this was the correct thing to do, the fact remains that this provoked Germany against us, specifically our shipping, as military targets.

Think of it this way, if we saw a contingent of Iranian trucks bringing weapons into Iraq to be given to insurgents... what do you think we would do to those trucks? What if we had good reason to believe there were weapons or even troops on those trucks, but our intelligence, being at WWII technology levels, couldn't confirm it?

The point being, many of the actions now condemned by those on the Left were also present in previous wars that they don't condemn. This hypocritical double-standard is readily apparent, it seems, to everyone except for those on the left that still want to deny it for whatever reasons they have running through their heads. No amount of rationalization (in the psychology sense) from the Left will alter the truth though.

Yeah AU Sent away for a birth certificate. I am still waiting.

Larry Mohr


Excellent !! Hope you have a nice little Christmas present on it's way.

MOOMAN

I see your point too. The difference is satellite technology which can even to heat seeking to determine whether or not trucks are full of humans.

The best thing we could possibly do IMHO is talk to Iran. Moderate former Iranian President Khatami sent a letter to the U.S. shortly after 9/11 (with the Assembly of Experts and the Grand Ayatollah's blessing) seeking diplomatic dialogue. When Bush spurnned their overtures and then 3 weeks later included them in the 'Axis of Evil'; the hardliners said, 'See? We told you so', and Agmadinejad was selected as a candidate. He holds no real power outside Iran's borders.

It's time for talk. Bullets aren't winning the 'war on terror'. They're merely recruiting more radicals as the last several NIE's have concluded. Iranians don't hate us. The vast majority view Ahmadinejad as a buffoon who's standing in the way of the population joining the world community again.

Hopefully, the next president will be able to see the pragmatism in talking to our enemies. We've done it for centuries now, often to good results. Reagan talked to Gorby kicking and screaming. Gorby turned out to be the best reformer the USSR ever had, much in the same way Khatami attempted to be in Iran.

Anyway, have a good night man. How's the weather down yonder?

which can even do heat seeking....

The difference is satellite technology which can even to heat seeking to determine whether or not trucks are full of humans.

Granted, that is why I provided a modern example with the proviso of "what would we do in that situation with a WWII technology level". Of course with todays technology we would (or at least SHOULD) have less mistakes. However in the `30's and `40's our economic and military support of Britain was a provoking factor with Germany.

To relate back to Spud's inaccurate Andy Capp scenario... it would be like Andy repeatedly poking the other bloke in the chest, the bloke batting his hand away, then Andy punching him.

The fact is that Spud picked a poor example given the realities.

Anyway, have a good night man. How's the weather down yonder?

You too. It has been a bit chilly, we have also gotten a little rain here and there. Not sure how that has effected the drought conditions, but every little bit helps.

MOOMAN

The one consideration we didn't mention is that Germany had already begun overt expansionist military actions by invading Poland in 1939. Britain and France were allies with Poland, and by treaty were expected to intervene. That coupled with the German attacks on our ally, Great Britain set the stage. When Germany officially declared war on us December 11, 1941 we were destined to join in.

It wasn't as murky as Iran's possible involvement in Iraq, which should be expected really with their close proximity and shared border.

Ah, it's Friday night at 11 pm here and I don't wanna go into Bush, et al, so I'll leave it at my previous statements.

Again, have a good one. Hope you get some rain to ease the drought.

The best thing we could possibly do IMHO is talk to Iran. Moderate former Iranian President Khatami sent a letter to the U.S. shortly after 9/11 (with the Assembly of Experts and the Grand Ayatollah's blessing) seeking diplomatic dialogue. When Bush spurnned their overtures and then 3 weeks later included them in the 'Axis of Evil'; the hardliners said, 'See? We told you so', and Agmadinejad was selected as a candidate. He holds no real power outside Iran's borders.

It's also worth noting that, even with the rebuke, Iran ceased it's nuclear weapons program. This is covered in the current NIE. It's a double hit against the Bush Administration. I have watched the AEI get onboard with bashing and calling for an investigation into the NIE. No surprise they would now take such a stand.

Americanunity,

Spud uses other peoples words because doesn't have the intellectual capacity to produce them himself.

I would say he is the most unorginal blogger on here and that is saying a lot considering the rest of the left wing lunatics here.

Spud seems caught in a mind warp of liberal acid trips where reality is blended like a piss poor fruit cake.

His thoughs ramble on about corporate conspiracies, mindless robotic sheep, and who the hell knows what else. If it wasn't sad I might find it amusing.

To relate back to Spud's inaccurate Andy Capp scenario... it would be like Andy repeatedly poking the other bloke in the chest, the bloke batting his hand away, then Andy punching him

Silly Moonman!

By yer "reasoning" (if Spud can call it that) Hitler was justified in his invasion of Europe because they were eventually gonna attack him.

And Pearl Harbour was justified because Japan knew that America was gonna jump into the war on the Allies side.

Was Hitler justified?
Was Tojo justified?

Once you accept the notion of pre-emptive attack as being justifiable you have to either accept those two statement (Which are obviously ludicrous) or you have to accept Spud's Andy Capp analogy as being completely accurate.

Think about that.

Take yer time.

Get back to Spud.

Be Well.

the most unorginal blogger on here

~Knownothing

Yes, cos as everybody knows blog-world is rife with 8 1/2 inch tall talking potatoes from Canada who speak their own lingo.

Can't swing a dead cat over yer head w/o running into dozens of 'em.

Face it, YoublewWHO?!

Spud is a singularity and a freak of nature.

You may not know much but Spud knows you know that.

Yer postage, on the other hand, rarely contains anything that even remotely resembles a logical argument, it's usually full of lies and invective and little else.

Question fer yas...

Do you actually read yer own posts or do you just kinda drift in and out?

Spud always wondered.

Back to spud's book.

If you kidZ in blogworld only buy one book fer yerselves this X-mas?

Make it
This one!

Ta fer the kind words AU! ^_^

Be Well.

PS: And with those final words to mull over the imp wot calls hisself the tater o' doom, exits blog-worlds 7th most popular blogsite, the ever evolving Drudge Retort,as ya do,
stage left.

Any time I am in uniform people are exceptionally nice and go out of their way to talk to me.

Yeah, but your fabulous little sailor suit you wear down to the container-ship dock doesn't count.

Of course they're gonna be "exceptionally nice" to you.

Silly goose.

By yer "reasoning" (if Spud can call it that) Hitler was justified in his invasion of Europe because they were eventually gonna attack him.

Spud, you have just show that you don't have a clue since you have totally mangled, warped, and otherwise misunderstood what I was saying.

Your Andy Capp scenario was an attempt to say: "we were justified in WWII, but not now, because we hadn't been attacked. You were arguing against pre-emption.

I showed that we had actually provoked Germany to strike directly against us.

On the otherhand, Poland had done no such thing to Hitler... so no, against Europe he wasn't justified. I was speaking strictly about the US involvement using your scenario and logic. Sorry if you don't like it and so have to distort.

Was Tojo justified? Certainly not.

You deflect from the point, however. The point is that you support pre-emption and getting involved in a war where we weren't attacked unprovoked first (WWII European Theater) in one case, and then condemn pre-emption and getting involved in a war where we weren't attacked unprovoked first in another.

To support and define your reasoning, you used the Andy Capp example. I simply applied that same logic and example to WWII to highlight your hypocrisy.

Was Hitler justified?

Was Tojo justified?

Once you accept the notion of pre-emptive attack as being justifiable you have to either accept those two statement


No you don't, dumbshit.

You just simply have to quit conflating yer stupid-ass moral equivalence schtick with actual intellect.

Tojo and Hitler were bad dudes not because they "launched pre-emptive wars"--but because they believed in and respectively attempted to implement a fairly fucked-up model for the human condition to emulate.

Reciprocally, a "pre-emptive" attack on either one would have been justified had it occurred.

Go wrap your little liberal mind around that shit for a day or two and get back with us.

People like you sicken me.

Think about that.

Take yer time.

Get back to Spud.


Spud, you flatter yourself. Answering you requires less thought that I would need to answer the question "what color is Mooman's hair?".

You have a mediocre grasp on history and logic, and simply attempt to mask that with a pinch of humor, colorful writing style, and a good deal of arrogance. Poorly I might add.

Tojo and Hitler were bad dudes not because they "launched pre-emptive wars"--but because they believed in and respectively attempted to implement a fairly fucked-up model for the human condition to emulate.

