"The left is abetting America's enemies"

Yea... what he said:

Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

BY ION MIHAI PACEPA
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

During last week's two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged "the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism" and vowed to follow Winston Churchill's lead and make Britain's ties with America even stronger.

Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania--with two death sentences on his head--in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."

I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America's own respect for its president.

Pass this on to your leftist friends... the whole thing... especially those with a heart AND a brain (that'll lower your sampling)...

Comments

[karennkc]

What the author is describing is nationalism - militant and
vainglorious patriotism.

The Bush administration has been the most politically motivated in history. They have allowed political hacks to take over every agency of our government.

The larger public is ignorant and uninformed. Fat and happy is what I call them.

Our all-volunteer military is a tiny, tiny fraction of the populace and that about describes the sacrifice made by the general populace.

I have two loved ones who have put their lives on the line for this country, and I believe the execution of these wars is disgraceful.

I do not make such comments lightly, they are backed up by facts. I have no reason to want these wars to go as badly as they have.

These are real lives we are talking about, Americans as well as Iraqis and Afghans. This is not about appearances. That is not what this country is about. If our leader has made mistakes, he should address them.
To deny the truth is to make this country a fraud.

[tim]

Karen,

First of all, thank you to your two loved one’s service.

However, I’m confused by your comment “... I believe the execution of these wars is disgraceful.” Do you believe the execution of the Afghanistan war was/is “disgraceful”? Do you have knowledge of how to fight a counter guerilla war such as in Iraq?

You are aware that wars are complicated and rarely go according to plane or to the liking of a populace back home, much less the attention deficient Americans.

Exactly how is “The Bush administration has been the most politically motivated in history” to be measured. Is there a scale of political motivation and how did you which this conclusion since you state that this is “backed up by facts”.

Judging by your comments it’s seems you didn’t bother reading the article. I’ll leave you with the most poignant part of it that you may want to remember:

“Now we are again at war. It is not the president's war. It is America's war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don't know either. But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win.”

[Tim]

I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."

Well, I'm just a foreigner so probably don't have a right to an opinion, but as an outsider it seems to me that the reason they can dare to do this is because their right to do so is enshrined in the First Amendment to your constitution - which presumably is one of the things you're fighting for...

[Marc V]

When I read the article yesterday I thought it would fit well here and wondered if you (Rick) had read it. The reader reponses at OpinionJournal were interesting today. They started off with some folks who sounded like Karen, and then to others who support what the President is doing, including one women who claimed her eyes welled up with tears after reading it.

As far as the President and his staff being accused by libs of "propagandizing" - talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Libs own the newspapers and TV media, and it's an uphill battle when all you have are struggling bloggers and radio shows on your side. Well, Kos and krew are on the other side, but who reads that stuff?

[Rick]

Well, I'm just a foreigner so probably don't have a right to an opinion, but as an outsider it seems to me that the reason they can dare to do this is because their right to do so is enshrined in the First Amendment to your constitution - which presumably is one of the things you're fighting for...

Tim, if someone were to make those same charges against you, would you want some substantiation? Would you want some documentation to support the claim? This is hardly about 1st Amendment rights and I dare say that bringing that up into this is a canard, a ridiculous one.

If the President of the U.S.A is a fraud, a liar and a deceiver, so are his critics in Congress who backed him up years ago and authorized the actions that were undertaken. Are you willing to go there Tim? If not, why in hell not?

[tim]

Tim (w/large T),

Are you serious? You don’t understand the sentiment of “Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania… I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."?

Of course someone has the RIGHT to say just about anything they want but doesn’t it make it truthful, correct or prudent to say such things. Do you need the reasons why those labels are lies or why such things at a time of war are damaging to our (USA) President and therefore our nation? The article pretty much covers it.

Man, did anybody here read the WHOLE article? Agree with it or not, some comprehension of it would be nice.

[karenkc]

Judging by the ridiculous statements made on the Internet it seems most right-wing-nuts really do not read the news. I would guess they get most of their information from other bloggers' opinions.

