January 06, 2007
McDermott: Bring Back Baath Party

David Postman writes in yesterday's Times about Dal LaMagna, co-chairman of Maria Cantwell's reelection bid, whose current main issue is surrendering in Iraq: One man's obsession with Iraq. LaMagna travelled to Amman, Jordan with Jim McDermott last November to meet with "Iraqi parliament members," though from which party Postman doesn't say. Out of this meeting, McDermott and LaMagna formulated the following cunning plan for ending the Iraq war:

After their November trip, McDermott and LaMagna developed a plan they say reflects what Iraqis want. It would undo major pieces of the Bush strategy.

They want U.S. troops out of the cities and sent to close the borders with Iran and Syria. They want the Iraqi constitution rewritten and the former Baath party government, which the U.S. dismantled, brought back to run things.

To protect the country, they say, the old Iraqi army must be reconstituted and rearmed.


That's right: put the party of Saddam Hussein back in charge. All hail the glorious protector of freedom, Jim McDermott!

Posted by Andy MacDonald at January 06, 2007 02:21 PM | Email This
Comments
1. what a leftist scum bag. Is anyone surprised that traiter like Baghdad Jim and the rest of the fringiacs would want exactly what the terrorists want?

Posted by: Hinton on January 6, 2007 03:24 PM
2. Baghdad Jim no longer. Traitor Jim McDermmot. Supporter of terrorists. A man who doesn't know the meaning of the word freedom.

Posted by: Mike S on January 6, 2007 04:16 PM
3. I am sure "Baghdad Jim" sees this as a fitting eulogy for his budy Saddam.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 6, 2007 04:31 PM
4. Question. I get confused. Isn't the baath party the islamic version of the German Nazis? When can we call it treason?

Posted by: Jean on January 6, 2007 04:33 PM
5. I'm only surprised that McDermott's buddy would say it so clearly. Many leftists opposed the invasion of Iraq simply because one of their own was in charge in that country -- the dictator Hussein of the Baath Socialist Party.

Never remove a socialist or communist dictator from power, if you don't want to put up with the howls of rage from our own leftists.

Posted by: Micajah on January 6, 2007 04:49 PM
6. You mean BRATS!

Posted by: dcat on January 6, 2007 04:49 PM
7. First of all, you incorrectly paraphrased the article. The Ba'ath party government is distinct from "the party of Saddam Hussein." Party apparatuses are very different than government apparatuses. Furthermore, the insinuation that Ba'ath ideology would be restored is simply false: the article provides no suggestion of a return to Sunni-dominated pan-Arabism. Rather a return to government institutions that existed before 2003.

Restoring some officials from Saddam's Iraq is something even the Kurds, one of the two groups who faced Saddam Hussein's genocidal madness, have advocated. (The Marsh Arabs may have, I simply don't know.) From the beginning, anyone who was sane said, "Get rid of the criminals, but keep the functionaries, the people who actually know how to run a state."

How could you be surprised at the failure of the Iraqi state? Paul Bremer's first move was to dissolve everything that grounded what remained of a political apparatus in Iraq. He dissolved the army, putting thousands of humiliated, unemployed men (with guns) into the streets of Sadr city. He banned anyone affiliated with the Ba'ath Party (and therefore the Iraqi government, period) from holding any sort of governmental office.

In those two moves, Bremer dissolved the entire basis for a state in Iraq. The only place in Iraq with continuous government are the three northern provinces under the auspices of the Kurdistan Regional Government. And what do you know? Those three provinces are peaceful, and the government stable.

Continuity of governing institutions matters.

Posted by: Travis Thomas on January 6, 2007 04:51 PM
8. Oops I meant that comment for the last one! See how upsetting she is! Take that gavel away from her!

Posted by: dcat on January 6, 2007 04:52 PM
9. Do they also expect to resurrect Saddam? Or, install his daughter as Supreme Great One? Maybe he and Cindy Sheehan, who he says he has "worked close with" will try to run the country?

Al Qaeda should have a ball with them.

Posted by: LewWaters on January 6, 2007 04:53 PM
10. I like Israel's plan!

Posted by: dcat on January 6, 2007 04:56 PM
11. Israel should think twice about dropping nuclear bombs on any Muslim nation, including especially Iran. Israel should know that the Muslims already possess nuclear weapons: Pakistan is a nuclear power which has a pro-Western government which has a tenuous hold of power. The Pakistanis are not allies of the West.

Should Israel drop a nuclear bomb on Iran it is altogether possible that a radical Islamic government will form in Pakistan and those nuclear bombs might well find their way to Israel and the United States of America.

Which is to say: Israel won't survive for very long after it decided to engage in nuclear war.

The United States of America ought to reconsider attacking Iran, too. Iran may not be able to defeat the United States militarily, but it could certainly sink several supertankers and blow up Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's oil exporting facilities. Do you know what would happen to the American economy under those circumstances? Let's just say, the automobile era would come to a sudden end.

The United States has lost the Iraq war. The U.S. & NATO have lost Afghanistan. How many more wars can the United States afford to lose?

3,000 American soldiers have already died on behalf of a lost cause in Iraq. If that war continues for much longer that number is only going to expand. It is altogether possible that the United States will not officially lose the Iraq war until 6,000 or 9,000 American soldiers are dead.

Should make for an impressive monument alongside the Vietnam memorial.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 6, 2007 05:40 PM
12. Hey David. BOO! Now go back and hide under your bed.

Posted by: The kids you weren't allowed to play with on January 6, 2007 05:56 PM
13. Hello kids,

President George W. Bush is incompetent but he is certainly not insane. Israel isn't going to drop any nuclear bombs on Iran. Iran is safe and it knows it.

How many more soldiers have to die in Iraq before you realize that we have lost that war?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 6, 2007 06:14 PM
14. This "war" is the strangest thing. If we sued for peace, asked for terms of surrender, exactly to whom would we be surrendering?

No, the war, as traditionally defined, is over: this is a post-war occupation. The Iraqi army we were at war with has ceased to exist. The government/ state/ political entity with which we warred is dead. Iraq was conquered, and a new state was created with a constitution and democracy.

Iraq, if you think about it, is an ally in this war against foreign terrorists and "insurgents" in Iraq.

The media is calling it a war because of the occupation's casualties. Because it's easier to say "end the war" (who wants war?) than to say, "abandon ,leave Iraq to struggle for itself and eschew the UN mandates that require a conquering state to oversee reconstruction and rebuilding during the occupation phase."

To leave would not be peace, to stay is not war.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative, Seattle on January 6, 2007 06:44 PM
15. Now that's soms pretty remarkable reasoning you have there, Bleeding Heart. 3,000 American soldiers have died ... but it's not a war.

Iraq is our ally? Are you thinking about the great throng of Iraqis that greeted our soldiers with chocolate and flowers?

You say: "To leave would not be peace, to stay is not war." Okay. But to stay will mean approximately 800 more dead soldiers every year. That certainly is not peace even if it also not war.

3,000 American soldiers have diead. 150,000 Iraqi civilians have died. How many more?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 6, 2007 07:10 PM
16. ...150,000 Iraqi civilians have died....

Let's just say for a moment that your wildly inflated numbers were correct... do you somehow think that if we leave, that somehow the killing will magically end? That if we leave, they'll suddenly all just get along, sit around the campire, and sing kumbya?

By the way, there are parts of the US that have higher violent death rates than Iraq:
http://newsbusters.org/node/9932

So do we withdraw from New Orleans, or Gary, Indiana?

Posted by: Mike H. on January 6, 2007 07:31 PM
17. Hello Mike,

Why does 150,000 dead sound like an unreasonable number of civilian dead to you? The United States of America has killed nearly that many civilians in a day on several days during World War II.

How many civilians have died in the Iraq war, Mike?

I think it safe to say that at America has murdered at least 3,000 Iraqi civilians. Which is to say: George W. Bush has killed more innocent civilians than Osama Bin Laden. Too bad that Iraqi civilians are considered worthless by Western conservatives who become enraged by the murder of 3,000 wealthy, mostly-white Americans in New York.

When 3,000 civilians are killed in New York, it is a crime against humanity. When 30,000 Iraqi civilians are killed by American bombs & bullets, it is just collateral damage.

America is allowed to kill Iraqis. America has always exercised the right to kill civilians. America has killed millions of civilians in its wars of the 20th century.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 6, 2007 07:48 PM
18. David, First of all I served and was injured in Iraq. Secondly, things are not nearly as bad over there as the media tries to claim. Thirdly there are more US Solider who die every year stateside in training accidents and automobile accidents than the entire time we have been in Iraq. Fourthly, if we leave you will see a new proxy civil war start up between the Shite's backed by Iran and the Sunni's backed by Saudi Arabia. Fifthly, you bring up that 150,000 civialians died during WWII on many occassions, but you leave out the fact that in some of the single battles of WWII we lost way more than 3,000 US Soldiers. SHould we have given up during WWII because of the deathtoll? Sixthly, why should it be up to you and your ilk weather or not we keep fighting the war on terror? The Soldiers serving have reenlisted at a higher rate than at peace time and that is in large part because they believe in the mission (125% of the reup goal reached each year of the war on terror and I was one of them). And Finally, what should Israel do? Should they sit back and wait for Iran to get nuclear weapons and then wipe them off the map as the Iranian President said should happen?

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 6, 2007 08:01 PM
19. David:
How many would Saddam have killed. That sounds like a slow year for him. No one knows how many have been killed by Saddam. Your relativity is bad.Plus mostof the deaths blamed on US Troops are terrorists killing people. So do some research. Look at the website http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
You hate America. You blame all ills of the world on America. Yet I see no other country trying to stop all the evil that is taking place in the world. We can not get the UN to stop Slavery. It is alive and well in Muslim Countries. It is an accepted practice. The UN will not condemn the killings of NonMoslems in North Africa. Where Millions have been killed in the past few decades. The US can only do so much. I am going to assume you accept slavery and killing of non muslims as acceptable behavior. Because America is against it. Right. You can only fix a small number of thing. But eventually good things will come from them. Otherwise you weaken America. And our enemies will do more than kill a few thousand people. We are a target if we are not successful I pity the US because it will open the door to things we can not dream of today. it is known as Cause and Effect. Weaken the US and Support terrorists and enemies of the US means you support their hatred of us and their goals of our destruction. Think through your arguements beyond the feel good hate america thoughts.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on January 6, 2007 08:18 PM
20. Hello Truesoldier,

You asked some good questions:

>David, First of all I served and was injured in Iraq. Secondly, things are not nearly as bad over there as the media tries to claim.

