Archive for Saturday, November 21, 2009

Nation has right to ask ‘why?’

November 21, 2009


It was a cold, cloudy day at the Dole Institute on Nov. 10, the time when Marines from the Lawrence area came together to celebrate the 234th birthday of the Corps. The center was full of graying veterans, young uniformed midshipmen from Kansas University and the choir from Lawrence High School. This is an annual ceremony in Lawrence and a tradition at the Dole Institute. As a Vietnam veteran, it is my one chance to see other veterans I have not seen since last year, or perhaps the year before, but this time it was a little different.

The main speaker, a Lt. Col. Glasco, gave the standard, traditional Marine birthday talk on how great the Marine Corps was, how today’s Marines were upholding the values and traditions in our current “conflicts,” displaying their honor and bravery. It was the standard birthday speech, which varied little from the past birthdays. However, today those words did not ring quite right; they seemed somewhat hollow, and a little forced as my mind was elsewhere.

My son, Scott, is a lieutenant in the Army, and he has orders to Afghanistan early next year. Now, this war for me is becoming very personal, and it is troubling, for now I have a personal stake in the war, as Scott is my only son. As a father and combat veteran, I know what war is and the value of children, and I do have some trepidation of kids going into harm’s way. However, this Afghan war is a little different, for it is one we have been fighting eight years, and, in my opinion, a war that probably cannot ever be “won,” just as Vietnam was a war “impossible” to win.

However, today Washington seems unable to come up with a strategy to end this conflict. The Pentagon seems unable to articulate a reasonable explanation as to its strategic value. Afghanistan’s government is corrupt, there has been in a civil war going on for 38 years; it is the world’s biggest drug trafficker, and its people are mostly living back in biblical days, ruled by warlords!

Even President Obama, seems unsure as to exactly what the next step will be over there, or how to proceed with our armed forces. He seems to be not sure of what even the next step should be, or exactly what it is we are trying to achieve.

Now my son would be going to this war without answers. This greatly concerns me, as I am sure any father whose child is going to war is extremely concerned for their safety, fearful of the possibility of their dying for nothing in Afghanistan. It is not unreasonable to ask for the reason they will be in harm’s way, and what cause it is they will be asked to sacrifice their life for.

After Glasco’s speech, he was making the rounds; he spotted my fighter pilot’s jacket with all the cool patches and introduced himself. As I shook his hand, I said, “My son is being deployed to Afghanistan next year and I have a couple of questions for you. Can you tell me just one good reason why he is going over there, and should he be killed, what exactly would he be dying for?” He responded to me, but didn’t really answer my questions.

I guess I should not have expected an answer. Then again, perhaps there is not one. But I don’t think it is out of bounds for a father sending his only son into battle to ask for an answer to the reason why. As a country, we are spending some $65 billion in tax dollars a year in Afghanistan. For that, I think we all deserve an explanation from our government of not only why we are spending this money, but also for how long, and how many more thousands of our children are we expected to sacrifice on our latest, perceived national altar of “honor”?

— Curtis D. Bennett, a former captain in the U.S. Marine Corps, is a Lawrence resident.


Richard Heckler 8 years ago

The cost per soldier is one million a year.

Drug trafficking keeps surfacing. That is an Afghan problem.

Many users live in the USA. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate a ton of problems for the USA and law enforcement.

Legalizing hemp would create a booming economy for local farmers. Rope,clothing,shoes and flooring come to mind. Also would reduce the use of toxic chemicals.

For at least 30 years there is this oil pipeline plan that extends from Iraq to Israel which goes through Afghanistan. Why are WE taxpayers expected to build and protect this pipeline for the oil industries? This oil does NOT belong to the USA sooo why don't we buy the oil from its' rightful owners. Or better yet why don't all of us cut wayyyyyyy back on our own demands = fewer dead people.

Richard Heckler 8 years ago

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke.

It would also create an end less and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia - a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001.

Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast.

