Say Anything Blog

Boy is Obama going to be a great president. I can see the dictators of the world pushing this light weight around.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

Sure, but he won’t talk to Hamas?...and he’ll invade Pakistan? but want’s to disarm us from having nukes? And slow military expansion to a snail’s pace?

He’s all over the place…

Considering all the national and international experience Obama brings to the office, perhaps a really large carseat could be fitted inside the presidential limo.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

rob
you proffer half truths

I’m pretty sure that Kennedy invaded Vietnam, Roosevelt invaded Europe and Truman dropped an atomic bomb on Japan.

Don’t forget Obama said we are fighting on the wrong battle field as well…

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

I’m pretty sure that Kennedy invaded Vietnam, Roosevelt invaded Europe and Truman dropped an atomic bomb on Japan.

And Obama would have invaded Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan.  You remember, the places where are enemies were before we drew them into places they weren’t before.

Do we really want to put a man in the White House with this loose of a grasp on history? 

No.  And we are not expecting the votes of people lost grasp as well.  That’s you cupcake.

And Obama would have invaded Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan.  You remember, the places where are enemies were before we drew them into places they weren’t before.

Zarkawi’s group was given haven in Afghanistan but fled when we invaded.  What became Al Qaeda in Iraq arrived when we brought the Taleban down but before we invaded Iraq.

Obama conveniently forgets that at the time Roosevelt talked with Stalin, he was our ally, and that Roosevelt never did talk with Mussolini, Hitler, or Hirohito/Tojo while we were at war--at least not that we know of.

and Rob conveniently forgets that the French invaded Vietnam, and then foisted the mess over on Ike who, in turn, foisted it over on Kennedy who, as pictured above, engaged the enemy verbally, so-to-speak.

so we have two bags of hot air on our hands, let’s take to the skies, shall we… to inspect Obama and Rob’s castles!

...and that Roosevelt never did talk with Mussolini, Hitler, or Hirohito/Tojo while we were at war--at least not that we know of.

Bubba conveniently forgets that we aren’t in war with Iran at the moment.  In fact, we talked to them at low levels before we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.  How convenient to forget these things.

"blackwater"boob presents us a picture from Yalta.

Note that our actual enemies at that time (Germany under Hitler, Japan under Tojo, and Italy under Mussolini) are not present.  Obama clearly would have had them at the table as well… I’m of the opinion that Roosevelt and Churchill had it right when they set the bar at unconditional surrender.

As regards Krushchev and JFK (not to be confused with John Fracking Kerry), someone might want to point out to “blackwater” that we never actually went to war with the Soviet Union.

If jaw jaw worked without the perceived muscle to back it up, the UN would be effective (other than at bribery, sexual slavery, and graft).

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Hannitized,

Iran has been in a de-facto state of war with the United States since November 4th, 1979, and has been stirring the pot ever since.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Iran has been in a de-facto state of war with the United States since November 4th, 1979, and has been stirring the pot ever since.

Rodney,

I understand that you feel this way.  However, there are a lot of people who don’t and who in fact think there is a chance we could iron things out.  We did it with the evil commies after all.

If they get the chance, the dirt bags will play Barry O like a Stradivarius!

Eunichized,

Iran has been waging war on the United States for nearly 29 years.  In that time we have twice taken effective (but limited) military action against the Mad Mullahs.  We have otherwise followed your preferred course of jaw jaw.  You merely propose the latest instance of the Progressive cry: “That didn’t work, let’s try it some more.”

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

However, there are a lot of people who don’t and who in fact think there is a chance we could iron things out.  We did it with the evil commies after all.

How do you “work things out” with a bunch of psychopaths who regard death as a “reward.” (As long as they don’t have any pork products in or on their bodies when they die.)

Hannitized, you conveniently forget that the main source of IEDs is Iran.  While not officially at war, they are our enemy in that way, and certainly what they’re said to have done is casus belli.

Wrong again, Rod!

Better swallow some beta carotene and sit this one out.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Kennedy did not ‘invade’ Vietnam. Eisenhower in September 1950 sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group to Vietnam to assist France, as well has $10 million dollars worth of equipment. Kennedy continued this and by mid-1962, the number of U.S. Military Advisors in South Vietnam was 12,000.

On March 8, 1965 was when 3,500 Marines were deployed to South Vietnam.