Reciprocally, a "pre-emptive" attack on either one would have been justified had it occurred.


Exactly!

great post pinche.

Spudz, speaking in 3rd person in not original. You borrowed it from several tv shows just like most of your ideas are borrowed from others.

As for your 1 1/5" weener of laughter it is like everything else from Canada just a smaller weaker version of the U.S.

Spudz, speaking in 3rd person in not original. You borrowed it from several tv shows just like most of your ideas are borrowed from others.

Just to put in my two cents -- I think Spud's style is original - and sometimes he makes good points -- in general though I find he trades convincing argument and clarity for "cutesy".

It's also worth noting that, even with the rebuke, Iran ceased it's nuclear weapons program. This is covered in the current NIE. It's a double hit against the Bush Administration.

Not sure how this is any hit on the Bush administration though I know the MSM is spinning it that way-- it is the NIE that has flipped its intel on Iran in just a few short months -- and if it is true , it is entirely encouraging -- it means that Iran acts rationally and does respond to sanctions and international pressure. Nor does the NIE report say that Iran was never in or gotten entirely out of the nuke game as many in the media and in the blogosphere suggest.

""In fact, the report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings," wrote two nuclear proliferation experts in The New York Times opinion pages on Thursday, Dec. 6." -
cqpolitics.com

I'm kind of amazed that lefties of all people would just accept any intel report at face value given the recent history of all the flawed and contradictory intel that has come down the pike. But if there is any opening to bash Bush, then they will put that ahead of everything. That's their MO.

Bowa-
This latest newest NIE was held up for over a year.

But, of course, it all changed in the last few months and Bush just heard about it last week.

I'm kind of amazed that lefties of all people would just accept any intel report at face value given the recent history of all the flawed and contradictory intel that has come down the pike.

That is an easy one, Bowa. It says what they want to hear, therefore it has got to be true. If it was to say that Iran was knee-deep in trying to acquire nukes they would say it was a lie because it isn't what they want to hear.

I am just amazed that you find this amazing. :-)

...and if it is true , it is entirely encouraging -- it means that Iran acts rationally and does respond to sanctions and international pressure.

I'll give you that. Which direction do you suppose Bush/Cheney, Foxnews, and assorted troglodytes and state sadomasochists will run?

(Hint: not in the rational ....respond[s] to international pressure direction)

A show of hands, please, on who here thinks that Saddam had active WMD and an active nuke program?

(when we invaded)

This latest newest NIE was held up for over a year.


Cooper, So you are saying the NIE was lying when it's Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on July 11, 2007:

"Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States' concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran's neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons"

This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons."
www.weeklystandard.com

So why do you believe what the NIE is saying now, and not in July?

A show of hands, please, on who here thinks that Saddam had active WMD and an active nuke program?

Good luck on getting a hand raised on that one, Cooper.

Now if you asked "who THOUGHT that Saddam had active WMDs and an active nuke program?" you would be getting most of Congress, most of America, and most of the free world.

Regardless, your implication is guilty of "Strawman with intent to deflect".

A show of hands, please, on who here thinks that Saddam had active WMD and an active nuke program?

I did. I thought it was common knowledge. After all Vlinton had bombed Iraq because he had thought the same thing, as did almost every politician on both sides of the aisle.

Or have you forgotten when Clinton said, ""The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."- - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

And must I don't think I need to rehash all the democrats who said that they knew Saddam had WMD's and were therefore authorizing the use of force including:

" "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

That is an easy one, Bowa. It says what they want to hear, therefore it has got to be true. If it was to say that Iran was knee-deep in trying to acquire nukes they would say it was a lie because it isn't what they want to hear. I am just amazed that you find this amazing. :-)

I was being facetious of course. The hypocrisy and disengenuousness of the Lefties here never ceases to amaze me.

Bowa-
Yes. It's now "common knowledge" that Iran is furiously pursuing a bomb, thanks in part to the rhetoric of Bush and Cheney.

BTW, I'm not a Clinton fan and find the "I can find some Democrats who said it" routine tired and without effect.

Bowa-
Do you now think that Iraq had active WMD/nuclear when we invaded?

Poor Boyd.

Joshua Micah Marshall's talking points were supposed to make him relevant on the blogosphere.

They were supposed to make Boyd his "points".

But all we're left with is this miserable, liberal piece of shit and his Socratic rhetorical technique.

A show of hands, please, on who here thinks that Saddam had active WMD and an active nuke program?

*sigh*

Bwhahahahahah the Right keeps on spinning spinning spinning into the future bwhahahahah Gotta Love it You have just got to love it.

Larry Mohr

Now if you asked "who THOUGHT that Saddam had active WMDs and an active nuke program?" you would be getting most of Congress, most of America, and most of the free world.

Regardless, your implication is guilty of "Strawman with intent to deflect".


Thanks Moom, I read "thinks" as "thought" in Coopers above post.

So let me clarify, in hindsight I do not believe Saddam had WMD's -- I think he bluffed the world into believing he had them in order to preserve his power and standing in the world. And much like a bank robber using an unloaded gun is usually just as effective as a loaded one because who is going to take the risk to find out the gun isn't loaded -- so it was with saddam. As long as the world believed he had WMD's and was preapared to use them, that ws just as good as having them.

Yes. It's now "common knowledge" that Iran is furiously pursuing a bomb, thanks in part to the rhetoric of Bush and Cheney.

Wow.

"Rhetoric" as an impetus for nuclear strategy.

Its all our fault.

The universe is a vacuum without "Bush and Cheney", you see.

And their "rhetoric".

Do you take yourself seriously, Boyd?

Bowa-
re: Cooper, So you are saying the NIE was lying when it's Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on July 11, 2007:

"Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States' concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran's neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons"

No. Notice the wording. Iran IS enriching uranium. That is not disputed. It's just not weapons grade. The rest is something about intentions, and nothing about active atomic weapons production. You can see the same shift in Bush's rhetoric when he was informed that the NIE could not be stopped: He began speaking of "knowledge and intent" and shifted from "active pursuit" of atomic weapons.

I know the "rhetoric" of others certainly informs my most important decisions!

BTW, I'm not a Clinton fan and find the "I can find some Democrats who said it" routine tired and without effect.

How could it have no effect, you asked about what most americans believed about Iraq at the time of the invasion -- and given that almost the entire Congress as well as the previous President had emphatically stated that Saddam had WMD's -- then that was by a large majority the consensus view -- of not only the intel community , but also the american people.

If you believed otherwise at the time, you were in a very small minority.

Bowa-
re: So let me clarify, in hindsight I do not believe Saddam had WMD's -- I think he bluffed the world into believing he had them in order to preserve his power and standing in the world.

Good thing we don't have leaders who play along for their own motives.

He began speaking of "knowledge and intent" and shifted from "active pursuit" of atomic weapons.

Slam dunk.

Do you take yourself seriously, Boyd?

Why?


How could it have no effect, you asked about what most americans believed about Iraq at the time of the invasion

No, I asked what YOU NOW believed about Saddam and WMD/nuclear at the time of the invasion.

Pinche Mao-
He did. Check out his speeches after August. He shifted from 'we cannot allow Iran to get nukes' to 'we cannot allow them the knowledge to get nukes'.

It's clear, though you still trust this presidency as the honest brush-clearin' Texas antidote to the decadent Arkansans, so you probably can't see it even when it's pointed out to you

Cooper what part of "We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. " didn't you understand in the NIE report in July?

After all the intel mistakes that were uncovered in the run up to the war -- I am suspicious of all intellingence reports -- the dramatic shift in the NIE's opionon on Iran in less then six months does nothing to instill any greatr confidence in our intel community.

My view of the whole situation is that we should always err on the side of caution and give more credence to the worst case scenario --and there is no doubt that Iran is aggresively pursuing nuclear enrichment whcih can be used for a bomb. I also am hopeful that if it is true that Iran suspended it's nuclear program for a while in response to pressure from the world community -- then maybe their leadership can be reasoned with after all.


Bowa-
re: Cooper what part of "We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. " didn't you understand in the NIE report in July?

It reminds me of justification 6, part B of the Iraq war: well, they intended to be dangerous...

Bowa-
My view of the whole situation is that we should always err on the side of caution before we go to war.

Bowa-
re: After all the intel mistakes that were uncovered in the run up to the war --....