The revival of the pipeline was first discussed openly by the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz .

The paper quotes Paritzky as saying that the pipeline would cut Israel's energy bill drastically - probably by more than 25 per cent - since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia.

US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.

'The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream and is now a viable project - albeit with a lot of building to do.'

The editor-in-chief of the Middle East Economic Review , Walid Khadduri, says in the current issue of Jane's Foreign Report that 'there's not a metre of it left, at least in Arab territory'.

To resurrect the pipeline would need the backing of whatever government the US is to put in place in Iraq, and has been discussed - according to Western diplomatic sources - con't

kcshankd 8 years ago

Uh, guys - look at a map. Draw a line between Iraq and Israel. Explain again why your comments have anything to do with Afghanistan? Move on to some other thread...

Capt. Bennet:

Extremely well said, I wish anyone had any answers. I hope the military is out of the armed Peace Corps mode before my sons are of age, but I have my doubts... its time to pick a winner, arm him, fly air/predator missions in support, and get out of the way...

Richard Heckler 8 years ago

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank.

The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.

The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan.

In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.[1] In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen.

Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

On 24 April 2008, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.

beastshawnee 8 years ago

The events that so shocked us eight years ago so that everyone was running around saying the world had changed, were accomplished by a secret, powerful element within our own government. This was done partly to open up Afghanistan for the pipeline, and some insiders say for the Central unintelligence Agency to grow and distribute drugs.

Richard Heckler 8 years ago

Thursday on Steve Kraske a reporter who covers the mideast extensively encouraged americans to become engaged in learning more about OUR government regarding international affairs. People around the world do not necessarily have disdain for the american people but for OUR government.

OUR government declares USA interests abroad. Oil to titanium.

Better idea. Let's just buy what we need and stop the war mongering and killing.

Cait McKnelly 8 years ago

Merril I love you and I love your message in many ways but quit spamming. No one reads it when you spam and you can't convince anybody. Small doses hon, small doses.

Tom, I have some questions. Have you done military service? Do you have children in the military?

pace 8 years ago

people have the right to ask, people have the duty to ask.

Cait McKnelly 8 years ago

Because Tom, it changes your perspective a lot when you've done military service and/or have a child in the military and know what it entails. They're the ones putting their very lives on the line for this country. Don't they have a reason and right to ask why? The Afghanistan/Iraq conflicts have now extended to twice the time span of WW II. It's fast approaching the number of years we were in Vietnam. Why are we there? What are the goals of these wars? Have those goals been met? Can they be met? Where is the exit strategy? Very simple but very hard questions.

Bob Harvey 8 years ago

When we left Nam we swore we would never put another generation of troops in the same position we were put in. Thankfully the troops today are appreciated and recognized but no country should use the blood of its youth on endless adventures with no clear mission.

The veteran has an appreciation of freedom that the protected can never know.

To the letter writer...Welcome Home.

jaywalker 8 years ago

God be with you and your son, Curtis. We need to get out of Afghanistan ASAP, there is no victory to be found there.

cato_the_elder 8 years ago

"Even President Obama is unsure...." Damn right he's unsure. He's the least qualified individual ever to hold the office of President of the United States, and he's got his far-left base demanding that we get out immediately and our military commanders strongly advising him to the contrary. The evidence is mounting that Barack Hussein Obama has begun to wish that he had remained a community organizer, or, perhaps, a run-of-the-mill college professor.

Richard Heckler 8 years ago

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions

What Can Be Done in Iraq? by Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.)

Text of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 18 January 2007

Strategic Overview

The role that US military forces can play in that conflict is seriously limited by all the political decisions the US government has already taken. The most fundamental decision was setting as its larger strategic purpose the stabilization of the region by building a democracy in Iraq and encouraging its spread. This, of course, was to risk destabilizing the region by starting a war.

