At a time when unprecedented debate about the war in Iraq is taking place on Capitol Hill, Sen. Jon Kyl and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords visited the war-torn country this weekend to take a first-hand look at its "new way forward."
1. Comment by Harry D. (Dog Dude (Blue heeler))— February 18,2007 @ 4:42AM
Ratings:-0+0
Once again The Red Star is being dishonest to you the reader with this obvious campaign photo of Giffords that is labeled
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords meets with Brig. Gen. Keith L. Thurgood at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. The camp is a supply base for equipment going into Iraq.
courtesy of GIFFORDS' OFFICE
That is not "Giffords meets with Brig. Gen. Keith L. Thurgood at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait"
Be that as it may we get this..
"It's up to the Iraqi people," she (Giffords) said. "There is no doubt that by sending more troops that we will be able to calm the violence, but for how long do we hold, and to what end, and when are the Iraqis going to step up and take the necessary steps they need to take?"
So if there is "no doubt that by sending more troops that we will be able to calm the violence" why are so many Democrats against it?
Because they want us to lose the war, losing the war by cut and running will help elect more Democrats including a Democrat President.
Getting control and handing that control over to the Iraqi people (winning the war) will help Republicans.
So Democrats like Murtha are trying hard to force us to lose the war. They are against sending re-enforcements to help your daughters and sons, hero's one and all because they want more GIs to die so they can stand on their back to sabotage the troops and the war.
I have no doubt that by adding more American troops that we will temporarily calm some violence, but for how long?" Giffords said. "The surge strategy is nothing new, but what we need to be doing is surging the diplomacy."
That diplomacy begins with Iran and Syria, she has said.
Once again we see Democrats wanting to hand Iran control of Iraq, yes Iran, you know the nation who is suppling the terrorism in Iraq. The same Iran and Syria who supplied the weapons used to bombard Israeli cities killing innocent Jewish children and women. Giffords wants to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria, you do remember the leader of Iran calling for the annihilation of Israel and the murder of every Jew on earth not very long ago don't you?
The Democrats don't care about that.
Why do so many Jews still support the Democrat Party that is helping or wants to help Iran who wants to murder all Jews?
The same Democrat Party who back stabbed the most qualified and honest politician in the DNC, Joe Lieberman, because he supported winning the war against the terrorists who want to murder every Jew on Earth.
Why do so many Jews still support the Democrat Party that is helping or wants to help Iran who wants to murder all Jews?
2. Comment by Scott B. (scoot)— February 18,2007 @ 5:32AM
Ratings:-0+0
Harry I've got bad news for you. By liberating Iraq we gave Iran influence in Iraq's politics simply because the Iraqi Shia and Iranian Shia have such close ties, and Shia rule Iran.
3. Comment by Vern T. (Vern T)— February 18,2007 @ 5:38AM
Ratings:-0+0
Wow, without that great insight above, I would have been fooled into thinking that the general in the photo with Giffords had a cloaking device that rendered him invisible in the photo. That darn dishonest Red Star surely fooled a lot of people with that dishonest ploy.......OR was it just ineptitude?
Typical ploy of some commenters to change the subject.....
4. Comment by Paul S. (paulc)— February 18,2007 @ 5:49AM
Ratings:-0+0
I think Giffords should stay there a year or so and find as many facts as she can. Go talk to some insurgents and get their opinions. Ask them why they don't give a damn about rules or engagement whereas our soldiers are handcuffed by ridiculous rules of engagement. And then she should think long and hard about either backing a massive increase in US troop numbers, allowing them to fight an all-out war or demanding all troops be withdrawn immediately and letting Irag fall back into the primal ooze. Because the way the war in Iraq is being fought right now, it's just going to drag out forever. And the rest of the world laughs at how this country can't seem to figure out what it wants to do.
5. Comment by Joan T. (roaxle)— February 18,2007 @ 6:09AM
Ratings:-0+0
Kyl says:
"Much of the violence that's occurring right now would never have occurred if it weren't for al-Qaida terrorists fomenting the violence."
In truth, all of the violence that's occurring right now would never have occurred if it weren't for the U.S. invading and occupying a sovereign nation for no reason.
6. Comment by Harry D. (Dog Dude (Blue heeler))— February 18,2007 @ 6:33AM
Ratings:-0+0
Get over it Joan 5, like it or not we are in this war.