Well, that's some pretty incredible news. From what I hear the entire Middle East is a tinderbox poised to explode at any instance. But if you say that everything is ok over there I guess I will just have to believe you.

> Thirdly there are more US Solider who die every year stateside in training accidents and automobile accidents than the entire time we have been in Iraq.

That might be true but I think that there is a rather substantial moral difference between soldiers dying from accidents and soldiers dying from IEDs in a futile, unnecessary, and catastrophic war.

> Fourthly, if we leave you will see a new proxy civil war start up between the Shite's backed by Iran and the Sunni's backed by Saudi Arabia.

If that is the case then the Iraq war is the most terrible mistake that a President of the United States has ever made in the history of our country. You know what happens to the American Way of Life when the Middle East explodes?

>Fifthly, you bring up that 150,000 civialians died during WWII on many occassions, but you leave out the fact that in some of the single battles of WWII we lost way more than 3,000 US Soldiers.

World War II was a bloody, evil war which provoked genocidal tendencies in all of the warring nations. The United States of America committed some acts of genocide and crimes against humanity in World War II. Hiroshima and Nagasaki rank as the #1 and #2 acts of terrorism ever committed in the history of humankind.

> SHould we have given up during WWII because of the deathtoll?

The United States of America should not have engaged in the mass killing of civilians in World War II.

>Sixthly, why should it be up to you and your ilk weather or not we keep fighting the war on terror?

I don't believe in the "War on Terror". At most, the war against Afghanistan was the only "War on Terror" that the United States engaged in after 9/11. Iraq was a bloody resource grab which the administration was planning before 9/11.

>The Soldiers serving have reenlisted at a higher rate than at peace time and that is in large part because they believe in the mission (125% of the reup goal reached each year of the war on terror and I was one of them).

The soldiers buy into the propaganda because otherwise they might realize (consciously and morally) that they are murdering the Iraqi civilians for nothing except oil.

>And Finally, what should Israel do? Should they sit back and wait for Iran to get nuclear weapons and then wipe them off the map as the Iranian President said should happen?

If Israel wants to remain in the Middle East forever it ought to live at peace with its neighors. Israel should stop killing the Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Israel should also stop threatening its neighbors with nuclear war because this sort of talk is suicidal on Israel's part.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 6, 2007 08:21 PM
21. Hello David Anfidrud,

> How many would Saddam have killed. That sounds like a slow year for him.

Are you suggesting that 150,000 dead Iraqi civilians are perfectly acceptable because the death toll was greater under Saddam Hussein?

If that is the case, I guess that Osama wasn't really so very evil when he murdered 3,000 New Yorkers on 9/11. The United States of America killed a whole lot more civilians on a typical day during World War II. Osama's act of terrorism couldn't hold a candle to America's acts of nuclear terrorism during World War II.

> You hate America. You blame all ills of the world on America.

I don't have America. I am a registered Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. But I am not the sort of Republican who considers the Iraq war virtuous simply because the American military is doing the killing.

>Yet I see no other country trying to stop all the evil that is taking place in the world.

That's an incredibly naive statement on your part. How can America stop all the evil taking place in the world when America is actively engaged in evil?

>We can not get the UN to stop Slavery. It is alive and well in Muslim Countries. It is an accepted practice.

Slavery is practiced throughout the Third World and it is not exclusively a Muslim practice. Several Amerian multinational corporations engage in slavery or near-slavery. If you look closely enough, you might discover a little bit of slavery occurring right here in the United States of America.

>The UN will not condemn the killings of NonMoslems in North Africa. Where Millions have been killed in the past few decades.

I'd be happy if the UN would stop the American killing of Muslism in Iraq. Once we stop that act of violence we both can work together to stop the violence in Africa.

>Otherwise you weaken America. And our enemies will do more than kill a few thousand people.

Would our enemies do anything so evil as killing 150,000 civilians? That's what they would have to do in order to match the crime that America has committed against the Iraqis.

>Weaken the US and Support terrorists and enemies of the US means you support their hatred of us and their goals of our destruction.

You are afraid of an enemy that is actually not powerful enough to do any of these things. If the Muslims possessed aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers they could threaten America in a serious manner. But they do not, we do, and that is why America has killed at least 100,000 more civilians than the terrorists since 9/11.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 6, 2007 08:35 PM
22. Mr. Matthews:
First of all, you make a tiny bit of an error. In fact all of you liberal Demorats make the same mistake. Iraq is one theater in a long war against Muslim Fascism. As much as the political left likes to call Republicans/conservatives "Fascists", you'd think you could recognize the real thing when you see it. Guess not. Be taht as it may, Iraq is a very important front, Al Qaeda thinks so too. They have said so.

Anyway, the thing that continually amazes me is how much people like yourself hate our country (the hating of conservatives is a given, we accept that). You could say (like I do . . . or other reasonable people) that George Bush is incompetent(+/-) but " . . . let's win this thing, whatever it takes, get the hell out of there and move on . . . " to the next front against the enemies of the west. But you eagerly await the latest numbers of the deaths of brave men who volunteer to serve and protect you and your lifestyle, to use them as ammunition to make a politician that you don't like look bad. It validates in your own little mind that that America really is Amerika, just like those old 60's radicals said it was.

I live next to guy like you. Loves anything French (their movies - le plus fin; the women - pas comme les oigs am�ricains; their culture - tellement librement au sujet de leur sexualit�), corporations are evil (although he makes his living from them) and western religion, no greater evil in the world. Oh, and those damn Jews, you know what I'm talkin'. Don't want to forget Cindy Sheehan, now she's got some cred, right?

You should think about this: When you (and those like you in the media, on blogs, editorial pages and in D.C.) broadcast that we "have lost the war in Iraq", who do you think sees that? Just Iran, Al Qaeda, any number of radical Muslim Fascists and those that hate us. It's a small digital world. Everybody sees all. You give them hope to kill and behead more. You and your ilk carry their propaganda war on your back to places like Sound Politics and the Seattle P.I. You and your ilk have killed soldiers by these deeds. You have extended this conflict way beyond its logical conclusion by your hateful partisanship. The blood is on your hands. I think that you are the kind of guy who would let those close to you die to save yourself. Well, get ready. Radical Islam is coming. Figure out who you are going to send to the dogs . . . before they get to you.

Posted by: EssPea on January 6, 2007 08:37 PM
23. We need to splurge for a nice statue of Saddam to join our "heros row" next to Lenin.

Posted by: Al on January 6, 2007 09:15 PM
24. Hello EssPea,

> Iraq is one theater in a long war against Muslim Fascism.

That's pretty incredible given that the Iraq war was already planned prior to 9/11.

> You could say (like I do . . . or other reasonable people) that George Bush is incompetent(+/-) but " . . . let's win this thing, whatever it takes, get the hell out of there and move on . . . " to the next front against the enemies of the west.

I am not in favor of America "winning" Iraq. The United States of America is killing civilians in Iraq. The Iraqis lose whether America wins or loses. I am only in favor of the war ending.

> I live next to guy like you. Loves anything French (their movies - le plus fin; the women - pas comme les oigs am�ricains; their culture - tellement librement au sujet de leur sexualit�), corporations are evil (although he makes his living from them) and western religion, no greater evil in the world. Oh, and those damn Jews, you know what I'm talkin'. Don't want to forget Cindy Sheehan, now she's got some cred, right?

Your neighbor is wonderful.

>When you (and those like you in the media, on blogs, editorial pages and in D.C.) broadcast that we "have lost the war in Iraq", who do you think sees that?

Should I lie? If I lied thousands more soldiers and ten thousands more civilians will keep on dying.

>Just Iran, Al Qaeda, any number of radical Muslim Fascists and those that hate us.

These groups already know that the United States of America has lost the Iraq war. It is happening in their neighborhood.

>You give them hope to kill and behead more.

America has killed 150,000. When do we stop killing?

>You and your ilk carry their propaganda war on your back to places like Sound Politics and the Seattle P.I.

If the news that America is losing the war is propaganda you conservatives are really out of luck. When the propaganda is the truth it follows logically that your "truth" is really the propaganda.

>Radical Islam is coming.

Conservatives are about the most terrified people on the planet. If you are so scared by an enemy without a military, I wonder how you are going to behave when America encounters an enemy with a military (such as Russia or China).

The terrorists aren't coming. They never were coming. The President has fed you lies and exploited your prejudices on behalf of an evil, futile and ultimately catastrophic cause.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 6, 2007 09:44 PM
25. Wow! David Mathews is one of the most dogmatically ignorant leftists we have met in ages. Or is he simply consumed with hate for "western" values -- as diffuse and pleuralistic as they are?

Posted by: JB on January 6, 2007 10:05 PM
26. I dont give a grass ass about David or anyone else opposed to the war! Im telling people that I will not give in and will die before I have to give in like a coward! I am proud of every soldier that has fought! I support the cause!

Every stinking Euro is just like the lame left here! They love being told when to jump and love socialism and I am not about to live under that kind of thumb! If people want to live like that let them all deport! I prefer real men and women of a country that are wiling to defend it! Not some candy ass that cant respect the freedom that we have or the men and women that have died for it! Our country would have been under who knows what if we had not defended it!

Folks, this is not like Vietnam but it is worse then WW11 we need to stand up to the thugs and people like the lame stream media! We must stick together as One Nation under God! Or else it will be under Allah! And I would die first! That is what I am saying. So stuff it!

Bigot: A conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.

We need that cowboy hat back on Mr. President! And yeah we need to press on but with some back bone and help from the lame front!

Looks like the loon is off the meds tonight. Hard telling what he'll say or do next. Watch him have fits when ya don't ansewr him!

Posted by: dcat on January 6, 2007 10:22 PM
27. Thanks matthews, you exposed yourself just like I knew you would. You're a sick little pup. Good day.