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests. The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves. We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context. Here are the four major realities that define that context:

  1. Confusion about war aims and US interests. The president stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

  2. the destruction of Iraqi WMD;

  3. the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and
  4. the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD. The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners. Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established. This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely. Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims? And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims? And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

  1. The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al-Qaeda, not American interests...

puddleglum 8 years ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

God be with you and your son, Curtis. We need to get out of Afghanistan ASAP, there is no victory to be found there.

I agree jaywalker.

Thing- merrill has every right to comment on whatever he wants, as does tom and even marion. You have every right to ignore it if you want to. that's what this forum is about, that's what this country is about and the duty of the military is to protect all u.s. citizens from attacks upon our freedoms. Including freedom of speech. None of the three mentioned have any military experience, but the power lies with the people here, not the military (that would be North Korea). If you like, please go to an all-veterans web site and post those feelings-remember, they are the pit of foundation for dictatorships. the military serves the people here, not the other way around. kinda the same point that the letter is trying to convey...

czech it out: there is only one way to 'win' the 'war' in afghanistan. carpet bomb the hell out of everything and everyone. completely destroy the entire country and eliminate as many moving things possible. once completed, you can pave the entire country and make a pretty decent parking lot out of it. Then, we quickly leave. Or, you can sit around wasting billions of dollars and U.S. childrens' lives for nothing. oh, except government contractors get super rich off of the sales of helicopters and logistical support.

puddleglum 8 years ago

czech it out: there is only one way to 'win' the 'war' in afghanistan. carpet bomb the hell out of everything and everyone. completely destroy the entire country and eliminate as many moving things possible. once completed, you can pave the entire country and make a pretty decent parking lot out of it. Then, we quickly leave. Or, you can sit around wasting billions of dollars and U.S. childrens' lives for nothing. oh, except government contractors get super rich off of the sales of helicopters and logistical support.

tomatogrower 8 years ago

Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union, I guess we're next. Al Queda probably isn't there anymore, why not leave the warlords to fight amongst themselves. Maybe napalm the poppies before we go. I feel for the regular people there, but if they aren't willing to stand up to the jerks, then they have to live with it.

puddleglum 8 years ago

I thought Tom was always right?

naw, he lies a bunch... just like his supposed 'need' for a ruger magazine that he faked.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Bush lied about why he was invading Iraq. That is historical fact."

Ah yes, the old fallback - when Republicans analyze the intelligence and come to a conclusion, they are 'lying.' When Democrats analyze the same data and reach the same conclusion (and vote to support the invasion), they were 'lied to.'

poochie is the poster child for the modern Democrat: 'We're Democrats because we're gullible and stupid.'

"In fact, it was during the Clinton Administration when the most effective operation against Hussein was conducted. Operation Desert Fox. "

Glad you brought that up, poochie:

"SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, what we're - the purpose of the use of force here is to degrade Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, his ability to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction, and his ability to continue to threaten his neighbors."

"So the targets are related to that. They are those to do with weapons of mass destruction facilities with a security - command and control. And so the purpose of this is specifically to do with degrading his ability to - as I said -"

"It's hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to - you know - Saddam Hussein had the capability to - with the VX agents - to destroy every man, woman, and child on Earth. So we have a serious problem here."

"It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the U.S.-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM's inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the "degrading" of Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the "diminishing" of the Iraqi threat to its neighbors. But careful study of the target list tells another story."

Why, my goodness - you mean an American president actually LIED about his reasons for attacking a foreign country, using the premise of attacking sites that were producing weapons of mass destruction when the true purpose was to destabilize the government? (Oh, and not to mention to distract from the fact that he was being impeached at the time?)

And by the way, pooch - if Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, why would Senator Albright say something like "Saddam Hussein had the capability to - with the VX agents - to destroy every man, woman, and child on Earth"?

kugrad 8 years ago

At least now, 8+ years too late, we have "the right to ask 'why?'