The thing to do now is win the war not obsess over the reasons we got into it, which btw was not because of 911 but rather Saddam's refusal to live up to the Gulf War cease fire agreement..
7. Comment by Eric H. (ericharris)— February 18,2007 @ 6:49AM
Ratings:-0+0
Joan #5,
I hope you're not implying that Iraq was a tenable government before the US invaded. This is a man who tried to kill Bill Clinton and Bush 41.
Saddam Hussein did his level best to convince the world he was still in possession of employable WMD. Now our progressive friends criticize Bush 43 (and the world) for being beguiled?
Why do I get the nagging feeling none of this criticism would take place if the only circumstance that changed were that the President were a Democrat?
8. Comment by Joan T. (roaxle)— February 18,2007 @ 6:57AM
Ratings:-0+0
#6 Harry,
This is the first reasonable comment I've read from you in weeks. You are right; I need to get over it (though you seem not to be able to get over the Clintons...).
So I've decided to concentrate my energies on ending this war and preventing the next.
"No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn't know about the briefing and couldn't endorse its contention that the Iranian government's highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq."
"Embarrassingly enough, The Washington Post reported on its front page last Monday — the same front page with news of the Baghdad E.F.P. briefing — that there is now a shortfall of 'thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs.' Worse, the full armor upgrade 'is not scheduled to be completed until this summer.'"
"We know what Mr. Bush wants to distract us from this time: Congressional votes against his war policy, the Libby trial, the Pentagon inspector general's report deploring Douglas Feith's fictional prewar intelligence, and the new and dire National Intelligence Estimate saying that America is sending troops into the cross-fire of a multifaceted sectarian cataclysm.
That same intelligence estimate also says that Iran is 'not likely to be a major driver of violence' in Iraq..."
I vow to stop obsessing about the Iraq lies, and instead to begin obsessing about the Iran lies. We must not enter a war with Iran; our military is stretched to the limit now, and who knows who will end up rushing to Iran's side.
9. Comment by Joan T. (roaxle)— February 18,2007 @ 7:04AM
Ratings:-0+0
#7. Eric H. (ericharris) says:
I hope you're not implying that Iraq was a tenable government before the US invaded. This is a man who tried to kill Bill Clinton and Bush 41.
I'm not sure what you mean by tenable, Eric H. But this was a government that Reagan and Bush 41 supported and thought they could work with. And it also had sectarian tensions under control, albeit with grave human rights abuses to go with it. Still, I don't see how Iraqis are any better off today, and I know that Americans are not better off today.
This war has proven to be the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have hoped for.
10. Comment by Eric H. (ericharris)— February 18,2007 @ 7:11AM
Ratings:-0+0
Joan #9,
You are correct that the US supported this government; as long as Saddam only waged war on Iran we were content with his regime. Once he decided Kuwait would make a nice accessory he crossed a line never to return.
The unkind truth is that the Middle East will never be reformed, only pacified. Eventually we'll collectively realize that the only viable option is a region that poses no threat to the West.
11. Comment by Roger E. (#5851)— February 18,2007 @ 7:38AM
Ratings:-0+0
We need send Joan over to Iran, then she can make nice with the Kuds, Iranian National Army, Al-Sadr (who has run to cover with all of his Iranian-backed commanders), Hezbollah, Al-Qaida and all of the other cultural leaders who practice misogeny and the murder of their own children as models for the radical-left anarchists and George Soros funded fools to follow.
12. Comment by Kathy S. (#4593)— February 18,2007 @ 7:57AM
Ratings:-0+0
Who knows? Maybe she just wants to pick up a couple of 'traditional dress' burkas? Then she could parade around town and show off next years 'election year' liberal style.
14. Comment by Joan T. (roaxle)— February 18,2007 @ 8:06AM
Ratings:-0+0
#10. Eric H. (ericharris) says:
The unkind truth is that the Middle East will never be reformed, only pacified. Eventually we'll collectively realize that the only viable option is a region that poses no threat to the West.
On this we agree.
We can start by investing in alternative energy research.
And we need to start talking to Iran. Aside from Ahmadinejad, the Iranians show signs of being reasonable people, people we really can work with. They have a stake in a stable Iraq and are in a much better position to make it happen.
16. Comment by Michael K. (#4877)— February 18,2007 @ 8:16AM
Ratings:-0+0
Harry #1, there is a need for the star to spend some money and take another picture but don't you think there is a good resemblance to a certain astronaut who has been in the news lately?