Posted by: EssPea on January 6, 2007 10:29 PM
28. EssPea is right. This is a 100 year war. I am an educator and I view things through the lens of curriculum. Look at what kids are being taught and one will get an idea of what the future generations are likely to believe. While Arafat was alive he made one set of statements for western media and brain dead secular progressives, but the curriculum in Palestian government schools is frightening and based on hate. I know that secular progressives throw around the term "madrass" when describing parochial schools, but there is a world of difference in the curriculum. For one thing, they have to meet state standards and they attempt to educate their children to function in contemporary society. I say this is a 100 year war because it will take that long to both fight terrorism and really educate children giving them the skill to live in the contemporary world and not the 12th century. Sometimes, I think secular progressives have a death wish, I just hope they don't take the rest of us along.

Posted by: WVH on January 6, 2007 10:41 PM
29. There are any number of comments by a long list of moon-bats that are misguided, wishful day-dreaming, delusional, looney, and just plain wrong (you wonder if some of them ever studied history). Still, in some cases you MIGHT be able to have a semi-rational discussion with some of them (people at The Stranger come to mind; as possible representatives in that category).

But then there are the truly vicious distortions, lies, and pure anti-American hate propaganda put out by those like ''David Mathews'' (whoever that is).

A few of his worst just on this thread:

''George W. Bush has killed more innocent civilians than Osama Bin Laden.''

Proposing that Al-Qaeda deliberately setting out to murder as many innocent civilians as possible is equivalent to very regretable but unintentional deaths resulting from action by our troops.
Al-Qaeda now talks openly about their wish to murder several million Americans. If they get a crude nuke they will try and do it.
Innocent civilians have unavoidably died in Iraq; in spite of the best reasonable efforts of our military to minimize civilian casualities. No military action in ANY area with civilians could ever be taken, if a guarantee of zero civilian casualties was an absolute requirement for going in.

''the murder of 3,000 wealthy, mostly-white Americans in New York.''

Nationals from something like 50 or more nations and of all races were murdered on 9-11. But because they were ''mostly-white'', I gues that makes it more acceptable to ''David mathews''.

''Hiroshima and Nagasaki rank as the #1 and #2 acts of terrorism ever committed in the history of humankind.''

That is such an obvious and massive lie that it's somewhat surprising that anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government would make it... Oh; yeah; that's right..

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Rawanda, Saddam, the Congo; all the way back to Roman Legions surpressing revolts in Judea and elsewhere; and a very long list of millions deliberately and routinely murdered back into antiquity.

The truth about the A-bombs that finally ended WWII:
They almost certainly saved half-a-million and more American and Allied casualties, during the invasion that would have followed if the Emporer had not finally been forced by the bombs and the entry of Russia to in effect order his military to surrender. But more than that:
They likely saved many MILLIONS of Japanese civilian deaths, that would otherwise have occurred in a full-fledged invasion.

In the context of the times, there was never any question that the A-bomb would be used to end the war as quickly as possible.

''...murdering the Iraqi civilians for nothing except oil.''

Another absurd statement: If all we wanted was the oil, all we would have had to do is BUY IT from Saddam: He would have sold us as much as we wanted to buy at world prices.

''If Israel wants to remain in the Middle East forever ...''

IOW: There is a question in his mind whether or not the democracy that is Israel should even be ALLOWED to remain.

''I guess that Osama wasn't really so very evil when he murdered 3,000 New Yorkers on 9/11. The United States of America killed a whole lot more civilians on a typical day during World War II.''

9-11 may have been a bad thing, but Mathews can understand why Al-Qaeda did it: We're worse; and it's all our fault.

''I don't have America. I am a registered Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.''

That's right: Mathews doesn't BEGIN to ''have'' any concept of what America means; and should mean, to those who are citizens. And voted for GWB ? Not likely.

''The terrorists aren't coming. They never were coming.''

9-11 never happened, I guess:
It was all a conservative plot hatched and staged in a studio.


In the end, I only have 3 words for both the individual and collective statements of ''David Mathews'' and people like him:

Totally BENEATH CONTEMPT.

Posted by: Methow Ken on January 6, 2007 10:54 PM
30. DM would be among the first fringe leftists whining that Bush didn't do ENOUGH if we get attacked again.

See, when hate is what drives your political motivations, reality rarely has a chance to intrude... as Mathews has so aptly illustrated.

Posted by: Hinton on January 6, 2007 10:59 PM
31. Maybe LaMagna and McDermott met with FORMER Iraqi parliament members -- i.e. Baathists from the "legitimate" government that was in place before the U.S. invasion.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 6, 2007 11:19 PM
32. David Mathews,

You live in a fantasy land. You are ignorant of both history and current events. You are a poster child to why our public education system and hack media are failing us; to the point where a--clown American citizens are fighting our enemey's propaganda war for them here at home.

If we did things you way, there would be more war, more death, and no peace.

Posted by: AP on January 7, 2007 02:32 AM
33. Hello Everyone,

The really odd thing about the responses above is that there is an abundance of prejudice, hate, and fear directed at the Muslims at a time in which the United States of America is actively occupying two Muslim countries and killing Muslim civilians on a daily basis.

So I have a question for you. Which is worse:

1. Attacking a nation once and murdering 3,000 civilians.

vs.

2. Occupying a nation for many years and murdering 150,000 of its citizens.

What the conservatives here seem to have forgotten is that the Muslims do not possess any sort of military which would make the conquest of America possible. The United States of America spends $400-$500 billion a year for a military which has global reach. That is 50% of global military spending.

So all this talk about the Muslims invading America is pure prejudicial bunk and ridiculous propaganda. America is safe from the Muslims and would be even safer today if it had not gotten itself stuck in the quagmire which is Iraq.

The Muslims don't want America occupying their countries for the same reason why Americans don't want other nations occupying America. The United States of America has murdered 150,000 Muslim civilians and this death toll can only increase. America is leaving a mess in the Middle East that will never be cleaned up.

Isn't it ironic that at one time Saddam Hussein was America's biggest ally in the Middle East? The conservatives loved him. Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand. American weapons and military training supported him.

If the Muslims are so evil and such a great menace, exactly how is it that the world's most evil dictator was such a strong ally of the United States for so very long?

And Osama Bin Laden? There was a time when the Afghanistan jihadists were heroes in the West. They defeated the other evil empire and drove it out of Afghanistan. America supported the jihadists back then with money, weapons and training.

Osama was an ally of America when he was killing the Soviet imperialists. What America didn't realize is that these jihadists were also enemies of American imperialism.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 03:42 AM
34. Hello Methow,

> The truth about the A-bombs that finally ended WWII:
They almost certainly saved half-a-million and more American and Allied casualties, during the invasion that would have followed if the Emporer had not finally been forced by the bombs and the entry of Russia to in effect order his military to surrender. But more than that:
They likely saved many MILLIONS of Japanese civilian deaths, that would otherwise have occurred in a full-fledged invasion.

What you are saying here is absurd. America could have ended World War II without dropping the bomb or invading Japan.

And even if the bomb ended the war, is it just for a nation to vaporize 150,000 civilians in order to end a war?

Osama became the most evil man by murdering 3,000 civilians. How then is it acceptable for America to murder 100,000 civilians?

Osama's great crime was not the murder of civilians. Osama's crime was that he murdered American civilians.

The United States of America has a long history or murdering civilians which continues today in the occupation of Iraq. America has murdered millions of civilians in its wars of the 20th century until today. Yet we don't mind so much the death of civilians when they are another country's civilians.

When Iraqi civilians die they are just "collateral damage". Americans don't care about Iraqis dying even when America is doing the killing.

If it is truly evil to kill civilians isn't it time for America to stop killing?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 04:20 AM
35. David,

YAWN! Please take your liberal talking points back to your Democrat Party commissars. We have heard them all before and they have been debunked.

America did not kill 150,000 civilians. That is a lie and repeating that lie over and over will not make it true.

Iraq has a democratically elected government, something liberals told us all could never happen. In fact they have held elections several times. Each time liberal predicted failure and each time the Iraqi's proved them wrong.

The people murdering civilians in Iraq are the terrorists, whom people like you seem to love. I bet you joyously celebrate 911 as a great victory of over the great satan don't you?

Posted by: pbj on January 7, 2007 04:31 AM
36. Hello pbj,

Are you serious in claiming that the United States did not kill those civilians? Because I have got to tell you, dropping bombs from airplanes and shooting machine guns do tend to kill people, including civilians.

There are terrorists and others who are murdering civilians in Iraq, but the United States of America is responsible for the chaos and anarchy that exists there. If your town is overrun with criminals you can blame the criminals but you also blame the police.

The United States of America has created a mess in Iraq that it cannot fix and cannot leave. The Iraqis are dying horrendously and we placed them in this situation.

Do you think that the Iraqis are build a statue of George W. Bush to thank him for destroying their country?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 04:40 AM
37. re: DM

The heavy rains must be flushing the rats out of their holes and up to higher ground...

This is a prime example that America is fighting a war on two fronts: The war against terrorism and islamic extremism, and a war HERE against ignorance, apathy, and appeasement, that would utterly destroy this country from within.

And with the current state of publik edukayshun, it's only going to get worse as time goes on...


Posted by: BRC on January 7, 2007 07:52 AM
38. DM Said "Well, that's some pretty incredible news. From what I hear the entire Middle East is a tinderbox poised to explode at any instance. But if you say that everything is ok over there I guess I will just have to believe you."

This is typical leftist crap that you would hear in the MSM. Of course there is problems in Iraq and the Middle East no is saying there is not, but what I said is it is not nearly as bad as it is being portrayed by the media. Of course what would I know. I was only out and about with the Iraqi people on a daily basis seeing things through my own eyes hearing of the atrocities of Saddam from the people for whom he perpetrated them on. Unlike the MSM that gets its news from the stringers that are supposed to go out and get them the news, but have learned that the snesationalism of the news pays better. Perhaps the MSM should get out of the "reporter hotel" in the green zone and actually do some real reporting. Then again I am sure it would be hard to fit into their little world view if they saw and heard the things that I heard.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 7, 2007 08:56 AM
39. I am very happy that we don't folks like David Mathews leading our country. If we did we would be speaking German on the East Coast and Japanese on the West Coast. Our Nation would be split into two countries, North and South. We would still have slavery in the South. We would have never won our Freedom from the British. And we would all be practicing Sharia law. Thank goodness there are not more extremists of David's ilk. Oh by the way, this post is my opinion only as opposed to David's 'truth in repetition' postings

Posted by: sillyguy on January 7, 2007 09:21 AM
40. You want to hear news besides from our own troops go to Iraq the Model's Blog. Omar has a lot to say and I am pen pals with him. Roger Simon found them blogging in a coffee house when they had no internet and much worse conditions. The fear of being killed for what they were telling the world. Go educate yourself and the rest of the ilk like yourself! This is going to take a long time however good things do take time!

