Friday, November 11, 2005


I have been reading a book by a soldier and blogger. I have read several other military bloggers, and a few things enter my mind. First, there are two basic types of military bloggers; bitchers and battlers. The first group I have absolutely no time for. Reading a blog that is entry after entry containing childish complaints about the first-line supervisor and inside jokes, to me, is a humongous waste of time and an embarrassment as a soldier. (I realize may of the people that dislike my blog or my perspective are rolling their eyes right now and swearing that mine is also a large waste of be it.) The other group - battlers - produces such deep jealousy. Maybe not jealousy exactly but I definitely covet their situation.

I have done everything within my power to place myself into combat. I have volunteered for the convoy team (apparently the luckiest convoy team in Iraq because we've received essentially no contact except a blasting cap sized IED early on), I even was working on going out with the SF, 278th, and ING on night raids.

These battlers draw interest due to their ability to provide first-hand personal accounts of events that do not get covered by the media accurately. Many of the bloggers add thoughtful commentary, allowing readers a vicarious experience. Many just regurgitate the events in a seemingly disjointed manner. But these bloggers have raw, poignant material from which to form their entries.

I, on the other hand, see myself as an example of the majority of soldiers deployed. Coalition forces number nearly 150,000... US military comprising 130,000 of those troops. The vast overwhelming number of these troops are combat support, like myself. We provide communication integral to the operations. Others provide medical, food, or mechanical support. So many troops in so many different positions are currently deployed so that the small minority of combat soldiers can effectively do their job.

But our war is not the same. We fight a war closer to the human spirit. We endure the personal erosion of deployment; the long term ache instead of the quick sharp stabbing pain of ambush. I have lost everything except my children and my dogs; and all were mistreated. Time and absence is our enemy. We don't have many intense, flashy stories to tell. Ours is a more reflective role.

I started my blog to keep in touch with friends and family, to reduce the repetitive emails I sent, and for me to keep a record of my experiences here. By nature, I am contemplative; an observer. That is not to say that I do not get involved, on the contrary. But over time my perspective and understanding of my situation has evolved. In many ways it has become more personal, more private, more realized, more negative. Therefore my posts have taken a different turn. At first I was apprehensive and naive. I took in all the events as fresh and new and meaningful, as with the woman and daughter on our first convoy. Everything I did was new. Now, 10 months later, there is nothing new. Therein lies the source of ennui.

I have considered several times to open up and dump all my personal issues into this blog. But I haven't for a few reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that I wished to keep the blog topic/debate format. I've revealed some of my innermost personal issues when I saw them as relevant, as when I discovered my STBEW's infidelity and neglect of my children when I returned on R&R. But those topics don't hold much potential for discussion. I don't want pity and I didn't want this blog to become completely self-serving; my second reason. Lastly, there are a few folks that I work with that are regular readers. And though I try to remain void of office politics, I am aware of them. Becoming too honest and revealing can bring about a shitstorm. So the myriad personal battles I, and most other deployed soldiers, face have not been exposed.

Things are changing here though. I am receiving a new mission with new people at new locations. This may free me up to post more personal entries, as well as giving me new experiences to write about. I will be going closer to the hot zones, hopefully serving missions into locations you are familiar with from the evening news. A regular reader requested that I write about myself prior to my enlistment and the motivations that led me to my decisions. I feel comfortable doing that now and already have that in the process. If I have lost the momentum that drew the numerous commenters previously, then stay tuned for my redefinition.


Blogger Robert Chase said...

Happy Veteran's Day, DMD :)

Blogger Dorman said...

And on veteran's day (of which I officially am now one):

"As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them," the president said.

Can someone explain to me how these insurgents in Iraq are determined to destroy our way of life? Do Americans really view insurgents here as a threat? Really. I have been away for a few years and these questions are not rhetorical.

Blogger Robert Chase said...

Better question is can you post a response to the rightie claim that dissent in america over the war is aiding the insurgents? I'd love to get your view on that and have it in print one way or another.

Half of this country never viewed Iraq as a threat....and now more people are waking up and realizing it. I can't speak for you, cuz I ain't there, but it pisses me off when someone on the other side of the aisle claims that the troops are fighting for 'our' freedom. Bullshit. You are fighting for the Iraqis' freedom. Correct me if I am wrong, but that isn't the reason this mess started over there in the first place.

But, the bush apologists will tell you Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, and that since their is insurgents in Iraq, therefore, they are terrorists and trying to destroy or way of life.