Her comments well explain her qualifications for this trip. I hope this district appreciates what they have done sending her to D C.
17. Comment by Michael B. (#1967)— February 18,2007 @ 8:18AM
Ratings:-0+0
#8 Joan T - if you are really going to put your effort toward not having a war with Iran, then I suggest you start communicating about the leading war mongor towards Iran for the last year. The lone representative who has criticized our President for trying to work with the Europeans and the UN through diplomacy. And that person is......
"As the war in Iraq metastasizes into what General William E. Odom calls "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history," and the cost in lives and treasure continues to escalate, we are already being set up for Act II of the neocons' Middle East war scenario – with the Democrats taking up where the Republicans left off.
The Bush administration, for all its bellicose rhetoric, has shown little stomach for directly confronting Tehran, and this has prompted Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran. Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:
"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428
Oh - but maybe she really doesn't mean it - like her vote to invade Iraq.
So since we can't trust Hillary you suggest we should have some tea with the man calling for the elimination of Israel?
18. Comment by garry h. (#5712)— February 18,2007 @ 9:01AM
Ratings:-0+0
When they talk of first-hand look at its "new way forward."
Is this what they are referring to....
the Surge/Escalation
Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56+ people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week......
The twin blasts tore through the open-air market in the mostly Shiite district of New Baghdad. The death toll was reported by police and ambulance service officials on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media......
19. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter)— February 18,2007 @ 9:13AM
Ratings:-0+0
A good Headline this morning would have been, Giffords is missing in Iraq. I am surprised she did not take her adopted daddy, Lard Ball with her, seems he goes wherever she goes.
20. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter)— February 18,2007 @ 9:24AM
Ratings:-0+0
Erpesto Portillo Jr. is all concerned about Jackass Ibarra leaving the city council. The Erpesto does not even live in Tucson, but he is always whinning about what takes place here. Maybe he to could visit Iraq and become MIA, or rather Missing While Visiting.
21. Comment by Jane L. (#5022)— February 18,2007 @ 9:27AM
Ratings:-0+0
Both Kyl and Giffords would do well to pay attention (along with the rest of this stupid country..) to where the real terror is being done...right here in Arizona, in the form of illegal immigration and these people slipping through our borders to create havoc in the next few years. Socially we are being destroyed economically. Democrats are stupid, and Republicans stupider! Heads in the sand and no idea that we no longer had the country of stregth that we once were.
The more politicians LIE the more confident the American people are that they have our best interest at heart.
God forgive us for what has become of this country.
23. Comment by Jack L. (MainelyJack)— February 18,2007 @ 10:38AM
Ratings:-0+0
Taking Giffords to Iraq was a waste of lift capacity and one of the few random acts of kindness on the part of Senator Kyl that I disagree with. She has no interest in guaging our success, only in furthering her agenda of back stabbing the troops.
A commentator from NY noted today that the nonbinding resolution dissing President Bush and the surge that Giffords and Grijalva supported is the most disgraceful congressional action that has occurred since the Democratic Party untied to defend slavery.
Of course, if we could get her and Grijalva to go there and take a walking tour through the down town markets it might be worth the effort.
OK, wingnuts...hit the thumbs down button. It is what you are doing to the soldiers...thumbs down all the time.
24. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— February 18,2007 @ 10:44AM
Ratings:-0+0
"Look at North Korea right now," she said. "Here we ignored North Korea for years, and finally when we sit down with North Korea it looks like we will have a resolution." Giffords
Giffords cannot be taken seriously if this comment is any indication of her grasp on foriegn affairs.
We didn't sit down with North Korea any differently than we have for the past six years, under the guise of 6 party talks. In fits and starts.
There was no one-on-one diplomacy reported that brought on this half-baked "breakthrough" already denounced by "I am the Walrus" John Bolton, the previous stealth ambassador to the UN.
This "breakthrough" is the same charade the Clinton administration has been repeatedly taken to task for by the neocons (remember them?).
The only difference is this time it is the beleagured Bush administration agreeing to be blackmailed by the tiny terrorist of North Korea. "We'll send you billions in heavy crude, if you promise to lay off the nukes." Great idea. It's not like we need the oil.
Representative Giffords should engage her fact checker before putting her press releases out for public consumption. Her grasp of critical foreign policy issues is as convincing as her day trip to Iraq.
