This is the kind of content we have to look forward to as Fox prepares to launch the Fox Business Channel. From this past weekend’s “Forbes on Fox”, the panelists just got done answering the ludicrous question of whether the uptick in the stock market was a “major” victory over Al Qaeda (because clearly a bull market is the best way to avenge 9/11) and then the conversation went even further off the rails as Fox News contributor and Forbes Magazine publisher Rich Karlgaard (publisher@forbes.com) asserted that the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq wasn’t so bad because, hey, they volunteered to serve their country.
You’ll also notice how Fox anchor/host David Asman does his best to cut off and talk over the one panelist who isn’t toeing the right-wing line. That sort of thing is just not allowed on Fox News Channel.
Remember, the right claims that they’re the only ones who “support the troops” (and the media backs them up on it like the lapdogs they are).
The ones who were stop lossed sure as fuck didn’t volunteer again.
And the ones on the fourth and fifth deployements didn’t either. Some of these “troop supporting” chickenhawks need to enlist to give our guys a break.
What do you say, dugger? frank? they’re desperate enough to accept retards like you now, go for it.
Child.
“Compared to any other war we’ve ever fought…the cost in human capital is very low on this one.”
And with that statement, Rich Karlgaard has locked in a spot in the 8th circle of Hell.
Dugger, you hate America and the troops. You are a traitor.
Ya, I hear they’ve lowered the recruiting bar so low they’re even willing to sign up Rethug cowards now.
Frank will say he’s already put in his time, I say let him go and sign up for a war he believes in this time.
Dugger? Chances are good the bar is STILL not low enough for him to be accepted. He’ll have to wait until they’re REALLY desperate. Probably this September.
I’m also sure he’s only counting dead, not wounded or those suffering psychological scars.
It’s great that combat medicine has developed to the point that more soldiers don’t die due to injuries. The downside is ghouls like Karlgaard discounting the sacrifices of those survivors because they can’t be listed among the dead.
That was deplorable. Notice how the host threw the “It’s all clinton’s fault” canard into the mix.
Did I misread this post, or is Oliver indirectly suggesting that our top priority should be to “avenge 9/11″?
Democrats/liberals, advocating vengeance as a policy objective? Sounds kind of Abu Graib-ish, doesn’t it?
I know it’s hard to actually look at the reality that occurred during the years 2001 – 2002, but the truth is that one of the main reasons that al-Qaeda struck the WCT was to cause a major disruption in the US economy. The economy did suffer from 9/11, but it has amazingly rebounded and is, in fact, much stronger than it was on 9/10/01.
To that end, America and its allies (remember them?) have defeated a major al-Qaeda goal. And in the mean time, we have continually fought al-Qaeda around the world, destroying their funding and communications networks and killing or capturing most of the original al-Qaeda leadership who planned 9/11.
We have also continued to seek out and neutralize “new” al-Qaeda operatives who are trying to turn Iraq into their new base of operations. And on top of that, we have given tens, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars to Iraq and aided in completely rebuilding (or in some cases building anew from the ground-up) the modern infrastructure of Iraq and equipping the Iraqis to defend themselves against other nascent threats.
All this was done without any economic hardships in the US, or Britain, or any other nation targeted by Al-Qaeda. US tax revenues are the highest in history. Our unemployment is at historic lows. The stock market is exploding. The deficit is shrinking, with the government occasionally showing revenue surpluses from month to month. In fact, this is perhaps the strongest world economy in recent memory. al-Qaeda lost big-time. Maybe this is just too difficult for the OW regulars to understand.
Or maybe it is just too painful to admit that, at least on the economic front, the Bush administration has been incredibly successful.
I ain’t goin’ to Iraq. I’m much more important to the war effort here in my Mom’s basement, postin’ on blogs.
You see, unlike Libruls, I support the war.
Or perhaps Al Qaeda wanted to kill an assload of people and prompt us to wage a voluntary war that serves as a recruitment tool for them. Mission accomplished. By the way, if you want to consider the middling performance of the current economy to be great, apparently you slept through 1992-200.
“Compared to any other war we’ve ever fought…the cost in human capital is very low on this one.”
Not sure if you quoted it correctly, but this quite correct. If you’re gonna have soldiers and you’re gonna have wars, you will have dead soldiers. God bless ‘em all. Don’t want dead soldiers; never fight any war, any place, any time, for any reason.