Yes, and I'm truly sorry that Bush/Cheney was forced into withdrawing the inspectors in order for their reluctant last resort war to begin. Because of flaws in "intelligence".

Yeah, and you think it odd that I ask if you believe that the Iraqi death star is buried in Syria.

My view of the whole situation is that we should always err on the side of caution before we go to war.

So which brand of caution do you think we should use?

Caution that we don't hurt the other guy that may or may not be trying to do something dangerous to us, but which we have reason to believe IS doing that thing?

Or the brand of caution that says "protect yourself because it looks like you are about to be screwed"?

You say we should err on the side of caution... I agree. Furthermore I think we DID err on the side of caution. I think you and I disagree about which type of caution we should have erred on the side of.

No, I asked what YOU NOW believed about Saddam and WMD/nuclear at the time of the invasion.

and I answered, in hindsight I do not believe Saddam had WMD's -- I think he bluffed the world into believing he had them in order to preserve his power and standing in the region and world. And much like a bank robber using an unloaded gun is usually just as effective as a loaded one because few people are going to take the risk to find out if the gun is loaded or not -- so it was with saddam. As long as the world believed he had WMD's and was preapared to use them, that was just as good as having them.

Why, what do you believe about Saddam and WMD/nuclear at the time of the invasion?

Bowa-
Why, what do you believe about Saddam and WMD/nuclear at the time of the invasion?

I thought it was bullshit fed to us as 9/11 burgers w/ cheese.

I thought it was bullshit fed to us as 9/11 burgers w/ cheese.

Well then, that either means that you are smarter than the majority of the world and prescient to boot.

Or...

It means that you are a partisan hack that will always believe the opposite from the other side regardless of what is reasonable or rational under the circumstances.

Given your posting history, I would be more inclined to believe the latter.

Correction... my post was in violation of the "False Dichotomy" since there was a third option....

You could be just a liar that was convinced like the rest of us, and later changed your tune to fit how you want to appear to your buddies on the Left.

To be nice though, I will still pick the middle option.

Bowa-
re: "You say we should err on the side of caution... I agree. Furthermore I think we DID err on the side of caution."

The country had no-fly zones where the few not-even-yet-affiliated-even-
loosely with al Qaeda terrorists were operating (Saddam the dictator didn't tolerate that shit), and we had UN and US inspectors in there begging for a few more months of inspection. Meanwhile, Bush and co. were talking about mushroom clouds. And you ate it up, and still do for the next war. And while many intel agencies thought that Saddam probably had some chem/bio still active, the fantasy of the active nuclear program was purely for your benefit, and you swallowed it whole, just as you did the Iran line.

And you'll do it again.

Well then, that either means that you are smarter than the majority of the world and prescient to boot.

No, it was pretty clear to anyone with the slightest bit of curiosity. The real clincher for the Bush admin was the nuclear "mushroom cloud" bit, which was bullshit the world over, except for the Brits.

Sorry, Cooper/Boyd...

I am not Bowa and that is me you were quoting.

The country had no-fly zones where the few not-even-yet-affiliated-even-
loosely with al Qaeda terrorists


And yet most of the world still thought he had the WMD's and a possible nuke program...

thought it was bullshit fed to us as 9/11 burgers w/ cheese.

Saddam bluffs and miscalcualtions about what the US to is what led to us attakcing him. Saddam juist misread US Conviction and he got stung because of it.

Consider< Saddams bluffs and other mistakes:

"The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defens"

In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.

"Mr. Hussein's compliance (with 1441) was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Mr. Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government's control.

Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons -- a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

""A few weeks before the attacks Saddam still thought the U.S. would not use ground forces," Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told American interrogators. "He thought they would not fight a ground war because it would be too costly to the Americans."

"Despite the lopsided defeat his forces suffered during the Persian Gulf war in 1991, Mr. Hussein did not see the United States as his primary adversary. His greater fear was a Shiite uprising, like the one that shook his government after the 1991 war."

"The United States was seen as a lesser threat, mostly because Mr. Hussein believed that Washington could not accept significant casualties. In the 1991 war, the United States had no intention of taking Baghdad. President George H. W. Bush justified the restraint as prudent to avoid the pitfalls of occupying Iraq, but Mr. Hussein concluded that the United States was fearful of the military cost." www.nytimes.com

Moo-
re: You could be just a liar that was convinced like the rest of us, and later changed your tune to fit how you want to appear to your buddies on the Left.

If it makes you feel better, then you can think that I didn't watch in horror as gullible TV warriors such as yourself proved that they will support any war if it's packaged and marketed properly, for free.

Bowa-
re: "Saddam bluffs and miscalcualtions about what the US to is what led to us attakcing him. Saddam juist misread US Conviction and he got stung because of it."

We showed him!

If it makes you feel better

I have no feeling about your opinion one way or the other unless you count a slight mild amusement.

The fact is, you think you were smarter than the majority of the world. Instead you are just a partisan hack.

Or else my last assessment was correct and you were more like the cowardly lion in the haunted forest: quick to change your opinion upon the slightest provocation. "I don't believe in nukes! I don't believe in nukes! I don't, I don't, I don't believe in nukes!"

Gotta go guys. Thanks for not getting all creepy and sexual on me even though we REALLY disagree on important stuff.

No problem, Coop.

You are right and we don't agree... would still buy you a beer though.



Enjoyable as a european to watch americans discuss pre-emptive attacks and World War 2. Charles lindburgh anyone. Was he a republican or a Democrat?

Charles lindburgh anyone.

Don't care... his flight was freakin amazing!!! So was his contribution to time pieces, aerial navigation, heart surgery, and a few other things.

His political views were pretty complex. While I THINK he labeled himself a Democrat, some of his views were ones that, today, would be closer associated with Republican's.

I especially love this quote from him:

"Peace is a virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection."

I didn't think that Freedom Watch was notoriously political. It may be conservative, but so is Amnesty International. What's the difference?

Correction -- I didn't think that Freedom Watch was notoriously political. It may be conservative, but only as politically conservative as Amnesty International is politically liberal. What's the difference?

I heard it thus:

"Peace is [an aryan] virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection."

It was the CIA that destroyed the tapes! Yesterday you folks were all for the CIA because they released a NIE report that suited your purposes. Today the media is mad because now they have to go out and make their own videos. They were wanting another day off.

I heard it thus:

"Peace is [an aryan] virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection."


Those brackets mean that the part between them wasn't said, but later inserted by someone.... you maybe? Funny that a Google search of your exact quote turned up exactly zero hits, both with and without the brackets.

"In a world where WMD's create scenarios where a nation might not have the opportunity to strike back, the concept of pre-emptive self-defense is sound."

Posted by
bowa at 2007-12-07 09:42 PM

bow wow has a rather peculiar habit of inflating dangers all out of proportion. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between desires and capabilities.

First it was claiming that a bunch of lightly armed terrorists ... pose a greater danger than Hitler's panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did ("I beleive that Islamo-fascism is as great a threat to the US and the World as Nazism and Communism was last century.").

Now he's claiming that Iraq's interest in gaining WMDs (beyond those we gave him, of course) would have, if accomplished, been capable of wiping out the entire nuclear arsenal of the USA, including all bombers, all land-based ICBMs, and every single submarine carrying nuclear weapons ("a nation might not have the opportunity to strike back").

Peculiar, indeed.

Hans

Awwwwwwwwwwww are both Lokisfur and Moomanfla STILL trying to desperately support the Unjustifiable Iraq War ??? Boy doesn't that make You feel all funny inside. Funny enough that one goes into fits of laughter at them?? LMAO Poor fellers got duped into supporting something they wished tyhey hadn't of. Gotta Love It.

Larry Mohr

The act of pre-emption is criminal under all the laws of this country, and the Constitution does not allow for the set aside of common law to facilitate their authority.
Every decision by the CIC, is the decision of a CITIZEN, and is held just the same under law.
The fact that the politicians have engineered the law to allow them to engage in illegal and un-CONSTITUTIONAL authority, with impunity, is a grave threat to this nation. Almost as grave as putting our economy in the hands of theives (federal reserve and their corporate whores).
Just so you know, I KNEW Saddam was NO threat to anyone other than IRAN.
As for the "troops", well, sorry. Those family members of mine whom are serving actually think Criminal George Bush and Co. are doing "gods'" work. I have told them all, that I wish them death on foreign soil, never to return.
If you accept the criminal authority of Criminal GWB and company, you are a terrorist deserving of horrific death.
You are not heroes. Never will be.