I thought going after OBL in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. But, al-Qaida is back there now largely because of the diversion of resources to Iraq. I am not a military expert but I have been tracking this war since before it started. The war supporters would do well to remember that their opinions have not been proven on the ground in Iraq while all of the dire predictions coming from the MSM have.

I am not obsessed with politics like some here, I have been forced by my conscience to follow every move this administration has made since Bush started in on Iraq. Bush has put politics first everywhere from Heckuva Job Brownie to nominationg the lobbyist of the country's largest manufacturing association to head the Consumer Protection Agency. But, the war is enough, I had to give up on keeping track of their incompetence and malfeasance in governing.

Everything I say certainly is backed up by facts. Check out my blog if you want to hear some original ideas and perspectives for once. I am not your ususal left-wing-nut, you would be surprised. - karennkc.

http://censoredattownhall.blogspot.com/2007/08/read-em-and-weep-facts-about-bush-iraq.html

[tim]

Karen,

Why all the hostility and name calling? My original comments to you were civil but for some reason you still felt the need to go in another direction. That’s too bad.

“But, al-Qaida is back there now largely because of the diversion of resources to Iraq.”

So you believe AQ can’t be two places at once? Well, they happen to be in many different countries and they were there before the Iraq war. How do you explain that? Do you actually believe that if there hadn’t been a war in Iraq that AQ in Afghanistan would be gone? Also, please remember that NATO hasn’t put in the number of troops there that they promised. But then I guess that wouldn’t fit into your theory, which is nothing but an anti-Iraq War diatribe.

“I am not a military expert but I have been tracking this war since before it started.”

You’ve been tracking the war before it started? Not sure how that’s possible but I’ll take your word for it.

“…while all of the dire predictions coming from the MSM have.” That’s precious, thanks for the laugh.

“I am not obsessed with politics like some here, I have been forced by my conscience to follow every move this administration has made since Bush started in on Iraq.”

So you “follow every move this administration has” but you’re not “obsessed with politics like some here”. Ohkay.

Again you claim “everything I say certainly is backed up by facts” but you don’t bother answering my one simple question: Exactly how is “The Bush administration has been the most politically motivated in history”.

“Everything I say certainly is backed up by facts. Check out my blog if you want to hear some original ideas and perspectives for once. I am not your ususal left-wing-nut, you would be surprised. - karennkc.”

Well, I’ll give you one thing, you certainly hold yourself in high regard. Everything you say is backed up by facts? Really? No, not so much. Nor are your ideas “original”, I’ve seen them all before.

Thanks but no thanks on you invitation to visit your blog, I’ve seen enough. Besides, there isn’t enough soap in the world.

I’ll take your word that you’re not the “usual left-wing-nut”. At least you realize you ARE a left wing nut.

[Tim]

I confess, I had not read the entire article when I posted my original comment. Rebuke humbly accepted.

HOWEVER - I have now read the original article, and it has not changed my mind.

As I said to Rick off line, I'm a bit tied up this weekend, but will give the article some thought and respond again after the weekend.

As for calling each other right wing nuts, left wing nuts, moonbats etc. etc., that's an old game, but I'm not convinced it improves the level of dialogue. If one side is convinced off the bat that the other are all nuts, then any pretended dialogue is a fraud. If we can't start with the presupposition that those who disagree with us are intelligent people who have what they consider to be good reasons for their beliefs, then those of us who lean to the left might just as well leave BH and let you guys reinforce each others' opinions around here. And before you all say it - I know, i know, it happens on left wing blogs too.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Big-Tee Tim,

I know that wasn't directed toward me but I'll respond anyway.

As for calling each other right wing nuts, left wing nuts, moonbats etc. etc., that's an old game, but I'm not convinced it improves the level of dialogue. If one side is convinced off the bat that the other are all nuts, then any pretended dialogue is a fraud.

Agree.

If we can't start with the presupposition that those who disagree with us are intelligent people who have what they consider to be good reasons for their beliefs, then those of us who lean to the left might just as well leave BH and let you guys reinforce each others' opinions around here. And before you all say it - I know, i know, it happens on left wing blogs too.

Let's amend that to say:

If we can't start with the presupposition that those who disagree with us are intelligent people idiots who have what they consider to be good reasons for their beliefs are just repeating a whole bunch of crap they heard from someone else...