Posted by: dcat on January 7, 2007 10:18 AM
41. That btw was me talking to it! It="DM"

Posted by: dcat on January 7, 2007 10:21 AM
42. Poor David seems like a bitter, angry guy. Like most liberals he's real angry about death...unless it's an innocent unborn child. In an earlier thread he noted that he was "not opposed to the extinction of homo-sapiens". Like a lot of liberals, he's confused.

The man is beyond help, I fear. Unless I miss my guess our wonderful education establishment played a major part in getting him where he is today. Would anyone be surprised if he's part of that establishment?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 7, 2007 10:30 AM
43. Quick, somebody, is all the Kool Aid in Seattle out of stock this weekend? David Mathews is cynically trying to corner the market like the Hunt Brothers tried to do with silver 20 some years ago.

Massive sugar overdose, David....or maybe transfats........take two aspirin, change your diaper, call us in the morning..

Posted by: Hank on January 7, 2007 10:34 AM
44. Some things never change!

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

Posted by: dcat on January 7, 2007 10:41 AM
45. I suppose if President Bush announced on Monday that we would begin withdrawing our troops immediately Democrats would knock each other over in a rush to the microphones to complain about this "failed" strategy and demand we send more troops until the job was done. It's like the Old Marx Brothers song in the 1932 film "Horse feathers" (the audio is one of Mike's America favorites and available for

Just listen to this link it will explain everything!
From horse feathers

Posted by: dcat on January 7, 2007 11:09 AM
46. By the way all that information was cut and pasted from Mike's America. Another blog. Go check that one out too and get away from these loons! Like DM.

Oh yes he moderates his comments too. Why print the same ole same ole dribble from the left!

He debunks them all with a new post full of information. I suggest people like DM go and do their own blog. I certainly won't go to it and it will then have it's say.

The left wing loons never do sound convincing.

Posted by: dcat on January 7, 2007 11:18 AM
47. I love David's 150,000 deaths. A paid Democrat scientist. Does a study taking areas where the most violence takes place and then expands the number to cover the whole country. You can not show 150K deaths it is scientific guesses.
I could show the same thing for Seattle. GO to the worse neighborhoods for deaths and murders. and then say well this is 2% of the population for Seattle and claim Seattle had thousands of people killed by criminals. And if 2 people are killed by cops obviously the police department has killed hundreds of civilians.
Can you understand where your logic comes from? There are cities in the US with higher death rates than what happen in IRAQ. That is deaths per 100,000. Inspite of the terrorists there are some cities with a higher death toll.
The bottom line is all terrorists are civilians. So maybe we have killed 150,000 terrorists.
Can you tell me that the study could say who was a terrorist and who was not. We capture and kill hundreds of terrorists every month. I guess you think they have a right to kill American and Iraq's. Because you disagree with the war.
The cut and run of McDermott means at least 1 to 2 million deaths in the middle east. Every time a dictatorship takes power many people die.
They kill all that oppose them.
Your heroes Stalin, Mao, North Vietnam and Cambodia caused tens of millions of deaths. LOok at history. Running from helping South Vietnam cause over a million people thier lives. So you support more killing and more innocent deaths.
We have a very long war ahead of us. It can not be won in a single battle. over 7000 moslem terrorist attacks world wide since 9-11. That works out to be thousands of deaths if not tens of thousands. Our press only mentions a small number of the attacks. Every day dozen or so terrorist attacks. Every day somewhere in the world people are hurt and killed. You do not care but think of problems hundreds of years ago to defend you belief. or lies to defend you beliefs.
The cause and effect of Demcrats is to weaken the US and make us unable to defend ourselves. Clinton cut the US Military by over 200,000 people. That was over an 8 years. The next Democrat who becomes president may cut another 200K. To cut the deficit. Eventually there will be no one available to Defend the US>
Look at the National Guard at the Mexican Border got attacked by Mexican drug lords is my guess. Lets just treat it as a police action and remove the national guard from protecting the border. Open borders yea let the nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction just walk across our borders. How many deaths will it take for you to wake up to the real dangers we are facing.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on January 7, 2007 12:45 PM
48. Actually David is out of touch with his far left handlers. The new talking points say 600,000 Iraqi deaths since we invaded. Come on David, get up to speed on your blather.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government recently released the death toll from the past year, the worst since we invaded. They said 16,000. Assuming that there were just as many in every year since we went in (unlikely but allowable for the sake of argument) that makes a grand total of 48,000 since the invasion. Tragic but considering that many if not most of those deaths were caused by terrorists not our troops, not nearly as bad as David thinks.
Meanwhile, we have an elected government, the American troops are training a new military (which takes more time than the Left understands), training a new police force (ditto) and transitioning a country with little history of democracy to a functioning democratic republic.

Have we made mistakes? You betcha. Do 3,000 military deaths make it no longer worthwhile? Not really. The number 3,000 has no special significance other than it ends in three zeros. Additionally take a look at the breakdown in deaths. Several hundred are due to training accidents. Presumably those would be deaths even if they had stayed home. Almost a hundred have died due to heart related illness (ie heart attacks and strokes). Should we even be counting them as combat deaths? If you eliminate the non-combat deaths from the toll the total is below 2,500. Should we be happy that 2,500 soldiers have died? Absolutely not. Is it worth it? I don't know. What is it worth to eventually have a stable democracy in the middle east? What is it worth to have Libya closing down its WMD programs? What is it worth if we can get a free and democratic government in Lebanon, Syria, Iran? If we succeed, the people fo these countries will begin to wonder why they can't have it. If we fail, the governments in these countries will figure out that they can do anything they want and no one will step in. Repression time.

Posted by: Calvin A on January 7, 2007 01:18 PM
49. "Are you serious in claiming that the United States did not kill those civilians? Because I have got to tell you, dropping bombs from airplanes and shooting machine guns do tend to kill people, including civilians."


The US did not kill 150,000 civilians. And unlike the terrorists, the US doesn't blow up civilians.

Planting IED's in roadways and slicing off people's heads tend to kill them.

I am curious how many civilians you think the US has killed in Darfur? Yet another idiot for the "religion of peace".

Posted by: pbj on January 7, 2007 01:30 PM
50. I had an interesting discussion with one of my former bosses just before Christmas. He and I are both retired Army - He was a full Colonel working with training the National Guard and Reserve. His comments we about about Clinton cutting our military strength in half to cut the budget deficit.

That cut has meant that we are not capable keeping more than the troops we have right now on the ground in Iraq. So if we want to blame anyone for not being able to finish the job in Iraq, we should blame Clinton and the Democrats.

Posted by: sillyguy on January 7, 2007 01:31 PM
51. Ain't the left great?

Their hyprocrisy is almost too much.

How often do we read commentary from the left condemning the regime in Iran, for example? I didn't notice a massive outcry from the left after the government of Iran hosted the recent Holocaust denial conference, or when their leaders call for the destruction of Israel. You'd think these folks that are obsessed about "oppression" would be up in arms. Where is the outcry from lefties such as McDermott, and LaMagna? Why aren't lefties taking to the streets in protest? Their lack of action speaks louder than words.

The left is much more likely to go into freak-out mode when someone uses a word like "macaca".

Phonies

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 7, 2007 02:02 PM
52. I'm curious, David, since you said that we didn't need to drop the Bomb or invade Japan to end the war with them. Just how could we have ended that war without nuking them or invading them?

Posted by: Mike H on January 7, 2007 02:09 PM
53. Mike H I can answer that question for you. We have a secret weapon in this countries arsenal that does not kill anyone, but can bring them to their knees so fast it will make your head spin. What David Matthews is refereing to is that we would have sent him and his moonbat left wing friends to Japan on a one way ticket a give them full Japanese citizenship. This alone caould bring any country to their knees in a matter of days.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 7, 2007 03:30 PM
54. Bill C:
Very simple. We should have approached Japan just the way the Moonbat Left is advising now with Iran and Al Qaeda.

We would talk to them. Ask them why they hate us and what do we need to do to make you stop hating us. Once that is out on the table the peace & love would flow and everything would be OK.

I think it is instructive to note that people like Mr. Matthews are deeply disturbed.

Posted by: EssPea on January 7, 2007 03:42 PM
55. "I'm curious, David, since you said that we didn't need to drop the Bomb or invade Japan to end the war with them. Just how could we have ended that war without nuking them or invading them?" Talking them to death, apparently...

Face it...no matter what the topic, leftist myopia and "logic"---not to mention "facts"---are as reliable as the moonbats returning to San Juan Capistrano. I've always thought that it would be fun to write a Mel Brooks-style screenplay about same; perhaps a re-make of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" as a send up of all the leftist screeds we've been subject to. The hero's outrage would be the result of the unveiling of leftist distortions and obfuscations as he's eased into the obn...

Well...yeah...and instead of the filibuster, it would be the effectiveness of the blogosphere in standing against the incessant yammering and railroading of the leftist agenda of the msm.

Posted by: scott158 on January 7, 2007 03:48 PM
56. Hello Mike H,

> I'm curious, David, since you said that we didn't need to drop the Bomb or invade Japan to end the war with them. Just how could we have ended that war without nuking them or invading them?

A diplomatic solution with Japan was already possible before America dropped the atomic bomb. Of course, conservatives cannot end a war without an appropriate level of bloodshed.

You conservatives should keep in mind that dropping the atomic bomb set a historical precedent upon how a nation may choose to end a global war. This is one reason why the United States of America is absolutely terrified of nuclear proliferation.

There are thousands of nuclear bombs scattered throughout this world. They exist because America invented and chose to use the weapon as a tool of international terrorism.

America is rightfully scared of its evil child. As Jesus warned: "all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword". (Matthew 26:52).

If anyone really wants to appreciate the magnitude of America's sin involved in creating & using the atomic bomb, consider that America came extremely close to extermination from Mutually Assurred Destruction at several points during the Cold War.

Would you say that defeating Japan was worth the potential extermination of the USA via MAD during the Cold War?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 04:37 PM
57. Hello pjb,

> And unlike the terrorists, the US doesn't blow up civilians.

You are seriously mistaken about how the United States of America conducts warfare. 500-lb. bombs have a tendency to blow up civilians. Plenty of Iraqi civilians have died from this cause.

Did you think that the U.S. Military has spent the last three years handing out candy to the Iraqi civilians? No, the military is in the business of killing and it does that job too well.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 04:41 PM
58. See Mike H, David Matthews proved my point that we have a secret weapon and that weapon is to threaten to send the moonbats to go live with them. Imagine if OSB or the Japanese Emporor during WWII had to deal with them without chopping off their heads. They would surrender in an instant out of shear annoyance.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 7, 2007 04:44 PM
59. Please tell us, David Mathews, which university do you teach at?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 7, 2007 04:53 PM
60. Hello Calvin A,

> Meanwhile, the Iraqi government recently released the death toll from the past year, the worst since we invaded. They said 16,000. Assuming that there were just as many in every year since we went in (unlikely but allowable for the sake of argument) that makes a grand total of 48,000 since the invasion. Tragic but considering that many if not most of those deaths were caused by terrorists not our troops, not nearly as bad as David thinks.

48,000 dead is tragic but not really so bad???

Oh my, Osama Bin Laden is a saint. He killed 3,000 civilians. That's not really so bad, isn't it?

Calvin, please do tell me what is an acceptable number of civilian dead? At what point has a person or government killed "too many" civilians?

Because I was operated under the following principle:

If killing 3,000 civilians makes Osama a reprehensible, evil man ... undoubtedly the killing of 48,000 civilians makes George W. Bush a reprehensible, evil man.

And I've got to tell you I am convinced that killing 3,000 civilians is an evil act. Is it evil only if a foreign person commits the act against Americans? Is 3,0000 a perfectly acceptable number of dead civilians when an American President orders the killing?

I am looking for some sort of objective moral standard from you conservatives. I would hope that you have one.

Didn't God Himself suggest: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But you contradict God by saying that there is an acceptable number of dead civilians associated with American military actions overseas.

You also say: "Do 3,000 military deaths make it no longer worthwhile? Not really. The number 3,000 has no special significance other than it ends in three zeros. Additionally take a look at the breakdown in deaths. Several hundred are due to training accidents. Presumably those would be deaths even if they had stayed home. Almost a hundred have died due to heart related illness (ie heart attacks and strokes). Should we even be counting them as combat deaths? If you eliminate the non-combat deaths from the toll the total is below 2,500. Should we be happy that 2,500 soldiers have died?

You are saying an ironic thing in the paragraph above. Specifically: When you say that "3000 is just a number" you remind me of an argument I had a long time ago in which a person claimed, "1000 is just a number".

I suppose that if this war lasts long enough, I will eventually hear a conservative say: "10,000 is just a number!" When that day comes, I vow to respond in the following manner: "Yes, you are absolutely right! 10,000 is just a number. All those soldiers were just numbers, too. Their deaths don't mean anything to me. Ten thousand more can die, too, if that is what it takes to win! Real patriots are in favor of soldiers dying!"

But to you I say: George W. Bush has now killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden! If this war lasts for too much longer we will need an Iraq War Memorial alongside the Vietnam War Memorial. There's plenty of black granite in this world. There's enough for a pretty big monument.

3,000 soldiers have died. Between 48,000 - 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died. George W. Bush has killed them all. Their blood is on his hands. George W. Bush has killed a lot more people than Osama Bin Laden.

God Bless the USA!

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 04:56 PM
61. David sez 150k Japanese "citizens" were "vaporized" by the two bombs dropped on Japan. Wrong. Over 200k "citizens" were. Cheap at twice the price. Just ask the US WWII vets of the European theater who were regrouping for Japan when the bombs were dropped. The same GI's who luckily survived combat in Europe but were much more likely to be maimed or killed in Japan. Maimed or killed by the same "citizens," estimated in the millions, who were bracing to fight the allies and fanatically commit suicide to honor their then perceived god-ruler. Many allied troops and sailors would have been maimed or killed had those two bombs not been dropped. Many, many more Japanese "citizens" - along with their troops and sailors.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 7, 2007 04:58 PM
62. Hello Bill,

> Please tell us, David Mathews, which university do you teach at?

I am teaching at the University of Sound Politics. At least, that is what I would say if there were university-quality students here. It appears more likely that I am teaching at the Sound Politics Elementary School.

You people have to learn the basics before I get around to teaching you the complicated, difficult subjects. Only those who listen are able to learn, though. As Jesus said, "If a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a quagmire in Iraq". (Matthew 15:14).

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 05:01 PM
63.
Hello Tyler,

If you can justify the mass killing of 200,000 civilians I am certain that America's enemies can find an equivalent argument should the need ever arise.

You are engaging in terrorist-style reasoning here. Osama certainly had his reasons for murdering 3,000 civilians in New York.

If it is evil to murder 3,000 civilians it certainly is evil to vaporize 200,000 civilians.

But ...

If it is acceptable to vaporize 200,000 civilians it certainly is acceptable to murder 3,000 civilians.

Either both acts were evil or both were justified. But if Osama's act was evil certainly the atomic bombings were also evil.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 05:07 PM
64. David Mathews is an extremist left-wing partisan without merit in spirit or content of comments.

Please ignore all future posts as they are only meant to be troll-food. Whatever you reply will change nothing so why try to change a person that does not have any merit to their comments.

Posted by: sillyguy on January 7, 2007 05:07 PM
65. A diplomatic solution with Japan was already possible before America dropped the atomic bomb. Of course, conservatives cannot end a war without an appropriate level of bloodshed.

You must live in another reality. Last I checked, Japanese culture during WWII dictated fighting to the death. No surrender. Ever. That is why the bomb was necessary, because the Japanese thought fighting to the death would be futile because they couldn't hurt us in the process.

Exactly what is this diplomatic solution you speak of? Just call it a draw and walk away?

Posted by: Mike H on January 7, 2007 05:26 PM
66. Wrong, sillyguy. Mathew's posts serve to illustrate that whatever it is we might believe about the looney left, we haven't even scratched the surface!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 7, 2007 05:31 PM
67. Conservatives, the end of WWII? Hmmmmm...so FDR and Truman were conservatives in sheep's clothing? So you admit the New Deal was a broad plan to enslave the masses?

As I said, moonbat.

Posted by: scott158 on January 7, 2007 05:34 PM
68. Hello Mike,

> Exactly what is this diplomatic solution you speak of? Just call it a draw and walk away?>/b>

I am suggesting that World War II could have ended without either an aggressive invasion of Japan or a nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities filled with thousands of innocent civilians and children.

Why does this idea sound so astonishing to you? You seem to believe that somehow God had instructed the United States of America to drop those nuclear bombs on Japanese children. This decision was made by politicians, not God. These politicians were not infallible.

Exactly what is this diplomatic solution you speak of? Just call it a draw and walk away?

There were diplomatic options available to America if it had chosen to exercise them. Japan might have listened and chosen to the end the war by voluntarily surrendering.

You people view the decision as simple but politics is complicated:

Eurasian Eclipse: Japan's End Game in World War II

The Japanese were not all bloodthirsty suiciders. You really should know this. Japan became an ally of the United States pretty quickly after the end of World War II. Such would not have occurred if all the Japanese were eager to die in order to kill the Americans.

The United States of America did not have to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. The decision was political, voluntary and altogether fallible.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 05:48 PM
69. Hello Scott,

> Conservatives, the end of WWII?

I am presently speaking to conservatives about the end of World War II.

From the tenor of the comments here I can see that Truman's decision would convert you all to the Democrat party. You people appear to honor the shedding of blood for a good cause.

Does the atomic bombing of Japan because less of an act of terrorism simply because FDR and Truman were involved in the decision? I don't believe so.

FDR and Truman committed the mass killing of civilians throughout World War II. The atomic bombings were only the ultimate acts of genocide among a myriad of similar acts committed with incendiary bombs and conventional munitions.

The United States of America killed several million civilians in Europe and Japan during World War II. Do you agree or disagree?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 05:53 PM
70. Hello David,

Cease and desist using the phrase "You people."

Posted by: A. Sharpton on January 7, 2007 06:14 PM
71. Hello A. Sharpton,

> Cease and desist using the phrase "You people."

In reference to what?

Are you responding to:

You people appear to honor the shedding of blood for a good cause.

Well, are you opposed to the murder of civilians for a good cause?

Would you say that killing between 48,000 and 650,000 Iraqi civilians is an evil act?

If you are opposed to the murder of civilians I will exclude you from the comment. If anyone else is likewise opposed to the murder of Iraqi civilians please do speak up.

I'd love to meet some Pro-Life Conservatives. Especially those rare conservatives who are pro-life regarding those Muslims who are dying needlessly every day.

God loves the Muslims. God doesn't approve of America killing them for any cause. God loves the Muslims just as sincerely as He loves the Christians and the Jews. God certainly doesn't place any less value on the life of a Muslim child than any innocent New Yorker murdered on 9/11.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 06:46 PM
72. Isn't there a "dave mathews band"?

Just a question, cause this mathews guy sure likes center stage.

Posted by: Chris on January 7, 2007 07:32 PM
73. Mr. Mathews:

What is your position on the genocide in Darfur and the Bantu of Somalia?

Posted by: WVH on January 7, 2007 07:55 PM
74. Mr. Mathews:

The genocide in the Sudan has been widely reported. In case you are not familiar with the plight of the Bantu, the following may assist you in your expected comment:

"The UK-based Barnabas Fund is hoping to draw international attention to an unreported situation in the Horn of African country, which has been without a functioning administration for more than a decade.
A regional observer here said crimes against Christians and Westerners would likely lead to further isolation of Somalia, and also accelerate the growth of Islamic fundamentalism there.
About 99.5 percent of the Somalia population is Muslim. The small Christian minority comprises ethnic Bantus as well as humanitarian workers and expatriates.
The recent wave of violence began early last October, when two armed men killed an elderly Italian nun, Dr. Annalena Tonneli, in front of a hospital in Borama. Tonneli had been involved in humanitarian work in Somalia for 30 years.
Later that month, expatriates Richard and Enid Eyeington, were shot dead by several gunmen in their home inside a school compound.
The Eyeingtons, a British couple in their 60s, had been working for SOS Children's villages in Somaliland.
A Kenyan national working for a Seventh Day Adventist mission southwest Somalia, was murdered last month by Islamist radicals.
Campaigners believe these victims may have been targeted for their faith.
Early last year an extremist Islamist group in Mogadishu called Kulanka Culimada issued a statement saying all Somali Christians were apostates from Islam and should be killed.
The Barnabas Fund, which works among Christians in Islamic nations, said the threats were reportedly prompted by the Christian decision to send delegates to peace talks, which are currently being held in neighboring Kenya.
It said extremists were trying to prevent representatives of the Christian community from participating in the efforts to bring an end to decades of war and unrest.
At a session of the peace talks, where Somali Christian representatives called for freedom of religion and assembly, movement and political representation, they were shouted down by Muslim delegates, Barnabas Fund said.
The Muslims insisted Somalia had no Christians needing representation at the negotiating table, and declared Islam to be the country's official religion.
Several religious figures in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, told CNSNews.com there seemed little hope that the issue of Christian persecution would be addressed soon.
They said evangelism efforts were not going ahead in Somalia because of the volatile security situation.
One Catholic priest, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the persecution issue was "the greatest challenge" facing Christians in countries neighboring Somalia.
"It's a problem very close to our hearts, but action is yet to be taken," he said.
Somali Bantus are a minority Christian group whose physical, cultural and linguistic characteristics distinguish them from the Cushitic majority.
They have long been considered as second-class citizens in Somali society, exploited as laborers, and excluded from education, land ownership and political opportunities and representation.
Many are in refugee camps in Kenya, and a significant number has migrated to the United States, to avoid further persecution in their homeland.
Earlier this year, Somalia delegates participating in the peace talks agreed to a charter providing for freedom of worship but also recognizing Islam as the official religion.
According to the Barnabas Fund, Somali Muslims regard Christianity as "a foreign religion of their historic enemies in Ethiopia and of their former colonial masters, the Italians and the British."
"Most Somalis take it for granted that a true Somali is a Muslim and converts to Christianity must be traitors," it said in a statement.
The State Department's recently released report on international religious freedom described the Christian minority in Somalia as "small" and "extremely low profile".
It also reported that the number of Somalis adhering to "strains of conservative Islam" was growing, as was the number of Islamic schools funded by "religiously conservative sources.""

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1237505.html

You are quite correct, God does love us all. The last words of Dr. Tonneli were to request forgiveness for her killers.

Posted by: WVH on January 7, 2007 08:07 PM
75. 39. I am very happy that we don't folks like David Mathews leading our country. -
Posted by sillyguy at January 7, 2007 09:21 AM

unfortunately, as of last week. they are: Pelosi, Reid, Mcdermott, Frank, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Gregoire, Murray, Cantwell...

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on January 7, 2007 08:16 PM
76. Hello WVH,

>What is your position on the genocide in Darfur and the Bantu of Somalia?

I am opposed to humans killing humans.

I do not care about the race, religion, nationality, culture, socioeconomic status or any other trivial distinctions between the killers and the killed.

I am opposed to humans killing humans.

If a Christian kills a Muslim, the Christian is behaving in an evil manner.

If a Muslim kills a Christian, the Muslim is behaving in an evil manner.

If a Christian kills a Christian, the killer has behaved in an evil manner.

If a Muslim kills a Muslim, the killer has behaved in an evil manner.

I am opposed to the killing regardless of the motives and/or circumstances.

Humankind has tried to solve the violence problem by committing acts of violence and warfare for over ten thousand years. All of this bloodshed has not yet brought an end to bloodshed. I wonder why ... ?

I am opposed to human violence against humans, Nature, and God.

All of this human violence has to stop. It must stop.

If humans do not voluntarily put a stop to human violence, Nature will accomplish this task harshly by eradicating Homo sapiens from the Universe. Humankind can, and will, go extinct.

Humans have already spend the last fifty years flirting with extinction directly (with nuclear weapons), and the last five hundred years indirectly (via destruction of the environment and global-scale pollution). By any objective standard the species is afflicted with suicidal tendencies.

Humankind better get its act together, and soon, because otherwise our species will go extinct and Nature will continue along for billions of years without us and do very well. Nature doesn't need humankind. God's patience with humankind is extremely limited, too, and quickly becoming exhausted.

I cannot help but imagine that the human species is presently behaving very much like the couple standing on a train track so engrossed in their own emotional argument that they completely fail to notice the train which is fast approaching and threatening to kill them. The argument is trivial both relatively and absolutely but the couple cannot see or hear anything else. The train is moving fast and soon it becomes too late for the couple to escape.

The "Global War On Terror" is a triviality compared to the very substantial dangers which are threatening the human species over the next several centuries. Isn't it unfortunate that humankind cannot see beyond its petty prejudices and hatreds to notice the very real dangers which are looming now like the meteor which silently approached the Earth and wasn't noticed by the dinosaurs until it became a bright flash of light consuming the entire Earth?

I don't have much for Homo sapiens. The species is endangered and it doesn't know it. The species is soon to become extinct and yet its members devote all of their thoughts and aspirations to the trivialities of materialism, consumerism, violence and warfare.

Homo sapiens will go extinct, that much is certain, and its extinction is self-inflicted, that is also certain.

Should we then spend the next several decades fighting and killing each other all over the globe?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 7, 2007 08:26 PM
77. David,

Please provide us with your views on these civilian killings before and through WWII:

Chinese killed by Japanese.

Koreans killed by Japanese.

Filipinos killed by Japanese.

Soviets and Mongolians killed by Japanese.

Malays killed by Japanese.

Burmese killed by Japanese.

Indonesians killed by Japanese.

Indochinese killed by Japanese.

Posted by: Clayton on January 7, 2007 08:32 PM
78. Hello,

I suppose I have the same issue with you that I did with Paddy Mac. The issue is that of the level of discernment. They, since, one really never knows the gender of some posters could string a lot of facts together and then come to their own conclusion. You seem to be articulating some form of pacifism. I have to disgree with you on absolute pacifism, however. To paraphase an old Texas saying, some folks deserve dying. The question then is how does one discern that? One could argue whether a certain situation applies, but for many religious folks, there is the concept of a Just War. This is my final comment on this subject, since in my opinion conversation with you, like conversation with Paddy Mac is pretty much a waste of time. I value my time. But, for those of faith who discern that Islamofacists are out to kill us, follows is something to think about. Over and out:
Principles of the Just War
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

We are in a 100 year war, the results may not be evident immediately.

Posted by: WVH on January 7, 2007 08:44 PM
79.
Quite timely... if only those with blinders... David Mathews... would open their minds to understand...

The Nature of Our Enemy

By Peter Wehner

"President Bush has said that the war against global jihadism is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. We are still in the early years of the struggle. The civilized world will either rise to the challenge and prevail against this latest form of barbarism, or grief and death will visit us and other innocents on a massive scale."

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on January 7, 2007 09:10 PM
80. Me thinks David went to the school of stupid!

Did you ever read about fire bombing you pin-headed fool!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 7, 2007 09:39 PM
81. DiM: "I am opposed to the killing regardless of the motives and/or circumstances."
That reveals the real problem(s)... not being able to differentiate between the various levels and types of violence or killing places one outside the realm of actual problem solving. He sees no difference between the broadly targeted violence of terrorism and the targeted violence that seeks to end the violence. No difference between 911 and the WOT. And probably no difference between Dahmer and the DA that tried him. He ignores the concept of cause and effect.

Try and name one violent aggressor that did cease and desist voluntarily. Short list. Historically, it's only been by offering a credible physical threat or by the judicious application of physical force that a tyrant has been stopped. Appeasement has only whetted the violent appetite, not satisfied it. All one need do is to consider Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc. to see that there is no end game in the absence of credible opposition, and that in just one century literally millions paid the ultimate price for the folly of the useful idiots represented here by DiM.

Thus DiM gets the negative attention that he seeks by playing the role of local moonbat lightening rod.

Go ahead and crow to your fellow basement dwellers of the great attention showered upon you for your "brave" stand. And while you are at it, try and explain how you are any different than Chamberlain or a modern Nero that fiddles why Rome burned.

Not that it'll do any good, by while I'm at it, the bible that you regularly thump here clearly shows a difference between "killing" and "murder," a difference that you predictably ignore, to your discredit. If you really want to cite bible references to buttress your arguments, you ought to use passages as they are meant, not distorted to fit your normative beliefs. Then again, if you had intellectual integrity we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

Posted by: scott158 on January 7, 2007 11:27 PM
82. Hello Clayton,

>Please provide us with your views on these civilian killings before and through WWII

As I have already said: I am opposed to humans killing humans. Shall I compile a list of all those people that imperial America has killed and compare that to the death toll of imperial Japan?

You know, the Native Americans did not donate their land to the United States of America. Nor did the slaves volunteer to leave their homeland in order to enjoy freedom & democracy in America.

The United States of America killed many filipinos during our own colonial era following the Spanish-American War (an act of American aggression). Mexico surrendered the Southwest to America following the aggression of the Mexican-American War.

And America killed plenty in Indochina during the Vietnam war. At least a million civilians were killed during the Vietnam war.

Nor should anyone neglect to remember that America has already killed (directly or indirectly) at least 150,000 Muslim civilians, including plenty of women and children and pregnant women and their fetuses.

Imperial America is one bloody empire.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 04:44 AM
83. Hello Army Medic/Vet:

>Did you ever read about fire bombing you pin-headed fool!

I have heard about the fire bombing. Incendiary devices are WMDs that America used extensively during World War II in order to kill massive number of civilians in Tokyo and Dresden.

Fire bombing was a very effective technique for mass murder in Japan because the Japanese houses were constructed out of wood and paper. America murdered between 100,000 - 200,000 Japanese civilians in its fire-bombing attack on Tokyo.

Isn't it ironic that the nation which engaged in the mass killing of civilians reacted which such hypocritical morality in response to Osama's evil act? A nation which has murdered millions of civilians couldn't respond rationally to the murder of "only" 3,000 of its citizens. Instead of getting the criminal responsible for 9/11 the United States of America decided it needed a Great Enemy and for that reason has sought to make an enemy out of a religion which has a billion adherents.

"The Long War" was invented in Washington, D.C. by the neocons. They wanted to engage in an aggressive, colonial war across the entire world in order to gain control over the Earth's remaining (fossil fuel) resources. 9/11 provided them with their "just" cause.

Now 150,000 Iraqi civilians have died and it appears very likely that many more are going to die before this war is finally over. I think I understand why all of the Iraqis are growing to hate the United States of America. America won't stay in Iraq forever, just as the Soviets were not able to stay in Afghanistan forever.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 04:55 AM
84. Hello WVH,

>To paraphase an old Texas saying, some folks deserve dying.

The Muslims agree with this principle. That's why they are fighting against the imperial American occupiers and winning. The Muslims have defeated aggressive imperialists before and it appears that they have done so arealdy again.

>The question then is how does one discern that? One could argue whether a certain situation applies, but for many religious folks, there is the concept of a Just War.

The "Just War" concept is pure bunk. The Iraq war was a naked war of aggression by the United States against a weak, oil-rich Arab nation. The Muslims are fighting a "just war" right now against the United States of America and they deserve the win.

America cannot stay in Iraq forever. America is losing the Iraq war. So much for the concept of "just war".

>A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The United States of America has violated all of the principles of a "just war" in Iraq. I wonder if this is the reason why all the factions of Iraqis are united in their hatred of America.

By all moral measures, the Iraqis are the ones engaged in a "just war" against the United States of America. They are also winning, too.

>We are in a 100 year war, the results may not be evident immediately.

That's some really bad news. If America is engaged in a hundred-year war and is already losing at the five-year mark, imagine how terrible things must go for the United States over the next ninety-five years.

The United States of America has lost the Iraq war. All those soldiers have died in vain. There's going to be an Iraq War Monument alongside the Vietnam War Monument. How many names do you want carved on the Iraq War Monument?


Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 05:06 AM
85. Hello Ragnar,

> The civilized world will either rise to the challenge and prevail against this latest form of barbarism, or grief and death will visit us and other innocents on a massive scale.

Do you mean by "the civilized world" the Western world which engaged in near-perpetual warfare during the 20th century and killed 100 million people in the process?

When speaking about the grief and death of the innocents, are you not speaking about the innocent Iraqis that America is killing on a daily basis right now?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 05:10 AM
86. Hello Scott,

>Try and name one violent aggressor that did cease and desist voluntarily.

This is a very significant point. Violent aggressors seldom cease and desist voluntarily. How then will the United States of America end its wars of violent aggression?

That is why political activity against war are necessary in the United States right now. The American people must bring an end to America's wars of violent aggression.

If Americans cannot bring an end to these aggressive wars then they must come to a tragic end. America's wars will end in defeat. America will leave Iraq like it left Vietnam.

>try and explain how you are any different than Chamberlain or a modern Nero that fiddles why Rome burned.

I am actively engaged in the poltical struggle to end America's wars of aggression before an American Hitler arises and begins engaging in mass killing or nuclear warfare. Incidentally, some here have already adovated nuclear war. These are the evil forces that need to be opposed.

>Not that it'll do any good, by while I'm at it, the bible that you regularly thump here clearly shows a difference between "killing" and "murder," a difference that you predictably ignore, to your discredit. If you really want to cite bible references to buttress your arguments, you ought to use passages as they are meant, not distorted to fit your normative beliefs. Then again, if you had intellectual integrity we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

Okay, here goes:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

"O daughter of babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with recompense which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." (Psalm 137:8-9).

But the Bible distributes God's wrath equitably. There is a prophecy regarding God's punishments falling upon the United States of America:

"To the degree that she glorified herself and lived sensuosly, to the same degree give her torment and mourning; for she says in her heart, 'I sit as a queen and I am not a widow, and will never see mourning.' For this reason in one day her plagues will come, pestilence and mourning and famine, and she will be burned with fire; for the Lord God who judges her is strong.
And the kings of the earth, who committed acts of immorality and lived sensuously with her, will weep and lament over her when they see the smoke of her burning, standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.'
And the merchants of the earth will weap and mourn over her, because no one buys their cargoes any more -- cargoes of gold and silver and precious stones and fine linen and purple and silk and scarlet, and every kind of citron wood and every article of ivory and every article made from very costly wood and bronze and iron and marble, and cinnamon and spice and incense and perfume and frankinsense and wine and olive oil and fine flour and wheat and cattle and sheep, and cargoes of horses and chariots and slaves and human lives. the fruit you long for is gone from you, and all things that were luxurious and splendid have passed away from you and you will no longer find them. The merchants of these things, who became rich from her, will stand at a distance because of fear of her torment, weeping and mourning ...
" (Revelation 18:7-15).

Needless to say, America's future is bleak. God has spoken and His word is never broken.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 05:32 AM
87. Hello Everyone,

For all those people who say "3,000 is just a number" here are some numbers which also have names and faces attached to them:

Annals of Iraq War Victory

You can consult the list and meet your heroes. You can watch the number of heroes increase day-to-day. You can make bets as to how many American soldiers will die in Iraq and whomever guesses correctly will win a vacation in newly-liberated forever-democratic Iraq.

Imagine for a going to Iraq as an American conservative and finding the Iraqis everywhere eager to shake your hand, feed you a warm meal, take you on sightseeing tours of their newly-liberated country and hearing them all proclaim: "Thank Allah for George W. Bush!"

You can have all these things or more merely by engaging the website's Vacation in Free Iraq Contest. Just guess how many American soldiers have to die in order to attain victory and you will have your all expense paid trip to Baghdad once the war is official over and Iraq is officially peaceful, free, and democratic (but not Democratic, the Iraqis will become Republicans ... or perhaps, they are already. They do seem to love bullets and bombs as much the neocons, you know ...).

George W. Bush loves the Muslims. Why else would he sacrifice 3,014 American soldiers on behalf of their freedom?

The neocons must love the Muslims. No wonder why they are intent to leave the American military in the Middle East forever. No one ever stays in a place except because of love. The neocons love the Muslims.

The conservatives must love the Muslims, too. They are all eager to give the gifts of freedom and democracy to the Muslims. Of course, they are more eager to give these gifts to the Iraqis than to the Saudis, but this is a work in progress, isn't it? The conservatives will give the Saudis freedom & democracy soon, won't they?

We live in a good world in which President Bush, the neocons, and America's conservatives are all in love with the world's Muslims. They want to help the Muslims and lead them all to better things such as American-style consumerism and also American-style obesity.

This world is becoming such a better place because of imperial American aggression. I just wonder why the Muslims don't seem to notice that America is killing them because we love them?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 05:51 AM
88. David Mathews:
There is no such thing as a just war. Period. Sadaam fired missles weekly at USJets violating the peace agreement he signed. The UN well the let the murders of innocent people take place because those same murders are on the Human Rights commission.
As long as there are evil men in the world. There can be no peace. And the world is filled with many evil dictators. I have seen many SOcialists once they take power kill tens of thousands of opponents. Socialists are Liberals. Hitler was a leftist though he was to the right of Communism still it was a leftist organization.
Your group does not recognize it but look up what NAZI stands for. The basic thing is Governments can not solve anything. Because they are limited by their leaders. Sadaam did what to maintain power. KILL KILL KILL, TERRORize, Blackmail. Does the UN Program Oil for Food mean anything. It was used to rearm IRAQ not help feed the children. UN Program corrupted by the leader it was suppose to limit his power. and Help the people of the country.
Look at Palestine. the Question to ask How did Arafat get over a billion dollars in swiss bank accounts. By taking the money meant to help the palestine people and moving it Switzerland. Think about it This is happening all over the world always these dictators point to some outside source as the problem. Like the US.
Look at the world today. Tens of thousands of people are being killed every year by those who are evil. I could be a lot higher. There is no utopia. Only death. Look at reality instead of dreams of utopia. By limiting US troops to what they can do means more innocent people will die. Tie the hands of the troops too much and they die because of the rules. Democrats are great at limiting options. To get to the world you want you can not do that by limiting options. Look at North Korea agreement thanks to Carter and Clinton. Paper is not worth the words written on it. US Tax dollars provided to help him get nuclear weapons. Your way will only put more weapons in the hands of unstable dictators. Eventually to a city near you. Call it Nuclear Blackmail. You call it diplomacy. Your ideas have failed for decades and now we the people in the US will have to pay the piper. If things are not stopped soon the price may be very high. Are you willing to pay it. I know I am not.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on January 8, 2007 05:54 AM
89. "Needless to say, America's future is bleak. God has spoken and His word is never broken."

And coming from the likes of YOU, they are but ashes in your mouth...

You will be judged for your lack of compassion for your fellow man, in taking a pacifist stance and allowing murderous dictators to destroy innocent people.

You are NOT the good Samaritan... you are just like the self-righteous priest and the Levite who "passed by on the other side".

Take your pacifist crap back to HA or Kos or DU or back under that rock you crawled out from under. If more people listened to you, we'd all be living under bondage to Nazis or the Japanese of WWII or the muslim extremists, and the one thing they all have in common is, they want you DEAD.

Posted by: BRC on January 8, 2007 06:24 AM
90. What David does not even understand. Bad people will kill you. NO matter how nice or understanding you try to be. For many on this site. We will fight to save our GREAT country. For David..... the fool, you'll just be a grave marker.

Sorry to be direct, but truth is the truth and you do not understand history!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2007 07:01 AM
91. Hello Army Medic/Vet,

>Bad people will kill you.

The Muslims learned this lesson recently. Their nation was invaded by an aggressive superpower that has now left the country to collapse into anarchy and chaos.

George W. Bush has killed a lot of people with his aggression and incompetence. He has killed more people than Osama Bin Laden.

When will the killing stop? When will the aggression end?

Conservatives aren't content with over a hundred thousand corpses in their honor. They want the killing to go on forever. A century of killing ... and for what?

America better get a handle on its aggressive militarism now before our country elects its own Hitler who will commit nuclear genocide against the Muslims of the world. America has already used two nuclear weapons, America has already threatened to use them again.

So much bloodshed, so little time. Is it any wonder that the United States of America is poised to collapse and become an impoverished nation? Evil actions bring evil rewards.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 07:53 AM
92. I say we let Daivd Matthews go and negotiate with Osama Bin Laden and David try to remeber that when you ask heim what he wants and he tells you to lean over the table a little bit more it is not so he can whisper his answer it is so he can chop your head off.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 8, 2007 07:58 AM
93. As I said before David.