I have told them all, that I wish them death on foreign soil, never to return.

You are a sick, twisted waste of flesh.

"Just so you know, I KNEW Saddam was NO threat to anyone other than IRAN."

Have you explained that to Kuwait? There are some Kurds who would probably disbelieve that as well. And you gotta admit...the Saudis were somewhat worried about him too. Maybe you don't really "KNOW" as much as you think you do.

You are right -- based on the standard Lefties set today for our President and military -- many of our past presidents would be brought up on charges of being "war criminals" as would many of our troops who fought in WW2 -- the "greatest generation" it turns out was just a bunch of murderers and torturers.
POSTED BY BOWA


Ok, you are part of the greatest nation this world has ever seen.
You feel better now?

Ok, you are part of the greatest nation this world has ever seen.
You feel better now?


Fribo,

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that the typical DR poster cares what the other posters think.

Most are here just to argue politics and other subjects. If you are looking to really effect how someone thinks you are, for the most part, in the wrong place.

The short answer: No, I doubt it does. But then I also doubt that the original post made him feel bad in the first place.

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that the typical DR poster cares what the other posters think.

Most are here just to argue politics and other subjects. If you are looking to really effect how someone thinks you are, for the most part, in the wrong place.


I agree with that Moom. I know my political beliefs are well formed and I come here to see how well they stand up to scrutiny. With few exceptions, I can say that I have been reassured daily about my worldview after reading the comments here in response to my posts.

Do you understand the difference between WWII, a war of self defense when liberty and democracy were on the line, and Iraq, where corporate concern and AIPAC called the shots?

Really? America's soverignty was threated in WWII? Our liberty was at stake? Wow, seems like after pearl harbor, the fighting was over 2000 miles away from America. Were we going to be invaded by Germany or Japan?

First major US troop engagement with Axis was in Africa. Got to control the oil....Same as it ever was...

Really? America's soverignty was threated in WWII? Our liberty was at stake? Wow, seems like after pearl harbor, the fighting was over 2000 miles away from America. Were we going to be invaded by Germany or Japan?

Both.

Was American sovereignty imperilled?

Actually, SickWilly it was.

America only had two real choices vis a vis WWII.

First was to support Nazi Germany and say fuck you to traditional allies. this could not have been achieved through isolationism alone. WWII demanded that one picked a side and stuck to it.

Because of all the massive conditioning that has taken place during that time and since it is practically inconcievable to the modern American that there were actually Nazi sympathisers who wanted America to be on "the winning side" and support the Nazis. Walt Disney at one time was a Nazi Simp and Prescott Bush the grand-daddy of the BushCo clan was another. In fact he continued to do business with the Nazis even after the US entered the war. A fact which never made it into the papers to stop him from being elected to the senate later on. The money involved in that exchange was frozen until after the war. Prescott Bush's share was 1%. Enuff money at the time to turn the Bush family into a part of Big Oil albeit a small one.

Before Pearl Harbour America and Japanese relations were strained to the point were a Perl Harbour like incident was practically unavoidable. Roosevelt knew that it was coiming he just wasn't entirely sur wot "it" was and when although reports of the Japanese bombers flying over to Hawaii were on his desk before the attack began. He was aware that the American sentiment at the time was over-whelmingly for staying out of European wars and it was only on Dec 7th when he made that "A day which shall live forever in infamy" speech that America woke up to the real dangers and began war preparations in earnest.

America only had two real choices in WWII.

Join the Axis or join the Allies.

America made the right choice but to suggest that American sovereignty was not imperilled by the trifecta of fascist states trying to rule the world is sheer nonsense.

Ever play Axis and Allies the board game?

Spud has. Over and over again.

S'good one.

Be Well.

PS: Guess who's coming to blog-world. Tha's right, it's the Drduge Retort's very own tater o' doom, dethspud, entering, as ya do,
stage left.

I didn't think that Freedom Watch was notoriously political. It may be conservative, but so is Amnesty International. What's the difference?

The difference T&C is that AI is made up of brave, commited, caring truth telling individuals trying to make the world a better place and Freedom Watch is made up of a bunch of cowardly ass-wipes and propagandists. Thanx fer askin'.

Be Well.

Think about that.

Take yer time.

Get back to Spud.


Asked Spud.

Moonman's response?...

Spud, you flatter yourself. Answering you requires less thought that I would need to answer the question "what color is Mooman's hair?".

You have a mediocre grasp on history and logic, and simply attempt to mask that with a pinch of humor, colorful writing style, and a good deal of arrogance. Poorly I might add.


"Less thought" = "Thoughtless"

So basically you have no argument?

Just insults?

Spud accepts yer complete intellectual surrender.

Next!

Be Well.

Spud asked...

Was Hitler justified?

Was Tojo justified?

Once you accept the notion of pre-emptive attack as being justifiable you have to either accept those two statement


At least Mao attempts to put forth an argument of some kind. He doesn't actually achieve anything but making a fool out of himself once again but at least he puts in the effort in...

No you don't, dumbshit.

You just simply have to quit conflating yer stupid-ass moral equivalence schtick with actual intellect.

Tojo and Hitler were bad dudes not because they "launched pre-emptive wars"--but because they believed in and respectively attempted to implement a fairly fucked-up model for the human condition to emulate.

Reciprocally, a "pre-emptive" attack on either one would have been justified had it occurred.

Go wrap your little liberal mind around that shit for a day or two and get back with us.

People like you sicken me.


Tojo and Hitler were bad guys precisely because they launched pre-emptive wars. The stuff they did in those wars wasn't new. They didn't invent the wheel or anything. They were the last of the traditional land wars going back to the days of teh Holy Roman Empire. Hatred of the Jews existed in one form or another in many parts of the world that wasn't a particular innovation.

Yer arguing that it was their "system" their ideas that made them evil? Man, are you fucked in the head! It was their ACTIONS that made them evil. If Europe attacked first in an attempt to take-over their lands then Europe would have been in the wrong. Just as the US is morally in the wrong in Iraq. When the AQ elements in Afghanistan fled to the FATA in Pakistan they shoulda have been followed and wiped out. The reasons they weren't was to give BushCo an ongoing reason to stay in the region and continue working on the pipeline projects.

Yer inability to either see or report the historical truth of the times we lkive in make you either a disingenous fraud or an outright idiot. The more Spud reads yer postage the more Spud is convinced that it's a bit of both. You are a morally bankrupt apologist for terror and evil Mao and Spud will NEVER let you forget it.

Did you have your conscience surgically removed to make room for extra ego? It cetainly appears that way.

Now, piss off and go grow a soul, you sick fuck.

People like you ARE sick.

Sick in the head.
Sick in the heart.
Sick in the soul.

Be Well.

WotZ that?

Spud thought he heard a mosquito like sound...

There it goes again. Shhh everybody be real quiet...

Spudz, speaking in 3rd person in not original. You borrowed it from several tv shows just like most of your ideas are borrowed from others

Ah, it's just "knownothing" again

In point of fact many theories have been advanced as to where Spud is pick up the third person thing. Some have suggested Bob Dole. Wrong. Some have suggested Elmo from Sesame Street. Wrong. Some have suggsted "The Drake" of Seinfeld fame. Wrong.

All wrong.

Spud has told blogworld afore.

Spud is tell blog-world again.

CEREBUS!

Be Well.

"Tojo and Hitler were bad guys precisely because they launched pre-emptive wars."

What were they "preempting?" I don't remember China, the Philippines or any other nation threatening to attack Japan, do you? In fact, Japan had invaded and occupied China years before Pearl Harbor. And, I really believe France, with her Maginot Line, was in a defensive posture. Was Belgium a threat to Germany? What was the "preemption" in Germany's attack on Poland's "horse cavalry?" I don't follow your "preemption."

On the other hand, Iraq was believed to be a threat by nations OTHER than just the U.S. Iraq was believed to have WMD and had attacked Iran and Kuwait and had a history. I guess you could call the attack on Iraq "preemptive" whether it was wise or not.

"Spud has told blogworld afore.

Spud is tell blog-world again."

...and Spud is SOOooo full of shit he has a turd in every pocket!

Spuds it would appear you haven't seen "Der Fuehrer's Face" (1943)

What were they "preempting?"