The problem with the way you worded it is this: Intelligent people are wrong. Quite frequently. In fact, it's not too far out of the ordinary for imbeciles to be correct about things. In this case, we have a number of folks throughout the country who've been saying, back to day one, that this crap about Bush being a swaggering simpleton from Crawford, just emboldens our enemies. Some of them would say it's even a conspiracy to make us lose the war. Are those all MENSA members who've been holding this to be true? I'm not ready to say that. I don't even know if Lt. Gen. Pacepa is a bright guy. BUT -- I do think he's correct. His comments are persuasive, and now that you've read them, I'm interested in knowing why they haven't changed your mind. Are you saying it is NOT a procedure straight out of the communist/socialist handbook to attack the democratic credibility of the figurehead of an opposing nation? Or are you saying it may be such a tactic, but it is not what we've seen exercised here over the last six years? Because to me, it looks like a run-down of exactly what we've seen taking place.

How many people have you heard calling President Bush a dunce? How many of them have personally met him? Looks like a political tactic to me. I simply don't see how it can be anything else.

Regarding your comments about the first amendment, I notice three things I'd like to point out:

We have our first amendment to safeguard TRUTH. Let's say President Bush shoots a guy in the basement of the White House and I'm the only one who saw him do it; I say something; the government indicts and convicts me, and anyone else who dares to repeat what I said. That would be censorship for the purpose of securing a corrupt government. We have the freedom-of-speech clause to protect me, and us, from situations like that. Granted, it forces a corrupt prosecution to get creative, as opposed to ceasing the practice altogether and becoming instantly un-corrupt, but overall it works. It makes the government fear the people rather than the other way around. That is the mission.

Again, the TRUTH is the point. It's not about spreading rumors that the President is a fraud and a liar and a cheat, just because politically powerful people in Washington and in the Bay Area and Canada find it convenient to get those rumors spread. You may use the First Amendment to safeguard your right to say Valerie Plame and her husband are being attacked, and Bush and Rove have been lying about everything, but since it's the opposite that is true, that would be (has been) a misuse of the First Amendment. We have the same situation going on with this "Bush's war" nonsense. That isn't truth. Using the First Amendment to protect it, isn't inconsistent with the letter of that Amendment, but it's certainly a corruption of the spirit.

Second: The First Amendment restricts the government's ability to enforce laws that would restrict speech. Time and time again, the Supreme Court has found there is a limit on the restriction itself. "Fire in crowded theater" theory, and all that. Little known fact: The famous altered-quote from Justice Holmes, came from the 1919 case of Schenck v. U.S., which arose because of "free speech" from a socialist upstart against the draft during WWI. SCOTUS unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the law under which Schenck was convicted. So in America, when free speech becomes dangerous, it has a very real prospect of losing that "free" attribute and there is legal precedent for this.

Those who insist the freedom-of-speech umbrella must cover liars who tell lies about President Bush and his motivations for "starting" a war he didn't actually start, therefore, are insisting that socialist rabble-rousing in 1919 may be denied the very same protection that may be used to protect far more deceptive and treacherous rabble-rousing, in 2007, with no shortage of socialist frosting on it's own cupcake I might add. And this is overlooking the fact that the Schenck situation dealt with government restrictions on "free" speech. Whereas nowadays, what you have is a bunch of blog commentators like me, who don't work for the government so far as I know, saying "Gosh, ya know what? I think when these KOS kids come out and spew their crap, maybe it doesn't have a neutral effect on the war effort, maybe OBL and his pals like it just fine."

This is just musings, not prosection. Pacepa has some good information to substantiate it, no small part of it autobiographical. First Amendment has nothing to do with any of this.

And that brings me to the third thing.

When private citizens opine that speech may be harmful, and it is inferred by those they oppose that such opining is itself a violation of the First Amendment, this is a coercive, intimidating process against those who so opine. It is a process designed to shut up some people so that other people can spew a lot of scatalogical nonsense with impunity. Ironically, this is an assault on free speech under the guise of protecting it.