25. Comment by Chris M. (leftfield)— February 18,2007 @ 10:48AM
Ratings:-0+0
Harry, Jack and the rest of the war-backers,
How many more people, American and Iraqi, have to die to make the previous deaths justified? We went through this same argument over the American War in Vietnam; if we leave now, all the previous deaths will have been in vain.
Seems to me that the best way to "Support our troops" is to bring them home.
It really confounds me what short memories the American people have. I thought the legacy of Vietnam would be that we would never, ever get involved in another mess like that again.
26. Comment by James H. (#5248)— February 18,2007 @ 11:35AM
Ratings:-0+0
25. Comment by Chris M.
Chris, I'm not a "war backer". I was lied to by the administration, and bought their story or nuclear arms, and chemical weapons.
Now, we are there, and there is a big difference between this war, and the war in Viet Nam. The Vietnamese never had the ability or desire to attack us here. With the mess we have made in Iraq, there are now many factions that have both the desire, and the ability. If we leave now, they will also have the opportunity.
We need to help stabilize the government there, in order to prevent the chaos which will inevitably lead to a rise in power of Al Qaeda, Iran, and other groups that would like to see us hurt.
27. Comment by Bill B. (#4485)— February 18,2007 @ 12:08PM
Ratings:-0+0
Indeed, Ms. Giffords should mount a Tank or humvee and get out into the field, meet the people, see what we're doing, talk directly to the troops in the field, get some real facts about what these folks are doing and thinking.
Of course if she were to change her mind that would be the end of her short political career. So lets see who's rear she really looking after here. Will she go out and talk to even five real combat troopers, or just pretend that this is a fact finding tour and have lunch in the green zone and fly away saying I've been, I've seen, I know. Yeah I doubt it;.
28. Comment by vince d. (vinny)— February 18,2007 @ 12:20PM
Ratings:-0+0
#1 Harry re: Joe L.
Dems are increasingly aligning themselves with the Palestinian movement. At a recent fundraiser John Edwards said Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was the greatest threat to peace on the region. Silence. The party ended.
Last time I checked, Israel didn't say the were going to drive anyone into the sea.
30. Comment by Bill B. (#4485)— February 18,2007 @ 2:00PM
Ratings:-0+0
Chris M. From one Viet combat vet who remembers very very clearly.. and this war in Iraq has one thing in common with VietNam, folks like you. Your soft. Like I keep saying, hey you demo's cut the money, evacuate the troops now, cut and run you fools. Quit the nonsense echo chamber of, oh we don't agree, we ahhh want to make it known that we are sending a strong message of decent here.. ahhhh we're not supporting this and.. well you don't even have the stuff you need to fight a war and its your fault and your a lier lier pants on fire.. and shut up,.. cut and run or don't they have the cohones to do that either. You won't see it becasue the democrats don't want to carry that blame for the results of this cut and run for the next 30 years when it really gets a war going. Go ahead, make our generations day. When this next part of the war gets going after we abondon this one in Iraq.. oh man, its going to be here and the world will never be the same again. Let the games begin.
31. Comment by Bill B. (#4485)— February 18,2007 @ 2:04PM
Ratings:-0+0
BTW: Who was it who started the real war against terror? Ahh the guy all true democrats love to hate: Nixon! and who took up the flame from him... GBush.. and even Clinton a bit.. although he hated the military just like any good democrat. .. and ahhh Chris M.. I remember one more thing about Viet Nam.. LBJ sent me there. Yes it was indeed the great society.
32. Comment by Tom F. (NoBull)— February 18,2007 @ 2:13PM
Ratings:-0+0
Bolton banned Dezrtwulf today. Wulf is my brother. He said it was because he used the "*" symbol to censor his words. He also said it was because he used a "fake name" and that he was "vulgar". This "fake name" accusation brings up an interesting question. The only name I could think he might mean is "Dezrtwulf".
I didn't even know and obviously Wulf didn't know, we were expected to give out our real names as this policy seems dangerous as well as a privacy issue. As long as we register with all our real information, why can't we use an any online moniker we want? The way some people react out there you'd think it would be a no-brainer to expect posters to do this. The world's a sick place you know.
Anyway Wulf has emailed him and asked him for clarification on this "fake name" charge since no specific info from him was forthcoming.
He also asked him if he banned all those other people who don't even censor themselves and use the entire "f" word regularly for example.