~AllLiesAndJests

Damn yer funny!

Not the good kind.

"Pre-emptive" in the sense that they struck first.

Just like America struck Iraq first.

When a cop comes along and finds two guys who've been in a fight the traditional question asked is "Who started it?"

ie. "Who threw the first punch?"

That allows the cop to know who was acting in self defense and who was the aggressor.

If yer having trouble with the concept ask a five year old, they'll tell ya.

Are you deliberately being obtuse here or are you actually THAT ignorant?

Yer new nickname, btw, comes courtesy of an old Simon and Garfunkle song wot Spud is listen to this a.m.

"All Lies and Jests
Still a man hears
What he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"

Strewth!

Be Well.

PS: Deth is just a po' boy and his stories seldom told in the MSM but blog-world?

Well that's a horse of a different colour now aint it?

Actually their turning down the ad has gotten more exposure for the group throughout the media and internet. I believe this more people are now aware than the number of viewers NBC has - I'm sure Freedom Watch is extremely happy for all the free exposure they did not have to pay for.

"PS: Deth is just a po' boy and his stories seldom told in the MSM but blog-world?"

I can accept that. Kinda goes along with an inability to take you serious when I seem to conjure up a mental image of Bart and Homer Simpson everytime I see the name, "DethSpud." Damn that PincheMao for that...LOL!

Spuds it would appear you haven't seen "Der Fuehrer's Face" (1943)

AnDREAMackris aka Dreamy!

Der Fuehrer's Face (1943)

Please Andrea, Spud is cartoon and comics freak!

Spud has watched that many many times along with many many others.

Spud is huge fan of cartoon propaganda from WWII from all sides. It's pretty telling stuff albeit very racist by todays PC standards.

Of course, Disney eventually jumped on the anti-Nazi band-wagon but prior to America's commitment to that venture he was leaning the other way.

Some folk'll tell ya that that an unfounded rumour a lie made up by white supremicist groups in the US to advance their fucked up agendas and truly Spud has no hard data to confirm it but if there is no truth to the rumour that Disney was a secret Nazi sympathiser then it's one of the most enduring urban legendss of all time.

All apologies to Uncle Walt if it turns out to be completely unfounded but there's no definitive way to tell at this late date.

Here's some stuff wot Spud found with a brief google.

A lesser-known short sometimes cited is 1932's "The Wayward Canary," in which Mickey is seen using a cigarette lighter with a swastika painted on the side.

This is all circumstantial at best, but other suggestive details have come to light. In 1933, the German American Bund was founded by Fritz Kuhn. Kuhn was evidently quite a character--he had met Hitler in the early thirties and reportedly was profoundly loathed by the Nazi leader. An association of German immigrants to America, the Bund had a definite pro-Nazi slant. Disney animator Art Babbitt claimed his boss had a strong interest in, if not outright sympathy for, the Bund:

In the immediate years before we entered the War there was a small, but fiercely loyal, I suppose legal, following of the Nazi party . . . There were open meetings, anybody could attend and I wanted to see what was going on myself. On more than one occasion I observed Walt Disney and [Disney's lawyer] Gunther Lessing there, along with a lot of prominent Nazi-afflicted Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time.


But enuff about that does Andea Mackris think the Green Incredible Hulk could beat up Aquaman? Wot about the Grey Incredible Hulk?

Inquiring Spuds wanna know! ^_^

Be Well.

I can accept that. Kinda goes along with an inability to take you serious when I seem to conjure up a mental image of Bart and Homer Simpson everytime I see the name, "DethSpud."

In point of fact, oh obviously obtuse one, Mao (and the Angry Inch) sed that Spud reminded him of a cross between the Comic Book Guy and Disco Stu from the Simpsons.

You made about three posts saying how much you luffed this bon mot from the poison pen of Mao and now you can't even remember wot was sed.

This inabilty to remember what you had for breakfast along with yer obvious stupidity are Jest a couple of reasons why Spud and the majority of the board simply can't take you seriousLY.

There are many others, of course.

Spud won't further embarrass you by going into them, suffice it to say, that to folks who aren't as brain-dead as yourself they are painfully obvious.

Ta fer mentioning dethspud by name.

Spud luffs that doncha know! ^_^

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about"

~Oscar Wilde

Be Well.

Again spudz usually other peoples work to try and sound intelligent himself. How unoriginal is that?

Spudz does try so hard to sound smart.

Spudz wants to be liked.

Spudz uses others words because he has none of his own.

Spudz ideas are full of holes and lack the facts to back them up.

Spudz writes in 3rd person because he hopes it will sound funny and give him the attention he so desperately desires.

Spudz is lonely up here in Canada.

Spudz wishes he had more than frozen stump hole to put vaseline on.

Spudz once got his woodie stuck in frozen tree hole.

Spudz crapped his pants when squirrels laughed at his small spud.

Spudz exited outdoors via door of shame.

Spudz now only rubs up a against blow up doll because she no laugh at his tiny spud.

Spudz reads comic books because it fits his 3rd grade reading level.

Spudz like the pretty pictures.

Spudz spilled his pudding cup.

Spudz went in diaper.

Spudz likes sticky feel of diaper but smell is tough one to deal with.

"In point of fact, oh obviously obtuse one, Mao (and the Angry Inch) sed that Spud reminded him of a cross between the Comic Book Guy and Disco Stu from the Simpsons."

'S OK...you still remind me of Homer and Bart Simpson although not as intelligent as they.

"Please Andrea, Spud is cartoon and comics freak!"

True, ol' BogApple...you ARE a cartoon AND a freak! at least you're not deluding yourself about THAT.

"This inabilty to remember what you had for breakfast along with yer obvious stupidity are Jest a couple of reasons why Spud and the majority of the board simply can't take you seriousLY."

LOL...you think I'm here to be taken seriously??? And you suppose the "majority" of the board takes YOU seriously?? What an exalted opinion you have of yourself...LOL. I said before, you're a pompous ass. Speaking of stupidity...if stupidity was a snowflake, you'd be a walking blizzard.

"Spud won't further embarrass you by going into them, suffice it to say, that to folks who aren't as brain-dead as yourself they are painfully obvious."

I've been looking for a Canadian translation of the immortal words of our distinguished vice president to Senator Leahy. I can't seem to find any Canadese dictionary so I guess I'll just have to repeat them to Sputz...er, Spud..in English...in the first person, of course. "Go fuck yourself."

Wow. This was unexpected:

"Under pressure from outraged viewers, NBC has reversed its decision not to air the Freedom's Watch ads thanking troops... Developing... "
www.drudgereport.com

I was being facetious of course. The hypocrisy and disengenuousness of the Lefties here never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-12-08 02:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Crawl up on your cross and nail yourself to it, you self-righteous hack.

Crawl up on your cross and nail yourself to it, you self-righteous hack.

That's a keeper.

:-)

I thought it was bullshit fed to us as 9/11 burgers w/ cheese.

Well then, that either means that you are smarter than the majority of the world and prescient to boot.

Or...

It means that you are a partisan hack that will always believe the opposite from the other side regardless of what is reasonable or rational under the circumstances.

Given your posting history, I would be more inclined to believe the latter.

Posted by moomanfl at 2007-12-08 09:03 AM


Silly cons like you and Bowa are always saying this. "Oh you lib elites"

and now "partisan hacks"

At the time (pre-invasion) we were anti-American, with the terrorists, or French pu$$ys.

In the face of everything but a signed confession, you remain adamant and unwaivering in your stance. You wont even address square facts like Wolfowitz comitting purjury or Cheneys deliberate lies leading us in to war

"Simply stated, there is no doubt Saddam now has WMDs"

Remember W and yellow cake?

Dont tell me its what everyone thought at the time.

Those who wanted more evidence were "radical left" and "didnt understand" terrorism.

You saw things like "Ismalofascism."

Dont you know that fascism is inherently anti-Islamic?


Dont tell me its what everyone thought at the time.

But the truth is that is is what almost everyone thought at the time and had for many years.

After all Clinton had bombed Iraq because he had thought the same thing, as did almost every politician on both sides of the aisle.

Or have you forgotten when Clinton said, ""The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."- - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

And must I don't think I need to rehash all the democrats who said that they knew Saddam had WMD's and were therefore authorizing the use of force including:

" "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

So you can rewire history all you want -- but the fact remains the consensus view by nations around the world was that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to build more.