In sum, how to safeguard our free-speech guarantees is mostly an opinionated process. Engaging this process with respect for fact and truth, is likely to be successful and likely to result in a more robust and durable republic. Engaging it with intent to deceive, will likely harm the republic. Now Karen, you say the facts are on your side. You imply that if I check your blog, I'm going to see this for myself. Well I did check and I didn't see anything that substantiates it and like small-tee tim, I didn't even see "original ideas and perspectives for once"; what I saw was a lot of emotion and feeling, based on the unfounded premise that the Bush administration has been up to some kind of shenanigans and skullduggery. There's nothing original about that, I can get that anytime I want from hundreds of places on the web. No crime in that, certainly. But I would only say it's interesting -- what you call "original ideas" represent just about everything I've seen shielded behind the "freedom of speech" clause, with very few exceptions, for the last six years. You know, it occurs to me: There are a lot of other good ideas out there. Some of them are based on fact, and yet, have been bludgeoned into silence -- like, it's really true that people jumped out of the World Trade Center to avoid being burned to death, and we still have video footage of that. Video footage a lot of powerful interests out there, work very hard to keep us from seeing because they don't like the opinions we tend to form when we watch it. A "free speech" issue if ever there was one. And there are other examples, that's the most vivid one in my mind.

[karenkc]

"Judging by your comments it’s seems you didn’t bother reading the article...your theory, which is nothing but an anti-Iraq War diatribe"... Posted by: tim Wednesday, August 08, 2007 at 08:52 AM

Yeah, right. That's not civil and I have been down this road many times before. For one thing, if you don't think women are capable of understanding military strategies and objectives and if you're afraid of being shown up by one why don't you just come out and say so. I am under no illusions when it comes to dealing with the mostly male Bush cheerleaders. Rah, Rah. For another, you should just come right out and say if you are one of the crackpots that entirely disregards the "MSM."

al-Qaida is in approx. SIXTY countries, but it was Afghanistan who harbored Bin Laden. When the Iraq war started Afghanistan was still ruled by warlords, outside of Kabul. Anybody who says that the war was won and democracy was flourishing is an idiot. And since I have read on many occasions of the strain on the military because of Iraq and the $12 billion a month, it is a simple matter to conclude that, yes, the possibility of success in Afghanistan would have been much greater if not for the reckless invasion of Iraq.

I've been tracking the war - meaning reading the NEWS, everything I can get my hands on. I mean to say I am as informed as I could hope to be considering my circumstances.

[So you “follow every move this administration has” but you’re not “obsessed with politics like some here”. Ohkay.]

What I said was, I HAVE BEEN FORCED BY MY CONSCIENCE TO FOLLOW EVERY MOVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE SINCE BUSH STARTED IN ON IRAQ. If you are such an brutally honest man why don't you just call me a liar instead of pussyfooting around? Should I have to apologize to every bozo on the Internet because I am intelligent, informed and capable of original thoughts? No, I can find a million and one people like you on the Internet, and I wouldn't pat yourselves too much on the back, either, it is your hatefulness that has fueled your party so far and hate will only get you so far. KMA - that's blogspeak for KISS MY ASS.

[karenkc]

Also, maybe you missed this (pay special attention to political appointees at the State Dept. and "Pentagon civilians ascendant):

· State Department experts warned CENTCOM BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR WAS STARTED about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security. (So-called) planning for post-Saddam regime change began as early as October 2001. Ask your dear leader how many civil officials were sent to Iraq to aid in the following areas and why the job was not done: public health and humanitarian needs, transparency and anti-corruption, oil and energy, defense policy and institutions, transitional justice, democratic principles and procedures, local government, civil society capacity building, education, free media, water, agriculture and environment and economy and infrastructure.

· In a declassified State Dept. memo dated Feb. 7, 2003, officials warned of "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns (that) could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." And that there were "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance between the end of the war and the beginning of reconstruction.

· A fall 2002 report by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency indicated that the U.S. had no hard evidence that Iraq was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.