You DO NOT understand history sir!

As we learned in WWII. Asking people to understand or love you is just plain foolish.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2007 08:22 AM
94. My doctorate is not in linguistics. I know that there must be a linguist among the readers. Is Mr. Mathews one person or a group of writers? I remember reading about propoganda collectives. Also, I understand that one of the tactics of Islamofacists is to recruit willing participants to "engage" the population. I know from my European experience that the Fifth column is alive and well.

Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2007 08:35 AM
95. #94 WVH.


You could be right. It still doesn't change that he or (his group)is/are fools!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2007 09:08 AM
96. Hi Army Medic/Vet:

Thank you for their service. If my thesis is correct, I don't know that they are fools. I do know that they are dangerous. The activity is purposeful and they are using free media, blogs and other channels to reach susceptible individuals. I know that the radical Islamofacists in London actively "profile" looking for young disaffected males outside the economic and social system to recruit. Just like gang recruiters these individuals who may have felt out of place in their own community for whatever reason become willing participants in something more sinister. For the most part, blogs are innocent fun. But, they are an info and recruiting channel for some as well. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2007 09:19 AM
97. David Mathews shows up around the blogging world. Examples of his other comments such as "Does everyone here recognize that Christianity & Judaism are false religions built upon elaborate and historically incorrect myths?" and responses can be found here.

David claims to be an alumnus of The University of South Florida. Coincidentally that's the same school that gave the world convicted terrorist collaborator Professor Sami al-Arian.

He never provides a direct answer when challenged. Rather he uses that as an opportunity to proclaim his one-sided philosophy. His inability to interact is awkwardly veiled under his professed love and concern for the world. He provides a strange and arrogant outlook that only he understands. He projects the personality of a troubled and odd little man. He's best ignored, as he likely has been all his life

Posted by: Mary Jo on January 8, 2007 10:24 AM
98. David Matthews, you posted the following:

"A diplomatic solution with Japan was already possible before America dropped the atomic bomb. Of course, conservatives cannot end a war without an appropriate level of bloodshed."

Scott158 obviously had the same question I did: through what twisted logic do the examples of FDR and Truman (the liberal Democrats who authorized the development and use of the atomic bomb) serve to condemn "conservatives (who) cannot end a war without an appropriate level of bloodshed"?

When Scott called you on this ("Conservatives, the end of WWII? Hmmmmm...so FDR and Truman were conservatives in sheep's clothing? So you admit the New Deal was a broad plan to enslave the masses?"), in typical fashion you intentionally misconstrued his comment to avoid answering it. Do you really think we were going to buy "I am presently speaking to conservatives about the end of World War II"?

You are so wound up in your worldview in which all things bad are to be blamed on conservatives, you managed to catch one of your own liberal icons, FDR, in your net. True Soldier has actually served "over there." Others here (myself included) have lived and workd in the Middle East, and actually know whereof we speak. You should be more careful condemning that which you obviously do not understand.

Posted by: Patrick on January 8, 2007 10:39 AM
99. Thank you Mary Jo, I guess my suspicions were well founded. Patrick and others, responding to DM will get you no where. They/he have another agenda and the quality of response is not a consideration. They/he are recruiting for jihad among the poor lost souls of the world.

Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2007 10:58 AM
100. Will someone please pull the plug on david matthews?

Posted by: Clusiana on January 8, 2007 01:48 PM
101. DiM's insistence upon a moral equivalency between the US and Islamaterrorists, while refusing to see his own moral equivalency with Chamberlain proves that he is either a liar or fool...or both.

Game, set, match.

Posted by: scott158 on January 8, 2007 02:57 PM
102. Clusiana: I don't think it is necessary to pull the plug on Mr. Matthews. Freedom of speech and all that. In fact I think he needs to post more so all (middle-of-the-roaders and conservatives alike) can see what sick little puppies the liberal left are. Very instructive to see how they twist and misrepresent. Mr. Matthews could qualify as the poster boy. I enjoy it.

A well known radio personality often says that "Liberalism is a mental disorder" and Mr. Matthews proves the point.

Posted by: EssPea on January 8, 2007 04:10 PM
103. Hello Mary Jo,

> David Mathews shows up around the blogging world. Examples of his other comments such as "Does everyone here recognize that Christianity & Judaism are false religions built upon elaborate and historically incorrect myths?"

That is exactly what I said. I am pleased that you noticed.

> David claims to be an alumnus of The University of South Florida. Coincidentally that's the same school that gave the world convicted terrorist collaborator Professor Sami al-Arian.

Yes, a graduate of USF. Sami al-Arian was there long after I was gone.

> He never provides a direct answer when challenged.

Well, here's your chance to challenge me. Let's hear your challenge and see if I have a direct answer.

> Rather he uses that as an opportunity to proclaim his one-sided philosophy. His inability to interact is awkwardly veiled under his professed love and concern for the world.

Which is incidentally a lot more than you could ever add to a discussion, Mary Jo.

> He provides a strange and arrogant outlook that only he understands. He projects the personality of a troubled and odd little man.

Yes, I know that argument against prejudice when in the company of bigots is a strange and arrogant custom. But even bigots need to hear the truth occasionally.

> He's best ignored, as he likely has been all his life.

I'd feel so very sad if some anonymous nobody such as Mary Jo ignored me. Well ... maybe not so much.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 05:16 PM
104. Hello Patrick,

> Scott158 obviously had the same question I did: through what twisted logic do the examples of FDR and Truman (the liberal Democrats who authorized the development and use of the atomic bomb) serve to condemn "conservatives (who) cannot end a war without an appropriate level of bloodshed"?

When Scott called you on this ("Conservatives, the end of WWII? Hmmmmm...so FDR and Truman were conservatives in sheep's clothing? So you admit the New Deal was a broad plan to enslave the masses?"), in typical fashion you intentionally misconstrued his comment to avoid answering it. Do you really think we were going to buy "I am presently speaking to conservatives about the end of World War II"?

You are so wound up in your worldview in which all things bad are to be blamed on conservatives, you managed to catch one of your own liberal icons, FDR, in your net. True Soldier has actually served "over there." Others here (myself included) have lived and workd in the Middle East, and actually know whereof we speak. You should be more careful condemning that which you obviously do not understand.

Look, Scott, this is such a trivial point that it really doesn't deserve any sort of argument. When Democrats commit atrocities, I condemn the Democrats; when Republicans commit atrocities, I condemn the Republicans.

I am opposed to the murder of civilians regardless of which party is in the White House when the crime is committed.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 05:19 PM
105. Hello WVH,

> My doctorate is not in linguistics. I know that there must be a linguist among the readers. Is Mr. Mathews one person or a group of writers? I remember reading about propoganda collectives. Also, I understand that one of the tactics of Islamofacists is to recruit willing participants to "engage" the population. I know from my European experience that the Fifth column is alive and well.

> Thank you for their service. If my thesis is correct, I don't know that they are fools. I do know that they are dangerous. The activity is purposeful and they are using free media, blogs and other channels to reach susceptible individuals. I know that the radical Islamofacists in London actively "profile" looking for young disaffected males outside the economic and social system to recruit. Just like gang recruiters these individuals who may have felt out of place in their own community for whatever reason become willing participants in something more sinister. For the most part, blogs are innocent fun. But, they are an info and recruiting channel for some as well. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WVH, you are suffering a bit from paranoia. We live in a free, democratic nation. Americans can criticize the President, oppose the war, and remember crimes that America has committed in the past.

You people are sacrificing America's freedom & democracy because of your fear & paranoia. This is one reason why the Democrats won in November.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 8, 2007 05:25 PM
106. David Matthews sounds like a puppet of George Soros with his religious bigtory. McDimwitt, who backs corrupt leftist regimes and the corrupt Baath Party and Matthews may well be in cahoots, since their politics are similar.

"You people are sacrificing America's freedom & democracy because of your fear & paranoia. This is one reason why the Democrats won in November."

Much to your delight, I'd say. I will say that the President sent troops into Iraq under false pretenses, but Congress did not have the guts to take an up or down vote to declare war. Therefore, they are part of the problem. However, the notion of bringing the Baath Party back is sick and two wrongs don't make a right !

Posted by: KS on January 8, 2007 08:36 PM
107. Thank you again Mary Jo and even thanks to you DM. You have shown exactly what the 100 year battle is about. Cheers to the victorious side.

Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2007 09:32 PM
108. David.

"When Democrats commit atrocities, I condemn the Democrats; when Republicans commit atrocities, I condemn the Republicans."

Which you did not do. You wrote: "A diplomatic solution with Japan was already possible before America dropped the atomic bomb. Of course, conservatives cannot end a war without an appropriate level of bloodshed." Instead of condemning Democrats for failing to negotiate peace, you leap to a non sequiter linking "conservatives" with "bloodshed." It is to this typically sloppy approach to argument that Scott and I were referring.

Posted by: Patrick on January 9, 2007 12:08 AM
109. Patrick's post on David Matthews: "When Democrats commit atrocities, I condemn the Democrats; when Republicans commit atrocities, I condemn the Republicans."

Which you did not do. You wrote: "A diplomatic solution with Japan was already possible before America dropped the atomic bomb. Of course, conservatives cannot end a war without an appropriate level of bloodshed." Instead of condemning Democrats for failing to negotiate peace, you leap to a non sequiter linking "conservatives" with "bloodshed." It is to this typically sloppy approach to argument . . .

Correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't a Democrat authorize the building of the atom bomb (Roosevelt, the Manhattan project) and a Democrat (Truman) authorize the dropping of it on the Japanese?

Like I've posted before, it is instructive to have Mr. Matthews post here so that others can see how liberals like Davey twist and misrepresent. Whether by stupidly or on purpose is open to argument.

Posted by: EssPea on January 9, 2007 10:44 AM
110. Why not send some of the American Baathist(Libs/Socialist/Communist) Democratic members to "help" rebuild Iraq. They will fir in nicely with the Iraq/Syrian Baathist parties. After all, they have much in common....hatred of America and the desire to see America fail.

Posted by: Allan Rothlisberg on January 10, 2007 12:35 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?