How do you “work things out” with a bunch of psychopaths who regard death as a “reward.” (As long as they don’t have any pork products in or on their bodies when they die.)

How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?

So maybe now you see what little happens when you guys, talk to the other guys?  The answer is you just gotta find the right people to talk to.

And Obama would have invaded Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan.  You remember, the places where are enemies were before we drew them into places they weren’t before.

Our enemies were in Iraq before the war. Even if one chooses not to look at the Saddam/Zawahiri link...there was still clearly Saddam. Zarquai was also in Iraq before we invaded, not after.

How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?

Saying our troops are on par with Islamists is a disgusting and cowardly position. But of course you “support the troops”.

How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?

You give them their wish, from long range, and say “Yippee Ky Yea” mother f’er.

Our enemies were in Iraq before the war. Even if one chooses not to look at the Saddam/Zawahiri link...there was still clearly Saddam. Zarquai was also in Iraq before we invaded, not after.

Just a question, but, how many Al Qaeda members were in US before we invaded Afghanistan?  How many are here now?  Why is Bush allowing them to stay and not arresting them?

You keep bringing up insignificant details that don’t mean anything, as Saddam was going to know and approve.  How many AQ snuck over the Iraqi border since we had “control” of Iraq?

You just keep ignoring the 9/11 commission, on purpose.  For what reason, I don’t know?

Saying our troops are on par with Islamists is a disgusting and cowardly position. But of course you “support the troops”.

I didnt say our troops are on par with fundamentalists.  That is your republican translation software at work there, buddy.

I was merely pointing out that their idiots, think like our idiots and guess what happens when you put two idiots in a room together?

If you need another break down, here you go;

Their idiots are the people who worry that they can’t deal with us because we will fight for God and country.....so they want to kill us all.

Our idiots are the people who worry that we can’t deal with them because they will fight and die as a reward.....so we want to kill them all.

But if it makes your tummy feel warm to mischaracterize my statement.  By all means, feel warm and fuzzy inside.  You are only fooling yourself.

How do you “work things out” with a bunch of people who regard death as an honorable thing to die for when fighting for God and country?

Yeah, because U.S. soldiers and Islamic terrorists are pretty much the same thing, NOT!!!  You are pathetic hannitized.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

However, there are a lot of people who don’t and who in fact think there is a chance we could iron things out.  We did it with the evil commies after all.

H,

Your convoluted view of history aside for the moment, I’d be curious to know exactly how those on your distant side of the aisle would propose to “iron things out” as you so euphemistically put it, with the Iranians?  What would you be willing to give up (and how many people’s new-found freedom!) and what would you expect to get in return?

Barack Obama obviously has no national or international experience at all, and by his own admission “despairs” of confrontation.  And though he is clearly an ambitious individual, he has yet to demonstrate any real strength of character, determination, or will power (the man still smokes, for heaven’s sake!) His “threat” to invade Pakistan is laughable, and the only people who even pretend to take him seriously as a potential Commander-in-Chief are those, like you, who babble and drone about “supporting the troops” while drawing spiteful analogies between Islamist terrorists eager to kill and be killed in the name of their god, and American troops who “die for god and country.” That is an egregious bit of moral equivalence that is both reprehensibly foul and impractically dangerous as well.  (Even a flaming liberal like Oscar Wilde knew that “the fact that a man is willing to die for a cause, does not make that cause right.")

As for the history lesson, your implication that we “ironed things out” with “the evil commies” is absurd.  Soviet communism imploded under the cumbersome weight of its own slothful, socialist ineptitude, after a bold US president, Ronald Reagan, and determined little Polish priest and a few close associates defied conventional, nuanced and “reasonable” wisdom and pressured the Evil Empire into collapse.

Liberals, on the other hand, were content to sit around and disparage the “dangerous” former actor, while continuing to leave hundreds of millions of people enslaved.

Here endeth the lesson!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

...those, like you, who babble and drone about “supporting the troops” while drawing spiteful analogies between Islamist terrorists eager to kill and be killed in the name of their god, and American troops who “die for god and country.” That is an egregious bit of moral equivalence that is both reprehensibly foul and impractically dangerous as well.

Im headed out, so I don’t have time to respond to all of this.

But what I was doing, and I will explain it again, is viewing our soldiers from their perspective.  It’s what you guy lack in ability, that we must.

Because “we” see our troops as good guys, doesn’t mean “they” see our troops as good guys.  How can you not understand that.  I was merely trying to illustrate what happens when you have twits, judging twits who would be expected to reason with each other.

