Close, Michael, but not quite: "the President is personally responsible for every death incurred by either sideas a result of US military action."

When terrorists set off a bomb in a marketplace, that was Bush's fault, too.

J.

The Chosen One has BLOOD ON HIS HANDS! Quick, where are those white flags?

Michael,

You need to post stuff like this at, say, Democratic Underground. The conservatives here aren't going to give a damn.

I mean, really, Michael, since when have the conservatives ever cared about those killed by the U.S. military?

You must have been in a rush and not thinking clearly.

JayTea,

Touche!

God rest the souls of those children.

Now, what I want to know is - Where did you get those lurid images? I have opposed President Bush for almost eight years, but I have never seen images like that. He is not Satan, he is not a Nazi, he is just a tragically flawed American.

Relax, there's room under the bus for the war.

Herman, speaking personally, I've always cared when our military kills people.

When it's bad guys, I am satisfied that my tax dollars have been well spent.

When it's innocents, I am saddened that such things happen -- but I know that they are inevitable, and it is the military's policy to do all it can to minimize such things from happening. I also feel a sense of pride that so much of their time and effort has gone into preventing such things.

If only our enemies had even the slightest fraction of concern for the innocents...

J.

Impeach Obama. Obama lied, people died.
http://www.rightklik.net/

"the President is personally responsible for every death incurred as a result of US military action."

You're right. All war is murder. Culpability? It just depends how much of it you are willing to justify.

I heard Laura Ingrahm today talking about how her people have to come together and REBUILD the"conservative" movement.

Holy shit! Did something happen to it? If you guys are going to bring those young people into the hate club you must work on your sense of humor.
Maybe offer a couple of 8-tracks and a pack of carbon paper for joining up.

Now you kids get off of my lawn!!

I mean, really, Michael, since when have the conservatives ever cared about those killed by the U.S. military?

That's an interesting question, Herman.

Nixon and Ford ended the war in Vietnam at great sacrifice to this country's military prestige, force projection and morale. Eisenhower created a similar result in Korea. Both presidents Bush promulgated war in the Middle East under terms of engagement that put our troops at considerable risk.

On the other hand, all of these Republican presidents had the option of waging war as Roosevelt and Marshall did by incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians (which was a highly effective strategy, BTW), but they chose not to.

Quick, someone dig up Bob Dole's quote about "Democrat wars..."

J.

Herman's accusation is vile.

I don't think he even hears it. I think that the accusation means nothing to him at all. If the *accusation* means nothing at all, how can the deaths of those people, guilty or innocent, mean anything at all?

It can't.

You're *vacant* Herman, and I am not impressed.

When those who die in violence, of disease, or depravation in war and those people are only valuable as a club to accuse the political opposition of callous attitudes, I think that it's far more than the pot calling a kettle black.

Because, as we all KNOW... none of those people mattered at all until their life was affected by the United States. That was the moment of their inception into the human race... the moment that they had a life worth mourning.

Grats, Herman.

I'm not pleased by military action in Pakistan. If it *was* us. And I hope if it was that the target was not mistaken. I hope that the "new order" is not a disregard for the sovereignty of nations in some attempt to prove that "the one" is not a wimp.

Synova, you silly, silly person.

Herman IS vile.

He lives to be vile.

His whole purpose in being is to be vile.

How could you forget that?

J.

Ah, Hugh, I appreciate you giving us all a history lesson of decades ago. No relevance for today to be sure, but you have to come up with something, don't you?

"Nixon and Ford ended the war in Vietnam at great sacrifice to this country's military prestige, force projection and morale." -- HughS

Wow, such a BIG sacrifice! Much more significant than the million dead Vietnamese, right, Hugh? Nixon of course didn't get around to ending U.S. involvement until his second term. Prior to this termination, Nixon had extended the war into both Laos and Cambodia. Of course, you don't know much about the history of the Vietnamese war, for if you did, you would never have indicated that Republicans would never incinerate thousands of people: Nixon bombed Hanoi and the rest of Vietnam, as well as Cambodia, mercilessly.

The unpopular Korean War was winding down by the time Eisenhower became president. That it ended while he was president is no proof that he valued the lives of civilians. Remember, Eisenhower was the President who overthrew the democratically-elected governments in Guatemala and Iran, replacing them with brutal, bloody dictatorships, leading to decades of brutal, bloody dictatorships for the Guatemalans and Iranians to endure. How did the conservatives reply to what Eisenhower had done, were there calls for impeachment? Definitely not! The Republicans responded by happily voting Eisenhower into office for his second term.

And we could participate in Bosnia just so long as we had no people at risk.

We could fly over with war planes, so long as no Americans would die, that was something people could support. Clinton knew that was the only way that the American people would accept our involvement. So that's how we started.

No thought that the only reason to have a war plane is to shoot something or drop something.

No Americans were at risk, but someone was at the receiving end.

*This* conservative, Herman, you puke, cares about those killed while we don't watch, those killed while we sit on our hands, those killed by commission or by omission. No one can have clean hands. No one.

What pain in the world did you fail to prevent today, Herman?

It matters not to me who kills the terrorists as long as they are dead.

My message to all the soldiers and Marines on the battlefield: take no prisoners, we no longer have a place to interrogate them.

So does Obama's ordering a military strike that killed civilians in a sovereign nation we are not at war with make him a war criminal? If not, how many non-combatants does he have to kill?

I only ask because some left wingers say Bush is a war criminal for this vary reason and they want to prosecute him. If they set that precedence then it seems Obama would also be subject to prosecution as a war criminal when Republicans come to power again. The only exception would be if Obama is above the law, something he himself rejects.

I think Obama is smart enough to not set such a precedence and he'll even defend Bush should the left wingers push their revenge agenda. He knows the shoe could be on the other foot in the not too distant future.

Look who's siding with the terrorists!

"The Republicans responded by happily voting Eisenhower into office for his second term."

Really? So you're saying there were exactly zero Democrats who crossed over and voted for him? And there were no Republicans who crossed over and voted Democrat in that election? I have to tell ya, that sounds very odd.

You don't understand elections very well, do you?

Herman

That you miss the obvious is no surprise but it still should be pointed out for you that conservatives do in fact care about the casualties of war. You believe otherwise, and demagogue the issue for cheap political points.

The US has exercised restaint of force in every war it has waged since WWII. That restaint, ordered by many conservative presidents, has taken a great toll on our country and saved millions of lives of our enemies.

Why is a racist diatribe still posted at #22?

Why do you republicans hate America so?

The left is still escalating their loonyness. I think they are realizing that the ONE is in office and now totally responsible since day one for everything, little or big that happens. Yahoo! I am loving the shoe on the other foot.

He thought he would be cool and walk through the press room and when asked a question, Obama was offended. Why is Obama giving waivers to all those lobbyists to work in his administration? He barks an order to look tough, then ignores it. I am loving it. The list is already growing. ww

there has to be a time in our life that bush isn't the blame for eveeything. glad to see that it is obama's turn to feel the heat. i'm sure the left will say it was just obama's job and he was not responsible.

too bad that obama feels that he won and everyone else lost.

I think they are realizing that the ONE is in office and now totally responsible since day one for everything, little or big that happens.

Like how Bush was responsible for 9/11, WiddleWanker? Want to blame FDR for Pearl Harbor while you're at it?

Idiot.

Herman:

Ref #16- The vast majority of the millions of Vietnamese killed came AFTER the U.S. pulled out of South Viet Nam AND the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress cut off the funding they had earlier promised to our ally. Those deaths were the result of reprisals and maltreatment in Vietnamese 're-education' camps and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

The majority of the civilian deaths DURING the conflict were attributable to NVA and VC action/atrocities in the south and the NVA locating their logistical materiel in and around civilian population centers in the north.

You also choose to ignore the fact that President Kennedy got us into Viet Nam and President Johnson significantly expanded our role in that conflict. And before you jump, President Eisenhower provided logistical and advisory support to the South Vietnamese government just as President Truman did the same for another WW II ally: Greece. Oh, and lest we forget, President Truman and the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress stripped our military bare in between WW II and Korea, thus increasing the casualties at the onset of hostilities caused by poor training created by a lack of funding.

You sound reasonably intelligent, Herman. Let's see if you're logical as well: can you spot the pattern?

Oh! The name calling from our intelligient and esteemed canadian Hyper. Just mentioning the military and financial might of Canada to any country makes them hide in fear.

Actually, dimwit, the left constantly, and even recently on this blog, stated that GW is responsible for 9/11.

Try reading AND comprehension. It works.

You lefties rewrote the play book, now live with it.

Barry is the worst president in the history of our country. ww

"Barry is the worst president in the history of our country. ww"

Willie,

If you aren't a historian or a psychic, you missed your calling, bro.

Does it really matter who's president? Don't we care more about getting our country together? Can we for once come together as One Nation, Indivisible. Don't you think all the other Country's looking on would see we are unifined and not try to tear us down. What do you say we give it a try?

Let's spell it out real slowly for the slow kid at the back of the classroom...

WiddleWanker, if you are willing to assert that 9/11 was not Bush's fault--as you have repeatedly--then you will have to allow for certain events transpiring during Obama's presidency that are not his fault; or can only be indirectly attributed to him. Okay? Okay. That is so obviously true that it shouldn't have to be stated, but you're a special case, clearly.

Stop pretending that you have some vantage point that affords you a holistic evaluation of this brand new administration. You know less about the political goings-on in your country than most people in my office--in Toronto--but you attempt to write off what I say to you by virtue of the fact that I live in Canada. That's a pretty stupid way of conducting an argument, but hardly surprising for one of your intellectual caliber.

By the way, you misspelled intelligent. Do you know what irony means, WiddleWanker?

#30 distracts form #29, which has been studiously ignored and attention diverted from by 31-33.

I heard Laura Ingrahm today talking about how her people have to come together and REBUILD the"conservative" movement.

Holy shit! Did something happen to it?

Yeah, they replaced their conservatives with Democrat-wannabes. McCain being example number one.

I'd rather have a smaller party that has the balls to actually provide an opposition than a large party of sycophantic spineless lapdogs.

Like how Bush was responsible for 9/11, WiddleWanker? Want to blame FDR for Pearl Harbor the Great Depression while you're at it?

Yes.

but you attempt to write off what I say to you by virtue of the fact that I live in Canada. That's a pretty stupid way of conducting an argument, but hardly surprising for one of your intellectual caliber.

"calibre", as you are supposedly from Canada...if you all are going to get all petty about spelling...

Does it really matter who's president? Don't we care more about getting our country together? Can we for once come together as One Nation, Indivisible. Don't you think all the other Country's[sic] looking on would see we are unifined and not try to tear us down. What do you say we give it a try?

Sorry, Ang, but do I give two shits about what, say, Belgium thinks about our "unity"? Those "Country's" certainly didn't care about us during the past eight years.

Hell, I don't think even Belgium cares about what Belgium thinks.

James, you summed it up. Our darling canadian boy Hyper is petty. I will bet his resume is at least 10 pages long. He has "notice me" issues.

I do not need a crystal ball to know Obama failed. He has already made some very, very poor decisions for political points that will not only harm him and his administration, but me and my family as well as yours. ww

How many liberal moonbats were lining up to carry his sadan chair of the great OBAMASES THE I