That it turned out that Saddam did not have the WMD's was an intel blunder of epic proportions -- which is bad enough -- but to somehow criminalize the behavior of Bill Clinton, Hillary, Chenye, Bush and all the rest who had believed the findings of the large majority of intel -- is just delusional on your part.

But the truth is that is is what almost everyone thought at the time and had for many years

So you can rewire history all you want -- but the fact remains the consensus view by nations around the world was that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to build more.

That it turned out that Saddam did not have the WMD's was an intel blunder of epic proportions -- which is bad enough -- but to somehow criminalize the behavior of Bill Clinton, Hillary, Chenye, Bush and all the rest who had believed the findings of the large majority of intel -- is just delusional on your part.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-12-08 09:33 PM


Bowa,
You must have me confused with someone who holds the words of the Clintons at the highest regard.

Or else, you wouldnt base every argument on what Bill/Hill said.

You are correct to say they had them for years, as in when we gave them to Saddam and Iraq before the first gulf war. Thats not revisionist history.

We set up Saddam.

We set up Bin Laden.

The information is there. Its not wild internet rumors. If you wont take the time to look up Tim Osman and tell me how he has escaped the "liberal media" then I gotta believe youz just another sheep.

You are wrong to say "the consensus" thought otherwise.

Politicians like Wellstone here and Galloway in the UK, and France, for instance, were not in agreement with your unflabbable intel.

General Sanchez ring a bell?

The Right has spoken, NBC caved.

let's see, NBC tried to mess with the troops and got slapped down by the public in less than 24 hours. The Democrats have been crapping on the troops since they took power, wonder what magic the next election cycle will bring?

You are wrong to say "the consensus" thought otherwise.

Oh come on. Stop being downright silly. The people who didn't believe that Saddam had WMD's all look like geniuses in hindsight -- but they were in the minority viewpoint at the time. A small minority at that.

The overwhelming majority of the comments by Two Presidents, their advisors, bi-partisan members of Congress, as well as politicians around the world over at least the 5 years leading up to the war all said that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to get more.

The people who didn't believe that Saddam had WMD's all look like geniuses in hindsight --

First off, thanks.

Second, a record number of people worldwide protested against the iraq war before it even started! When has that EVER happened before? And that's just the people who got out to protest. You can bet more knew what a sham this was.

The vast majority of germans and french, for starters.

It was only as a result of constant BS that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 that the percentage of Americans who believed in the connection went from 8% to 44% - About the number of Americans identifying themselves at the time as Republicans

The overwhelming majority of the comments by Two Presidents, their advisors, bi-partisan members of Congress, as well as politicians around the world over at least the 5 years leading up to the war all said that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to get more.


Posted by Bowa


Bowa will you at least admit we gave Iraq WMD?

Its not the intillectually gifted who called BS on Iraq war propaganda.

All the information was there for the inquisitive mind..

Id like to think Im a meta-genius of sorts, but I know better..

So did Cheney, in fact
www.youtube.com

Then conveniently forgot about that (and the constitution after 9/11.)

Would you like to address what I said about Tim Osman and Islamofascism? Or you can go back to what Hans said..

And try not to bring up a Clinton.

The world believed Saddam had WMDs because Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMDs.

In a world where it is more harmful to ignore what people tell you they are going to do than act on what they tell you they are going to do no other option was prudent other than going in and taking Saddam out.

That's how the adults roll.

ZULU

Taking your reasoning we should have invaded North Korea first. We KNOW they had a nuclear weapons planet and a madman who would use them who shouted it to the world, complete with tested missles capable of reaching much of Asia.

So, wanna explain THAT one?

planet=plant

You know the more I read these posts the more I am beginning to understand.

We need to put Sadam back in Power...(oops...he is dead ...sorry) because he was such a stable influence and the middle east was such a peaceful place before we went in there to get him. Gosh he was not a threat to anyone. (well the Kuwait'es ) and he NEVER had any WMD's (except the ones he gassed the Kurds with ...but - they were Kurds..who really cares about them.)

Everyone knows he would never had given them to any terriorist group! Oh..Abu Nidal was in Iraq. The guy that tried to kill Oli North..thats OK he wasn't with Bin Ladin - no Al Queda was in Iraq...they were all in Florida.

He should have been able to ignore the UN mandates - hell everyone else does.

And all the Europeans were AGAINST US (well except now that the governments of both Germany and France have been replaced) so we should have done ANYTHING those governments said to do. (they were so EFFECTIVE at stopping Saddam!)

The REAL Terriorist is AMERICA! It is ALWAYS WRONG! The Berlin wall should be rebuilt right now and the Balkins, Slovakia, Estonia, The Czech Rep. and Poland should go back under totalitarian rule! Because they had Socialism and that is so much fairer that mean old Capitalism. Gosh they had Public Health Care!

Harry Reid and Hillary should be given MEDALS for surrendering on the floor of the Senate and undercutting our troups in the field! After all they didn't REALLY mean to vote for the use of force! And just because the death rate in D.C. is the same per capita as Iraq - we need to PULL OUT NOW!

Sorry it took me so long to get on board

foshaffer- There is nothing new or clever in your ignorant right wing talking points. Get some new material for gods sake.

"Sorry it took me so long to get on board"

Does this mean that now we can count on your vote for Hillary??? :-)

Pro - Did I miss something? As you say - I am ignorant so there must be something I left out. I am just want to make sure I can spout the party line. It is kind of difficult for me to follow the logic at times.

Re: dethspud at 2007-12-08 01:34 PM

Prescott and his Nazi dealmaking echoes Dubya's oilofacistists dealmaking today. 'Cept (on the surface) Dubya doesn't have 1% of the Oilofacsists wealth to gain from his would=be success, Cheney and Co. do. But an interesting parallel, and wittingly or not, Dubya and Cheney are having a lot more success at undermining the pluralist democracies of the West than Prescott Bush did in the 1940s.

Town - are you ok? Did you take your Prozac? Your ramblings are starting to worry me.

I don't see the link between Bush and undermining pluralist democracies. I think he has almost successful started one in Iraq, and his dad help create 12 more with the fall of the wall.

Most of the oil we get is from Canada...so maybe it is way for him to become the Canadian Prime Minister after he leaves office

Spud -- re your, "The difference T&C is that AI is made up of brave, commited, caring truth telling individuals trying to make the world a better place and Freedom Watch is made up of a bunch of cowardly ass-wipes and propagandists. Thanx fer askin'." ... 2007-12-08 01:42 PM

I don't personally know either group, except by web info, but will take your word on it. However, (IMHO, and based on infrequent use) FW's website has been pretty useful at shining the light on oppression. If you want to discredit the org, I would appreciate your linking some incriminating evidence. I already have referenced their site for academic purposes, and will eat crow if necessary.

Sure. Thank Pope John Paul ll for the fall of the wall. Bush 41 had nothing to do with it than being in office.

Then there was Bush 41's sending 28,000 troops into Somalia in December 1991 with the promise he'd have them out by the time Clinton was sworn in. Well, another Bush who doesn't keep his word (read my lips). The Rethugs were quick to blame Clinton who had nothing to do with troops in Somalia but inheriting a mess from Bush 41.

You need more than Prozac FOSHAFFER. You need to learn to read better - and from more sources.

NBC indicated: "We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site..."

Some questions.
1) Who and how is something judged to be "too political?" Would, for example, the ad FOX refused to run (but apparently NBC felt was fine) not fall into such a category?

2) Within 10,000 how many calls and emails do you think NBC received? And of those, how many do you think supported NBC's original decision?

3) Do you think this reversal reflects simply the economics of it, meaning NBC only reversed course when it felt it would be hurt in the pocketbook by a boycott or by losing advertisers?

4) Do you support NBC's reversal? Why/why not.

NBC is making a mountain out of a molehill.

MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY HOLIDAYS to all our military troops here and overseas.

Chris,
We all make mistakes in life. I just think their original decision was blind partisanship. And it was exposed.

If it was partisanship, show me ads NBC has accepted for anti-war groups. I think these kinds of decisions are due to timidity. All of the networks should be a lot more accepting of political message ads, regardless of the message.

Hey RCADE - When did you ever see a headline that a Network refused an anti-war add? I saw plenty leading up to the last election from all sorts of groups - no mention of refusing one.

You are correct that they back down due to timidity - but to make the decision in the first place is what indicates their core beliefs.

