Oh bullshit. The Dems have been in power since January–all of 4 months. What exactly has Bush tried or wanted to do that the Dems have blocked? Long ago my ass. Wake up.

honora on May 3, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Nice language. It has nothing to do with the socialist democrats in power it has to do with their poor leadership catering to far left anti-Americans, such as yourself. It has to do with undermining the commander-in-chief in war time. Undermining the troops for political gain. Read history and learn from it. It is obvious “long ago my ass” you were not paying attention.

You are correct and if the democrat leadership was not so inferior and incompetent this would have been over long ago. Even a mule can not kick and pull at the same time.

Wade on May 3, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Oh bullshit. The Dems have been in power since January–all of 4 months. What exactly has Bush tried or wanted to do that the Dems have blocked? Long ago my ass. Wake up.

I really don’t think making any comparison between WWII and this imbroglio does anything but highlight how inferior and incompetent our “leadership” is today.

honora on May 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM

You are correct and if the democrat leadership was not so inferior and incompetent this would have been over long ago. Even a mule can not kick and pull at the same time.

I really don’t think making any comparison between WWII and this imbroglio does anything but highlight how inferior and incompetent our “leadership” is today.

honora on May 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM

You are on point here. I don’t believe that during WW2, at any point, you had anyone in Congress calling the war lost, just to score political points and try to gain/keep power for their party. At least back then, Republican and Democrats recognized the threat to the nation and worked together to defeat it.

However, please compare what I focused on. I already know how much you despise/resent/disrespect this president and you could have saved 2/3rds of your reply.

1. I didn’t compare the wars (style, tactics, times, technology, equipment, -fare, etc.) These are two distinctly different wars, and I’d say this one is way more complex and will take many, many years, potentially half or 2/3rds of the years the cold war took.

2. During the 2nd war the populace was united and not as crazy as it is today, you included when you can think straight, which I know you are fully capable of doing.

Personal advice – your arguments w/b so much stronger if you could stick to the topic. You tend to jump all over just to repeat for the mpteenth time how ‘incompetent’ you find this admin. to be. If I would be crazy I’d wish for your side to win in 2008, just to prove to you that they couldn’t do much better. This menace will not go away, and no matter who will be president is going to have to fight it. For all our sake, I will fight hard to keep your ninnies out, at least where it counts, CiC. That way, you and me will be safe to ‘battle’ here, versus in some other dark place, if at all. Sincerely, and without malice,

You mean the war where 20% of the population was in uniform and we fought on 2 fronts, defeating the Japanese, Germans and Italians in less time than we have been in Iraq? The war where our military and manufacturing base was caught completely unprepared yet turned into the arsenal for democracy in months? The war where our President was the leader of the entire free world, admired and respected?

I really don’t think making any comparison between WWII and this imbroglio does anything but highlight how inferior and incompetent our “leadership” is today.

honora on May 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM

I do think the Americans should crush Islam the way their ancestors, whom you mention, crushed national socialism and the worshippers of the Japanese emperor. I think that’s much safer than the gentle approach they’re taking with Islam, which resembles more their soft treatment of international socialism than their harsh treatment of national socialism.

Matticus: do you think it matters? Is there a shortage of people willing to take this guy’s place? …

honora on May 3, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Honora, the answer to your question is that it’s not a good question. I’m going to offer candidly that it probably takes considerable intelligence, discipline, and experience to run a terrorist organization well. A better question would have been, “Is there a shortage of people with what it takes to do this guy’s job, who are willing to take his place?”

I’m also going to credit al-Qaeda with having the good sense to put in their top positions the members they think are best-qualified to fill them. So an even better question would have been, “Is there a shortage of people willing to take this guy’s place, who have abilities to match those al-Qaeda must have attributed to him?”

Honora, the problem with the equality of all mankind is that it’s a quite limited equality. People are equal in rights of life, liberty, and estate, but not much else. With that in mind, the best defense I can give of the Americans’ effort to minimize muslim casualties is that they’re properly focusing on eliminating the most intelligent and talented muslims. If the Americans kill enough of those, it’s possible the rest won’t matter very much.

honora, I’m so glad you weren’t there to report on the 2nd WW setbacks, and there were thousands. We would have never had any encouragement. By “we” I mean the good side.

Entelechy on May 3, 2007 at 1:59 PM

You mean the war where 20% of the population was in uniform and we fought on 2 fronts, defeating the Japanese, Germans and Italians in less time than we have been in Iraq? The war where our military and manufacturing base was caught completely unprepared yet turned into the arsenal for democracy in months? The war where our President was the leader of the entire free world, admired and respected?

I really don’t think making any comparison between WWII and this imbroglio does anything but highlight how inferior and incompetent our “leadership” is today.

honora, I’m so glad you weren’t there to report on the 2nd WW setbacks, and there were thousands. We would have never had any encouragement. By “we” I mean the good side.

then confirmed by DNA testing

How? I mean does AQ keep a database?

- The Cat

Chill out dude, honora is just venting her frustration that we are running out of terrorists for her and her surrender monkey friends to surrender to.

Rock on……………..

This was an actual ABC headline? That’s wasn’t clear. But my question is not about the headline, but does it matter that we took out another AQ leader? I don’t compare this guy to Petraeus in any event.

honora on May 3, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Yes, it was an actual headline yesterday on ABCNews.com. I only compare this guy and Petraeus in the sense that they’re both regarded as leaders of their respective forces.

To answer your question, yes and no. In my opinion, it does have a psychological impact on the insurgency, just as having a high-profile leader of our side killed in battle would affect our body politic in psychological and political ways here at home. That’s why insurgents try to kill high profile targets like Dick Cheney, Al Gore, George Bush Sr., etc. Of course it matters.

It doesn’t matter in the sense that there are people willing and able to fill his role, it’s just that their zeal for the cause might (hopefully) be diminished, especially in the lower ranks.

What caption would ABCNews put up there if General Petraeus were killed? Would that matter? I mean, there’s no shortage of people willing to take his place, right?

Of course it matters! For ABCNews to insert a leading editorial headline into a news story is absurd, especially when the body of the story didn’t address the headline at all.

Matticus Finch on May 3, 2007 at 10:47 AM

This was an actual ABC headline? That’s wasn’t clear. But my question is not about the headline, but does it matter that we took out another AQ leader? I don’t compare this guy to Petraeus in any event.

Matticus: do you think it matters? Is there a shortage of people willing to take this guy’s place?

What caption would ABCNews put up there if General Petraeus were killed? Would that matter? I mean, there’s no shortage of people willing to take his place, right?

Of course it matters! For ABCNews to insert a leading editorial headline into a news story is absurd, especially when the body of the story didn’t address the headline at all.

I’m waiting for the ABCNews.com banner headline:

Does it really matter that we kille an Al Qaeda Honcho?

While CNN tries desparately to find something that rhymes with “Muharib Abdul-Latif al-Jubouri” to put on their lower third.

Matticus Finch on May 3, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Matticus: do you think it matters? Is there a shortage of people willing to take this guy’s place?

More telling is the fact that the Iraqi legislature (what’s left of it) is taking a 2 month vacation. Being spectacularly ineffective must be tiring.