· This administration led our troops into war without a plan for the aftermath. However, Desert Crossing, the war game, was conducted by the United States Central Command in 1999 and was led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret. – the very same who said it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy a country the size of Iraq) and tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. Highlights are:

o Assumed 400,000 troops may "still be a mess" - (Rumsfeld insisted that the number be sharply reduced).

o Forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal…"fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors."

o A transitional government…would likely encounter difficulty…from a "period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies."

o Stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible.

· A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was unlikely. A host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles made such a sale improbable. Among other problems, it would have required 25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

· The former CIA official who coordinated Middle East intelligence said the administration “went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.”

· “President Bush’s aides did not forcefully present him dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials about possible stiff Iraqi resistance. Bush embraced the predictions of some top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney.”

· Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith inappropriately manufactured “alternative” intelligence reports wrongly linking Hussein with al-Qaida.

· Rumsfeld set up his own little CIA inside the CIA to “get the information they wanted.” Cheney was constantly at the CIA breathing down their necks.

· Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs said that Rumsfeld created an “atmosphere of arrogance” in which military advice on Afghanistan and Iraq was ignored or discounted. As a result, Rumsfeld and his deputies miscalculated badly in planning how Iraq would be secured after Hussein’s ouster. He was forced to retire minus one star after an interview in which he said the Army had been stretched thin and needed thousands more troops.

· As the Iraqi insurgency was escalating in spring 2004, top Pentagon authorities rejected an appeal for more troops from L. Paul Bremer.

· “President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists – even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise.”

· “…Rumsfeld and Franks stifled the free exchange of ideas and shut out the National Security Council. They dismissed concerns about the insurgents and threatened to fire the one general, William Wallace, who dared to state the obvious in public.”

· “Vice President Dick Cheney exerted ‘constant’ pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the panel’s Democratic chairman charged…The pressure was to stall an investigation into the Bush administration’s use of flawed intelligence on Iraq.”

· In 2006, NATO military chiefs asked for 2,500 more troops and air support to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and they got nothing (our troops are part of the NATO contingent).

· “Five years later, reconstruction is offset by anarchy” in Afghanistan. “When the Taliban was pushed out (in 2001), they were neither replaced by effective government, nor were they replaces by alternative security forces. NATO is now dealing with the consequences of previous failures in policy.”

· The Marine Corps is again recalling members of the Individual Ready Reserve for an involuntary tour of duty. Soldiers’ tours have been extended and others have had to leave for Iraq or Afghanistan early. “Many of us routinely asked for more troops,” said a retired senior general who commanded an infantry division in Iraq.

· Fighting nearly four years in a two-front war has put unprecedented stress on the Army and the Marine Corps. “The idea that 300 million Americans send the same 140,000 people again and again and again into combat is absolutely immoral.” – Frank Schaeffer.

· Scores of Mississippi National Guard troops who lost their homes to Hurricane Katrina were refused even 15-day leaves to aid their displaced families.

· Four of Bush’s political appointees at the State Department sidelined key career weapons experts and replaced them with political operatives. The reorganization of the department’s arms control and international security bureaus produced an “exodus of experts with decades of experience in nuclear arms, chemical weapons and related matters, including the State Department’s top authority on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

· “Pentagon civilians ascendant. Rumsfeld loyalists elbow military aside. The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration’s doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s inner circle.”

· The Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee inserted a provision in a military authorization bill to fire the lawyer who was leading the office of the special investigator for Iraq reconstruction. Investigations had sent American occupation officials to jail and had exposed disastrously poor construction work by companies such as Haliburton and Parson and discovered that the military “did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.”

· Looted munitions are being used to make deadly roadside bombs and will probably continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region. Some sites are not secure more than 3 ½ years after the war started. The entire country was considered one big “ammo dump” and commanders lack the manpower to secure the sites “without harming the war effort.” (As illogical as that sounds.)

· “We have been shortchanging these returning soldiers ever since the conflict began. Look at the inadequate funding in the Veterans Administration. That’s caused by the fact that there has been a deliberate underestimate of the number of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who will need care.” – a retired military officer.

· The National Guard is less prepared than it has ever been to respond to a terrorist attack, a natural disaster or other crisis.

· The new commander in Iraq also “wrote the book” on counterinsurgency. The army’s new manual calls for about as many troops to occupy Baghdad, alone, as are in the entire country.

· “AIR FORCE: AGING FLEET PRESENTS ‘A LOOMING DISASTER’”

· “DESERTIONS WEAKEN IRAQI ARMY

· “U.S. troops troubled by turncoat Iraqis.”

· “POST COMBAT STRESS HITS HARDER…Number of troops needing help threatens to overwhelm Veterans Administration.”

· “True cost of Iraq war could reach $2 trillion…”

· “Wars affect the training of officers…Fort Leavenworth forced to alter curriculum.”

· Several government witnesses told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that almost every measure of the performance of Iraq’s oil, electricity, water and sewage sectors has fallen below pre-invasion values...

· “Billions of dollars earmarked for rebuilding Iraq have been diverted from reconstruction projects because of insurgent violence and poor planning by the U.S.”

· In June of ’05, “the NRA and its allies in the House defeated an effort to restrict gun manufacturers’ exports of high-powered .50-caliber rifles. The guns, which can bring down jet airliners, are dream weapons for terrorists.

· Private donations built a new high-tech facility at Fort Sam Houston specializing in treating amputees, burn victims. The Intrepid Foundation has also built dozens of houses for families of wounded soldiers while they undergo treatment. There is also a charity that tries to provide plane tickets so troops can go home or families can go to Walter Reed because the government apparently cannot provide these services.

Posted by karennkc at 10:06 AM 0

[Lands’nGrooves]

Tim,

“If we can't start with the presupposition that those who disagree with us are intelligent people who have what they consider to be good reasons for their beliefs, then those of us who lean to the left might just as well leave BH and let you guys reinforce each others' opinions around here.”

Interesting comment considering that is exactly what I tried to do, (read my comments) in regard to Left leaning Karen and her response was of the Right Wing Nut labeling variety. You’ve now managed to try and turn it around to look like your political persuasion group is being victimized here. Unbelievable, nice try.

[karenkc]

How many people have you heard calling President Bush a dunce? How many of them have personally met him? Looks like a political tactic to me. I simply don't see how it can be anything else.

Some of them are based on fact, and yet, have been bludgeoned into silence -- like, it's really true that people jumped out of the World Trade Center to avoid being burned to death, and we still have video footage of that. Video footage a lot of powerful interests out there, work very hard to keep us from seeing because they don't like the opinions we tend to form when we watch it. A "free speech" issue if ever there was one. And there are other examples, that's the most vivid one in my mind.

Posted by: Morgan K Freeberg | Thursday, August 09, 2007 at 04:31 PM

You don't have to personally meet the president to have an opinion about him - he has a very public job.

I think tim or Tim or whoever sent in a blabber mouth like you to bury my statements, is what I think.

And where's the pictures of our dead? In Iraq? If Bob had the guts to take it, we should have the guts to look at it. Or you people should, you're the ones who want them to take it.

Are you anti-draft, too?

Please tell me your thoughts about Holy War and where you heard these before because I come from a "religious right" background and I will tell you, I came up with that on my own. I certainly didn't learn it in Sunday school.

[karenkc]

Clarification:

As I said, Bush has put politics first everywhere from Heckuva Job Brownie to nominationg the lobbyist of the country's largest manufacturing association to head the Consumer Protection Agency. (The man doesn't make payroll, he makes legislation).

The following was included in my For Impeachment - Facts Not Politics post which I sent to Brutally Honest after my last post:

"Four of Bush's political appointees at the State Department sidelined key career weapons experts and replaced them with political operatives. The reorganization of the department's arms control and international security bureaus produced an "exodus of experts with decades of experience in nuclear arms, chemical weapons and related matters, including the State Department's top authority on the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

"Pentagon civilians ascendant. Rumsfeld loyalists elbow military aside. The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle."

Additionally, there have been numerous reports of officials throughout the government who have said that the Bush administration has gone further than anyone in politicizing every aspect of governance - from deleting information from agency policy papers, to silencing the very people who run the agencies as when the head of the Medicare prescription program was threatened with his job if he revealed the true cost, to packing up the EPA library, without notice.