CBS, NBC and ABC all are primarily left org. They view the world through that prisim and assume the mainstream of america agrees with them.

Just saw the ad on NBC. Freedom Watch removed the URL. Problem solved.

"CBS, NBC and ABC all are primarily left org. They view the world through that prisim and assume the mainstream of america agrees with them."

NBC is owned by General Electric. A poster on another thread yesterday pointed out that GE is one of the largest private contractors in Iraq.....I highly doubt I would call them primarily left. They typically avoid exposing political views as a corporate policy.

Freedom's Watch, a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers, has emerged as one of the best-financed conservative groups. It seeks to be a vocal advocate of President Bush's current policy in Iraq.

Typical, they say they support the troops. What they mean is do not mess with their profit machine, the Iraq war. If a few thousand troops die, just the cost of doing business.

Spud -- re your, "The difference T&C is that AI is made up of brave, commited, caring truth telling individuals trying to make the world a better place and Freedom Watch is made up of a bunch of cowardly ass-wipes and propagandists. Thanx fer askin'." ... 2007-12-08 01:42 PM

I don't personally know either group, except by web info, but will take your word on it. However, (IMHO, and based on infrequent use) FW's website has been pretty useful at shining the light on oppression. If you want to discredit the org, I would appreciate your linking some incriminating evidence. I already have referenced their site for academic purposes, and will eat crow if necessary.


Ooh a question from T&C!

"FW's website has been pretty good at shining the light on oppresion"?

Yes, but in aid of wot asks Spud.

Incriminating evidence?

Let's start with their wiki entry shall we?

Very first paragraph...

Freedom's Watch is an advocacy group in part run and supported by former officials of the Bush administration. [1] The organization states that its goal is "educating individuals about and advancing public policies that protect America's interests at home and abroad, foster economic prosperity, and strengthen families." [2] The Freedom's Watch web site states, "Those who want to quit while victory is possible have dominated the public debate about terror and Iraq since the 2004 election. Freedom's Watch is going to change that."

It is a 501(c)(4) organization, based in Washington D.C.


BushCo warmongers. Propagandists fer the MIC.

Anything else ya need to know?...

President Bush's Iraq War policies should be supported. "More and more Democratic and Republican members agree: The surge in Iraq is working," according to one ad. "Victory is America's only choice."[3]
Iran is a grave threat to the United States and Israel. According to the group's president, "If Hitler's warnings were heeded when he wrote 'Mein Kampf,' he could have been stopped." Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he continues, "is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region -- he wants the destruction of the United States and the destruction of Israel." One ad calls Ahmadenijad "a terrorist."[4]


Aha again more war-mongering but this time a nod in the direction of Israel and a bomb sight aimed at Iran. Aint that interesting?

TBC.

Be Well.

The Washington Post lists the following members and donors for Freedom's Watch:

Bradley A. Blakeman (president, a former deputy assistant to George W. Bush).
Ari Fleischer (board member, former Bush press secretary).
Matthew Brooks (board member, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition).
Mel Sembler (donor, former ambassador to Italy who helped finance the 2000 Florida recount battle).
John Templeton Jr. (donor, board member of the Templeton Growth Fund and financier of Let Freedom Ring).
Sheldon Adelson (donor, CEO Las Vegas Sands Corporation and the third-richest American in Forbes magazine's rankings last year).
Kevin E. Moley (donor, former U.S. ambassador to international organizations in Geneva, and a senior adviser to Dick Cheney during the 2000 campaign).
Howard Leach (donor, CEO Leach Capital and former ambassador to France who also helped fund the Florida Recount).
Anthony Gioia (donor, head of Gioia Management and former ambassador to Malta).
Richard Fox (donor, co-founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition).
Gary Erlbaum (donor, owner of Greentree Properties).


A partial list at best but telling nonwtheless, no?

It's like AIPAC and the MIC all rolled into one. And T&C dared to compare them to the good folk at Amnesty International? Spud prolly wouldn't have come down so hard on 'em if that wasn't the case but if folk can't see the difference between these cheerleaders for the apocalypse and the good. decent, moral, caring folk at Amnesty International then Spud is question their ability to discern day from night.

That is all. (fer now)

Be Well.

PS: Anybody miss Spud?

PPS: FYI, if ya weren't really paying attention, that was dethspud just then, the Drudge Retort's one and only tater o' doom, entering blog-world, as ya do,
stage left.

Welcome back Spud.

NBC is owned by General Electric.

~Proud Canadian.

Nice postage and Spud aint just saying that cos Spud is proud Canadian too!

GE they bring good things to life!

...However as a member of the MIC they also bring things both good and bad to death.

And the average RT asswipe in their knee-jerk way considers them part of the Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy. If it wasn't so pathetic and sad it'd almost be funny.

Spud is also proud Canadian today as Spud just saw a little piece on CTV about the success of "Canadaville".

Fer folks who don't know Belinda Stronachs old man is a billionaire up here in Canader, eh? Anywho ...right quick after Katrina happened the guy decides to give some of the victims a hand up instead of a hand out. He buys a big plot of land in Louisiana, builds a whack of homes and then starts offering folk dislocated by the disaster free rent fer five years and help getting their families to move there.

Only a few rules.

Everybody gots to have a job or be in school.

8 hours of volunteer work a month.

No criminal behaviour.

No drugs.

Everybody starts a little organic garden in order to supplement their diets and income.

300 Homes filled with happy grateful families. The nearby town was, wotcha call hesitant at first (to put it lightly), but now, a few years past, the place is thriving and the residents express their relief at raising their kids in a town where crime is practically non-existent and there are no gangs or gunplay.

Stronach almost begins to make up fer that other Candian Billionaire and legendary ass-wipe Conrad Black (technically Black gave up his Canadian citizenship in orde to join the House of Lords in England but folk still refer to him as such *sigh*)

Black is gonna be coming up fer sentencing pretty quick here fer fucking over his company's investor by using company funds in order to live a lifestyle that woulda shamed even Diamond Jim Brady hisself.

Yin and Yang.

Be Well.

PS: Canadaville-
en.wikipedia.org

Conrad Black- news.independent.co.uk

Spud's got his popcorn bowl at the ready fer when CB's sentence comes down. Should be good!

Welcome back Spud

Thanx fer the warm welcome NavyVet!

It snowed overnight here in Spudworld and warmth is always appreciated on such days.

Crazy weather! Wish it would make up it's bloody mind. Yesterday was freakin' gorgeous. Spud is go fer a large walk and enjoyed it immensely. Today is more of a treadmill inside typa day.

Spud is hate the cold, ya see. Spud is really quite a lousy Canadian in that respect. Proud as hell, of course, but not a fan of all the white stuff. That shit is supposed to stay on the mountain fer when Spud wants to ski on it not on the roads where people can't drive on it particularily well.

Other than Montreal, Vancouver has to have the worst drivers in all of Canada.

Kinda sad, really.

But Spud is digress!

Ta again!

Be Well.

SPUD

Barack-Oprah rally on C-SPAN starting 2:30 EST. If you don't have C-SPAN you can watch online at:

my.barackobama.com

Spud,

Shame!

I was up at the cottage in Haliburton a weekend ago. Minus 15 ourside, minuse 10 inside. It took all the electric heaters and the wood stove to get the main room up to 1 C by the time I went to sleep in front of the fire. By the time I'd left it was finally 14 C in the room (I closed off the upstairs to keep the heat close to me too!).

Cold is what you make of it. Well it made my nose rather uncomfortable through the night. That was the only thing I let poke out of the HBC blanket I was under!

Regards,
etc.

OK - 1) How is Freedom watch any different than Media Matters (made up of Clintonites that are try to get Hillary elected) and Move On? (which is trying to bring down the US from what I see)

2)If you want to see how GE runs read the book by the ex CEO. They run each of the businesses that they buy as autonomous business units. So NBC calls the shots for NBC

Foshaffer - I worked for GE, in different divisions. There is corporate culture (dictated by GE Corp) that is standard in every business unit. GE has strict rules in terms of "flying under the radar" when it comes to any sort of bad press or political association. And I have read the book.

If it was partisanship, show me ads NBC has accepted for anti-war groups.

Rcade, can you explain to me how "thanking" our troops for the service is specifically "pro-war"? And also, why would "Thanking" our troops for their service not be equally valid for "anti-war" groups to do especially since they proclaim they "Hate the war but love the troops"

How could they "love the troops" if they can't even thank them for their service?