You guys will never be able to engage in meaningful dialogue until you understand that basic principle. 

It is why Hamas says Obama has principles and “like him”.  This doesn’t mean Obama is going to talk to them, but at least when he does get a message through to them, by proxy through Iran....they might listen.

They tend to doubt juvenile cowboy types who can’t understand those that are not like them.

This is why you assume I was morally comparing the two, instead of viewing things from someone else’s perspective.  No imagination, and not too much smarts either.

It doesn’t matter how “they” see our soldiers.  I don’t know about you cupcake but I don’t much care about how terrorists view me.  They are pathetic thugs who will sacrifice innocent women and children to advance their sick murdering cause.  You can’t understand crazy people like that.  They have no shred of rational in their brains and only understand brute military force.

And going to a counseling session to “understand” the murdering psychopaths isn’t going to do a damn thing.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I didnt say our troops are on par with fundamentalists.  That is your republican translation software at work there, buddy.

Yes, you did. You rewrote the original statement to include our troops. And your further parsing is just reiterating that. We and they are the same thing!

Just a question, but, how many Al Qaeda members were in US before we invaded Afghanistan?  How many are here now?  Why is Bush allowing them to stay and not arresting them?

Irrelevant. We’ve caught many trying to do terrorist plots. There are 300 million people in America. Expeting GWB to know exactly who the terrorists are is absurd.

You keep bringing up insignificant details that don’t mean anything, as Saddam was going to know and approve.  How many AQ snuck over the Iraqi border since we had “control” of Iraq?

The details aren’t irrelevant as they deliberately contradict your assertions. You said we had no enemies in Iraq. That’s bunk. Saddam was our enemy. Even if you ignore the other stuff...that alone makes your childish rant wrong.

You just keep ignoring the 9/11 commission, on purpose.  For what reason, I don’t know?

Because their (speculative) findings have been largely used to say what they didn’t say. “Al Quida and Saddam didn’t collaborate” has become “Al Quida had no links to Saddam” (which teh 9/11 commission itself shoots down).

Furthermore, they weren’t right.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp

That Iraq was sheltering Yasin (original WTC bomber) was proven by 60 minutes, when they interviewed him IN BAGHDAD, set up by the Iraqi government. That was back in 2002, after Bush had named him a top terrorist. But before the march to war with Iraq.

Far from being irrelevant, this gets to the bottom of the matter. Saddam directly financed EIJ, which was a subsidiary of al Quida. And it was not the only subsidiary of al Quida he worked with.

Sorry, a charge of dishonesty doesn’t mean much coming from you.

Yalta was considered a diplomatic disaster that enslaved millions in Eastern Europe.  Roosevelt, who called Stalin, “Uncle Joe,” failed to recognize the evil that would lead to the deaths of 15 to 20 million Soviet citizens -- Time Magazine (13 April 1998) (Some estimates as large as 52 million with 30 million being the median estimate).

Truman lead the UN into Korea and frankly I can’t recall when Truman talked to our enemies, other then perhaps their surrender after he dropped the atomic bomb .

As a matter of fact Truman has his own Doctrine (The Truman Doctrine) that supported our allies financially and militarily against Soviet (our enemies) influence.  This lead to what was known as the Domino Theory and formed much of the Cold War doctrine that lasted for decades (a variation of which Bush uses to push democracy).

Along with The Marshall Plan The Truman Doctrine helped feed the Soviet reaction that led to the Berlin Blockade.  It was only the show of determination and strength—redeployment of B-29’s to England, the same bombers that dropped atomic weapons on Japan— that prevented escalation of the conflict during the 11 months of the airlift.

Kennedy escalated Vietnam as a part of Truman’s doctrine and while he did speak to Kruschev during the Vienna Summit it was considered a failure that caused the players (Kennedy and Kruschev) to push the world toward the most dangerous nuclear stand off in history—The Cuban missile Crisis.

(About Vienna, Kennedy later claimed of Khrushchev, “He beat the hell out of me.")

If this is what Obama has in mind, getting the hell beat out of him by Kim and Mahmoud I don’t want anything to do with it!  I should just start digging the shelter now!
Right Of The Star
DKK

Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy.  Let’s get the current moron out of office and get someone in that has their brain stem intact.

Any of the three candidates will be far better than what we currently have.

Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy.

Brad,

Anybody who thinks the measure of a Commander-in-Chief is his ability to give speeches has no business thinking he’ll be taken seriously.  Whis is why you aren’t!

Obama’s reference to Truman in particular was intended to imply that as president he too would have the “stones” to take the country to war.  Which is ridiculous on several different levels.  In the first place, today’s Democrat party does not allow men who are not testosterone deficient.  Just ask Zell Miller.  Second, even he was elected president, Barack Obama is going to do exactly what his wife tells him to.  No more… no less!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The sum of a man’s intellect is NOT congruent with their abilities as a public speaker.  Your discounting of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy achievements reflects the BDS of the MSM vice the actual record.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

BO is wright (sorry - right).  I remember those group photos of General Tojo, Hitler, Roosevelt and Churchill just like it was yesterday.

Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy.

I think you’re really looking for a motivational speaker to help you feel better about yourself.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I think you’re really looking for a motivational speaker to help you feel better about yourself.

Dougee,

You could very well be right! And like a typical, motivationally deprived liberal, brad looks to the government to provide for him.  Pathetic!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy.  Let’s get the current moron out of office and get someone in that has their brain stem intact.

Any of the three candidates will be far better than what we currently have.

Yes, Brad, W is so bad at diplomacy, he’s succeeded in eliminating the Taliban from the world stage, he’s persuaded Libya to give up their WMD programs, and he’s prevented Al Qaida from mounting large scale attacks for over half a decade.

Contrast that with his predecessor, who enabled Al-Qaida to the point of considering terrorist attacks as a “criminal justice matter,” even when hundreds of people were killed, turned down Osama’s head on a platter no fewer than four times, and gave the largest supplier of heroin to Europe (the KLA) their own country.  This person also set the stage for near constant attacks on an ally by insisting that ally conclude a completely fraudulent peace accord called “Oslo.”

There are a lot of things I don’t like about W, but to call him a complete failure in diplomacy is just to deny reality.  The complete failure in diplomacy was his predecessor.

"blackwater"boob,

Did your mommy and daddy leave you home alone again?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Just a comment on the liberal mantra about the historical low approval ratings of the presidency.  Somehow, the fact that the Democrat Congress approval ratings are the lowest ever recorded and are consistently 8-10% lower than President Bush’s is virtually unmentioned by the MSM.  Perhaps the substance of what those “mellifluous” libs have to offer doesn’t resonate with the public, regardless of how slick the presentation may be?

Yes, you did. You rewrote the original statement to include our troops. And your further parsing is just reiterating that. We and they are the same thing!

No I didn’t.  Yes you did.  No I didn’t.  Give me a break with this.

The word choice I used was not insulting.  It was only your brain that took the two separate statements and equated them.  I merely put them next to each other. 

The fact that you can’t comprehend that fact makes quite a statement.  I will remain silent on that as not to offend.

Expeting GWB to know exactly who the terrorists are is absurd.

And why then, do you expect Saddam to know?  He didn’t even know that he didn’t know what half his army commanders were doing.  Reverse logic is something beyond your grasp.

The details aren’t irrelevant as they deliberately contradict your assertions.

The 9/11 commission contradicts yours.  The fact that one or two terrorists snuck in has no relevance to the accusation.

You said we had no enemies in Iraq.

The term “our enemies” was referring to AQ.  AQ was not in Iraq in any way that differed from them being in our country or still being in our country, that is, until we invaded.

That’s bunk. Saddam was our enemy. Even if you ignore the other stuff...that alone makes your childish rant wrong.

Yeah, he was our “enemy”...but he was a harmless one.  Again Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eunichized,

The only “break” you deserve is between the third and fourth cervical vertebrae.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Just an update, there is a column on Real Clear Politics by Jack Kelly, dated May 9, 2008,
I made virtually the exact same points as Mr. Kelly on May 8, 2008 at 2:38AM. (I then (4:39AM) posted a comment trackback on JustOneMinute’s original post here)

Then I made my comment above at 3:38AM.

Mr. Kelly had more time to research his column then I did in a blog post, but he hit every point. 

It is nice to see great minds think alike and better yet to see the facts get out!  I couldn’t get anyone to link mine, but Mr. Kelly’s got the word out that Obama is a lightweight.  As Kennedy said of Kruschev, “He beat the hell out of me,” and Obama is levels below Kennedy.

DKK