Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on September 21, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"liberals don't want to be distracted by the facts". gee where have I heard that quote?? Was it Rush, Hannity, or as Keller uses such politically appropriate words - "some kook". How about we all agree on one thing Keller does state right and without the drool of a pundit. that neither General Powell nor General Patreaus are puppets. Both Generals were put in a difficult position, and both should be respected for their opinion. I do not agree with the direction of our current administration, but I do agree that what the democrats did to Petraeus was both insulting and disrespectful. So if anything can be taken from my comment, is that for once, I agreed with a republican.

Posted by sally (anonymous) on September 21, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Gene, great letter!

Posted by Dubliner (anonymous) on September 21, 2007 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm curious... why, in coming to his conclusion that violence is down in Iraq, did he use statistics that didn't include Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, and people shot in the head?

I'm not stating an opinion on the General, but I'm concerned what his motivations were in using incomplete information in forming his opinion.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on September 22, 2007 at 2 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene Keller
What is your idea of a fact???
The facts that our country was attacked in Yemen, Lebanon, and twice on our own shores and how many of these attacks were from Saddam led Iraqi's ???? NONE!!!!!
Yea think about it!
While we are now spending most of our resources and troops, preoccupied in Iraq the real person responsible for the attacks runs free, taunting us whenever he wants, and probably mounting more plans for more attacks!! While we make it easier for him to recruite more angered Muslims, making him more effective every day. Especially in attacking our Ecomomy which I'm sure he is getting quite a chuckle over!
Oh and by the way this individual that goes by the name of Bin Laden, and this group called the Taliban, was the handy work of a man named Ronald Reagan, but he called them FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
Oh yea this other guy that Ronald Reagan is responsible for bringing into power, a man named Saddam Hussein, for which his support for was directly the reason for the emergence of a group called Hezbollah, who by the way, was the group named responsible for the bombing in Lebanon.
So YOU Mr. Keller should look in the mirror to see the "Loser with no idea"

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 22, 2007 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reagan's fault, you have got to be kidding? If Clinton had not been so gutless when he was in office he would have reached out and taken care of the likes of Bin Laden when he had the chance. Oh that's right, the liberals think we must have a kind and gentler nation, keep dreaming, the terrorist love it. Ask yourself, why is it the terrorist want us to have a liberal as president?

Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry, remind me again, who was it that trained and empowered Bin Laden??? But that is the current republican way of thinking - to charge in and attack first, ask questions later, oh yeah, and cover up the FACT that there were no weapons of mass distruction. To answer the last question, I think the rest of the world (republicans tend to call them terrorists, although I don't understand your confusion) want liberals in office for the desired act of negotiation and open discussion without the hidden agenda and verbal threats.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"There'll be no shelter here. The front lines are everywhere..."

We're uncovering muslim terrorist plots in the U.S. everyday. Enough with the "fight them there or fight them here" crap.

Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Bin Laden did. Where is he and why have we not captured him? Call me a "liberal," call me "delusional," call me whatever you want, but these are the FACTS that I care about and these are the FACTS that everyone else seems to have forgotten about. Who cares who could have captured him before, or who was responsible for him gaining power in the first place? WHY IS HE STILL ALIVE NOW?

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Negotiate with terrorists, yep,sure,ubetcha, you're still dreaming. Terrorists love the liberal way of thinking, most people call it being wimpy. The way liberals think we will all be buying rugs, bowing down, washing feet, facing east, and learning a bit of arabic.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to stir the pot, Jerry! Maybe try to be a little less transparent next time? Liberal way of thinking = "being wimpy?" C'mon you're more creative than that. You can do better.

I want Bin Laden DEAD! What's "wimpy" about that?

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bad timing Venti, the wimpy was aimed at Yepubetcha. I agree we all want to get Bin Laden but I do not think that negotiations will accomplish that. I have to stir the pot, the democrats gang up on us republicans. We are outnumbered in Minnesota.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm still a little confused at the argument that 9/11 and the war in Iraq are somehow Clinton's fault.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Numerous terrorist acts took place during Clinton's administration. World Trade, Cole, Beirut comes to mind. Bin Laden was in his sights, but he did nothing. If Bin Laden had been taken out then there may not have been a 9/11. Iraq, well thats another story.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry wrote: "I agree we all want to get Bin Laden but I do not think that negotiations will accomplish that."

Yeah and this whole "War in Iraq" thing is just working wonders isn't it? Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't even exist until 2005, a year and half after we invaded. How 'bout that for an inconvenient fact? Now we're being killed by Sunni and Shiite sectarians fighting for power in Iraq, Iranian weaponry, and your occasional "terrorist" who's fighting in the name of the people who attacked us back in 2001 but who, in actuality, have little to no contact with anyone who had anything to do with 9/11.

You tell me, who are the people that don't like to be "distracted by the facts?"

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I still want to know what Clinton did to stop terrorism? He had an opportunity to kill Bin Laden and didn't. Reagan reached out and slapped Libya and we didn't have problems with them after that, that's the only thing that the terrorist understand.

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry, let's not beat around the bush. I'll just give you what you want because, frankly, I don't really care. "Bill Clinton didn't do enough to stop terrorism." There. Happy? We could debate such a statement for hours, but the only thing that would accomplish is allowing you to successfully divert the conversation away from something that actually matters. So let's just move on to something that matters okay?
What are we doing now and what should we do in the future in order to capture and bring to justice the people who are responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th, 2001? I know your stance on Iraq, and you're correct, we need to be there now and we need to stay there. We've created the mess and now we need to try to clean it up no matter how long and how many lives it takes. But the question is, is it doing anything positive for this so-called "war on terror?" Are we any safer because we're sending our soldiers there? General Petraeus couldn't give us an answer to that during his testimony to congress. In fact, here's the exact exchange that took place between Sen. John Warner and Gen. Petraeus on September 11, 2007...
WARNER: Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Can you answer a question that has so much importance in today's world, Jerry? Have you "sorted it out in your mind?" I wonder if Mr. Keller has? He conveniently didn't mention it in his article. But then again he was pretty busy talking about Al Franken and Moveon.org and calling liberals "losers." Maybe he'll get around to the important questions next week?

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on September 24, 2007 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I get a kick out of people like Jerry who always claim liberals are gutless because they restrain from using violence as an initial solution to disputes. They say we have to fight them there so we don't have to here.
Is that how you were brought up Jerry, that if it can't be your way or the way you want it, you just try to beat your point across to others. I'll bet you got beat up alot didn't you! Is that why your so scared?
Gutless is being so afraid and lacking any confidence in ones strength to be able to withstand an attack from someone attempting to due you harm, you feel you have to go out and attack first, having no confidence in one's ablity to defend yourself, and comanding no respect from others.
Jerry do you really think we are so weak that we could so easily be taken down, do you really think our military is so weak we could not withstand and snuff out a homeland assault?
I think the gutless ones are the one's who feel so SCARED that we have to go out an try to eliminate weaker govts. who could POTENTIALY someday be an enemy.
Isn't it Ronald Reagan's "FREEDOM FIGHTER" (Bin Laden) who is the attacker?
Why hasn't Bush taken care of Bin Laden????? Has catching the person responsible for attacks on the US not priority one? You claim Clinton did not. When Bush took office did he stay consistant in making Ronald Reagan's "FREEDOM FIGHTER" (Bin Laden) priority one? He had the backing of virtually the whole world. Why has he still not caught up to him??? Why Jerry, Why??
Why isn't catching the person responsible for 911, a direct attack on our homeland PRIORITY ONE!!!!!
Isn't it considered more gutless to misdirect your fight to a weaker adversary, and deprioritise going after the actual attacker of your homeland!
George Bush put catching the attacker of our country on a back burner to pick a fight with a weaker opponent who he was confident he could overcome quite easily. He wanted to portray Iraq as being responsible for 911 to the people of the US, constantly refering to 911, Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism in the same speaches linking them in the minds of the people of the US, then go in and take a quick decisive victory and proclaim "mission acomplished" and look like a hero, while steering away from the real attacker who I think he is afraid of, why else would he not make persuing him priority one!

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 25, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region andhe
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 25, 2007 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"What are we doing now and what should we do in the future in order to capture and bring to justice the people who are responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th, 2001?" - Venti, September 24, 2007 at 5:03 p.m.

Posted by capitalist (anonymous) on September 25, 2007 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Currently, we are intimidating and destroying governments who provided safe harbor and funding to terrorists plotting to attack free countries, like ours for instance. Then we replace those oppressive regimes with freely elected governments. The people who are responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th, 2001 didn't survive thier own attack. Why isn't this obvious to you Venti?

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 25, 2007 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Duh?" - George Bush, Everyday

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on September 25, 2007 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

capitalist very good points there, this is a good example of how the democrats made good decisions when believing there was an urgent situation in Iraq, they did not make hasty unwise aggressive actions to initiate a military engagement without first exhausting all other options,and thinking things out, making sure that the information they had was correct before taking drastic action, thus taking precautions to not make a BAD decision, especially without the consent of the UN. Yes most people firmly believed these things to be true about Iraq, but a Govt. leader is expected to be sure that all evidence is 100% substanciated before throwing his counrty into WAR, this administration either lied or had wrong information that they did not 100% confirm to be true, either way there is no excuse. So your point is made yes the Dems did and continue to make better decisions than the Republicans.
And don't say well the dems voted for this action as well, yes they did but they did on the information and belief that the admnistration was fullfilling their responsibility in substantiating that all information used to make such a big decision was 100% true,which it was not.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 25, 2007 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well spoken capitalist. I won't even dignify the insults thrown at me by Fungus. I just consider the source. At least Venti makes sense in his post. I'm still wondering what Clinton did to stop terrorism Fungus. Wimpy, really wimpy.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on September 26, 2007 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Capitalist says “Then we replace those oppressive regimes with freely elected governments.”
Do you mean like the one in Afghanistan where the nomadic population came in from the desert and voted on a ballot that contained only the candidates photo because the population could not read and then just by the most remarkable and miraculous coincidence elected the guy who was the Afghanistan representative for an oil company which was a subsidiary of Halliburton? Is that the freely elected government you were talking about? Or did you mean the one in Iraq near the city of Mosul (ninewali province) where armed militiamen took control of the ballots and ballot boxes then filled in all the ballots, or in Kirkuk where the number of ballots surpassed the population by 45%, or in Ta’min-salman pak where voting was conducted by the head of household on behalf of his family and election cards were placed in ballot boxes instead of ballots or in several other places women were forced to declare who they were voting for AND WHY before voting. Everyone already knows about the moisture sizing cream trick to remove the ink stained thumb mark in order to vote more than once.
Are these the freely elected governments you are talking about capitalist?

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on September 26, 2007 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm what did Clinton due to stop terrorism, I would expect such a question from the like's of you Jerry, but first you must clerify Jerry, what exactly is Terrorism, tell me Jerry do you think it is a person, or a specific group of people so once they are disposed of it has gone away forever. Jerry explain to us what your definition of terrorism is, and when do you know you have eliminated it??
Can one person or that persons action be considered a FREEDOM FIGHTER by one man but a terrorist to another???
Do you think terrorism can be forcibly stopped?????
Stopping terrorism by use of terrorism???
Could it be, the best defense of terrorism is to not create it in the first place, or to at least try to limit the provocation of others, oh yea that would mean giving consideration to other people who might be different than you, but you wouldn't understand that would you Jerry!
going right back to your upbringing thing, you were brought up to think you can force people to do what YOU want, and think they should do only what you want, you consider your way is the only way, and should not give anyone else any consideration.
We know Jerry, you were beat up alot, and that makes you bitter that you couldn't get your way.

Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on September 26, 2007 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fungus did something happen in your childhood that you are so bitter and speak of my upbringing? I apparently touched off something in your background, were you beat up alot because you were so wimpy you could not protect yourself? Anyway, I have had enough on this subject since you refuse to tell me what Clinton did to prevent terrorism. Ignorance and arrogance apparently is your answer to all things. Must have been your undisciplined upbringing!

Posted by Venti (anonymous) on September 26, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

capitalist wrote: "Currently, we are intimidating and destroying governments who provided safe harbor and funding to terrorists plotting to attack free countries, like ours for instance. Then we replace those oppressive regimes with freely elected governments."
And you're sure that these actions are not, in actuality, creating more "terrorist" (aka, people with a deep hatred for the United States) in countries such as Iraq where we've basically started an incredibly violent civil war, displaced (by the latest UNHCR estimates) over 2 million Iraqis from their homeland and, by most estimates, have directly or indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Are you sure that this, obviously level-headed and well-planned policy of "intimidating and destroying governments," is making America (or the world, for that matter) safer?
capitalist also wrote: "The people who are responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th, 2001 didn't survive thier own attack."
Two words - "Bin Laden."
He should have been and still should be priority number one. When someone commits a crime, let's say a woman is raped, and they can't find the rapist, is it any consolation to that woman if they catch another rapist in some other town that doesn't match the physical description or have the same DNA as the person who raped her? No. Because it's not the person who raped her. Sure it's great that another rapist is off the streets (if he, in fact, is a rapist), but it's not the most important thing to this particular woman because her rapist is still out there roaming the streets.
These "terrorists" (or sectarians or whoever they happen to be) with IEDs and roadside bombs in Iraq are not the people who attacked us on 9/11. And the people who are responsible for plotting and funding that attack did not die on 9/11. They are still alive, mocking us with video and audio tapes and recruiting more people everyday. If you're content with killing or capturing people who have similar tendancies and ideals as the people who attacked us on 9/11, I guess that's your decision. Personally, I want the people who attacked us.

Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on September 26, 2007 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jerry like I said you must first inform us what Terrorism is, Your definition. How can an answer be given when the question is not fully explained, or the context of the question you ask.
You want to know what Clinton did to STOP terrorism, but you will not define terrorism, without your clear definition of terrorism how can an answer be given?
Your ignorance and arogance is truely shown here.
I am sure you have had enough, another indication of your (wimpyness)
OOOHHHH I was right you were the recipient of many butt kickings.
You love to repond to peoples posts with your insulting comments and jabs, but when people return your fire you cut and run, truely defining your character.

Posted by sally (anonymous) on September 26, 2007 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you guys heard of MSN Messenger? That might be a better forum for you to do your "chatting".

Posted by Dubliner (anonymous) on September 26, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Didn't President Clinton authorize snatches of Bin Laden and missle attacks on Al Qaeda training camps?

Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on September 27, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Al Franken actually said it best, in my opinion. On Sept. 12, 2001, George Bush had the most powerful mandate in history to use whatever means possible to take out those responsible for attacking the United States of America. It was his duty. The country was behind him. Then we went to war in Iraq. Bin Laden was not in Iraq. Oil is in Iraq. "I will never, ever, forgive him for wasting that rare opportunity." said Franken. We can debate the '90s all day, but the simple fact was the Bush administration made a closed-minded decision indicative of their personal priorities. It wasn't wimpy, it was selfish, dishonest and irresponsible. If anyone wants to dispute that, please explain how we are better off now. 600+ billion in debt. Lots of dead people, no allies or trust left in the world? Here we are six years later. You want logic? Listen to people who think for a change, such as Sen. Biden.

Posted by sally (anonymous) on September 27, 2007 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013."

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,'’ said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,'’ added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,'’ said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Mandate for change! A new direction!

How does that feel leftists?"

http://polipundit.com/

Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on September 27, 2007 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It feels like they are being honest and careful. Pulling ALL troops from Iraq is most likely unwise. Were you trying to make some sort of argument? If so, you can do better. Did you watch the debate or only Bill O's assessment afterward? Better enjoy him while you can. In the future, Sally, do not credit websites with quotes left by random forum posters - it's simply not scholarly. Don't waste any more credibility.
Discussing these topics in this forum has become silly and bitter. Over and out.