Funny how the moron in chief also mentioned that terrorists hate freedom, said the WMD claims were true and linked Iraq to 9/11 again.

How soon before this national nightmare (the bush presidency) is over?

Blogger LindaSoG said...

Hand Salute Sir, and a big thank you!

Happy Veterans Day!

Blogger Dorman said...

Bob, you are an amazing man. Most of the time you are a monosyllabic anti-conversationalist, but whenever the topic of republicans or Bush arises you transform into this articulate orator.

It sickens me too when I see commercials, on AFN even, showing civilians thanking us for protecting their freedoms or fighting for their way of life. At first I was confused because I thought I missed something. But then I realized that many sheep in America actually have bought the packgae the media has sold.

Only in America as nowhere else in the world believes that. I don't know how anyone can equate the war here with anything back home in the states. We don't have terrorists in Iraq, we have insurgents. Big difference. These insurgents don't have any concern about the states, nor would they even be capable of reaching our shores. Realistically, these people at best travel by junky car....mostly by donkey. They attack us with weapons found in the Anarchist's Cookbook and old Russian arms. I don't consider them that much of a threat to us soldiers, compared to our other "real" enemies. A Detroit street gang is better organized, more mobile, and has greater fire power than the insurgents.

**side note - my friend Cunningham just stumbled in. We haven't seen him for over an hour. He fell asleep in the port-a-john****

Blogger Robert Chase said...

These insurgents don't have any concern about the states, nor would they even be capable of reaching our shores.

well, according to the righties, or bushies as I like to call them, they do, and they will come here just like the 9/11 terrorists did and kill us all.
What makes me laugh is that they think bush is doing a good job protecting this country ,even though our borders are porous....airport security measures are either non-existent or outright suck and the Canadian border is like a sieve (don't tell M ;) ) . They make the comment..."Well, we haven't been attacked here since 9/11" Well, as much as non-democrats dislike Clinton, we went 8 years between attacks on these shores. (93 WTC bombing - 9/11). So I don't buy the BS that we are safer because of bush. Hell, all one needs to do is look at your Islam counter and the number of terrorist attacks worldwide to realize that terrorism is as strong if not stronger than before.

ok, /end rant, for now ;)

Blogger Dorman said...

nevermind the Canadian border, slap a sombrero and a blanket on one of these hajis and let them walk across the Mexican border while the same folks that think we are fighting terrorism also fight to keep the 'human rights' of the border jumpers intact. Thus keeping the Mexican-American border virtually unguarded.

still, it takes money and a vehicle to get a bomb-filled haji to america.

Blogger Robert Chase said...

Oh, I agree. It's pretty bad along the Mexican border when you have 'Minutemen' helping to guard the border and alert the Border Patrol of potential jumpers.
The Mexican border has long been a problem, but has only gotten worse under bush. The canadian border is a cake-walk to get over and back. Going to Toronto for spring break years ago ('93) was a joke, I can imagine it is the same if not worse now.

Blogger Jack Burton said...

Please stop referring to everyone as "bushies". I voted for him, think he's an idiot, and would vote for him again. As long as morons like John Kerry are nominated, and the democratic party embraces scum like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, I'll be a republican. But that doesn't make me a "bushie". It's more than a little ironic that you rip on our border security but are obviously a fan of the party that nearly forbids law enforcement (in some cases does forbid) from doing anything to illegals that are caught here. Let me guess, it's the bushies fault that illegals get in here, but once they do they have every right to stay?

Dorman, keep the faith and get home safe. I thank you not because you're currently defending me, but because you took the oath and are making the sacrifice. That alone is worth more thanks than I can ever give or convey. One day men like you will be defending me, my way of life and my freedom and I'm confident that the job will be done.

Blogger artbyruth said...

Thank you for your service.

I disagree with everything you write here and ask you to think about something:

You could be walking on the Bataan Death March right about now watching other soldiers being beheaded....or in a POW camp in Japan battling dissentary, daily beatings, and starvation.....or in the Hanoi Hilton....

So, there are things to be grateful for. And not seeing "combat" is definitely something to be grateful for.

I had breakfast the other day with 2 Iwo Jima Marine Vets (God bless them)and listened to them talk about how young they were when they went off to war. They talked about how 3,000 Marines were killed in the first 30 days of Iwo Jima. I could see them flashing back to that day in their eyes.

They talked about the enemy they couldn't see. They talked about you guys serving in Iraq.

They never once complained about their President or whined about anything because they know just how great they have it in this country.

So, I thank you for "strapping on the boots" for your country. For being in Iraq for 10 mos. and hating it. Yet you still serve.

God bless you and this great country we live in where a soldier can complain about his Commander-in-Chief without being publicly executed for it.


Blogger artbyruth said...

You wrote: "Can someone explain to me how these insurgents in Iraq are determined to destroy our way of life? Do Americans really view insurgents here as a threat? Really. I have been away for a few years and these questions are not rhetorical."

First: The Insurgents are radical Muslims who hate everyone who does not think as they do. They hate Jews and Christians most of all. They hate religious freedoms.

Americans believe in religious freedoms and many other freedoms. Radical Muslims will not rest until every country on the planet is Muslim. This has been going on since Ishamel and Isaac were born. Two nations were formed and it was promised that they would forever be enemies.

Geez, don't you read any history books??

If you haven't noticed, these insurgents are not just from inside Iraq. They are not just killing Americans. They are killing everyone who does not agree with them. Nick Berg was a Muslim convert! Yet they did not hesitate to slice off his head.

That is the enemy our soldiers are fighting. Freedom for Iraqis sends a strong message to these radical Muslims: It is possible for Muslims to live in democracy peacefully. But the radical Muslims do not believe this because they want to have complete control over all Muslims everywhere. So, therefore, anyone who also believes that no Muslim can live in a democratic state is in agreement with the enemy our soldiers are facing.

That strengthens the enemy's fight and emboldens them.

That, in contrast, weakens our military's mission and their morale....which also helps the enemy.

Think back to WWII: Americans stood behind the mission. No politicians were on the radio countering FDR or the reasons for entering the War. Instead, people were planting "victory" gardens and collecting rubber, steel, and other items in drives to support the war effort. The government (yes, the federal government) was telling, not asking, Americans to ration meat, sugar, COFFEE (imagine Starbuck's reaction to that one....) and other items in order to help the war effort. People could only fill up their gas tanks once a week or even once a month!

Imagine our president asking this of Americans today! The ACLU would be all over this.

Americans got it back then....the Liberals are trying to make Iraq look more like Vietnam because they were successfully able to turn Americans against the American figthing man and the mission: which empowered the enemy.

Iraq is not like Vietnam: no Vietnamese ever voted in a free election to institute their Constitution.

The spread of democracy helps strengthen America.

I hate it when people call our President an "idiot". I was in college last year finishing my degree and sat next to 20 year old guys claiming to be smarter than our President, who graduated with an MBA from Harvard(where John Kerry coudn't even get accepted...) one of the most difficult MBA programs in the world, and these guys were barely passing classes at ASU.

So, people say he is dumb because he passed with a C average. You know what a man is who graduated top of his class at medical school?

A doctor.

You know what a man is who graduated last in his class at medical school?

A doctor.

President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and yet he made the most unwise decisions of any President in our nation's history. He failed to take Saddam Hussein's threat seriously. He failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously. And 3,000 people suffered for this failure on 9/11/01.

President Bush, a C avg. Harvard graduate, took the threat seriously, and still does, and now eveyone hates him for it.

It is ignorance like this that keeps America down.

I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be Literal truth. If you haven't read the Bible, I suggest you do. It prophesizes a lot about the fate of America and these radical Muslims....

In case you are an atheist and have just tuned me out as a religious nut, I will end my post here.


Blogger Dorman said...

Both criticisms of my criticisms of Bush taken to heart. Understood. But keep in mind that blind allegiance tends to be the source of major factor in history's worst stories. There is never a time where my disillusionment with Bush changes my mission or my dedication to those I serve with. I voted for him the first time. And yes Jack, if I was forced, once again, to have such lousy choices for president again, I would forceably vote for Bush. Having said that, I used to be a die-hard Repbulican until a few years ago. The two-party system really has to be overhauled. I am not only a soldier, I am a citizen.

I've read many Hooah Hooah blogs that drip of blind patriotism and bush-worship (as with a cpt that was hit by an ied and in a hospital in DC). These sicken me not only for the sycophantic tone but also because they are dangerous. Conversely so are the blind-bitchers that do nothing but whine and blame everyone else for their sucky situations. Both attitudes can get you killed out here.

I try to balance it by having informed and intelligent debates, having only an undying allegiance to the pursuit of truth and freedom to express it. If Bush, Allah, or anything else find themselves in the sites, then so be it. Stand or fall on merit like I am always prepared to do.

Blogger Dorman said...

Artbyruth, thank you for entering into this debate, always great to have no points of view.

Yes I read history books, and may I say that maintaining only what you've learned in a history book in an American public school is shortsighted. As an example, Islam and Judaism did not start their rivalry with Ishmael and Isaac, Arabs and Jews did, according to the Jews. But they lived amongst themselves for centuries without any defined hostilities (sure there were wars etc. but no blanket edict out there to eliminate each other). Islam wasn't founded until around 622 bc. and the resentment of Jews by muslims was sparked by Mohammed's rejection as a valid prophet by the Jews in Medina. The rest was just justification.

These are not "radical muslims" doing the insurgency, and they are different from those doing the worldwide attacks. Both attacks are done by fundamentalist muslims, not radical muslims. Difference is the fundamentalists are NOT misinterpreting the Koran nor the intent of their religion, they are carrying out their mandate that began with Mohammed. Muslims that do not actively seek and fight the infidels are not following the path and therefore are not truly muslims in Mohammed's eyes. Islam is/was a tool to esily dominate a nation and subjugate them to Mohammed's will. One is trying to get invaders out of their homeland, one is trying to get non-muslims off their planet.

Ever travel to the source of the culture? I trust it more than a book, especially a text book funded by major american corporations. Even Cristianity is different at the source than it is in its americanized form.

That is partially the point of this examine what we're programmed to believe and discuss it to make sense of it. I am not afraid to be challenged or even be wrong as long as I am educated in the process.

Blogger Dorman said...

It is ignorance like this that keeps America down.

I agree totally. Bush isn't dumb. He makes ill-fated decisions.

Blogger Robert Chase said...


If you think he's an idiot, yet would vote for him again, that makes you a 'bushie'.
Speaking of morons, as long as DeLay, Frist, Santorum and the like are nominated/elected and the righties embrace scum like DeLay, Frist, Santorum, Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Coulter, Schwarzennegar, etc. then I'll gladly vote independant or dem.

I want a president that actually worries about this country and the problems WITHIN it, before he goes of on an ill-advised war with no clear exit plan or an idea what to do once we got there. To stand by the republicans or this president no matter how much he/they screws up, is blind loyalty. Instead of patrolling the borders with the national guard, they are risking their lives for non-Americans.

Blogger Dorman said...

here is an interesting post regarding graduate degrees: By the Rev. Billy Bob Gisher

Blogger Dorman said...

Upon request...since I respond quickly to reader requests...I have taken an informal survey of the soldiers on my site. (E-4s, E-5s, and E-6s)

Question: "Do you think the Bush Administration misled us (americans) on the reasons for the war in Iraq?"

Answer: "Absolutely"

Now, does that mean we are insubordinate or unpatriotic. Absolutely NOT. We understand our role and accept it because we volunteered to be here, no drafts. We understand too that the mess has been made and now needs to be cleaned up. Several justify our presence now by focusing on helping to secure the country...albeit a country we destabilized.

True patriotism is continuing your mission despite disagreement with policy.

Blogger rev. billy bob gisher ©2005 said...

uh, i did not realize who dorman was and i am honored beyond belief. this might be the most honored moment in my life. first thanks buddy for sticking your neck on the line the real way, because your country asked you to. i have been digging around on trying to find honorable men to stand up and fight, and one shows up unasked. please know that i regret that you are in harms way, and please know that (I am fighting in a much safer manner)for your future, and that of your children with my blog. i hope you live to a ripe old age, and when you get out of that buisness suit you are in now, i would be honored to have your help. sorry it's all marines in my family, but somebody has to be the tip of the spear.

semper fi

Blogger Abby Taylor said...

Wow. Glad I found this blog, via Rev Gisher's comment box.

I'll be back.

And thanks.

Blogger Dorman said...

If you are new to this blog, please understand this is not intended to be a Bush-bashing forum. Quite the opposite. Much of the conversation here is for clarification of our mission and validation of our (troops) actions. Some readers have political leanings which they voice and are free to be shot down or backed up.

But in fairness, yes this is a different kind of milblog since I am not a brainwashed automaton in any way. I am not the typical soldier either - college educated, older, previous professional experience before enlisting, chose to not be an officer. And in the past, those that have wrapped themselves naively in the flag have found their point of view unrelentingly challenged. None of the conversations here are personal attacks or reflections on anyone as humans or citizens of their respective countries. And one thing must be remembered throughout....I love the Army, but I don't have to love who utilizes us.

Blogger SnotSucker said...

If I have lost the momentum that drew the numerous commenters previously, then stay tuned for my redefinition.

Doesn't look like you've lost it. The rocking robots are still here duking it out!

Why did Bob cross the road?

...To get away from the Republican!

Blogger Dorman said...

How many Bob's does it take to screw in an lightbulb?

Answer: Just one, by voting in a Democrat that will create another welfare program intended to eliminate poverty and blown bulbs. But we'll all end up sitting in the dark with higher taxes because we all know welfare doesn't work.

Blogger Dorman said...

"knock Knock"

"Who's there?"


"Bob who?"

"Freakin' Conservatives!!!"

Blogger Dorman said...

And lastly....

Bob is your bus driver. 10 people get on the bus. At the next stop 2 people get off and 4 get on. At the next stop 6 get off and only 1 gets on.

What is the name of the president?

Answer: I don't know but it must be a conservative Republican because for Bob to be driving a bus the grant for the Natiional Education Association must have been cut as well as reduced teachers' salaries!!

Blogger Dorman said...

Can't resist -

What is the name of Joel's favorite band?


Blogger Abby Taylor said...

I'm one of the new ones here. And in response to your explanation of what your blog is, and isn't...

Gotta tell you, the whole conservative/liberal dichotomy doesn't work for me, despite what my blog might look like on the surface. I can guarantee, if Kerry had been elected, the blog would be full of Kerry parody.

I don't publicize my political leanings on my own blog, but I don't mind doing it here.

I voted for GWB in 2000, and then I was horrified for the last year of his first term. I was horrified when Kerry got the nomination. And I was horrified as I voted for Kerry, but I did it simply because he wasn't GWB.

I had hoped since Kerry had a reputation for listening to ALL sides before making a decision (a strength and a flaw depending on the circumstance), he'd listen to folks who knew the score about what we should do in Iraq at that point. (And who WOULD that person be at this point? McCain? I don't know, someone smarter than I am hopefully knows who has the real score). It was a faint hope, but still a hope.

At any rate, once GWB chose Iraq as a target.. in fact, once he made the statement about Saddam trying to kill his Daddy, I knew we were in some serious leadership trouble. I understood and supported Afghanistan 100 percent. I was opposed to going into Iraq from the time it was first publicly discussed. I remain opposed to it, but count me amongst the group with a strong history of pride in family military service and a full support of the people in the armed services who are doing the work for our country.

And in closing this lengthy diatribe, I'll leave this, borrowed from my friend Tina, to describe my basic experience at those times when I've written and published for a strictly "liberal" audience.

Me: "How many liberals does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

A liberal: "That's not funny!!!"

Blogger Dorman said...

Thanks Abby for joining the fray. Since living in Europe for a few years gave me an outsiders point of view on many things, American politics took on a new light. I fear we americans are mind-locked into a system doomed to diminishing returns, Since FDR, we have been on a downward spiral re: government. Now as candidates race toward the nanoscopic territory called "moderate", the populace becomes more alienated and unrepresented by an administration aimed at avoiding blame instead of effecting change. As I said previously, polarized views have only one opposition but centrists by definition oppose 2. No one wins when everyone must lose something.

So, I have removed myself from even the frame of mind of being an American voter. My last ballot was cast for GWB's first term. I sat and shook my head for the last election.

Abby, thank you again.

Blogger Robert Chase said...

Answer: I don't know but it must be a conservative Republican because for Bob to be driving a bus the grant for the Natiional Education Association must have been cut as well as reduced teachers' salaries!!

If that happens I could take this job.


Blogger SnotSucker said...

I never knew ;))) If you do have to drive a bus, I truly hope you pick the long over the short!!

Blogger Robert Chase said...

I never knew ;))) If you do have to drive a bus, I truly hope you pick the long over the short!!

Oh, I will. Even though your daughter thinks the short ones are cute! :)

Blogger brainhell said...

Well if you really want to get into combat, I hope (I guess) that you get what you wish for. I hope you have a smile and a giggle as Bad Things Happen Fast. And that you emerge OK.

As for Bush, many people are not very bright, or very well educated, and so they don't see through the rhetorical tricks he plays. Let me be clear: Holding him accountable for lying about WMD is not an attack on America, lack of support for our troops, or support for the insurgents in Iraq. Holding him accountable for lying about WMD is, if you must see it as an attack, an attack on Bush. The rhetorical trick he uses is to equate himself with America, its great cause, and our fine troops. He's got no connection with any of those three, aside from his negative impact on all three.

Support America, condemn Bush.

Blogger Jack Burton said...

I find it hard to believe that people are still carrying the argument that Bush lied about WMD. It's recently been proven that he merely said the same thing Clinton did, the same thing all the major demos were saying and the same thing the rest of the world was saying. Please tell me how that's a lie. How is it not a lie when Clinton used it to bomb them but now Bush is lying to do the same thing? The only person lately that I've seen that has been blatantly lying is Joe Wilson, and for that he gets a free pass.

The problem with our attack on Iraq is that the guidelines that we used, stop a threat before it's too late, applied to no less than 20 countries out there, and probably many more than that. Are we going to attack everyone that would knock us off they had the chance? Probably not. So why Iraq? Well, obviously Bush has a hardon for Sadamm.

So here's the question that I pose to the "Kerries" out there? If we pull out of the ME and really drop our neocon thought that we can aggressively add stability to the ME, will you support locking down our borders? Will you support tight security for anyone entering this country from the ME. Will you support deporting, instantly, all caught illegal aliens? Will you support denying them healthcare, education and other social services? If we're going to pull back and worry out our internal issues, I have every right to ask if the kerries are going to help make us safe.

Blogger Jack Burton said...


That's right, we're all not very bright and very poorly educated. As a matter of fact, I can't even write my name or count to 100.

The arrogance of that statement is almost beyond belief. You try and general thousands or millions of people that you know nothing about and many of which are most likely much brighter or educated than you.

I know exactly what Bush is about, what the rhetoric he uses is aimed at and what strings he's trying to pull. I also know very well what the left has to offer this country, and decided that given the two bad options, I'll take option #1. We didn't find the WMD that everyone on this planet thought was in Iraq and we underestimated the animosity that we'd find there. Obviously that's true. But I also think we've underestimated that barbarianism of the muslim world, and if anything, realizing what scumbags these people are is going to help our collective safety for the future. It's hard to imagine the things that have been done in the name of islam in the past several hundred or more years, but now we've a very clear and upclose picture. And I don't think that I'm willing to vote for the party that would treat organizations like CAIR as some kind of legitmate voice in the American mainstream. These people are traitors and deceivers and the democrats want to roll out the red carpet for them.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe I think you're not very bright and very poorly educated?

Blogger SnotSucker said...

Ummm, not every person that opposes Bush and his cast of clowns is a democrat or "kerry".

Blogger Jack Burton said...


That's exactly true, but exactly opposite of what Brianhell is saying. If I voted Republican, I'm a bushie in his book. So fine, all those who voted democratic are kerries. Sorry, you can't selectively choose who sweeping insults are applied.

Blogger SnotSucker said...

I totally agree with Dorman, there needs to be sweeping changes regarding the party issues in politics. I personally think the democratic and republican parties and their way of thinking should be done away with. It doesn't work anymore. They pick the richest, most appealing idiot to join their band of idiots and ideals. And we're all left with two idiots to choose from.
It totally discriminates against any third party or grass roots cause. IMO I think people should be ashamed to call themselves Dem or Rep with all of the BS that goes on in each party. I myself am registered as independent because I do not agree with the platforms of either party. My question to everyone is, if you don't like Bush, or Kerry why would you vote for them in the first place? Vote for the third party. Sure they're not going to get elected, but in your mind you can be true to yourself and say "I didn't vote for either asshole." Why give someone that you don't believe in your vote? If more people did this on a regular basis and they lost votes, it would make a statement to those two parties and eventually result in some changes. It really bothers me to hear people say " I don't believe so and so is/will do a good job, but I would vote for him again". To me, this mentality continues to perpetuate what is wrong with our party system and will in effect result in no changes.

Blogger Osamabincrackhead said...

Artbyruth do you really believe that the bible is a Literal truth? Must I remind you of the story of Balaam's ass speaking to him. Now I am positive that there have been alot of asses that have talked to man, but they are not that type of asses. What about the story of Joshua making the sun stand still, so that he could finish the battle? What did the writer of this story know about astronomy? I t appears to me that the author belived that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around it. Any on with common sense can rationalize that if the earth had stood still it would not have lengthend the day. The day is determined by the earths rotation on its axis. What about the Tower of Babel? Do you really believe that this is where all of the languages on earth came from? It seems to me that the author of this forgot all about the atmosphere. If they were really going to build a tower up to god they would have died from the lack of OXYGEN. Besides there is archeological evidence that different civiliztions existed long before the time that romancers fix to the building of the tower, even before the date calimed for the flood. I could go on, but why continue when I have already proven my point.

Blogger Osamabincrackhead said...

I realize that I posted my comment on this a little late in the conversation, and for that I appologies. I hope that Nobody holds this against me.

Blogger brainhell said...

> Please tell me how that's a lie.


It's a lie because he had evidence to the contrazary of what he was saying, and actively sought to suppress that evidence.

Blogger Jack Burton said...

Oh really, well please enlighten me. And don't bother quoting Joe Wilson, who is a bigger lying sack of shit than anyone in the Bush organization. Please do tell.

Blogger brainhell said...


What did you think of my point, namely that "The rhetorical trick he uses is to equate himself with America, its great cause, and our fine troops?"

If you don't like the word 'trick' then you can use 'device' instead.

I appreciate your interest in my comments, but I'm not able to respond to any possible chalenge, since I'm not an expert on all things, despite that it might be preferred for tactical reasons that I claim to be one.

Blogger Jack Burton said...


It's a lie because he had evidence to the contrazary of what he was saying, and actively sought to suppress that evidence."

That's what you wrote. For the benefit of everyone here, please show evidence of the above. A bi-partisan senate committee didn't find it, but obviously you have, so please share. I'm sure you wouldn't be repeating the same debunked crap that lying turd Joe Wilson has been saying without proof.

Blogger brainhell said...


I commented about his rhetoric. I've invited you to respond on that. You've neglected to do so. I sense that you are trying to drag me into some terrain more favorable to your MO. How soon, for instance, before you designate me a "turd" too?

Besides, I don't even know what 'contrazary' means. It sounds like like some nonsense the presidunce would say, don't it?

Blogger Jack Burton said...


While I'm not a great speller, you do realize that I just copied and pasted what you wrote, including "contrazary"? Anyway, doesn't matter.

You wrote something about Bush suppressing evidence and the like and I don't think it's very prudent to do so unless you have facts to back that up. Then you're just a another lefty spouting something you read on the daily kos without any proof whatsover. And of course your credibility goes away with it. I'm not trying to direct this to something that I'm on better ground with, I'm just asking for you to back up exactly what you wrote just a few posts prior. I've read a great deal on this subject and not once has anything been produced that shows that Bush saw any intelligence that contradicted what Clinton used to attack Iraq repeatedly and for all the major dems to support the use of force resolution. No matter how many times someone tells a lie , it won't ever be true.

Yeah Bush uses dumb rhetoric, but go ahead and name me one politician or their supporters that doesn't. I think the Clinton's did more than their fair share of it during those 8 years and are still doing it daily. Anything to defend their complete lack of moral compass in my book.

By the way, I don't get real worked up when the Commander in Chief of the United States of America equates himself with our troops and the US. Last time I checked, that's well within the bounds of the President, as he was elected to lead this Country and serve as Commander in Chief of all armed forces.

Blogger brainhell said...


Thanks for responding to my point about his rhetoric I don't think it's "dumb" -- far from it. The people who write this stuff for him are smart, and they know how to confuse the public. It's smart, and it works. On you, for example.

You seem to be saying that because Clinton said Saddam had WDM, then Bush could not have been lying. Here's another quote:

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

That was FDR, not Clinton. Are we still at war with Japan? My point is that over time, the facts change. Bush had lots of evidence and analysis from the intelligence people that indicated doubt over whether Saddam had WMD in 2003. All of that evidence and analysis was screened and cherry-picked to distort in into the case for war that Bush demanded, for example, forcing people like Tenet to tell him what he wanted. The process for determining the facts was under way when Bush stopped it. He didn't want the facts to undercut his reason for the invasion.

He knowingly lied.

You've argued that a president can claim to be representing America, and that's true, but it's not responsive to my point. What I've said is that he equates doubts about himself, political attacks on himself, with attacks on America. You called that "dumb," but then you agreed with it. Hmm...

Blogger Jack Burton said...

Do you just make shit up as you go?

"Bush had lots of evidence and analysis from the intelligence people that indicated doubt over whether Saddam had WMD in 2003. All of that evidence and analysis was screened and cherry-picked to distort in into the case for war that Bush demanded, for example, forcing people like Tenet to tell him what he wanted."

I've asked you repeatedly to present your evidence of this, and repeatedly you fail to present anything. "Lots of evidence"? - wow, I bet that knocked the socks off the debate team competition.

I know, you're too smart to fall for those dumb tricks like silly old me, but for the life of me I can't find a shred of evidence from you to back up any of this. Help me out here, I've got drool all over my screen and the glare from my Bush 04 neon light in the background is really blinding - I'm sure you've got something from say, a bi-partisan senate report on the matter?

It's just laughable that you'll make your arrogant little "fooled you didn't he" commentary and keep changing subjects but the fact remains that you haven't, or more likely can't, present a damn thing to prove your comments.

As for the WWII FDR quote, are you kidding. Is that the best you can come up with to defend Clinton? I guess you won't be able to cry about the whole "Reagan supported Iraq in the early 80's" crap so how can we be attacking them now.

"Waah, I have pictures of Rumsfield shaking Sadamms hand."

No worries my little lefty, Brainhell has assured me that things change, so don't use that for anything.

Right after Clinton bombed Iraq, illegally I would say, based on your current commentary, Sadamm tossed out the weapons inspectors. I can't blame him, based on the illegal and highly immoral attack by Clinton. Picking up with the Bush administration, is a regime, illegally bombed by Clinton because he posed no threat to the US and no UN weapons inspections in the interim. With absolutely no evidence that anything had changed and the backing of all the major democratic senators, Bush decided to do as Clinton had done and attack Iraq. Same intelligence, same world opinion.

Of course, there's a few key differences. 1) He's a Republican, which makes everything he does wrong - despite the fact that he's doing the exact same thing the democrat before him did and the exact thing endorsed by senate resolution by such hawks as Hillary and Kerry. 2) Unlike Clinton, Bush actually went for the permanent solution rather than bomb camels and aspirin factories. I guess if Clinton didn't despise the military we'd all be doing the "Clinton lied, people died thing", except the people protesting would actually have to take vacation because they have jobs.

I understand you think you're too smart for me and that's fine, I'm pretty secure with what I know so I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over your opinion. But please, try for just this one time to actually present a fact or even two to backup what you've been saying. This isn't the democratic underground, and it's not your little lefty echo chamber.

Please feel free to send your "evidence" that Bush lied to the NYT, I'm sure they're dying for the scoop. Just because we're buddies here, you just post it and I'll send it for you.

Blogger brainhell said...


Using rhetoric, I myself could defend everything Bush has done. Imagine flipping your argument in favor of Clinton and against Bush and you'll see that it works equally well either way. However, my conclusion, and the conclusion of history, is that Bush lied. You can call that just an opinion. Beneath your shower of personal attacks and baiting, I see revealed your opinion, too. But we differ.

Blogger Jack Burton said...

Still not a shred of evidence, although the world will be mighty impressed with "my conclusion". The arrogance of someone without a single fact to backup the statement that "the conclusion of history, is that Bush lied" is truly breathtaking.

I hope that you'll find redemption the next time someone challenges your democratic underground talking points by actually providing some facts. As for me, you've wasted far too much of my time with this unsubstantiated garbage. I think you'll find a much more receptive audience over at the daily kos, and won't have to provide a single fact to backup your claims. Based on the zero facts you've provided here, you might want to stick with that.

Blogger brainhell said...


One of the techniques I notice that you use is to belittle a given opinion because it might be shared by others, e.g. daily kos, democratic underground, talking points, etc. Where I come from, an opinion being widely held is a sign of merit. I wouldn't want to ridicule your opinions by claiming that they are the same as those from the White House and GOP talking points.

You are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.

Blogger Jack Burton said...

"Where I come from, an opinion being widely held is a sign of merit."

Would that be Nazi Germany?

Blogger brainhell said...

Widely held by sincere, open-minded people, that is.

Blogger Jack Burton said...

Golly, I wish I was open minded and sincere.

Oh wait, that would mean that people who share your opinion are open minded and sincere, and I would imagine that people like me would be close minded and insincere? Boy, who saw that coming. Man, you have got to be on your toes around here.

Blogger brainhell said...

> Oh wait, that would mean
> that people who share your
> opinion are open minded
> and sincere...

Neat rehetorical device, Jack. There must be a name for that manuever. But I don't know what it is. You are attempting to insert a statement in my mouth, by implying a precept on my part. I was, however, rejecting your apparent implication that one must be a Nazi to agree with me.

You seem to be setting up ping-pong alternatives for me, where I am either evil or ... evil. I choose a third way.

Blogger Jack Burton said...

I was merely pointing out the outrageous stupidity of your statement that you're right when a majority of people agree with you. Just like the Nazis, the Serbs, Rawanda, Darfur and God knows how many other hell-holes where I would guess a majority of the people agreed on something. Killing people of course, but at least they agreed with it. I bet they thought they were open minded about it too.

Blogger brainhell said...

>'re right when a majority of
> people agree with you

If I ever say that, have at me. But what I said was: "an opinion being widely held is a sign of merit."

You are quite successful in making your point when you alter mine to suit your purposes.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home