During the Bush years, anyone who asked "Why?" about the Iraq war was called a 'traitor' asked "why do you hate America?" and accused of wanting sharia law to be imposed in the USA. The media never once asked why and acted like chearleaders. Anyone who asked "why" in these forums was vilified by the right, who strangely think it appropriate now that it isn't their man in office.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

Oops, meant to say 'Secretary Albright' in my last post.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

"you were never in military, so you have no clue what its like."

And yet, BeO, you voted for someone who was never in the military to be its commander in chief.

Brilliant as always, junior.

verity 8 years ago

Mr. Bennett, my heart breaks for you and for your son and the rest of your family.

I fear there are no answers to your questions. I never thought I would see another Vietnam in my life time.

We need to keep pushing our government for a coherent plan to get out and get out fast.

jumpin_catfish 8 years ago

I don't know why any of us bother to post our thoughts here because clearly merrill has all the answers.

But one thing we can all agree on, this war isn't going to end well, the USA doesn't have the right mindset. The fanatics will make any sacrifice and take as much time as they need to drive us out of their country. We aren't tough enough for this fight and the fanatics know it. Not tough enough because we won't do what it takes and we all know what that is, don't we.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

You really are an ignorant troll, aren't you, pooch?

Clinton did exactly what you accuse Bush of doing. His secretary of state told the world "Saddam Hussein had the capability to - with the VX agents - to destroy every man, woman, and child on Earth". Not that Saddam was working towards that goal, that he had the capability. The target list clearly demonstrates that was not his real goal. He alienated a lot of foreign countries by taking unilateral military action based on a false premise, when his true goal was to get Hussein. And worst of all he did it to distract from the impeachment proceedings.

You're nothing but a clownish troll, poochie. You can try to rewrite history all you want, but in the end, believe me, we're laughing at you, not with you.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

Well, Tom, look at the bright side - poochie's posts make merrill's posts look good.

puddleglum 8 years ago

tom, twenty bucks, do you want it or not?

notajayhawk 8 years ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"The difference between Clinton's lies of WMDs and Bush's lies of WMD is 4364 dead U.S. service men and women."

Ah, yes, the difference being like most Democrats, Clinton wanted to start a fight without the guts to actually follow through. Something flashy for the evening news, but not enough to get messy. High praise indeed, vertie.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

Ah, poochie, mommy late with your baba this morning? Is that why we keep being subjected to three-year-old tantrums?

Tom said you were obfuscating by accusing the Bush administration of something the Democrats supported and was a continuation of actions taken back to the Clinton administration. You yourself brought up Desert Fox as an example of a president taking action based on intelligence, and claimed the operation was a success.

Clinton's secretary of state very clearly defended Desert Fox as necessary because Hussein had weapons that could wipe out every human being on the planet. The targeting list clearly shows the true purpose of Desert Fox was to get Saddam Hussein, and also to weaken the conventional Iraqi military forces, the main function of which was to maintain Hussein's grip on power in his country. It failed, and you said a few posts back that there were no WMD destruction anyway.

So we have a United States president - Clinton - who (according to you) lied about Iraq having WMD and used that as an excuse to mount a military operation against another country who had not attacked us, despite the objections of the UN and the rest of the world (with the sole exception of England), when the true purpose was to destabilize or eliminate the Iraqi government.

You claimed in your reply to Tom that "Trying to say that Bush's invasion of Iraq was ... some continuation of Clintonian policy is ludicrous." Yet the facts speak for themselves to anyone that doesn't get their history from MoveOn (or possibly Wiki).

I don't particularly care if you believe both lied or both misread the intelligence or both listened to the wrong advice or both believed removing Hussein was legitimate enough purpose for an attack or both just made a monumental blunder. Both did exactly the same thing (except Clinton just did it half-aed and didn't follow though). What bothers me about whiny, uninformed, ignorant, piant, partisan hacks like you, as in Tom's original contention, is that you villify a Republican while praising a Democrat for the same thing.

So this is a really simple question, poochie - see if you can answer a simple yes or no question without spouting off another MoveOn 'history' recitation: Did Clinton mislead the people of this country about attacking Iraq with the supposed purpose of reducing the WMD threat when his true purpose was to destabilize or eliminate the Iraqi government? Yes or no, poochie.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

It was a yes or no question, poochie.

Too complicated for you?

Not that I didn't expct you to weasel out of answering.

jimmyjms 8 years ago

I love it! Tom Shewmon, proto-typical Republican.

Never served, no skin in the game, but real quick to criticize vets (y'know, the actually done their time kind) if they see an issue differently than he does.

Maybe you should run for office, Tom. You'd fit right in.

Mr. Bennett, thank you for your service, and my thoughts are with your family as your son's deployment approaches.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

It was a yes or no question, poochie.

Too complicated for you?

Not that I didn't expct you to weasel out of answering.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

"Porch should send a resume to Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers and Jim Hightower. Porch could at least function in some support type role, whether janitor of the building or a mailroom clerk."

Don't sell him short, Tom.

He's a big enough moron to be a writer for those guys.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"You've lost."

Looks like I won, poochie. You took the no-stones troll option and still couldn't answer a yes or no question.

For the record, pi**ant, I could care less if either Bush or Clinton mislead those foolish enough to believe them (which evidently includes you and a whole boatload of Democrats) about the rationale for attack. Removing Hussein was a worthwhile reason as far as I'm concerned. Bush succeeded at that - Clinton missed with Desert Storm. Tom was absolutely correct that you're a whiny partisan parrot who only attacks Republicans. The statements I made (and backed up) about Clinton are historical fact, pooch - but to you that's a 'success' to be praised when you villify Bush for exactly the same thing.

Thanks for showing everyone what a lying, sniveling coward you are, pi**ant. It's people like you that really make me sick to my stomach to be living so close to the People's Republic of Loserville.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

Hey pooch - gonna' answer the question, chicken****?

notajayhawk 8 years ago

BTW, pooch - as someone that didn't know the difference between public option and single-payer, maybe you shouldn't be criticizing anyone else's typos.

And what I was referring to when I said 'I won" was the bet, pooch - I predicted you wouldn't have the cajones to answer a simple yes-or-no question, and you still haven't.

At least it's easy to understand why you turned out to be such an uninformed malignant liberal, pooch. After all, most people get their political leanings from their parents, and after seeing how you turned out, your mother must have been quite the tireless champion of abortion rights.

By the way - are you going to answer the question, pi**ant?

notajayhawk 8 years ago

I'm glad you remembered the link, troll. Anyone can see the context the statements were made in. I made a response to another poster's comment on single-payer, and you tried - repeatedly - to dispute those numbers using poll numbers from public option. You're an ignorant clown, child, and no amount of spin is going to get you out of that.

Are you going to answer the question?

notajayhawk 8 years ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"Guts? Pretty easy to have the “guts” when it's not you who is risking your life. A lot easier to send others to their death than to send yourself. That doesn't take “guts”."

Perhaps resolve would have been a better choice of words. What I was referring to was the Democrats who rode the wave of public outcry to authorize the invasion (e.g.: "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation." - Hillary Clinton) but conveniently became pacifists when casualties mounted and the winds of public opinion changed. Nobody likes to see soldiers lose their lives. Nobody. But that's what happens in a war. And having been in one, you should know that air power never, ever won a war - eventually, and painfully, you have to put people on the ground. My criticism of former president Clinton's decisions in Desert Fox is that he shouldn't have started a fight he didn't want to finish. Just as our current president, who called Afghanistan the 'right' war and one we should be fighting and must win, starts waffling on whether to send troops to back up those statements.

It would be nice to live in a world where there are no wars. We don't. It would be nice if they were fought with paintballs or lasers and receivers like in training. That's not how they happen. I respect your disagreement with the justification for the war, and you seem genuine enough that I hope that applies to all wars (although one might wonder why you served, then). But I can't respect those who authorize the bombing another country just for soundbites on the evening news and then run away when it starts to look bad.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Good night, notajayhawk. There's no meat left on your bones."

Still can't answer the simple yes-or-no question, eh, punk? Keep that tail firmly between your legs while you run away, child. Come back when you can figure it out.

Paul R Getto 8 years ago

"9/11 was a 'stimulus package' kind of like Pearl Harbor."=== Good point, and it saved W's presidency. Otherwise he would have spent is term trying to save the zygotes. The Military Industrial Complex, which owns both parties, is salivating at the endless war we are creating. We can test lots of weapons and grind up the people for no good reason, but, the right people will get no-bid government contracts and the stock share prices will tend to stay up for the MIC companies. What's wrong with that?

notajayhawk 8 years ago

You are such a lowlife, poochie. It's no surprise mommy didn't let you out of the basement until this late when the neighbors can't see what she's done.

What kind of a lying troll posts someone else's comment and takes credit for it to try (unsuccessfully) to win an argument on a message board, slime? I notice you left out the link this time, so let me refresh your memory:

1 October 2009 at 2:35 a.m.

Suggest removal


notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

(1) The health care reform initiative does not propose a “government only” system. You clearly don't know this or are willing to misrepresent what the current health care reform truly is.

Oh, it's just an unpalatable means to an unsavory end.

“I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer.” — Barney Frank

Not to mention:

” Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters favor a single-payer health care system. These voters make up a heavy majority of those who favor passage of health care reform. They view the current legislation as a baby step along the way to a single-payer system. Most Americans oppose a single-payer system and are seeking reassurance that the current plan will not head in that direction. ”

That's the entire post, maggot, including the "Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says… " that you coveniently omitted. Pilgrim quoted you (denying a government takeover of healthcare) in his post, and I was clearly replying to his quote from Barney Frank.

really, pooch - seriously, get some freakin' help. I mean, I've seen some trolls on these message boards, but claiming someone else's commects as your own, you're an entirely new level of a worthless POS.

By the way, maggot, you still haven't answered the question. It was a yes or no. I can understand you not wanting to say yes and admit Tom was absolutely correct about you, but I can't understand your reluctance to say no - it certainly wouldn't be the first time you were proven to be an idiot and a liar on these boards.

But claiming someone else's comment as your own - what kind of an outhouse diving bottom feeder are you, poochie?

notajayhawk 8 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

leedavid 8 years ago

Yes let us get out of Afghanistan immediately. Let the Taliban resume control of the country. We can talk to them and they will have a new found love for the west. We can pass that problem and the economy to our grandchildren to solve. The kids graduating today are smarter than we were when we graduated, they will think of something.

Satirical 8 years ago


Soon you will realize what many of us have already concluded - porch_person is an internet troll who refuses to answer direct questions, refuses to admit 'A' is different than 'B' when it disproves his argument, and thinks having the last word means he is right.

In other words, he should be ignored. But its up to you.

Satirical 8 years ago

Porch_person's modus operandi when confronting opposing viewpoints:

(Step 1) Quote something completely random the opponent says. It doesn’t have to be a full sentence or more than 5 words . (Step 2) Claim their quote should be interpreted to mean s/he supports ‘X’ ('X' = anything you want, like paving the streets with post-notes. Similar to how porchie claims you say something, even when he quoted your saying the exact opposite. It really doesn't matter what 'X' is, as long as it is ridiculous, and keeps the opponent on the defensive to distract from the fact you can't back up your argument). Alternatively, repeat step 1, and using the two random quotes claim they contradict each other.

(Step 3) Mock opponent for believing ‘X’

(Step 4) When opponent claims s/he didn’t say that, respond by stating that you quoted him/her directly (even though when you paraphrase the statement it isn’t anything close to what s/he actually said)

(Step 5) Insert “(laughter)”

(Step 6) If opponent continues to claim s/he didn’t say ‘X,’ use a specious analogy.

(Step 7) If opponent continue to respond, claim s/he is “in Garfinkel mode” trying to get away from the fact he said ‘X,’ and/or contradicted himself. But never explain how the quote you randomly pulled is anything close to ‘X.’ And never respond to his/her questions.

(Step 8) Insert “(laughter)”

(Step 9) If this does not work engage in personal (attacks) by making up facts about opponent, again using random quotes, as described in Step 1

(Step 10) Repeat until you have lost all credibility on the issue.

shockchalk 8 years ago


Thank you for the simple explanation of how porch_person engages in on-line discussions. He has always struggled with the truth and therefore, resolves to namecalling and lies. And yes, he always loses credibility once he starts the attack.............laughter indeed..........for all of us.

jonas_opines 8 years ago

Which perhaps begs the question of why you bother. I suppose it's the entertainment value.

jonas_opines 8 years ago

or perhaps the path of least resistance in action.

gogoplata 8 years ago

Those who continue to say the troops are fighting for us, or fighting for our freedom need to stop. Lets tell the truth. They are not fighting for us or our freedom. Maybe if more people had the courage to declare this truth joining the military would be less attractive to some of these young guys. Sure the ones who join for other reasons would still sign up but the ones who think they are doing something honorable when they go fight in Iraq and Afghanistan should be told the truth. It is not honorable to be a part of an aggressive military force that invades countries and starts wars. It is not honorable to murder men defending their country we invaded because someone labeled them insurgents. Clinton lied, Bush lied, Obama lied. So what? What do you expect from politicians. Stop the partisan bickering. They are all FOS. It is the people against Washington. We the people need to demand that these men and women who were duped into joining the military be taken out of harms way. It is time to end the wars. Bring them home now.

Satirical 8 years ago


Without getting into your obviously failed logic that it isn't honorable to try to establish a peaceful democratic nation in a country that was ruled by a brutal regime which harbored terrorist responsible for the death of thousands of innocent American lives...

The latest from Obama is that troop levels are going up in Afghanistan:

"Obama Says He Intends to ‘Finish the Job’ in Afghanistan"

Always remember: everyone else is naive and wrong, and only YOU know what is "really" going on...

Satirical 8 years ago

Let me throw a bone to the liberals out there. They should find this pretty funny.

"Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be"

gogoplata 8 years ago

Without getting into your obviously failed logic that it isn't honorable to try to establish a peaceful democratic nation in a country that was ruled by a brutal regime which harbored terrorist responsible for the death of thousands of innocent American lives…

It is not honorable. Nothing failed about my logic. Now if that reason was given to the American people as our reasons for declaring war, the people were for it, then the congress declared war at least then it would be constitutional. We were lied into war. The phoney WMDs were the casus belli our corrupt government used to provoke fear and get the people behind another immoral, unconstitutional war.

gogoplata 8 years ago

Always remember: everyone else is naive and wrong, and only YOU know what is “really” going on…

Always remember: everyone who believes somthing you don't must be crazy and thinks that everyone else is naive and wrong and that only they know what is "really" going on.

Satirical 8 years ago

Gogoplata… “We were lied into war. The phoney WMDs were the casus belli our corrupt government used to provoke fear and get the people behind another immoral, unconstitutional war.”

When did the U.S. talk about phoney WMDs in relation to Afghanistan? You need to get straight why you oppose U.S. involvement in Iraq (which we winding down because we won), and why you oppose U.S. involvement Afghanistan. Bennett is writing about Afghanistan, not Iraq.

You claimed “Sure the ones who join for other reasons would still sign up but the ones who think they are doing something honorable when they go fight in Iraq and Afghanistan should be told the truth. It is not honorable to be a part of an aggressive military force that invades countries and starts wars.”

So, again, I ask you – what do WMD’s have to do with Afghanistan? Or were you just reaching into your bag of anti-war empty rhetoric to support an ill-conceived argument? You may not care that thousands of Americans died on 9/11 or think that nothing can be done to prevent it from occurring again, but many people, including Obama, disagree. And people wonder why history repeats itself so often...

notajayhawk 8 years ago


Strange - it was late last night, but I don't recall referring to him by anything I haven't called him in the past. I do recall asking him why he was so reluctant to answer the question yes or no. I said I could understand his not wanting to say 'yes' since it would prove Tom's original point that he is selectively citing history and skewing his interpretations to fit his liberal dogma. But I couldn't understand why he would be reluctant to say no - it certainly wouldn't be the first time he's been caught lying or being the fool.

In any event, this is a new low, even for the pooch_troll - stealing someone else's post, omitting their tagline, and trying to pass it off as his own. Quite the bottom feeder..


Thanks, got that. :) Actually, I find it relaxing to banter with the troll. It's amusing to watch him try to spin, working himself into a maniacal lather and accomplishing nothing more than proving what a partisan hack he is.

It does make one feel guilty, though - sort of like winning a footrace against a double-amputee. And there are times when he reminds me of those pictures from Vietnam of the Buddhist monks practicing self-immolation; it's horrifying, but somehow you just can't pull your eyes away...

Loved your analysis, though, you really pegged him. Mind if I keep that next to a copy of my just-another-boohoozo primer?

gogoplata 8 years ago

I thought when you were talking brutal regime you meant Iraq.

The problem is with Afghanistan is that the terrorists that attacked us were not being harbored in Afghanistan. 15 were from Saudi,1 from Egypt, 1 Lebanese, and 2 from the UAE. They were harbored in Spain, Germany, and even trained in the USA. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. So starting a war with a Nation is not the best way to handle a criminal offense like terrorism as we can clearly see. We will not win this war. We will continue to piss away american lives and american money (by the trillions). Its funny you mention the lives of innocent americans because a large number of the families of those who lost their lives that day don't even believe in the official version of what happened on 9/11. The first attack on the trade center was treated like a criminal case. The 2nd attack should have been handled the same way.

notajayhawk 8 years ago


Actually, in scrolling back up, it looks like the pooch objected to a coupla' my posts.

Go figure.

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

"We were lied into war. The phoney WMDs were the casus belli our corrupt government used to provoke fear and get the people behind another immoral, unconstitutional war. "

So I'll ask you the same question I've been trying to get pooch_person to answer. Yes or no: Did Bill Clinton misrepresent his reasons for bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox, purporting to be attacking WMD-related sites when the true purpose was to decapitate or at least destabilize the Iraqi leadership?

notajayhawk 8 years ago

Awwwww, we ran poor poochie off. What a shame. Yes, poochie, we do celebrate every time you get beat down.

Have fun, little weasel. Come back when you can find someone else's posts to try to pass off as your own, lowlife.

And he STILL didn't answer the question - go figure.

notajayhawk 8 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 12 months ago

This is whacko thinking, a waste of human resources and the USA economy!

"Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination”

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness.

Elliott Abrams / Gary Bauer / William J. Bennett / Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney / Eliot A. Cohen / Midge Decter / Paula Dobriansky / Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg / Francis Fukuyama / Frank Gaffney / Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan / Zalmay Khalilzad / I. Lewis Libby / Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle / Peter W. Rodman / Stephen P. Rosen / Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld / Vin Weber / George Weigel / Paul Wolfowitz

Behind the scene:

Newt Gingrich / George Herbert Walker Bush / James Baker

Richard Heckler 7 years, 12 months ago

Repubs in power = reckless thinking and reckless spending. This kind of thinking has never been present in campaign speeches or revealed in the our news media. WHY NOT? Sort of appears as though the mideast occupation has been on their secret table for quite some time.

June 3 1997

“Rebuilding America's Defences,” openly advocates for total global military domination”

"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.

But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership OR THE COSTS that are associated with its exercise."

“Rebuilding America's Defences,” openly advocates for total global military domination”

Commenting has been disabled for this item.