And to think you brave lads were banging the drum for invading Pakistan just the other day. Had you devised some way for soldiers not to die in Pakistan? Was it going to be a peace and love hippie invasion or something?
Why do you hate the troops, Dugger?
Duggie, no one said anything about “invading” Pakistan. What was mentioned were either guided missile attacks on known al Queda hideouts (which has already been done, btw), or using special ops on stealth missions to kill or capture al Queda members who are vulnerable in Pakistan.
And you Repubs wonder why you are mocked so openly. You have zero comprehension skills, which is the reason why you believe all of the lies spun by the White House and Fox “News”.
Wow, excellent analysis non-soldier Dugger. I’ll take my omelet now. Thanks in advance.
So, Mike, you disagree with the recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that despite Bush’s macho heroics to stop terrorism, al-Qaida has currently managed to regroup and is now at a strength level to match five years ago?
And the job stats are the lamest sort of shuck and jive. More people are settling for jobs that fail to handle even the cost of living, which is why so many of them are working two jobs just to make rent.
If the job situation were as healthy as you say, Bush would never have put forth the laughable notion that working at McDonald’s amounted to a “manufacturing” job, specifically to boost those stats.
I do agree with Dugger that invading or bombing a sovereign nation would be a bad idea.
Dugger | Jul 18, 2007 7:48:54 AM
“Child.”
LoL! And so says our resident retired military usually incoherent drunk.
“If you’re gonna have soldiers and you’re gonna have wars, you will have dead soldiers.” Dig Dugger
Such a genius.
Now, let’s go invade another country that isn’t a threat, start another war and — ta da — you’ll have dead soldiers. And Dugger will be first in line to say, “Oh well.”
Judging from his “oh well” attitude about war casualties the only danger dugger faced during his service was from paper cuts.
“Duggie, no one said anything about “invading” Pakistan.”
You weren’t paying attention to this blog then Oxy. The KINGDADDY blogger called for a miltiary incursion into Pakistan.
But I think like many on this site, he has very little understanding of military operations and figures that we just send in James Bond or a Seal platoon and we ‘plop plop’ OBL through a doorway and the boys rowboat home.
Right. If it is that easy wonder why we haven’t done it. Surely Bush would love the glory etc for taking out OBL. Yep. Wonder why he hasn’t done it – because progressives are really really sure its easy to do.
a miltiary incursion into Pakistan. =/= full-blown invasion & occupation. You keep missing that.
If it is that easy wonder why we haven’t done it.
So as not to piss of Musharef and his investors.
Dugger | Jul 18, 2007 3:34:40 PM
“Surely Bush would love the glory etc for taking out OBL. Yep.”
Um, did The Commander Guy not say he doesn’t know where OBL is and doesn’t spend any time thinking of him …?
Yeah, Bush sure showed us how desperately he wanted the glory of capturing one of 9/11’s masterminds by invading the hell out a country where OBL was not.
“Wonder why he hasn’t done it – because progressives are really really sure its easy to do.”
So I take it we will never again have to endure a conservative wailing about how Clinton, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger could have prevented 9-11 but didn’t because they were pansy liberal appeasers who didn’t want to upset Pakistan.
So you boys are saying we can send in a moderate sized small special ops force, say a few special C-130s, Paves, etc and some Seals, red berets and green berets into a large, sovereign Muslinm nation and they won’t care. Won’t try to intervene? Won’t mind at all. And if they protect their sovreignty, what do we do. Write those troops off? Go to war? Or perhaps you think we can sneak in a force large enough to pierce deep into the tribal hinterlands and come back out without logistics support. Where do we refuel the choppers? How? Hmm, boys?
You know, I’m just betting most of you guys don’t know your *ss from a hole in the ground re military planning.
Frank will say he’s already put in his time, I say let him go and sign up for a war he believes in this time.
Well, they ARE accepting violent criminals. Not to mention that the maximum age for enlistment has been raised.
Or maybe it is just too painful to admit that, at least on the economic front, the Bush administration has been incredibly successful.
At eroding our civil liberties and using the Constitution as toilet paper? Yeah, it’s been pretty successful in that regard.
Why do you hate the troops, Dugger?
Because he hates America. DOY!
a miltiary incursion into Pakistan. =/= full-blown invasion & occupation. You keep missing that.
The things that Duggs keeps missing could fill a warehouse.
Yep. Wonder why he hasn’t done it – because progressives are really really sure its easy to do.
And the regressives thought the occupation of Iraq would be a cake-walk. I don’t think you’re exactly in a position to criticize others for underestimating difficulty.
But I think like many on this site, he has very little understanding of military operations and figures that we just send in James Bond or a Seal platoon and we ‘plop plop’ OBL through a doorway and the boys rowboat home.
It’s called the CIA, dumbass.
Dugger | Jul 18, 2007 5:24:26 PM
“You know, I’m just betting most of you guys don’t know your *ss from a hole in the ground re military planning.”
Um, that’s why we have Donald Rumsfeld. Oh, wait …
So you boys are saying we can send in a moderate sized small special ops force, say a few special C-130s, Paves, etc and some Seals, red berets and green berets into a large, sovereign Muslinm nation and they won’t care. Won…blah blah blah, arf arf arf….
No, Dugger. You are the one saying all of that. You are.
You
Are
Saying
All
of
That.
Mike: The economy did suffer from 9/11, but it has amazingly rebounded and is, in fact, much stronger than it was on 9/10/01.
All done on borrowed money, unlike the Clinton era when we actually managed to pay back some of the loans AND have a strong economy.
Maybe you have noticed that our manufacturing has all been sold off so stockholders could cash out, and we are now helpless to make anything for ourselves. We made a few people rich and gave up our manufacturing base to do it. I guess that looks good on the balance sheet, although it does terrible damage to our nation’s future.
You can run a business on credit card loans, and it will look like it’s doing great even though it is not. You can furnish your house from your credit card, and your neighbors will say you are doing well, even if you haven’t made a dime in years. You can “stimulate the economy” with borrowed money, but all you are doing is putting off the reckoning and making the reckoning much more painful when it arrives.
Any president could have a good LOOKING economy (at least for the already rich, if not for the working stiffs) if he pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into it with borrowed Chinese money.
The real trick is being fiscally responsible, and that is something foreign to the GOP. The noted traitor Ronald Reagan started the trend of irresponsibility that Bush has championed.
Excellent, Repack Rider. I applaud you.
Mike, EVERY DIME spent in Iraq, EVERY DIME of tax cuts, EVERY DIME spent since Bush has been President has been borrowed. On Plastic. Cash Advances with Interest, Mike.
The economy did suffer from 9/11, but it has amazingly rebounded and is, in fact, much stronger than it was on 9/10/01.
False. Last quarter, the Bush Economy hit a brick wall. GDP growth was way below inflation, never even reached 1%. The DOW was at 10,700 the day Bush took office, it just reached 14,000 yesterday, after six long years of sub-par growth. The NASDAQ was at 4,700 end of Jan 2000, it is barely 2,700 today.
To that end, America and its allies (remember them?) have defeated a major al-Qaeda goal. And in the mean time, we have continually fought al-Qaeda around the world, destroying their funding and communications networks and killing or capturing most of the original al-Qaeda leadership who planned 9/11.
The last NIE says you could not be more hopelessly wrong. It says Al-Qaeda has completely regained its 2001 strength, and is even more of a threat today than when Bush took office, a Trillion dollars and maybe 50,000 suffering American famiies who’ve suffered a death or a grievous injury to a loved one later. Mike, their sacrifices appear to have been for NOTHING. Al-Qaeda is STRONGER today. Explain that to me.
We have also continued to seek out and neutralize “new” al-Qaeda operatives who are trying to turn Iraq into their new base of operations. And on top of that, we have given tens, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars to Iraq and aided in completely rebuilding (or in some cases building anew from the ground-up) the modern infrastructure of Iraq and equipping the Iraqis to defend themselves against other nascent threats.
We have not “Given” Iraq anything. Their infrasctructure is WORSE today than before the invasion, measured in electricity, clean water, security, and services. We have STOLEN their oil money, (L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer said he could not be held to account, because in a war, little things like accounting for nine billion dollars in Iraqi oil money placed in his hands to safeguard could not be expected.)
The Iraqis want us out. Thousands of Iraqis marched yesterday in the very same plaza where we tore down Saddam’s statue, wanting to know why they could not have air conditioning and refrigeration in weather over 130 degrees in Baghdad yesterday.
All this was done without any economic hardships in the US, or Britain, or any other nation targeted by Al-Qaeda.
Aside from having incurred the highest debt of any country in history, no, it’s been painless. Wait.
US tax revenues are the highest in history.
In gross, yes. But that should be expected, not rewarded. GDP is SUPPOSED to grow as the population grows. In percentage contributed by corporations and our wealthiest, no. Historic lows.
Our unemployment is at historic lows.
TOTAL Sean Hannity bullshit. Unemployment was at 4% the day Bush took office. It went down EVERY QUARTER Clinton was in office, as his Ecoomy createdover 23 million new jobs in eight years. It has not been 4% since, and has gone over or close to 7% several times during Bush’s terms. He has created only 1/3 of the jobs CLinton created, finished his first term withour having created a SINGLE NET NEW job in America, and is now going to finish with maybe 10 million new jobs in eight years, as the population has grown by 3-5 million per year. Bush has presided over a net loss of American jobs, Mike. Admit it.
The stock market is exploding.
Bullshit. See above.
The deficit is shrinking, with the government occasionally showing revenue surpluses from month to month.
Bullshit. The government ALWAYS shows surpluses when taxes are paid, the true number is the year-end total. You call yourself a “Conservative”?? Since when was a “deficit shrinking” good enough for you? You partisan hypocrite, if it were a Democrat President you would be SCREAMING bloody murder of the Economy, because that’s what Bush is guilty of.
In fact, this is perhaps the strongest world economy in recent memory. al-Qaeda lost big-time. Maybe this is just too difficult for the OW regulars to understand.
Yes, the Dollar is the weakest it’s been in years against the British Pound, against the Franc, against the Euro, the Yen and the DeutscheMark. The ONLY currency holding steady is the Yuan, as the Chinese buy our dollars by the truckload to use against us in future.
Or maybe it is just too painful to admit that, at least on the economic front, the Bush administration has been incredibly successful.
Mike, the STOOPID. It hurts, Mike, that’s what hurts. Watching you do the STOOPID.
I don`t believe the idiot said that.
As a Nam vet, I say – reinstate the draft and draft all the republican`s children and send them into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight.
Put their kids asses on the line.
This “volunteer” crap was insane. Wing nuts with no regard to human life.
U.S. troops will be getting a copy of this in IRAQ:
tHANKS. kENT oLD FASHIONED lINCOLN lIBERAL:
Those 3,000+ dead signed up to serve their country. Not to conquer and occupy a foreign nation. Stop calling this mess a war and start calling it what it is: a nazi-style occupation.
Boy Wellstone, that was a classic display on how to dismantle right wing talking points.
With a national debt growing from 5.6 trillion to nearly 9 trillion in 6.5 years it is beyond negligent to say that anything but borrowing has stoked this economy. There were near zero percent interest rates that also greatly increased private debt with the economy being fueled by homeowners cashing out their equity and spending or trading uo creating the housing price bubble.
Increased tax revenues is not necessarily a sign of a good economy. Looking into where these revenues are coming from is the key. Is it from the incredible amount of churning in the stock markets? Is it from windfall profits (how much did the oli companies paid in taxes which was sucked out of the economy, etc.), or is it from increased tax rolls? The types of jobs being created, coulpled with the immense underground economy being created from undocumented workers makes the latter rather suspect.
The huge multi-national corporations doing so well that comprise the Dow is another harbinger of a dire future. Their profits come from reducing expenses here by off-shoring jobs while at the same time increasing prices. It weakens our economy while at the same time adding to inflation.
Some are doing very well, but most still live from paycheck to paycheck, or worse.
Technically the debt is not put on a credit card. They print money that further reduces the value of the dollar. A double whammy for ordinary savers trying to stay ahead of inflation.
This is where Duggie’s head explodes:
======================
US might strike in Pakistan: White House
Published: Thursday July 19, 2007
The White House on Thursday refused to rule out striking at suspected terrorist targets inside Pakistan and would not say whether US forces would first seek permission from Islamabad.
Asked whether US President George W. Bush had ruled out US military action inside Pakistan, spokesman Tony Snow replied: “We never rule out any options, including striking actionable targets.”
Asked whether Bush would first seek authorization from Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, Snow told reporters: “Those are matters that are best not discussed publicly.”
Washington in recent days has sharply criticized Musharraf’s truce with leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants were believed hiding, calling on him to take aggressive military action.
And Bush’s top counter-terrorism adviser at the White House recently suggested that the United States did not get all of the cooperation it hoped for from Pakistan in the global war on terrorism.
At the same time, the White House has been praising Musharraf personally.
“President Musharraf has put his life on the line and has been a very important ally in the war on terror,” Snow said as Bush traveled here to make remarks on the federal budget.
“It’s also clear that Taliban and al Qaeda, in the northwest territories and the federally administered tribal areas, have begun to put on operations that threaten the government of Pakistan itself,” he added.
“President Musharraf, having tried one approach, in terms of dealing with the tribal leaders, is now going to have to be more aggressive and is being more aggressive moving forces into the region to deal with the security problems there,” he said.
OK, 3,600 dead is a very small percentage of total U.S. troops.
On the other hand, 1 is a huge percentage of a family.
Tony Snow replied: “We never rule out any options, including striking actionable targets.”
But…but..Tony! It’s a sovereign nation!!! That would be wron…wrrrr…..
Doesn’t bother me a bit Oxy. Nothing there contradicts what I’ve said – but obviously you emote first, reply second and then figure out later what it was you were replying to.
Notice how Duggie thinks he can pull off some “Jedi Mind Trick”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_mind_trick), and make everyone forget he ever said the following, with a wave of his Jedi hand?:
==========================
So you boys are saying we can send in a moderate sized small special ops force, say a few special C-130s, Paves, etc and some Seals, red berets and green berets into a large, sovereign Muslinm nation and they won’t care. Won’t try to intervene? Won’t mind at all. And if they protect their sovreignty, what do we do. Write those troops off? Go to war? Or perhaps you think we can sneak in a force large enough to pierce deep into the tribal hinterlands and come back out without logistics support. Where do we refuel the choppers? How? Hmm, boys?
You know, I’m just betting most of you guys don’t know your *ss from a hole in the ground re military planning.
Posted by: Dugger | Jul 18, 2007 5:24:26 PM
=======================
First Duggie says how impossible it would be to stage a stealth attack inside Pakistan and how bad it would be if we ever did it (even though we already have on several occasions).
Then I post an article in which the Bush administration states that they will strike inside Pakistan anytime they feel like it.
To which Duggie responds “Nothing there (in the article) contradicts what I’ve said”.
Then we all have a good laugh.
No Oxy. “First Duggie says how impossible it would be to stage a stealth attack inside Pakistan ”
Never said that. An attack can be by one person and he could be attacking a static target.
Attacking a mobile group of terrorists in the hinterlands of Pakistan, a Muslim nation, is a different critter altogether. The mission footprint would have to be much larger and that was, in fact, a key reason this mission did not go. Again see Desert One.
I said nothing of the sort. The incursion in question was squelched in part because it was getting too big. Now listen, this is going to get really complex. A very small tactical raid against a static target is possible. The target could be two or three Ts in a known location – under observation. You might sneak a heli in and out. That is not the
Dugger | Jul 19, 2007 7:39:48 PM
“Now listen, this is going to get really complex. A very small tactical raid against a static target is possible. The target could be two or three Ts in a known location – under observation. You might sneak a heli in and out. That is not the …” zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Duggie got so bored of listening to himself type he fell asleep?
Duggie got so bored of listening to himself type he fell asleep?
No, I think he forgot how to breath again.
And we are all still waiting for the progressive game plan wherein the US goes into the Pakistani tribal areas, kills bunches of AQ terrorists and comes back out – without using military force.
I know, I know. Just details. Do it the way we’ve always done it; or have the CIA do it. So simple.
Dugs, that you’re sober and typing complete sentences that can actually be read properly doesn’t entitle you to demand responses.
US goes into the Pakistani tribal areas, kills bunches of AQ terrorists and comes back out – without using military force.
What, are they gonna smother them with pillows or something?
Uhh, precisely duros.
OK, ya lost me. How does one kill terrorists without military force?
Let’s see, how would that work Dugger. Before the Iraq invasion, it would have been something like, Pakistan forces with US “advisors” would go in root out Taliban and AL Qaeda. Post Iraq, any thought of US invovlement raises anti-US sentiment and nationalism to the point that the Pakistani government no longer pretends to earn its money. Just another side benefit of the ill conceived Iraq invasion. THanks guys