Rcade, can you explain to me how "thanking" our troops for the service is specifically "pro-war"?
-Bowa

WELCOME TO FREEDOM'S WATCH
For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interest groups and their left-wing allies in government. Freedom's Watch was formed to be the conservative voice fighting for mainstream conservative principles today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. We engage in grassroots lobbying, education and information campaigns, and issue advocacy to further our goals and objectives. We create coalitions and collaborate with like-minded groups and individuals to further our common goals. Freedom's Watch provides bold conservative solutions to pressing domestic and international issues to keep America strong, safe, and prosperous.

www.freedomswatch.org

LOL Try spinning this into they don't have an agenda beyond "Support the Troops".

You don't have to worry about Lokisfur spinning that. He would spin a broke washing machine if He thought it would help the right wingers.

Larry Mohr

LOL Try spinning this into they don't have an agenda beyond "Support the Troops".

I never said that the creators of the ad didn't have an agenda beyond thanking our troops. An "anti-war" group would also have an agenda beyond "thanking our troops"

However, Rcade seems to suggest that "thanking our troops" is specifically "pro-war" and you seem to suggest that a website that bills itself as a "conservative voice" is also inherently pro-war. Yet there is a huge part of the conservative movement, led by Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul that is anti-war.

But apparently, you and rcade and many others here believe that to even thank our troops is to be pro war?

Why.

Can't "Thanking" our troops for their service not be equally valid for "anti-war" groups (or conservatives like Ron paul or Pat Buchanan) to do especially since they proclaim they "Hate the war but love the troops"

How could they "love the troops" if they can't even thank them for their service?

Barack-Oprah rally on C-SPAN starting 2:30 EST. If you don't have C-SPAN you can watch online at:

~AU

Spud's gots the C-Span! But ta fer the linkage.
When Hillary first heard that Obama and Oprah were gonna stump together in Iowa she sed Oh-Oh.

As well she should!

Be Well.

It was a cold and Stormy night...

I was up at the cottage in Haliburton a weekend ago. Minus 15 ourside, minus 10 inside

Brrr just Brrrr!

Are you serious.

Is 2 degrees now in the lower mainland of BC.

The snow is all melting away as we speak.

Spud feels like a bit of a puss-tart now after yer tale of woe.

Well it made my nose rather uncomfortable through the night. That was the only thing I let poke out of the HBC blanket I was under!

Ha!
HBC blankets!

Spud is own a couple of them things.

It may not be a law that every Canadian has to own one but it might as well be.

Be Well.

On Topic?

But apparently, you and rcade and many others here believe that to even thank our troops is to be pro war?

Thanking the troops isn't political whether you buy into BushCo's rationale ofor the war or no and should be done by Spud's lights.

That sed, spending million sof dollars advocating "War Eternal" (tm) in Iraq or bombing Iran, all on behalf of the MIC, BushCo and AIPAC is obviously just war-mongering by a bunch of profiteers and should be called as such.

Doncha think?

Proud,

So you made my point. If GE doesn't like bad press (which I would agree with) and the guys at NBC make an announcement that they are not going to carry this add - they obviously thought that there would not be bad press on their decision.

Given that; they obviously think that since the group is a support group for the Bush Admin. and that everyone hates the war - nobody would object and in fact be very supportive.

The only way you could think that is if you so far left you can't even see the other side.

Hey, foshafter, where's the link to that Valerie Plame WEB SITE!?

Everyone thinks you're a liar.

You don't want to prove them right, do you?

Hans

Thanking the troops isn't political whether you buy into BushCo's rationale ofor the war or no and should be done by Spud's lights.

I agree spud. I believe that the "thank you " to the troops in the ad wa not political -- even though the website that paid for the ad was political.

It's too bad that a group like moveon.org can't do a similar "thank you" to the troops with a link to their website.

If they do that, it would go a long way in proving to many in America that the phrase "Hate the War but Love the troops" isn't just bullshit Liberal blather done so they don't get vilified for blaming and hating the soldiers like they did for the way they treated the troops during Vietnam.



How could they "love the troops" if they can't even thank them for their service?


As illustrated in the Freedom Watch site and all the other support the troop, thank the troops right wing sites the intent is to morph support the troops into support the mission / support the war.

But, LOL You know that!


As illustrated in the Freedom Watch site and all the other support the troop, thank the troops right wing sites the intent is to morph support the troops into support the mission / support the war.

Zap, So then you are saying the reverse must also be true -- that to consciously withhold "thanking the troops" the intent is to morph refusal to support the troops into support for the anti-war movement.

So what you are saying is that if you "love the troops" then you damage the "anti-war movement"

But, LOL You know that!



So then you are saying the reverse must also be true --

Not at all just another mantra of the right.

Do you have any original thought?

Not at all just another mantra of the right

Face it Zap, If you are say saying "thank you" to the troops is inherently pro-war then it follows that a conscious refusal to thank the troops must be inherently "anti-war"

LOL

but thanks for proving my point that the phrase "love the war but support the troops" is a load of crap.

Oops I am sure I won't hear the end of that mistake in the post above:

It should be "thanks for proving my point that the phrase "hate the war but love the troops" is a load of crap.

Mistake?

Typos and verbal gaffes have long been regarded as the mind's attempt to be heard.

Don't be ashamed. Embrace your callousness!

Regards,
etc.

Typos and verbal gaffes have long been regarded as the mind's attempt to be heard.

Or distracted by the girlfriend yelling for you to look up a stupid phone number.

LOL



Face it Zap, If you are say saying "thank you" to the troops is inherently pro-war then it follows that a conscious refusal to thank the troops must be inherently "anti-war"

LOL

but thanks for proving my point that the phrase "love the war but support the troops" is a load of crap.


I'm not saying thank you is pro war the right is trying to make that linkage.

As well the LOL "Trap" supposedly attached if the mantra isn't voiced.

As I have stated Bowa true love of the troops would have been giving them a legitimate mission.

But the Bush / PNAC agenda got in the way of that, so blow kisses as you belittle the troops with a War of Choice.

But again You Know That!


Freedom Watch does not care about the troops. They care about Dubya and the War. If they support the troops focus on their health care, their rotation schedule, and ending the war. Focus on what the troops want, their families want, the Iraqs want and what the American people want.---To get out of Iraq!!

Keeping in line with subject on this thread. I think NBC should have aired the Ad in the first place. Most people watching it who might go to the Freedom Watch web site will see them for what they are--Neocons whose main focus is to support the War and Dubya.



love the war but support the troops" is a load of crap.
POSTED BY BOWA



No sweat Bowa being distracted by a girlfriends request and giving a Freudian honest answer is, well about par.

Or distracted by the girlfriend yelling for you to look up a stupid phone number.

LOL


That's just it. The distraction provides the inner mind the moment with which attention on the outward presentation is removed. Out comes the real personna.

I have a cancellation at 2:30 on Monday if you would like to continue this in my office. My fee is negotiable but I think once we've had a few sessions you will be certainly happy with its results.

Before you know it you will be a button wearing Hillary supporter and all the happier for it.

Regards,
etc.

Before you know it you will be a button wearing Hillary supporter and all the happier for it.

LOL

There are no drugs strong enough to make that happen.

It's about time NBC came to it's senses, I visited the conservative group's website "Freedoms Watch" and the only thing I see NBC having a problem with it, it supports the troops and the war effort which NBC management is against.

But I'll give credit to NBC for doing the right thing in airing the ad to thank our troops as they need our support!!!

the war effort which NBC management is against.

Posted by MikeWarrior


Yes, I'm sure NBC's parent company, GE, the world's biggest defense contractor, really encourages an anti-war attitude.

In fact it's probably the higher ups that encouraged this flip-flop.

"So NBC calls the shots for NBC.

Posted by foshaffer at 2007-12-09 01:23 PM"

Yeah, right. So if NBC wanted to run a program exposing GE for overbilling for its work in Iraq, GE would just say "go for it," right Forshaffer?

By the way, still waiting for that link to Plame's website (or an admission by you that it doesn't exist). Don't run and hide like a little girl, Forsh.

"Or distracted by the girlfriend yelling for you to look up a stupid phone number.

LOL

Posted by Bowa at 2007-12-09 06:03 PM"

Bowa? Girlfriend? LOL is right!

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable