GFN wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:24 AM:A very special friend asked, "Who do you think will win the election?" I replied, "Obama, with 65% of the vote.” What??? “65%; an interesting number- – how did you come to this?”
Yes, great question! I replied, “I remember an election when the presidential candidate won 64% of the vote, may have been Johnson/Goldwater, and they called it a landslide. I thought, that's not much beyond 55%, why landslide?” Then I found out; at least 35% of the voters are Republicans who will ALWAYS vote that way, even if their candidate was running against J.C., the Christian, Himself!!! So, to get more than 58% as any other party is very impressive.
McCain is a great man…solid….war hero…but he brings nothing “special” to the table, and he is old. The Conservatives and Republicans will not block vote for him; some will still vote the GOP, some will swallow and actually vote for John; uncharacteristically, some will not vote at all, but a surprising number of the GOP will vote for and embrace Obama, if only for the hope of hope.
You can postulate, extrapolate, or conjugate, all you want, but unless a catastrophe takes place, Americans will not only vote for, and accept…but they will be PROUD to display to the World, AND themselves, that they have reached the pinnacle of moral acceptance and tolerance. We NEED a leader who is intelligent and dedicated enough to accept this incredible challenge; ironically, the one we have is a man who just 44 years ago would have had to sit at the back of the bus! You know what: I really believe Oh-Bee will get no less then 69%...now that's a landslide!

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 27, 2008 4:51 AM:Irene Edward's letter shows that there are some McCain followers who think that it is his wife who is the real "messiah" (as Jim Stuart ridicules Obama using terminology reserved only for those who would never vote for the guy, trying to get some traction for their failed mythology).
After admitting that Cindy McCain showed the irresponsibility (or lack of trust in her husband; maybe we should listen to the woman that knows him best) of making a major family decision before consulting her husband, Irene creates her own mythology trying to portray this spoiled little heiress as some kind of a self-made achiever. Huh? Cindy McCain, who inhereited money, opportunity and connections from daddy as a self-made achiever? Oh well, at least she has a sense of humor.
The truth about Cindy McCain?
She is a rich heiress who inherited all her money as Daddy's only child and sole heir.
She met McCain when she was 24 and he 42 and still married to and living with the first wife who had waited for him through his years of POW captivity.
She has a history of drug addiction, including admissions of stealing drugs from a charity she was involved with. Oh well, we can see the ulterior motives behind her "volunteer charity work."
Th company she inherited from Daddy is the nation's largest BEER distributor, with extensive lobbying activities opposing efforts by MADD to limit DUI and underage drinking risks, so extensive that McCain has had to repeatedly recuse himself when alcohol industry interests have come up for vote or appeared before his committees. How can a president recuse himself?
Irene implores the media for more media attention for Cindy McCain.
Be careful what you wish for!

WayTooBusy wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:30 AM:We all know Hussein was way too busy to visit the troops in Germany, and then to drive to the base without the media cameras going goo-goo eyes was the last straw. Put paying for the pre-sppech rock concert was genius- he got all the drug addicts and perverts to attend, just as they do here.

Where to begin wrote on Jul 27, 2008 6:18 AM:After reading today's letters I had to double check to make sure I didn't stumble onto the comics page whilst in my morning stuper.

Karl wrote on Jul 27, 2008 6:26 AM:Some early afternoon posts on 7/24/08 were posted on 7/25/08. I missed a few that merit a response from me.

One for the Books on Jul 24, 008 1:25 PM:

I completely disagree. The so called Republicans in power have chased away many conservatives. In MHO, conservative talk radio, liberal web sites and generally lazy people are at fault for widening the gap. I do believe that our elected officials are just fine with a wide gap. The Democrats will have their run until they again piss off the masses and then we will return to Republicans again. History does repeat itself on this issue. Pray for a legimate 3rd party to be competetive.

To Karl One on Jul 24, 2008 1:58 PM:

Ah Hah!! The culprit that was using my handle pokes his/her head out of the sand. Using "Karl One" makes that pretty obvious.

Thank you for addressing me "sir" but Karl works just fine for me. I am biased to a certain extent because I lean towards conservative thought. Your post indicates that you are EXTREMELY biased. I don't remember blogs talking about "republicans running ads that say Al-Queda, Castro and Arminadinajad support Obama for President." but I have stated right here on this blog that there is no room for this kind of crap regardless of the party/candidate someone is after. For the record again, I always check this kind of crap on Snopes and "reply to all" on emails spreading this cow dung back to where it came from to debunk all who buy into this kind of baloney. To say that Mr. Obama has or seeks the support of Al-Queda, Castro and Arminadinajad is beyond absurd. Every once in a while some person on this blog tries to put words in my mouth (not using their normal handle) and seems to have a real disdain for me. I have found that person and that person is you.

There is no way that you can prove that I "gave a pass to the republicans for running ads that say Al-Queda, Castro and Arminadinajad support Obama for President."

What do the rest of the bloggers call you? It's time to come out of the closet. For someone like you to try to set me up by using my handle then putting out a post like this one is very sick.

It is quite telling of your thought process that you accuse me of character assassination and then you turn around and do the same thing. Simply priceless.

You end by telling me to "Wake up and smell yourself, dear." Thanks for addressing me as dear but Karl will do just fine. You, moron, cannot smell yourself because the stench is so bad you have become used to it.

1st post 6:19 AM 7/27/08

Spoon feading news wrote on Jul 27, 2008 6:32 AM:Edgar Towers need look no further than MSNBC's Keith Olberman for all the news that suits his needs and requirements.

Reading is fundamental wrote on Jul 27, 2008 6:53 AM:James Edwards says we should all listen to T. Boone Pickens and then goes on advocate more drilling, which Pickens decidedly does not. Maybe Mr. Edwards should actually read the Pickens Plan. An excerpt:

"Can't we just produce more oil?
World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.
The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone."

Thanks for the info wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:17 AM:Judith Shadzi apparently already gets her news from Mr. Olberman.
Bush lied, no 9/11 Iraq connection, they're all criminals, they're oilmen.
Does she think she's breaking news? Is she aware Bush is at 28%? Is she aware Bush is not on the ballot this Fall?
“We need to impeach them before they cause any more damage, and set an example for future American leaders”, she says. Only 176 days left, Judith. I think the nation will survive.
And, Judith, if they didn’t learn from the examples of Vietnam and Watergate, they never will.

Abridged edition wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:32 AM:L. Bertrand Halsema could have saved us all the agony of his 200 words with seven from Shakespeare.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:32 AM:Apparently, it has been left up tome to once again educate the Liberals.
It's really astonishing, you know?
Are we not lectured on a daily basis from these lib's about "diversity", and then when it's staring them in the face, they don't even see it?
Now, what am I talking about?
Well, Edgar Towers, of course. Him, and his buddies for the last couple of weeks have been trying to say that our military surge has not worked, and that all these "other" reasons are why the violence in Iraq has decreased.

What has Edgar's goat today?
QUOTE: "In the talk of surge success, little is being mentioned of the immense amount of cash being paid to many of Iraq's violent tribes and militias; putting vast amounts of criminals on the U.S. payroll to not reach for their automatic weapons and plant IEDs. You got it. We're monetarily bribing down the violence."

Desperate not to give credit, where credit is due, they are in a panic, and are reaching for any argument to prove Bush and McCain are wrong.

What was the Surge? Well, it was a combination of things. The Brain Child of General David Petraeus. In a counterinsurgency operation, you change the strategy to focus your operations on two things. One, you focus through intellegence on "the bad guy's." Two, you set out to win the hearts and minds of locals by recuiting them, and seeking their help. With unemployment a huge problem, and militia's easily able to recuit unemployed Iraqi's to fight, we out thought them, and out paid them.
Think of it as unemployment insurance.

How did we do this? That's right, we paid them to offer us intellegence, and we recuited them with payment, to help us solve difficult problems we could not solve without their help.

Now, why would we do this? Because this is "customary to all Muslim cultures."
When Bin Laden wanted to use Afganistan for his training ground. That's right, he paid the Taliban. For centuries, when traders, and travelers wanted to cross Muslim territories, that's right.. They Paid Them!
It is simply amazing that we have Liberals who shout and complain all day long about diversity, and yet, when it's staring them in the face, they don't recognise it.
But it was ALL part of a massive strategy put together by General David Petraeus, who the Liberals called Gen. Be-Tray-Us.
The bottom line is: Liberals wanted us to lose, and when this Great General pulled it out of the fire, now they are looking for ways to say it never worked.
The facts on the ground say something very different.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:38 AM:I posted this as a comment on the opinion piece by Pam Slater-Price and believe it also belongs here.
So, let's try, shall we?
I hadn't even thought about pet microchips. Why is it "necessary" for people to change their current area code at all? The technology is already in place, the suggestion has been made and it is the simplest and easiest of all possibilities to use an overlay such that all new phone numbers issued after "X" date in the area currently called 760 would be issued as 442. I guess that is what the problem is, it's too simple and would not financially impact ANYONE, especially if the "X" date corresponded with the printing of phone books. Yes, there might be some confusion when it becomes "760 or 442" written on some map, but that is not any different than subdividing the current map. Even the prefixes could remain the same.
The point is that millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work do not need to be spent if an overlay is used.
Why can't the CPUC use a little common sense, at least this time??
Why?
Regards, Alf.

Dinner Table Talk wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:51 AM:Thanks to the letter writer for letting us know about the admirable work that Cindy McCain has done. I did not know much of what she mentions and my respect for Ms McCain is certainly increased. I wonder, though, what some of their conversations at dinner must be like. Here's Cindy, devoting part of her life to clearing land mines. Here's John, voting to make sure the US continues to make and use cluster-bombs. One trying to save children. The other trying to kill them.

One less vote wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:57 AM:Ruth Larkin's letter is exactly the type of socialistic mantra that could lose the election for Obama.
Hard working Americans are ignorant because they think their personal lives and fortunes are their own responsibility. Did she really say that?
I'm a hard working American and a liberal Democrat. I ask nothing from government, I expect nothing.
But unless we all bow and kiss the feet of her messiah, the exceptionally articulate and well known truthsayer, Barack Obama, there must be something fundamentally wrong with us.
I'm going to have to sit this election out, I cannot and will not be a party to this charade.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:10 AM:Edgar Towers continued...

But again. I am appalled by the absolute ignorance here by the Liberals.
Are these not the same people who preach to us, that we need to "understand", and yet is is they who obviously do not understand?
Now, it's one of two things. Either they are sooo in the tank of losing, and not giving credit, at any cost in order to win an election. Hence, being totally dishonest.
Or... They are really this ignorant of history, and of Muslim culture.
I happen to think it's both.

And notice, I never mentioned the Second Barbary War? Yes! There was a second war. By 1815, the muslims were up to their old traicks of seizing ships, and another delegation was sent with a $10,000 payment for seized shipping. Plus, a treaty guaranteed no further tributes and granted the United States full shipping rights.
It was rejected by the Pasha of Tripoli, and the Second Barbary War began. This time, with British and French military, an easy defeat of the muslim pirates.

It is very clear from my reading of Thomas Jefferson the reason why he had a Koran in his possession. He got it to help himself to understand the "muslim mind", and when he read the Koran, he undestood, rightly, that there was no compromise, no talking, no diplomacy that would ever secure the interests of the United States withou war.

So, we are back to: Our Interests, and Their Insterests.
This is as old as the world, fellas.
Now, we tried to pay the guy to "be good", that only went so far, and nearly broke the bank. The key question in talking, in diplomacy is: What do they want?"
Second question: Can YOU live with want they want?
Third question: If you can't live with what they want, what do you do then?

Another taxpayer wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:23 AM:Mr. Blackwood,

Fires and heart attacks don't care if the economy is bad, they're coming anyway. You and the NCT need to get your heads out of...........uh, the sand.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:25 AM:That's right, James Edwards.
Anyone who has throughly read T. Boone Pickens plan knows, he says to drill everywhere. In addition, to deploy wind, solar, geo, and other alternatives through the free market.
He differs in approach from Al Gore, and others, in that, he insists the free market be allowed to solve these energy problems, and not create yet another, huge bueracracy to mired us down in more regulation and red tape.

A sound energy structure, a viable energy structure will not come by Government fiat, and some moonshot. It will come the way it always does, through hard work, and getting govenment restrictions out of the way.
Government has created this lack of energy, along with the enviro's who use the levers of government to thwart any new energy production, including Clean energy.
Think I'm joking about these crazy enviromentalists preventing, stopping, and delaying valuable alternative energy solutions? I am not joking.
Locally, we have these nuts preventing the PowerLink from bringing clean energy into San Diego, because they don't want power lines. Because California is so restrictive of fossil fuel powerplants, the powerplant built in Baja will be our "back-up", again, 90% redundancy required by the Government, but they won't let them build a power plant locally.
Wind power is being delayed, probably denied in Montana, Geothermal being opposed in Hawaii. A large solar array in the desert does not have a chance because again, nutty people won't allow powerlines.
When was the last Dam built? Anyone know?
Your see, it's a good rebuttle to say: "Oh, I'm for clean, green energy."
But, when the rubber hits the road, they oppose it. I say, either get on board, or get out of the way.
And for the 24% who still oppose drilling, I hope you are not driving your cars. Are ya? Hypocrite?

Bad news for yahoos wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:31 AM:I know the polls say that the McCain-Obama race is close. But if you look at the positions McCain has been taking lately (Bush too) you see that it's Obama's view of things that is leading the way. Talking to Iran was said to be "appeasement" and Obama was attacked for advocating this. Now Bush has diplomats talking to Iran. Setting a timeline for a careful, reasoned withdrawal from Iraq was taboo to the Republicans, and Obama was attacked for suggesting it. Then Maliki told Bush where to go and Bush and McCain are talking about pulling out. While McCain was bragging endlessly about his "surge" in Iraq, Obama was talking about his own "surge": in Afghanistan where our real enemies have been growing in strength. Now Bush and McCain are in favor of an Afghan surge. Obama voted for a housing bailout. McCain was dead set against it, until he changed his mind and voted for it as well. So even if Obama loses, it's nice to know he has determined the direction of the country, and that McCain may have the wisdom, even as President, of continuing to ask Obama, "What should we do next?"

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:41 AM:Now, the first thing that strikes me about Judith Shadzi's letter today, is where she's writing it from.
Valley Center.
Anyone ever been to Valley Center? Pretty spread out, right? Lots of little roads going all over the place, most linking to Valley Center Road, the main road through the town.
Now, unless Judith is riding the NCTD bus# 388, I know she's driving her car.
So, whats her big beef about oil?
Seems to me, oil is her friend.
How could she get to work? Or go shopping in Escondido? Unless she's willing to walk to the bus stop, and wait the 1.5-3 hours, which is the schedule the 388 runs.
It again, simply amazes me these people who do not know of what they speak.

We get about 6% of all our oil from the middle-east. The vast majority we get from Canada and Mexico, then trailing off into other countries in this hemisphere, until you reach the middle-east at a paltry 6%.
Again, the ignorance is staggering.
And the hypocracy, is annoying.
I have a suggestion for Judith, move closer in toward Escondido.

But then, she goes onto say this: "...he underestimated the Iraqi people and their self-determination."

On the contrary, Judith... WE are counting on the Iraqi self-determination. For when they "Stand-Up, we will Stand-Down."
And that has been the policy since we started this thing. Why would we want to "Change" that?

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:08 AM:Wow! What a way to help promote American unity, by telling other Americans they are stupid?
Now, I know I'll be called on this, for I too call certain people stupid, ignorant, and the like. Let me explain.
Liberals, and their Liberal Intelligencia are the truly ignorant one's. They live their own lives in a bubble, of thinking their ways, or their ideas are superior to anyone else.
This is where, when you get a supply & deamdn problem with oil, we are told by the Liberals & the Liberal Elite that drilling is not a real option.
Clearly, they live their lives through the ideological lens, and are not pragmatic, or realistic. Facts on the Ground and how you respond determines intelligence, not ideology.

Take this magazine cover by the New Yorker Magazine. Liberals think they need to "explain" the cover to the uneducated. According to Ruth Larkin:
"Not so." I guess she thinks most of uus ignorant folks out here are clinging to our guns and religion?

And while she calls Barack Obama "articulate", what he speaks is pure ignorance. Totally out of touch with everday, working Americans. But, then again, how could he know? He's the one who made the remark about fearful Americans "clingng to their guns and religion."

And I want you to notice something.
While these guy's cry over the dropping dollar, what have these Liberal Democrats done to strengthen it?
I see bailouts galore, all based on a commercial to "help those losing their homes", while punishing those who are still working, and making their own mortgage payments on time.
The money to bailout was borrowed, again dropping the dollar.

But then, she says this: "Hard-working Americans have no idea that their government makes any difference in their lives. They feel everything is up to them, is their responsibility. They have no idea how government works and believe it has nothing to do with their personal lives."

Clearly out in the nether world on this statement. If I'm a home owner, who is making my mortgage payment on time, never missing a payment. How does this bailout help me? It's dropping the dollar beyond what it was before, and making my life even harder.

Government is the problem. Unless, your a government employee, or a consumer of government. And that's the Democrat plan, to make everyone dependent upon Government at some level in their own individual lives.
Certainly not what our own Founders thought.
And all the liberals said: Who are they?

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:20 AM:Again, just staggering...

Maria Schneider asks: "Where is the coverage on alternative fuels?"

Maria, if you were an investor in alternative energy, you would get a quaterly report of how your investment, hence the technology was doing.

Given over to conspiracy: "Big Oil money blocks any new technology available to consumers."

Really? Did Big Oil buy all 24 hydrogen cars put out for test driving by Honda?
I had not read that. Or did they work secretly to delay Honda's deployment of up to 1500 hydrogen cars by 2015?
Just around the corner, huh?

And you said it yourself:
"Gov. Schwarzenegger has a "plan"...."

Not reality! A Plan, in the future.
When in 2015, when Honda puts 1500 hydrogen cars on the road, then we will see more hydrogen filling stations.
With a national fleet size of 240 million cars, you can see why Oil, Fossil Fuels will continue to be a very large part of the American fuel mis for decades to come.

Maria, do some investing. I read someplace, that alternative fuels were cost competitive at $3 buck a gallon.
We are at $4 buck a gallon.
It's a good time to invest, and save for your future.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:24 AM:I'm purposely skipping over Chris Pulse's letter today. I know I said "read everything", but there's nothing new here. Chris is bent on bashing Jews, and I can not be a part of that. Same thing, different day.

Ron hits a double wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:30 AM:Wow. Three posts. In one he starts by saying that calling people stupid is divisive (and to his credit realizes his hypocrisy...I stopped reading at that point, expecting him to give himself a pass for this, some version of why HIS calling people stupid is valid...did he?); in another he accuses Chris Pulse of sending the same message, different day, so why read him...Ron, if you look up "same message different day" in the dictionary, that's your picture there. I think, drip by drip, Ron is beginning to understand why people rarely read his posts. LOL

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:36 AM:So, I'm sitting here watching the Messiah, Barack Obama. Who I now believe wants to be President of the World.
But the guy just said: Iran is supporting Hamas & Hezbollah who are creating "Mischief."

Now the guy said.. Mischief. Not murder, not kidnapping, not cutting off heads. Mischief.

Now my own dictionary defines Mischief as: an action that annoys or irritates.

Or.. Mischief:
is an offense against property that typically involves any damage, defacement, alteration, or destruction of property. Common forms include vandalism, graffiti, or some other destruction or defacement of property.

Now I ask you. Is this a proper term to use when talking about the launching of over Qassam 3,000 rockets into civilians areas of Israel?

Is it really just Mischief? A vandalism, or graffiti?
Why didn't the guy just say that Hamas & Hezbollah was "tagging" Israel?

Clearly, he is not ready for prime time.

Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:47 AM:Re Tri-City vote: Having occupied a bed at TriCity twice in the past few months, I can vouch for the absolute professionalism of the nurses and staff. I didn't particularly care for what amounted to $3,000 per hour (not including the surgeons bill) I was charged to use the bed. But, if I knew that not a penny of the bond issue was to be used treating illegals for free, I'd vote for it. But, if they need the $$$ to cover up for massive for treating illegals, forget it. Or if they need it because they give massive discounts to HMO's and PPO's, so the insurance company salesmen and executives can't make 3 times what the doctors make, I'd say no.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:51 AM:Were gaining stream, folks! I see another ready to get on board the Nick Leibham "Get your Bus Pass" Energy Plan!
Congratulations to Kaitlin Chell, a member of the 24%, who has agreed to park her car, sell it for scrap, and buy a bus pass.
Man, with all these people willing to park their cars, I think the demand for gasoline will drop, and cause the price to go down for the rest of us.
Nothing like a person who says what they believe, then acts on those beliefs. I am impressed. Yippee!

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:52 AM:Regarding "mischief": I will look forward to the same attention to detail over every word the other candidate utters. I don't recall you letting us know when McCain got that trifle "Shiite versus Sunni" confused, or when he put an Iraq/Pakistani border on the map. I must've missed it, since I know you "read everything" and have an obvious love of accuracy in our candidates. But considering McCain's errors, I think we don't have to worry about HIM becoming President of the World. LOL Obama's sin: too many people are impressed with him. Oh, no! A President that people of the world look up to! Can't have that!

Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:54 AM:The news is reporting that nn obscure Islamic group has claimed responsibility for the series of bombings in India. How could that possibly be. The liberals have been telling us the terrorists are really freedom fighters and only attack the invaders. Has Bush invaded India?? to cause these terrorists attacks. You know, there is a reason that Bush is monitoring and tracking terrorists in 92 countries, and its very different from the reason Pelosi, Reid and Obama want to capitulate to the terrorists and give them free run of the planet

Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:59 AM:>>>I'm purposely skipping over Chris Pulse's letter today>>>> The good thing about the newspaper, is that you have to put your real name to your spewage. Too bad the same doesn't hold true to this board.

Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:07 AM:"Who do you think will win the election?" I replied, "Obama, with 65% of the vote.”

LOL, if we still have $4.50 gas and out of control commodity inflation (despite the upcoming harvest), and Hussein keeps bad mouthing drilling, and continues to promise to raise taxes massively on employers and oil companies, he will end up with the same number of electoral votes as Mike Dukakis, at most. People will enter the voting booth and ask themselves "Obama? or my job?", "Obama? or my job?", "Obama? or my job?"??

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:28 AM:My dear misguided, and deluded friend, "Bad news for yahoos" @8:31 AM.

First of all, this term you use: Yahoos, is that supposed to be some cut?
Are you trying to purposely get understand someone's skin, with this off-handed back-slap?
Is this akin to the remark made by your hero, about "clinging to our guns and religion?"
Contrary to your juvenile assumptions about people on our side so willing to pick up a gun to solve our differences, before we talk.
We are the real pragmatists, we are the real problem solvers. We naturally understand that talking only gets you so far, and that carrots only sweeten the pie so much. Knowing this, we also use the stick, which you hate. You can admit it, you hate the military. You hate that the US is the lone Super Power, and you long for a day when we power-share. Isn't that right? That we need to be cut down to size, for our own good. This is your mind set. Tell me I'm wrong.
When the carrots no longer work, out come the sticks. That's us. You, however, will talk a subject to death while Iran goes from 3,000 to 6,000 centrifuges, with the ultimate goal of 54,000 centrifuges. And yet, you say... Let's talk some more.

The Surge has worked, with all of the facets employed by Gen. David Petraeus in counter insurgency, and you just can't stand it, can you? Your in the Nancy Pelosi league on this, you'd rather credit an Iranian terrorist regime, than give one little bit of credit for good old American know how.


And the polls are close, because Americans are getting to know Barack Obama. And I hear, they are narrowing in key states, much to your shgrin. They guy simply is making statements that are not based on facts, and because he is an unknown, it is growingly apparent this guy don't know squat.

Quickly:

"Talking to Iran was said to be "appeasement"...
This has been YOUR line, never the Administrations line. Low level talks with the Euro's along with us, have been going on for more than 6 years now.

"Setting a timeline"...
No one I know has ever said a timeline for withdrawal was a bad idea. Announcing publically a timeline, is.


"Maliki told Bush where to go..."
Maliki is a good politician, he's running for re-election. He is mouthing the sentiment of Iraqi's, but he knows, as the situtation sits now, he would stand a snow-balls chance in you know where, if we leave right now.
There's public statements, and then there's private talks. You need to learn the difference.

"Obama was talking about his own "surge": in Afghanistan where our real enemies have been growing in strength...."

Now, unless the good Senator has once again changed his strategy, are we still going to invade Pakistan to roust the terrorists, when 50% of Pakistani's support the terrorists? Talk about stirring up a hornet's nest. I think he'll pull a Bill Clinton, sign of couple of documents, and call it a day.

William wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:33 AM:Chuck, your complaints are the same complaints people had about Clinton. Unfortunately for neocons such as yourself, Clinton left with a balanced budget, a huge surplus, good international relations, and America was moving in a positive, progressive direction. Granted he was a moral letch,but I will take a philanderer over a president who created a false excuse for war, cost 4000 American lives, and has gained nothing for us, except for a massive debt and the hate of the world. You and your ilk will never vote with your intellect or logic; your enslavement to your archaic, outdated political beliefs will keep you blinded, ignorant and blissful.

Mark wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:50 AM:The surge has helped control the insurgents, to a point, but only the blind and ignorant would call this a victory. What have we gained, are we safer? No. Is the war an closer to being over now? No. Are American soilders still dying? Yes. Ron, I know, we are not losing as many soilders as we have lost presurge, but losing one more soilder to this immoral, uneeded war, is one soilder too many. To your political kind, you will spout about how these soilders are heroes, wrapping the flag around yourself, and I agree that our soilders are heroes, but losing four thousand, and counting, young American lives over a false and useless, in the long run, war is disgraceful. We are supposed to treat our soilders better than that. They trust us to support politicians who will make the right decisions and keep them from harm unless it is truly needed. We have let them down. As a voter for Bush in 2000, I am to blame. I don't know if it is due to having kids in the last 8 years, but I am not willing to blindly accept anything spouted out by politicians or by ignorant bloggers such as yourself. Obama isn't the second coming of Roosevelt, but he is a step in the right direction. You can deny it, which you will, but all anyone has to do is look back through some of your posts. If that isn't evidence enough that modern conservatives are lost and blind to the world, I don't know what else people need. The country is worse now than when Bush enterd office, and the Liberals are not to blame. Republicans and Democrats have rejected drilling off of our coasts, so it is a problem, period, not a Liberal problem. You and your kind are pushing America in the wrong direction, not the Liberals, not Obama, not the youth of America. You, Chuck and your kind.

Oh Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:52 AM:It wasn't liberals who said that the terrorists were freedom fighters, it was Reagan, and you agreed with him. Ask the murdered villagers of Nicaragua in the 1980s and ask them about freedom and terrorism. Check what hit 'em: US made, US trained, US funded. Reagan called them freedom fighters. You bought it. As a liberal, I call the bombers in India and elsewhere murderers. I also call people who shock and awe a major capital city in an unprovoked attack murderers. When someone kills someone else, not in self defense, especially innocent civilians, especially children, I consistently say: murder. You wait to see what party they vote for, and then call them "murderers" or "heroes".

Well Ron is covered wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:55 AM:Ron has told us that under Obama, (1) it will be "stay the course", don't kid yourself; and (2) Obama will bail out like Clinton. No wonder Ron says "What'd I tell you?" I bet when Ron goes to Del Mar, he bets on every horse and brags after the race that he picked the winner! LOL

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:01 AM:Hey, when have you ever heard me say either of these two guy's was any good for America, "Oh Ron" @9:52 AM.

McCain with all his faults, is a tad better, IMO, than the socialist Barack Millhouse Obama.

My main concern is not with Iraq, or Afganistan. As I've said, I know Obama, if elected, will not pull troops out the way he is running now. I know it.
He will not allow the collapse of Iraq on his watch. No Democrat wouldn't. Even Hillary had the thing right when she said she'd turn Iran into glass.
Which is probably why she lost the Lefties. And why Obama will lose all others.

But, both men have this scary plan of carbon trading, which should scare you.
If you can not defeat America militarily, then just how do you do it?
Economically, that's how.
If we get under some kind of world-wide carbon trading scheme, as defined by the UN, and prefered by Barack Millhouse Obama, we will be sending trillions of dollars overseas.

Har-Dee-Har-Har wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:05 AM:That Alf is a barrel of laughs. He thinks that anyone in the PUC cares how much they cost people and he actually thinks that they have an ounce of sense between them. LMAO, LMAO

Obama Fan wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:11 AM:I am voting for Obama because I want more free stuff!

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:21 AM:I'm sitting here, just a bit confused about "OBAMACAN" @4:51 AM post.

Now, typically, Liberals love addicts.
Heck, when the younger Kennedy ran his car into a Washington D.C. barricade, we heard non-stop about "what a terrible cross to bear for those who are addicted." And when he came out, how great it was that he sought treatment, and got in touch with his inner-child, to expel his demons.

Today, we are treated to how it works when a Republican has a drug problem.
"...spoiled little heiress... history of drug addiction... admissions of stealing drugs..."

Is there no "low" some people will go to to win an election? Are there somethings that within the framework of "the family" that should be off-limits?

I've said it before, but apparently, it needs to be repeated.
John McCain is running for public office. Barack Obama is running for public office. Our discussions should pertain to them, and their actions.
I think their wives, if they are not running as a co-president, should be off-limits as well.
None are running for the co-presidency, as far as I know.
Focus a little more, would ya?

sdraoul wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:26 AM:Yestewrday's page proves beyond doubt that Nick hasn’t a clue about illegals in prison, not a clue. Apparently neither does “Checkmate” who wouldn’t know a fact if he tripped on one.

Let’s assume that the United States Department of Justice (Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Prison Statistics) knows the facts because it spends time and money collecting facts every year from all state and local governments.

Let’s assume that states know who are in their prisons as does the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The last complete year reported by the Department of Justice shows this: In 2006, there were 2.3 million state and federal prisoners (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pjim06.htm).

Out of all those millions, guess Nick and “Checkmate” how many are non-citizens. As all illegals are non-citizens, we can assume that many of those non-citizens are illegals, can’t we geniuses?

We’ll, as we say in poker, count’em and weep. The Department of Justice, Bureau of Prison Statistics reports that all of 96,000 of the 2.3 million are non-citizens (less than 5 percent), period, Nick and “Checkmate” you lose the argument again and again.

In the Federal prison system with a national TOTAL of 180,000 inmates, 54,000 are non-citizens with many in for smuggling across the border not for being in the country illegally.

You cannot win this argument because I have the facts you don’t. When Nick publishes alleged costs of illegals, why is it if they are less than 5 percent of the total state and federal prison population they cost more than 5 percent of the total prison costs?

In California, the State Department of Corrections reports that less than 10 (ten) percent of all 172,000 state prisoners are Mexican-born (Call it, Nick, and ask them).

Nick and “Checkmate” – checkmate, you lose, big time. No one on this blog can challenge me on my facts about illegals, no one.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:29 AM:Yesterday, "Bill" at 1:48PM had the unmitigated gall to say "The Iraq war was to maintain stability by not allowing Islamic fundamentalists to invade Iraq and steal the oil financing their nuclear dreams.".
That is a crock of it.
What the U.S. did was to DESTABILIZE the entire region.
Who wants to steal or at least control the oil? The U.S.
"Bill", your complete refusal to admit that the U.S. invaded a sovereign nation WITHOUT JUST PROVOCATION is mind-boggling.
"Bill", do you even have the slightest clue of what "sovereign" means?
Do you have any idea what the people of Iraq felt when we blew the crap out of their country?
When we destroyed their running water?
When we mangled their electric power?
When we bombed their roads and airports?
Do you believe that anyone should have the right to do to us what we did to Iraq?
Are you that far gone that you still try to justify the unprovoked, TERRORIST ATTACK BY THE U.S. on Iraq?
Do you think that this "War on Terror" allows us to become TERRORISTS OURSELVES?
Regards, Alf.

Is this a lesson wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:29 AM:I see the front page story in the NCT that 6 of North County's 17 schools are closing for a variety of reasons. This is what happens when you put the education of our kids onto the marketplace. Some schools are great, some are awful, many are weeded out, like in any other business. But is education something we should shop for as we do our loaves of bread? When a poorly run grocer goes out of business, we go across the street, no biggie, the market has spoken. When we think this way about schools, it means once again starting a new search for Johnny's next classroom. New teachers, new friends, perhaps a new curriculum. Sure hope this one turns out better. By the time that marketplace has selected the reliable quality schools, Johnny is all grown up and has one mess of an education behind him. Of course, people will blame Johnny's parents for buying inferior products, like any other shopper, right? What can we learn from this?

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:42 AM:Well, "Ron" at 10:28AM, I've got to hand it to you, you sure earned your P.H.D. today. That is if anyone can believe how much of it you Piled Higher and Deeper. Your statement "We are the real pragmatists, we are the real problem solvers" is insane.
Explain to over 4,100 families of DEAD American Troops why we had a problem to solve in Iraq.
If we had not invaded Iraq, we would not need to rebuild Iraq.
You don't go out and make a problem AND THEN "solve" the problem you just made and have the gonads to say that you are a "problem solver".
Of course, that is the exact same thing as The Straw Man Argument, make an erroneous statement and then proceed to tear it down.
Oops, I forgot, that is your specialty, isn't it?
Regards, Alf.

Checkmate wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:52 AM:Raoul has been challenged a hundred times by the simple question: aren't ANY crimes by people who are here illegally too many? Raoul would rather talk about how the crime rate is lower among that group. Raoul would rather talk about a lot of things than that basic, simple question. That's the real checkmate, because as is obvious by his avoidance behavior, it's the question that has always had raoul 100% stumped.

snerd wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:56 AM:Now ya see this is the way it is. Let me explain it to all you conservos out there. Let me educate you. You guys are great at getting elected. In fact you'll do or say anything to win. Even if it hurts our country. You'll even eat your own. Like when the Bushies spread the rumor that McCain had an illegitimate black baby. Ya see how unchristian you are. So you're great at winning but not so great at governing. And really, isn't that the important part. Actually running the country in a competent manner. So here, let me educate you guys on this. Once you get elected you keep right on with your slash and burn ways. So, and do you get this, you spend money like a drunk Shriner you get us into wars we don't need, you give concessions to corporations by the truck load but don't really care about the folks that voted you in. And, let me clear this up for ya, you try and put religion into places it really doesn't belong. You want the government to leave business alone but to get real involved in all of our private lives. So I hope I've helped all you conservos to get a clue about how un-American, how unpatriotic you all are. Class dismissed.

Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:01 PM:>>>I am voting for Obama because I want more free stuff!>>>

Well, he's certainly offering you that. He's also offering you "change", and that's all that will be left in your paycheck when he's done taxing your employer to death, and ignoring gas prices and commodity inflation. It's also all your 401-K will be worth as he allows the economy to slip further, by taxing employers and investment capital

Chris wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:11 PM:Did you all notice how Bill sidestepped the issue of Harvey's letter yesterday. What country did we bomb. The point is we didn't have to bomb any country because we got our way by a coupt in Iran. But Bill as usual just goes on and on about what someone else did and never acknowleges our crimes and what we did to generate such anger towards us. Bill's response was absured. So as I said the cat must have gotten Bill's tongue. So let's just blow more smoke.

Oh Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:11 PM:I'll take the Clinton economy over your guy's anytime. And McCain admits he knows nothing about the economy, but is already signed on to continuing the Bush program. And you wonder why a lot of us (not just liberals, either) are in the mood for a change?

Body Snatchers wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:12 PM:Chris has morphed into Alf, or Alf into Chris. Hard to tell.

Lemme get this straight wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:19 PM:According to Chuck, Obama is going to give me lots of free stuff. But according to Chuck, he's also going to take everything out of my paycheck but some change. Is Chuck, like Ron, betting on every horse just so he can say he picked the winner? (Given the choice, I'll take the free stuff.)

Ms M wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:20 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:01 AM: ....As I've said, I know Obama...You what? - You are just too funny Ron. You make your statements about what Obama would do based on the fact that YOU "KNOW" Obama. Pathetic!

Fed Up wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:23 PM:Ron[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:32 AM: LOL
You will fail in the attempt. Liberals do not listen to Ron. Outside of this blog, you do not even exit to liberals.
But it is ok. I love to watch you play.
its entertainment.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:26 PM:"Mark" @10:50 AM, I hear your struggle, and believe me, as a Dad of two sons deployed, I know the thinking. I do.

But to your comment: "To your political kind, you will spout about how these soilders are heroes, wrapping the flag around yourself, and I agree that our soilders are heroes, but losing four thousand, and counting, young American lives over a false and useless, in the long run, war is disgraceful."

I see no conflict in supporting those who fight. The soldiers who fight this war, or any war, are hero's in my mind.
Now, you can fault the Government, this administration, or even past administrations, as I do.
But, please never fault these fine, young men and women for simply doing their jobs.
You call it "wrapping ourselves in the flag", I will not forget, nor forgive the obvious lack of pre-planning for after the invasion. But, please don't fault the soldiers, who are living in dirt. Politicians make the rules, the military is simply the mechanism of political policy. The brains, and the hands, if you will.
But, as a Dad, I will not allow, nor fogive those who are now beginning to turn their misguided rage on the soldiers, instead of where it should belong, the political class.
I said it would happen, as the Liberals would grow angry against those who made promises they couldn't keep, yet said them anyways to win an election.
Frustrated people are now lashing out at soldiers, and this, can not stand.
Take your anger out on the politicans, these men & women will suffer for a long time, without some numbskull giving them his two cents.

Fed Up wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:27 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:54 AM:
Well then Bush did another bush league job. Why didn't he warn the Indians? The answer is that he had no idea. In fact, with all the basic and sophisicated sources avaialbe, he can not even locate one man, the man, OBL. Terrorists have struck in Inida for years even previous to 9/11.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:29 PM:Chuck is funny. He posts statements or questions under one name and then answers them himself as Chuck.

Har-Dee-Har-Har wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:31 PM:That Ron is funnier than Alf and sdraoul is the funniest of all. Ron and sdraoul seem to think, if you can call what they do thinking, that if you repeat the same wrong tripe often enough, that wrong will magically become right. Even when they are proven wrong over and over again they still say the same wrong stuff. Their bluffs are not only called, but their fabricated false facts are shown to be untrustworthy and they still spew this bile. Oh, yeah, Chuck is in a class of his own. Keep up the entertainment!

Focal Point wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:31 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:42 AM:
Winning a war that should never have been begun is not victory. It is just the progressive end of agony.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:37 PM:Well, "Focal Point" at 12:31PM, that's poetry. Sad poetry, but true.
Regards, Alf.

What war wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:45 PM:Winning the war in Iraq? Excuse me, but what war? Who is the enemy? Sunnis? Shiites? We are serving as police in Iraq, and have been since 2003, when we defeated WMD-less, army-less Saddam Hussein. Bush told us combat was over. Since then, we've tried to help provide order, even as we've been a major force in disrupting order. How do you win a war when there is no identified enemy? No objective? No one to surrender or to surrender to? Wake up, gang: this is a purely political military action. We will "win" when some politician can persuade us that we "won", when that "victory" will serve that politician's aims. This is what our kids are dying for. Is this acceptable to you?

Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:56 PM:>>>Chuck is funny. He posts statements or questions under one name and then answers them himself as Chuck.>>>> Yea right. Just because you are totally devoid of any character, and find it funny to make posts using my name, it sounds like your're the one reposnding to your own posts.

To Karl One wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:00 PM:First of all, I used Karl One to differentiate you from Karl Two, who recently blogged under your name by accident, not having received the memo that you own the blog name Karl.

Try not to be paranoid, no one is blogging under your name on purpose.

Secondly, the fact that you didn't know that the Republicans have been stating those exact things regarding Obama doesn't change the fact that they are. Anyone who has access to the internet can verify that for themselves, perhaps you need to spend a little more time educating yourself on what is going on in the world?

The statement you made that I objected to was that the Democrats are using divisive tactics. My response was to question you why it is okay that the Republicans are doing the same? The fact that you are unaware of this doesn't excuse your statement. Try to catch up with the rest of us.

As any cop on the corner will tell you, Karl One, ignorance is no excuse.

It is unseemly to criticism your opponent when you yourself are at fault equally.

You're welcome.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:01 PM:I am highly disappointed that Obama would turn his back on the troops while he was in Germany. Now, I realize he'd never want to visit the troops unless he could have a full contingent of media cameras there, but nonetheless he could have made some effort. But, he did pull a good one over on the media. He paid for huge rock concert at the sight of his speech, ... thereby, inflating the numbers of those how almost cared about his speech

McCain Obama Troops wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:09 PM:From the NY Times QUOTE The McCain campaign quickly produced and aired an advertisement built around the incident. “And now, he made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops,” an announcer says. “Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras. John McCain is always there for our troops.” Mr. Obama did visit wounded troops in Iraq, without telling the news media, and has done so in the United States. ENDQUOTE Oh yes, while Obama was visiting wounded troops in Iraq and the US, without telling the media, McCain was in Washington, voting against the GI Bill. "McCain is always there for our troops", unless they need medical care, education, family support, help getting on with their lives. Can you believe McCain's desperation and gall? Using wounded troops as pawns with which to create a completely phony image of himself. Disgusting. Time for the rat to retire.

Chris wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:18 PM:Did you see the response from Ron on Chris Pulse's letter? You see Pulse just laid out a historical fact and as usual Ron just like Bill, Chuck and the rest of like minded people just classified it as Jew bashing or Jew hatred. You know not one of these flag wavers can ever address an issue. All they know is sarcasm, and snide comments. Of course Ron can't address anything that Pulse said because he is totally ignorant of what is goint on and so when anybody criticizes the concervative sacred cows then these flagwavers just blow a lot of the smoke by accusing the other person of hatred and bigotry. These people are pathetic.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:18 PM:Well, thank you "Alf" @11:42 AM, I've never received an honorary doctorate, so Thank You!
Were gonna have to work on that title, though.. "Piled Higher and Deeper."

Explaining death to loved one's is always difficult. I wonder about the lives lost on Iwo Jima, the 27,909 casualties, with 6,825 killed in action. How those families would ever understand the strategic importance of this tiny island, when Japan was literally thousands of miles away?

Iraq is strategic if you consider the following facts:

1) Pakistan is a failing country, with about 50% of the population supportive of the terrorists.

2) When Bill Clinton tried to take out Bin Laden by tommahawk, Madeline Albright {or, not so-bright} called Pakistani ISI to inform them of the fly over, and they promptly told OBL, who fled the target area.

3) Iraq allows a foothold in the region, without preconsent of neighboring countries.

4) Iraq can be looked at as a type of Iwo Jima, a foothold, strategically, for support of Afganistan.

5) Since we do not know how Pakistan will move into the future, and needing to provide material support to our troops in Afganistan, Iraq makes a pretty good support platform.

6) Afganistan could not be quelled by 350,000 Soviet troops, what makes you think that we will settle Afganistan in a short amount of time? And without the foothold Iraq can give us?

7) Iran, and American trigger forces, like used in Korea, Europe.

8) We've already made several business & military agreements with Turkmenistan, thus flanking Afganistan.

If you want to stabilize Afganistan, although I personally have my doubts as to how much you can settle & stabilize it, you first need to make sure your on-going effort will be materially supportable. With Pakistan failing, we need an alternative, Iraq & Turkmenistan is in place.

One last thing...
This constant looking to Afganistan by Barack Obama, does this man NOT know history, or what? With history not being on our side, going into Afganistan with more troops, and pulling out of Iraq. How does he or NATO intend to support them, if we give up the foothold established in Iraq.
Silly, really.
NATO will educate this young man.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:24 PM:Focal Point[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:01 PM: LOL. Not my post. At the time, of this post, I was being educated by Ron.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:31 PM:You just can't stand it, can you.. "What war" @12:45 PM?

The wind is back our backs now, after all this blood, sweat, and tears.. and you can't even admit to yourself, that that Iraq is getting better?
Talk about a narrow point of view.
Closed minded, actually.
Isn't that what your always telling us conservatives, that we are closed minded, and trying to life in the past?
LOL...
In very short order I fully expect Barack Millhouse Obama to not only take credit for the Surge, but for Drilling Here, Drilling Now, and Paying Less.
Be well my friend.

gracchus wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:31 PM:ron, ithink that you have misintrpreted obama's views about the the surge of us military forces in iraq.
there si no question that violence has declined in iraq with the enhancement of military presence there; the question is how long the relative tranquillity will last once us military presence is minimal or non-existent. and the prospect for that is not good. so how long will the usa be obliged to spend its treasure on such a tenuous peace?
why don't we compare the liberal policies of fdr to the conservative ones of bush? shortly after japan attacked pearl harbor and germany declared war on the usa, the roosevelt administration had bureaucrats studying japanese and german society and political instutions and drawing up detailed occupation programs and developments for those two nations once the allies defeated them. the liberal new dealers knew that the us presence in those two countries would be long term.
and bush? when generaLl eric shinsheki, army chief of staff, testified before congress during the conservatives drumbeat for war against iraq, he estimated that the us would need several hundred thousand ground troops to subdue iraq. that should have been the first warning to us citizens who thought removing saddam hussein was a good idea. instead, donald rumsfeld and aul wolfowitz mocked
shinsheki's testimony and forced him into earl retirement.
apprently bush and his subordinates consulted no middle eastern scholars or independent arabic speakers before he launched his war against saddam. he aparently di not know the difference between a sunni and a shia until a few weeks before his war. he apparently never understood that iraq is a multinational state.
even a casual observer of current events would have known that the infrastructure in iraq under saddam was in a seriously decayed state. when the usa invaded iraq it accepted the responsibility to renovate that infrastructure. bush and his conservative circle didn't believe we bore that burden. we lost the good-will of the iraqi people within weeks of saddam's fall.
i opposed the us ivasion of iraq in 2003 because saddam had been contained and he posed no threat to the usa. i did not want my tax dollars restoring 30 years of saddam's neglect and corruption in iraqi society.
the usa is now confronted with a hard choice. it can continue to subsidize afragile peace in iraq at considerable expense to its national treasure and stressing its military forces. or it can leave and let civil war rage and iran increase its influence in a
country where it had no influence before saddam's fall. right now obama seems to be leaning toward the latter option.
when obama suggests that the us focus its attention on afghanistan and al-qaeda strongholds there and in western pakistan, he does not suggest that the us invade pakistan. that's your idea, ron; it's not obama's

Boat wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:51 PM:McCain Obama Troops: The week before last McCain was speaking before what he thought was a "friendly" crowd. He called on a man in a Viet Nam Veteran ball cap. McCain called him "the man in the funny hat." The guy asked him why he was so hostile to vets & had consistently failed to support vets issues. He was specifically asking him about Senator Webb's GI Bill & VA healthcare. McCain said something about always having the endorsements of the vets groups that mattered, etc. He never actually answered the man's question. He claimed to have, among others, the backing of Viet Nam Veterans of America, which is not true. His record on veterans issues can only be described as dismal. His overall score is around 18% while Obama scores 80% with Hillary Clinton coming in at a whopping 95%! On retired enlisted groups his record is equally awful.

And yet, he has been making the rounds of military bases, specifically naval air stations like Jacksonville & Corpus Christi, something that I thought wasn't supposed to be done - using the troops for "political purposes." He would have been the one yelling the loudest if Obama had gone to the hospital in Germany. But he is complaining because Obama didn't go. Man, make up your mind already.

It wouldn't bother me so much if he was what he claims to be. He is no more of a "Maverick" than I am a neurosurgeon. He voted the Bush party line 95% of the time. That's a Maverick? Then what isn't?

And he certainly is no friend of the Veteran.

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:01 PM:You know, it is just amazing....
Year after year, decade after decade, I have sat, and watched, as Liberals have tried to tear down our military. And then, in one year, with a war, and a opportunity to try and make someone look bad, the Dem's come up with a GI Bill.
The history of this is just.. mind boggling to watch, and absorb.
Where shall I begin? Should I begin with the fall of Saigon, and the effective defunding of GI benefits under Jimmy Carter? Or should I go to the years of Democratic majorities where not one increase in GI bill funding increase ever saw the light of day? Even though we were in wars at that time too?

This is what we get from the likes of "McCain Obama Troops" @1:09 PM.
I've mentioned this before, Why don't we pay them what they are worth? But, I have this feeling it would cut into your welfare programs.

This was a political campaign stump, using troops as a backdrop. That's what liberals use the military for, and of course, for a glorified meals on wheels.
The one time they get serious about increasing funding to the military, and your taking them seriously? When virtually on any given day, you can hear them bash our soldiers, and call them a bunch of losers?
Where the words: Nazi, and Pol-Pot are used to convey a disgusting image of our troops?
And just to win an election, not because you feel it in your heart, do you then throw out this?
And then, to have this baloney come from a person like you. Where you talk about American imperialism carried out by killing of civilians by our soldiers.
Where, on any given day, we listen to you talk about this unjust, and immoral war and the criminal soldiers who pursue it?
And you can say all that, with a straight face?
Incredible.

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:10 PM:Chris

We got our way in a coup in Iran?

Say what?

We didnt support the Islamic fundamentalists that ousted the Shah.

You complain about all the attrocities and then when asked to come up with some you are not able to.

That is pathetically weak.

Ive read your Israel/America bashing letters for years and we have been taking one attack after another for years without responding.

Yet, all you do is call America the bully when they finally respond to what has been one unprovoked attack after another.

What were we doing to deserve having the Khobar Towers bombed?

What about the USS Cole?

The Embassies?

In your attempt to make yourself look educated, you actually make yourself look mighty uninformed and indoctrinated.

We had to back Hussein in order to stop the agression of Shiite radicals that threatened to destablizie the Mid East.

The same ones that are trhreatening it once again.

Just man up and admit you were wrong about Iraq.

Your letters are beginning to give off the stench of desperation more each day as you are discredited in just about everything youve said.

The war isnt a quagmire.

The war is winnable.

The surge worked.

Bush was right.

The Dems were wrong.

There isnt 100,000 American deaths.

There are no terror attack waves on American soil.

We are not more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

You were wrong about EVERYTHING.

Youre the only one who has ducked anything. According to you, the only reason we were attacked all those years was because of our own actions.

What actions do you speak of again?

You said we committed gross attrocities but cant name any.

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:14 PM:Does anyone know how hard it is to find JUST ONE MAN?

Remember how long abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph was able to hide from law enforcment?

That was without leaving North Carolina.

Some people make really ignorant comments and dont know how silly they are.

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:19 PM:Chris

What part of Palestine not being on the Arabian penninsula dont you understand?

Pals are Arab and that means they originated on the Arabian penisisula.

Present day Israel isnt on that Arabian Peninsula.

Hence, the land isnt Arab land and wasnt until they stole it at one point in time.

In fact, no country in the region was Arab or Muslim until they stole it.

You ignore that the just about the entire middle east was stolen by Mohammeds followers.

Yet, you go on and on about how Israel stole back their own land.

Youre amusing.

richard wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:21 PM:Obama is an American and can make his own choices like anyone else. Since the Pentagon viewed his attempt to visit our men in Germany as a political stunt to get votes, then who on earth would begrudge his decision to not get involved in it? If the Pentagon thought that of me, do you really think I'd expect my group to wait for me and force my visit anyway then? McCain said he would do a seismic event to visit them. That's his choice, great, but why does Obama have to think that same way? The Pentagon raised their complaint and Obama backed off, so what? He would have preferred to visit but why make a scene to do so? It's his choice, so who cares? I suspect our soldiers know Obama had a different purpose to visit Europe than that. In fact McCain demanded Obama visit with foreign leaders to learn what's going on 'on the ground' in Iraq. He made no request that I'm aware of that he expected Obama to fulfill while visiting Germany. McCain then flips and attacks him for spending too much time with foreign leaders and not enough time with our men and doesn't think for a moment that this is using our military for his own political purpose to denigrate the candidate he now runs against. McCain also claimed Obama had no sympathy for holocaust victims when Obama was proud to visit the Holocaust museum in Israel. McCain's disgusting potty mouth is of little use. He can't even wait until he meets Obama in person to make his accusations. I guess it's more of the Bush garbage, even against an American where there is no negotiating with a political campaign opponent,just like an actual enemy.

Chris to Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:26 PM:Enough is enough. I have had enough of your smoke blowing. The fact is that the Palestinians, Jordainians, Syrians and whoever else are offten called Arabs eventhoug they don't live in Arabia. Quite frankly I have had enough of you people who just obfuscate issues and it just goes around and around in circles. Since you can't engage in a relevent conversation why don't you do something else?

Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:31 PM:Again, a moving of the goal posts as done by "gracchus" @1:31 PM. It is the $64,000 question, isn't it? What now?

It's awful hard to "misintrprete" the good Senator's remarks, when they are so vague. Would you not agree?

You say: "the question is how long the relative tranquillity will last once us military presence is minimal or non-existent."

No one knows. Not even Obama. But I am telling you now, so you won't be disappointed later, that by the end of his first term, if elected, we will still have 60-70,000 troops in Iraq.
He will not allow this country to fall.
People hate the Colin Powell concept: You break it, you own it. But, it's true. And it will remain true until Iraq can defend herself without our help. That is literally, decades away.
We didn't know if the peace would hold in either Germany or Japan, after we occupied those countries either. So, we quit in the middle, because it gets too hard?

The rest of your post is guess-a-mating the "What if's."
I don't concern myself with past faults, only that we learn from them.
If you evaluate FDR/Eisenhowers D-Day invasion plans, and follow up plans, you'll see shifting as well. This Administation made some really bad mistakes, but have corrected them, you should be happier. The policy was changed, it is succeeding, and now we move forward.

Some how, I get the feeling that you don't think we "occupied" either Germany or Japan? Or that we didn't insert ourselves into their political processes? Their own Constitution's still show our influence while we occupied them. Today, Liberals are calling this Iraqi government our puppets. They said the same thing about FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower. No surpirse there.

For your own information, generaL eric shinsheki, was not "let go" for his statements before congress, he wanted to do away with "Don't ask, Don't Tell", and that's part of the reason the guy was canned. Plus, given his statements about his "can't do" thinking about invading Iraq with less than houndreds of thousands of troops, it was pretty much a done deal to say, He wasn't Our guy to get the job done. Heck, even Lincoln fired General's until he found the one guy who said he'd fight.

So, you opposed the us ivasion of iraq in 2003 because saddam had been contained and he posed no threat to the usa. So, I guessing you could care less about Iraqi's under Hussein, which was one of the reasons declared to remove him, by Bill Clinton?

Just no pleasing you guys...

Fed Up wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:33 PM:Bill[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:14 PM:
Yes. I do remember, I also remember that the basic and sophisticated resources of the United States were not implemented in the search. I also remember that it did not take eight years. Where is OBL?
Lastly, I find those who allege others to be ignorant are just plain stupid themselves.

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:53 PM:You know perfectly well that no one argues that the surge, among other things, has reduced violence in Iraq. Once again, having no none real to argue with, you go Straw. You still have not answered the tougher question: who is the enemy? when will we have victory? will we leave, as we promised, when "victory" is "won"? Bush's game became transparent when he secured his no-bid oil contracts for his pals and demanded that Iraq allow 50+ US bases there, immune from Iraqi law. Then we learned all the reasons for the invasion that we were given, every one, from the mushroom cloud to "we'll stand down when they stand up" were each one a lie. Bush wanted their oil and he wanted a military colony. That he had to invent all those other reasons tells you how much support he'd ever have had for this act of imperialism. If you are proud of the "victory" that your "surge" brought, then lift the champagne and celebrate our hard won time to leave. What's that? You don't want to leave? Now you want their country to be your "foothold" for other wars? Well, I can't say I'm surprised. You, too, are transparent, Ron. You invest in oil. You are part of the munitions industry that takes my tax dollars and converts them into death. You are nothing but pleased to applaud every one of Bush's lies, now apparent as never before, because they put money in your pocket. Then you get all spine-chilled about the brave military who do the dirty work for you. How noble. Like many have said, you do certainly need professional help, son. (Those who need it most never realize it. Denial, I think it's called.)

Chuck wrote on Jul 27, 2008 3:12 PM:Obama said today that his VP choice based on ability to govern, not geography. Thats code to anyone with a brain, that its based wholly on geography

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2008 3:13 PM:When will it ever end, "Ron" at 1:18PM?
I hold the executive branch and the Congress of the United States (for aiding and abetting the executive branch in its illegal and immoral "war") in contempt.
When will the excuses for invading and occupying Iraq stop shifting?
You are very good at taking the lastest excuses and posting them.
The problem is that this newest batch of bull bears no resemblance, whatsoever, to the previous batch of bull.
While it seems to make sense ON THE SURFACE OF IT, it is still a smelly batch of still-warm bull.
The U.S. is a sovereign nation, a self-governing nation, one that is not under the control of another nation.
Until the U.S. illegally and immorally invaded and occupied Iraq, Iraq was a sovereign nation, a self-governing nation, one that is not under the control of another nation.
No matter how you try to justify it, there was no legal or moral reason to invade Iraq, NONE.
To those who say I morphed into "Chris" or whatever, I say -
Unlike "Chris", I do not "hate" (if that is the right word) our military, nor do I hold them in contempt.
GWB and, to a slightly lesser degree, Congress have earned my contempt.
You keep putting more lipstick and make-up on the BULL of invasion and occupation, but it is still a BULL.
If Iraq had attacked the U.S. or one of our repidly diminishing allies, I would be completely in favor of this "war".
They did not.
So, I am not.
Get it?
Regards, Alf.

Oh Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 3:45 PM:The Shah was our puppy in Iran. Our installing him is what CAUSED the Islamic revolution there. There has been no attack on American soil, thank God, although McCain's campaign said it'd be great for their guy if there was one. But have we succeeded in reducing terrorism? Hardly. England was hit. Spain. Pakistan every day. Afghanistan every day. India. Istanbul today. Indonesia. Lebanon. Egypt. Morocco. They have chosen not to hit us. I say "chosen" because it has been clear to date that when they think of attacking US soil, they want big, symbolic targets. Elsewhere, several dozen random civilians or cops is just fine. If al qaeda or anyone else (such as a Tim McVeigh) decided to strap a small bomb to themselves (or buy an automatic weapon anywhere) and take out that many, surely even you, Bill, have to admit it would not be hard. Gosh, American HS and college students do it regularly. So do wacko disgruntled employees and jealous lovers. The credit for no attack on the US does go to Bush and Homeland Security as far as a major attack goes, I guess. I have no problem assigning credit where it's probably due. But the credit for no attacks of any kind (like what happened in India the last few days) goes completely to the Islamicists for choosing not to go that way. But Bill, I won't go on because you are impervious to logic. Your idea of truth seems only to come, spoon fed, from the right wing propaganda machine. Honestly, I know you people can't be reasoned with, so all I can do is hope and pray there aren't enough of you to elect McCain, who wants to stay the course.

Oh Bill PS wrote on Jul 27, 2008 3:52 PM:one last point. I am convinced that Bush and McCain almost don't care where we go to war, as long as we do. The invadee should, ideally, be a pushover (in the Panama, Granada, Iraq mold). They should have stuff the government's backers want, but it's more important to get the American people feeling good about our power, which they transfer to the Great Leader who "won" the war, the better for him to get stuff for his backers. Iraq was not a threat, nor was it connected in any way to al qaeda or 911. Afghanistan, with the Taliban working with al qaeda, which IS a threat and DID 911, was a tough, tough fight. No one expected a rapid victory. Bush needed to get out of there fast, because the last thing he wanted was a "quagmire", another Nam. Iraq was the place, but of course, being incompetent as well as a slimeball, he got it wrong. He got his Nam, his quagmire, and his approval sunk like a stone. Nevertheless, he would not go back to where the actual enemy was. He knew that had to be passed on for the next President to lose or fight endlessly. Bush, all his life, has been a coward. His Presidency was just another chapter of that life. I think my version fits the facts better than yours. Try both on for size and see what you think.

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 3:55 PM:Chris

You show an incredible ignorance on just how the Palestinians became Arabs in the first place. While you call Marines uneducated, you spew some pretty uneducated stuff out yourself.

You defintely sound as if youve never been to Israel.

Allow me to educate you on who the Palestinians are. The Palestinians are a mixed race that did not originate in Palestine. They are direct descendents of the Phillistines who were squatters on the shores of the Mediterenean from Lebanon to Gaza. Ancient Palestine was a squatters camp for tribes that migrated from what is now known as Greek Macedonia. Over the centuries, they have bred themselves into being Semite and Arab.

That is how they became Arabs and Semites Chris.

They are a mixture of Slavic squatter and Arab conquerer.

They have never had a country.

Phillistina was a province of Jordan and Israel.

Phillistina was once re-named Judea as punishment to cleanse the stigma from a rebellion against the Roman Empire.

The word Filistina has meanings in both Hebrew and Arabic. The word means the Palestinian people in Hebrew, but means the region of Palestine in Arabic.

Palestine was a squatters camp of those who did not originate there.

So how is it Palestinian land?

Can I come squat at your house and then demand that you turn your home over to me?

Would that be acceptable to you or is it different when its your oxe getting gored?

While you may try to fool others that you are educated on this, you will struggle to convince me of that.

The entire middle east is filled with Muslims that became Muslims as a result of Arab conquests. That is because they stole more land than you can imagine.

How did Muslims end up in Iraq?

Egypt?

Iran?

Jordan?

Libya?

Morrocco?

Kuwait?

India?

Pakistan?

They were radical Arab tribes that conquered countries to convert them to Islam.

That is why there are Muslims all over the world.

Yet you whine about the tiny little country known as Israel when Arabs control over 5,000,000 square miles of the Earth. They have plenty of land but their own Arab brothers hate them too. The Palestinians are bastardized Arabs in the eyes of most Muslims and Arabs. Israel is 30% non Palestinian Arab and they discriminate and persecute Palestinains far far more and much worse than you accuse Israel of doing. The Palestinins are a trump card that dictators in Arab countries pull out when they face domestic political turmoil at home and need a diversion. Arab and Muslim contries are filled with greedy dictators that blame America for the poverty they created by stealing from their own people.

Then they recruit them to fight America in a jihad. Every Mujahad is indoctrinated in this thinking when they join a radical group like Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad Party.

Thats how they recruit Chris and the "Lions of Islam" movement was going long before we invaded Iraq. The MAK (now Al Qaeda) was recruiting young Mujahads to fight in Afghanistan in 1979. The original "Lions of Islam" dates back centuries.

This recruiting didnt start in 2004 as you libs like to say.

This is no different than gangs in O'side and Vista.

Yet, you complain about the Pals not having a country?

Have you no sense of justice Chris or are you just that uneducated on the middle east?

The Jews are the persecuted ones and its always been that way. They are the ones that have been deprived of a homeland while Arabs and Muslims control half the freaking world.

The same Arabs and Muslims that could give a rats rear end about the Palestinians until they need to rile up the man on the street against America for propoganda purposes or self survival.

I hope you enjoyed your lesson Chris.

I can talk circles around you when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs.

You are way out of your league son.....

Bill is funny wrote on Jul 27, 2008 4:43 PM:Yeah, Bill, it's been the Muslims that have been persecuting the Jews all these years. LOL You sure are an expert historian, all right. Look at Hitler, for example. Few people know that his first name was not "Adolf" but "Ahmed", right Bill? This space is turning into some kind of comedy schtick. Take my history, please! As a Jew, Bill, I am at least as suspicious of Christians as I am of Muslims. And frankly, I am not soothed knowing that when Christians ARE on "my side", it's only because they want to speed up the end of the frickin' world! Maybe that's comforting to you, but not to me, Bill, thanks. I can do without that kind of ally, ok? Give me an Arab terrorist any day. LOL

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:13 PM:Ron at 11:21 a.m. addresses his blog to me with a complaint that "I" am the one who is diverting attention from the actual candidates to their wives. Here is his exact quote:
"John McCain is running for public office. Barack Obama is running for public office. Our discussions should pertain to them, and their actions.
I think their wives, if they are not running as a co-president, should be off-limits as well."
PLEASE READ MY POST AGAIN, MORE CAREFULLY.
I addressed it to Irene Edwards, who made the issue all about Cindy McCain except that, oh, she did leave out quite a few of the more unsavory details about the spoiled little heiress.
The proof of Ron's utter hypocrisy is that he addressed his comments to me, and not the one who actually introduced the subject, to whom I was merely responding.
But that is because Ron is not about fairness or objectivity in any way.
It is all about "rah rah for our side" with no regards for consistency or even accuracy.
Then, with his usual rude, snippy, egotistical tone, he goes on to say: "Focus a little more, would ya?"
Why don't YOU focus on where the issue came from, Ron, before you embarrass your self yet again.

richard wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:17 PM:Iraq under Hussein? In many ways that country had so much freedom they didn't know what to do with it all. All you did was when Hussein came to your town, you laid low so as not to get shot at, then when he left you went about your business. He was a spoiled playboy and figurehead for the country of Iraq. he pretended to be tough with nukes he never had for self preservation from Clinton didn't ask to invade Iraq when he decided to denounce Hussein's regime. Clinton is a civilized human and was not asking for military attacks. Bush tried to finger Clinton for being "at fault" for what he's done and yet Bush never asked Clinton to elaborate on anything, he just changed intelligence, deceived Congress and our military and invaded. Iraqis I could tell had lots of freedom. They all had RPG's in every room. They also would freely bury their dead we killed at checkpoints, all without a probate court, judges, laws, etc. and go on their merry way with what was left of their possessions on their back, no police questioning, nothing, so much freedom they could do nearly anything they wanted. No thanks, we spent a trillion to give people freedom who already had it.
And yes, Palestine to me is synonymous with Israel. In the old days Israel was called Palestine. The two cultures were supposed to coexist but have so much hatred that it's not happening. We are on Israel's side because they are God's chosen people and nothing can be done to change that, period. But that doesn't mean Obama can't speak about coexistence with those who hate them. It's what all American presidents have stood for since WWII and terror isn't going to change that stance. The trouble is when we invade a country without rights. That's not fighting terror, it's escalating it and it doesn't help our Israeli friends one iota to conquer Iraq. Bush made a mistake and overplayed his concern for our security, period.

Scary wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:20 PM:You know what's scary? John McCain's actual voting record shows us that he is the enemy of women, the disabled, veterans, the health care system, the elderly, for starters. And he is running neck and neck with Obama. McCain's not scary: Americans are scary. Tell me: is this because our public educational system has failed to teach us anything about values, humanity, fairness, love, or morality? Good grief!

gracchus wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:24 PM:ron, i don't think that you read what i wote in my origal post very well. i shall endeavor to clarify.
1) the surge is a tactical move, not a strategic one. i do not want our national treasure to sustain this artificial peace interminably; moreover, i don't think that we can.
2) you are right in believing that we might still havea significant military presence in iraq come 2013. this is the dilemma of the usa: we can remove our troops from iraq and allow the country to descend into anarchy and under the influence of iran; or we can maintain our military presence there, drain our national treasure, and stress our military forces.
3) i clearly stated that the roosevelt administration started making detailed post-war plans for germany and japan years before either of those countries surrendered unconditionally to allied forces. the bush administration made no such plans for iraq after saddam's fall.
4) i am interested in past mistakes and successes. while contemporary problems must be examined in the context of the circumstances surrounding them, the past can serve as a helpful guide to resolving them. if bush and his crcle had consulted scholars of the middle east and independent arabic speakers, they might have approached iraq differently.
5) the normandy invasion was a strategic action to force the germans to confront a two front war. the surge is a tactical action to give iraqi politicians breathing-space to come upo with a political resolution to their problems. so far the iraqis have done little in this area.
6) i don't know to what puppets of fdr and truman you are referring. kindly enlighten me.
7) concerning shinsheki's forced early retirement, ron, you are just wrong. bush and his circle removed the general because he questioned their war plans. rumsfeld didn't even have the courtesy to attend general shinsheki's retirement parade. my sources are THE NEW YORKER and THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS. hat are your sources suggesting that the problem of gays in the military forced general shinseki out?
8) i feel compassion for the iraqi people and all oppressed peoples in the world. but i don't want to go around the world overthrowing every crackpot dictator in the world. people have to resolve the economic, social, and political issues confronting their countries themselves. what did liberal democrat truman do about soviet expansionism? did he seek a war of aggression to topple jv stalin? no. he came up with the marshall plan and started a policy of containment which allowed the corrupt soviet system to collapse from its own weight.
9) regarding a different post that you wrote, ron, the gi bill which helped so many war veterans get an education and a home was liberal democratic legislation. i really don't know where this idea that democrats hate the us military and are't patriotic came from. well, i do. but that's another story.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:59 PM:Half-baked excuses, "Bill", that's all that you offer for the U.S. becoming a rogue nation with GWB as terrorist-in-chief.
You want McGWB to keep doing more of the same.
What you choose not to realize is that, BY HIS ACTIONS, GWB is asking for retribution.
It wouldn't be too bad if the retribution was aimed directly at GWB, the person who ordered our invasion of Iraq, the problem is that GWB is gambling with the lives of other people, not himself.
If and when another terrorist act is perpetrated on Americans, on American soil, killing Americans, you can praise and thank GWB for it happening.
By all means, "stay the course".
Regards, Alf.

Innocent Observation wrote on Jul 27, 2008 6:36 PM:OBAMACAN writing about Ron, "It is all about "rah rah for our side" with no regards for consistency or even accuracy."

This from someone who takes the name of her candidate, and can write about nothing, and no one else?

Couldn't keep a straight face!

to Obamacan wrote on Jul 27, 2008 6:39 PM:Don't pay Ron no mind, O. He has one set of "rules" for others, one for himself. For example, insisting we focus on the candidates. Who brings up people like Rev Wright here more than anyone? You guessed it: Ron! Now Ron will say that this is about Obama's judgment. Of course who you marry is not a matter of judgment. LOL Or Ron will accuse another poster of posting hypotheticals, "what ifs". Then Ron will join the chorus condemning Obama for opposing the surge, explaining that if it hadn't been for the surge all hell would've unleashed in Iraq (didja catch the "what if"? Me too.) No, Ron is a conservative Republican. This means that for their side, there are no rules, no morals, no ethics: you do anything to win, no prisoners, and this is what is expected of you. If you are a Democrat, alas, you try to be logical, factual, moral, and if you veer from this by a half a degree, the Rons are all over you, accusing you of being hypocritical and having the nerve to play by their rules. We liberals feel guilty when accused of unethical or dishonest behavior, and thereby give these slime another election.

Its No Secret OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 27, 2008 6:46 PM:OBAMACAN
[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 5:13 PM: "I addressed it to Irene Edwards, who made the issue all about Cindy McCain except that, oh, she did leave out quite a few of the more unsavory details about the spoiled little heiress". Well OBAMACAN, You seem to have a real problem with anyone making more then you, or more then minimum wage. Or maybe, could it be, I know, It's because Cindy McCain, the "spoiled little heiress". as you call her, is white? It's not a stretch to guess that one. Just take a gander at what you write.

Verdad wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:00 PM:Bill[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 3:55 PM
I thought the Philistines and the Israelis competed in peace and war for the same land. In fact, the Philistines defeated the Israelis in 1050 BC. Now if the Palestinians were Arab, their origin in Palestine would be 650 BC. But, in any event, since you are doing the educating on the subject, please present your resources and documentation.gj

richard wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:09 PM:On UCSD TV the Revelle College forum presented Gourevitch's book 'Standard Operating Procedure' just now. It detailed the torturing that our military did under Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush's Geneva cancellation rules. Eight people were tortured until death and the speaker pointed out the moral degradation our country has fallen into by not denouncing torture. McCain after leaving his POW camp in Vietnam demanded that we never torture, to set an example for others to follow. But because the politics of today with Cheney and Bush authorizing the dumping of Geneva and accelerating interrogation methods that the Red Cross, FBI and other experts classify as abject torture, John McCain now has flipped and signed the agreement to continue this practice on prisoners we incarcerate from overseas. If it were a guy who could be certain was going to kill someone, that's one thing, but when you don't know with certainty before he's tortured, then thats simply playing like god and degrading this nation's character. Eve since Cain slew Abel humans have had to deal with murderers. Torture is not going to stop it, sorry John McCain, I am opposed to your new found beliefs.

Realist wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:39 PM:Hindsight is 20/20, people. You can whine and talk about how we should not have gone to war with Iraq, frankly, until your blue in the face. Well, it's DONE, and it CANNOT be undone. Bush and others saw the intelligence, saw how Hussein ignored the U.N. so we invaded. No WMDs, so we are rebuilding and leaving as conveniently possible. Now why don't you focus on something more worthwhile, like the energy or economic crisis? You'd have better luck on that front. -Realist

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:30 PM:Verdad

That is correct.

The Arab conquest was taking over quite a few countries in the region around that time.

That is the history of the region and it is after that, that they bred with Arab conquerers and became Arab Semites. They were originally a nomadic Slavic tribe that had migrated there and squatted.

They had been squatting for years in harmony with the Israelites.

That is correct.

The Pals originated from Slavic roots but mixed with Conquerers. Those conquerers were Arabic tribes led bya myriad of men such as henchmen Abu Bekr and they terrorized the region throwing out the tribes that lived there such as the Sassanid and extinguishing religions such as the Zeroastrians.

They imposed their will on tribes in the region by force and still live that way. The Chaldeans and Assyrians still wander the region without a homeland because of Arab takeovers but Chris is ultra silent on their plight.

They dont sponsor terrorism either.

I think Chris has his good guys and bad guys mixed up.

But that was then, this is now. I dont claim to be an expert historian but having spent a lot of time in the region and being briefed for military Ops, I know whats going on in the area and what the history is.

I have spent quite a bit of time doing S-2 operations in the middle east and had 2 embassy duty tours in Amman and Istanbul so I am quite familiar with Middle Eastern affairs.

Chris is full of crap.

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:42 PM:The guy who says that I am funny is too much.

The Lebanese backed Christian Militia defended Israelis in the Litani River valley along the Lebanese border during the 15 year war. They provided cover for helpless Jews under attack by Islamic backed "Lions of Islam" Mujahads that had come in to fight for extremist forces in Lebanon after the breakup of the MAK when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. They wanted to take over south Lebanon to one day destroy Israel.

The same thing is happening today with Hezbollahs attempt to build up forces at Marwaheen and all throughout the Litani River valley.

The Christians in Lebanon have been your good friends and are the ones that are fighting to keep Hezbollah from taking over that area.

You have a death wish for Israel if thats how you feel.

You sure you arent really Chris posting under another name?

Either that, or your ideology blinds you to who your real enemies are.

Amazing!

Bill wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:55 PM:What I am amazed at is how those who cry "Wheres OBL?" are the same ones that would be screaming the war is unwinnable in Afghanistan pointing to the Soviet quagmire.

Afghanistan is now the mantra for liberals.

Osama is in the Pushtun region and that terrain is tough to get to launching planes off carriers and too far for drones. Our bases in Saudi Arabia are quite a distance and without a more strategically located airbase, we only had one point of attack and that strained our carrier forces in the Arabian Sea.

However, now that we have plans for airbases in Iraq, we now have a buffer to keep and eye in Iran and launch reconniscence and drone missions. From there, we can hit the region from different sides. We couldnt do that before and we had to win Iraq first.

Thank God Bush stayed the course and didnt listen to liberals.

Whether we get OBL is irrelevant when we are experiencing so much success weakening AQ and making them run.

A big reason they high tailed back to Afghanistan is because they are hog tied and dependant on Hawala brokers for financing and need the heroin and opium money more than ever now that we have weakened them.

Another reason is because public opinion in the Arab world is now against AQ.

I love the bumper sticker mentality of some liberals.

"Wheres OBL?"

Yeah, that will fit on a bumper sticker.

Richard wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:07 PM:hindsight is also foresight here because the torture programs have not been banned. Only one person I know of was convicted for three years, all the others still are conducting many of the techniques and have not been charged. Who is going to charge them, the victims? In what court? It goes on, and yes let's move on to trying somehow to getting GWB stopped from onslaughting Iraq more. Our military is still there and I know students who visit here from Iran, a country filled with people who admire the US, but you'll never hear that from GWB's lips. It's all the axis of evil stuff and bomb bomb iran so taking your idea and not continuing to speak out will never induce an end to attacking the wrong people. Speak out now or forever live with consequences as we are now living with, as you say, the Iraq mistake that can never be undone, ever. But ignoring any attempt at punishment and correction for this, at best, unintentional manslaughter would be rewarding past mistakes instead of recognizing them. Bush took his stupid gamble to the endgame and something has to be done to prevent him from doing more. He's still commanding our military, even though he's been wrong on almost every aspect since we were attacked [other than routing the Taliban]. If we don't clean the house then we get nowhere at all. And OBL the perpetrator will not even be watched sufficiently since Bush declared years ago he 'doesn't care about that guy'. We also have not been allowed to examine the 28 page document on the role of Saudi Arabia in the WTC attacks. We're given nothing and as long as that prevails, citizens have every right to moan about it. This is citizens' country as much or more than Bush's.

Alf wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:16 PM:Well, "Realist" at 7:39PM, there are those of us who favored going into Afghanistan to get OBL, yet we saw the folly of and insanity of invading Iraq.
I do not whine, I call anyone who wanted to invade Iraq and everyone who wants to stayt beyond when the People of Iraq want us out of there, FOOLS.
Does that sound like whining to you?
As for your "Well, it's DONE, and it CANNOT be undone.", you are wrong.
We can leave Iraq as we have been invited to do.
Failing to do so is equally as much a stupid mistake as the invasion AND the occupation.
Over 65 percent of the American People, over 70 percent of the Iraqi People AND the government of Iraq want us the hell out of Iraq.
What about that do you not comprehend?
Regards, Alf.

OH PLEASE wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:30 PM:Realist[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:39 PM:
Its an election year. One of the candidates, old John McCain main plank is the Iraqi War and surge. Tell him to get on with it. Tell ole John to consider economic issues. OOPs. McCain already admitted that he knows little of the economy.

richard wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:50 PM:please stop and think what you are saying. Bush saw the intelligence and when he presented his summary to Congress, according to the abuse of power hearings on cspan, he intentionally for whatever reason left out almost all the data showing Hussein was no threat to anyone but himself and those around him, including data from the Air Force. And the stuff that was sending up red flags, Bush reworded to make it appear more definitive. Congress was thoroughly deceived by this and authorized the invasion. Lying to Congress to start war is a high crime, even though done with the sincere desire to protect the country. If Barry Bonds lies to Congress, jail him, but this is nothing in comparison to lying to start a war against someone you hate, with our military, treasure and lives. So I sent information I was aware of to Congressman Nadler on that committee, namely that Senator Nelson of Florida was sent Bush's intelligence opinions where the Air Force report was purposely omitted, because Bush knew Nelson was going to vote against the authorization. This at the very least is involuntary manslaugher, but that type of stuff is the business of Congress. Our job as citizens is to help them get at the truth, not to obstruct it by denigrating citizens who blow the whistle. If anyone knows anything relevant, you can send it to Congress.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:12 PM:Submitted 9:27 p.m.; re-submitted p.m.
Yet again, my posts are delayed, as the North County Times allows others to attack me, misrepresent me and inaccuarately describe me while preventing me an equal opportunity of response.
I do understand that the wimpy conservatives do need to be treated with special favoritism so you can pretend to offer "balance" but please at least allow people who are attacked the equal opportunity of defending ourselves if you want to claim that you are an objective, balanced news organization rather than just Ron and Chuck's private propaganda machine. My blogs do not violate one single posted rule, and all facts are 100% verifiable, unlike those invented by Ron and do not include any cheap name-calling such as that by Chuck, so let's try again here:

To Innocent Observation at 6:36 p.m.
Once again a conservative makes a guess, and gets it wrong.
Some people, both liberal and conservative, blog under a single name consistently.
Some use different names.
I blog using various names to represent various issues.
Blog editor(s) know this because I use the same e-mail address when submitting blogs under a variety of different blog identities.
Those who know the "real" me know who I am in all my glorious online identities which have obviously got the conservatives completely (and not so "innocently") baffled, but that is so easy when dealing with the conservative mentality.
So when I write about Obama I use a name that reflects Obama.
For you to say I "can write aboutnothing, and no one else" makes an assumption on your part.
And once again you are horribly, miserably, arrogantly wrong!
But, uhm, thanks for your interest :::::::::laughing hysterically:::::::

The blog from "Its no secret" at 6:46 p.m. also makes assumptions and, again in typical conservative simple-mindedness, is very far from reality. Hahahahahaha.

To Chris wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:42 PM:Chris
[-] wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:18 PM:
The more important point that you missed is that no one else even bothered to notice your letter. Ron has NO life; he'll comment on anythhing and everything any kook has to say, which discredits his maturity and intelligence, putting him in the same class as you.

Mark wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:22 PM:Bill, your historical knowledge is impeccable, yet the debate over Israel's right to it's land can be summed up more simplistically. Post WW2 The World leaders gave the small stretch of land to the Jewish people, with almost no dissention. People may not like it, but the land is legally and politically Israels. Israel does deserve blame when it comes to modern animosity of the Palistineans. While I will always defend Israels right to protect themselves, they have responded with a heavier than needed hand on many occasions. We must realize that mending the wounds will take years, if not decades. On the other hand your interpretation of current US affairs is pretty ignorant. Whether this war is "winable" or not doesn't matter. It was an uneccessary war based on lies and misinformation. Republicans and many of the Democrats who voted for the war did so for political reasons. They wanted Americans to feel as though we were in control and that we were combatting terrorism. Many Americans, such as your self, fell for it and were duped. The surge has temporarily confused and debilitated the insurgents, but they are not gone, just biding their time. The "surge" is the equivalent to putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. Bush wasn't right(he is in fact a lackey to his advisers, always has, always will), not on the war, not fighting the "war" on terrorism, not on the economy, not on the oil issue, not on anything. He will go down as the single worst president in history, beating even Carter in his level of incompetence. At least Carter has done good, for the most part, after leaving office. What will Bush do? Nothing! He has done enough damage to us as President, so maybe doing nothing will be a good thing.

Mark wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:34 PM:Ron, I don't blame the soldiers for the situation in Iraq. I don't believe I stated that in my earlier post, but let me clarify. Leaders on both sides, Dems. and Reps. voted for the war and deserve equal blame and contempt. 4000 soilders have died so far and I hope no more die. Unfortunately I know that is unlikely. A common technique used by neocons is to claim that Liberals are blaming the soldiers. Outside of small fringe groups who have their own agendas, Liberals support the soildiers as much, if not more than their conservative counterparts. Also, if you look back over the last 100 years, Democratic Presidents have provided more support for the Military and it's soldiers than their Republican ounterparts. The belief that Republicans were the "military presidents" did not spread until the early 80's. I don't know your sons, but the are heroes. I just want them home, safe with their families, just as I hope that for all our soldiers.

Apollo wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:08 AM:Re: Mark (11:34 p.m.)
Love your post, Mark, agree with you fully in spirit and mostly in facts, but one error does need correcting.
You said that both Dems and Reps voted for the war and deserve equal blame and contempt.
Except that their votes for the war were not equal.
Republicans unanimously voted for the war; about half the Democrats voted against it.
And even those who did vote for the war did so on misrepresentations provided by Republicans, and even Democrats who did vote for the war were quicker to recognize and acknowledge their error after administration lies became widely known.
Those who did vote for the war all deserve blame, but this does not apply equally to both parties, not by a long shot.

Apollo wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:23 AM:Resubmission

Re: Mark (11:34 p.m.)
Love your post, Mark, agree with you fully in spirit and mostly in facts, but one error does need correcting.
You said that both Dems and Reps voted for the war and deserve equal blame and contempt.
Except that their votes for the war were not equal.
Republicans unanimously voted for the war; about half the Democrats voted against it.
And even those who did vote for the war did so on misrepresentations provided by Republicans, and even Democrats who did vote for the war were quicker to recognize and acknowledge their error after administration lies became widely known.
Those who did vote for the war all deserve blame, but this does not apply equally to both parties, not by a long shot.

to Mark and Bill wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:32 PM:What will Bush do when he's done? He will go to his spread in Paraguay and live the life of luxury, in a place where he is assured that he will be protected from prosecution as a war criminal in an international court, and protected from subpoenaes from Congress at home. Bush's stained Presidency will not leave when he does. He will be tormented as his reputation sinks further and further as the historians find the facts.

Fed Up wrote on Jul 28, 2008 4:56 PM:to Mark and Bill[-] wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:32 PM: I am looking forward to it.