It is just hard for me to believe that people who are informed or as involved with politics would not see this. People must think the U.S. is invincible, but I have a respect for numbers and accounting and when the Comptroller General of the U.S. goes on a tour to say that "the Republic is at risk" if something is not done about our national debt and entitlements, I take notice.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

I think tim or Tim or whoever sent in a blabber mouth like you to bury my statements, is what I think.

Gotcha. So to recap...

...it is far more important to you that your comments remain un-buried, than that the conclusions you reach can be regarded as solid inferences based on verified fact. In short, you form whatever opinions make you feel good. And a relatively modest handful of paragraphs is sufficient to exhaust your attention span, even on complex foreign-relations issues. Even on the subject of wars you're supposed to have been personally following since before they began.

In short, you're kind of a Rosie O'Donnell. You just have a litany of hatreds for which you seek support, and your hunger for new information only extends to a compulsion to find more support for your various hatreds. And here you are, presenting yourself as a specimen to show how reasoned, well-informed, and generally fact-based the average Bush-basher is.

Is there anything more about you that I have missed? Or are we ready for me to dispense my verdict on whether your opinions have value or not?

[Lands’nGrooves]

Karen,

I said my ORIGINAL comment was civil & yet you decided to start getting belligerent and resorted to name calling. Your inability to follow along is astonishing.

To call me a chauvinist based upon my question of military strategy reeks of insecurity and is petty & laughable.

Your right, not including “I HAVE BEEN FORCED BY MY CONSCIENCE…” changes your whole comment. Whatever.

Also, before you go calling people “crackpots”, “idiot”, “bozo” and accuse me of being “hateful” you need to take a LONG look in the mirror and grow up.

Your last comment, “KMA” was truly a window into your true character.

I wish you the best in life; which seems to be a struggle for you.

[karenkc]

Morgan Freeman, Landsngrooves, I don't even know who you people are or which one I was corresponding with to begin with but judging by my experience on the right-wing sites, that is your best defense. If you can get enough people to jump on any dissenters and drown them out, you can successfully distract yourselves from the truth.

You are all the same. My facts just cannot stand up to your preconceived ideas and notions. You are all very poor losers.

Here is a comment about the a recent article concerning suicides in the army :

"b in d wrote: interesting how this article doesent compare the army rate to the national rate. and how it blames the pentagon instead of the congress gee I wounder if the author has an agenda????"

I said, "This is the attitude I have experienced for the past year or so, trying to talk to the right-wing sites such as townhall.com where I have been regularly censored and banned.

The idea that this story is politically motivated is sick. These people would hide all of the unpleasant facts about this administration if they could. They are so far gone they don't even care if Bush is a hack, they only care about winning or not letting the other side win."

And that is the truth.

I just came back here to copy my previous replies because I have taken down my censoredattownhall website, I was just angry, I am building another one - BrokenArrowForTheWorld.com

http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/2007/08/u-s-army-suicides-hit-highest-rate-since-gulf-war

[karennkc]

Additionally, maybe in your view saying KMA is worse than calling someone a liar and a fraud when they say they are a concerned military family member, if so, KMA.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

You are all the same. My facts just cannot stand up to your preconceived ideas and notions. You are all very poor losers.

Well, I think it is fair to evaluate the fact that communist/socialist regimes have a track record of slandering the figurehead of whatever government they find themselves opposing.

And all this invective against President Bush does have the appearance of being exactly that kind of propaganda. Including yours. I mean, seriously now: How much priority should we rightly be placing on the question of whether George Bush, who is not running and cannot run for re-election, is...honest, or a crook, or a genius, or an idiot, or, or, or...etc. Does it really matter at this point?

And yet Bush-bashers like you would rather thrust and re-thrust those issues back in the limelight, when -- well, take your pick. The Republicans tell me crazy people are trying to kill Americans. The donks tell me there's forty million people uninsured in this country. Both are right, from the looks of things. Either way, we got more important issues to worry about than your latest screed against a President whose remaining impact on history is pretty well decided by now.

But you can keep spinning in your little metal wheel, gerbil. Run hard.