Wulf said all he had to do was email him and say "don't do that anymore" and he wouldn't have, but to go straight for the ban seems a little harsh. Some will be glad he's gone but others who do like him will now have one less ally in the war of words against the anti-free speech crowd. Wulf may have come across a little mean sometimes but he never crossed a friend and he never left a man behind even when it meant he may not make it himself.He's loyal and he's true-blue. So if you don't see him again on these pages, keep up the good fight.
33. Comment by Chris M. (leftfield)— February 18,2007 @ 3:06PM
Ratings:-0+0
#30 & 26 Bill B. and James M.
I'm sorry you had to go to Vietnam. You can always find some differences between different wars. You can also find a lot of similarities; young people will die and be maimed in the most horrible ways, civilians will bear the brunt of the suffering, our country will be divided, old, rich people will send young and poor people to die, the munitions and supply corporations will make a lot of money, and, yes, people like me will be screaming for it to stop. There never has been anything honorable or glorious about war. I'll bet if your lost comrades from Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Khe Sahn or Normandy could speak to us now, they wouldn't be saying, "More killing, more dying, please. Nothing will honor our memory more".
And now we hear the same old arguments about leaving; "it may have been a mistake to start this, but it will be a bigger mistake to leave". I don't buy this now any more than I did then.
34. Comment by James H. (#5248)— February 18,2007 @ 3:28PM
Ratings:-0+0
28. Comment by vince d.
Vince, I'd like to see a link that supports your claim. The TotallyJewish web page has a different take on Edwards. They see him as a big supporter of Isreal.
Here is some of what it reports...
Until Israel has a real partner, according to Edwards, Israel has the right, and indeed the obligation to defend itself, and should be strengthened militarily, politically, and economically.
In a further display of support for Israel, Edwards went so far as to suggest that Israel should even be made a member of NATO, saying it was only natural that the organization would seen to include Israel next.
35. Comment by Joan T. (roaxle)— February 18,2007 @ 4:06PM
Ratings:-0+0
26. James H. (#5248) says:
We need to help stabilize the government there, in order to prevent the chaos which will inevitably lead to a rise in power of Al Qaeda, Iran, and other groups that would like to see us hurt.
The problem with this, James, is that the presence of American troops inflames the insurgency and the public in Iraq. If I thought there were any way we could help bring stability, I would support the surge. The truth is that Iraqis want us out; we should oblige them.
36. Comment by Joan T. (roaxle)— February 18,2007 @ 4:15PM
Ratings:-0+0
#32. Tom F. (NoBull) says:
Bolton banned Dezrtwulf today.
I am sorry about this Tom F. I have enjoyed some of Dezrtwulf's comments, but yesterday I thought he was out of control. He went off on NightHawk, and brought up some foolishness about a poster named Gina; he was over the top.
I was banned once--a case of mistaken identity--and I called Bolton. I found him to be a very reasonable guy; he admitted his error and reinstated me.
Of course, in the end, it is StarNet's house, and they may allow or disallow anyone they wish.
37. Comment by Bill B. (#4485)— February 18,2007 @ 5:09PM
Ratings:-0+0
#33 "our country will be divided, old, rich people will send young and poor people to die" IF You bought into this statement that you posted then you must have bought into a ton of crap that is being pushed now and then. (If you'd like I can post by ethnic grouping, area of the country, etc. all that were KIA in VietNam, your little sterotype is nothing but bunk) I don't need your sympathy regarding my service time in Viet Nam, I joined the Army and asked to go. Old rich people did not send me to this war, nor did they send the current combat troopers. Your view of its only the "old rich" so what they can self enrich themselves.. you must be some kind weenie bastid without a pair, you self rightous ass. Is this all you can come up with for an answer as to why this war took place, is this why you think Viet Nam occured? Hell you stupider than I thought... NUTS! is what I say to you sir.. you not worth time of day, nor have your earned the right to critize the combat veterans with your meal mouth "the old rich people are sending you the young to war at your risk for their greed", that is what your saying,... your a low class puke sir. Go have your peace demonstration, the better part of you ran down your mothers leg. Proud to have seved sir! Wish I was stil young enough to have gone this time around sir!
38. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)— February 18,2007 @ 6:11PM
Ratings:-0+0
#32, Commentator Tom F. (NoBull),
Please ask your brother to read this post. I hope you see this, and let me know he saw it.
Jorge J. was banned also today. I'm a friend and neighbor. He won't be posting anymore.
He believes that someone like Nighthawk, or the whole delightful group of degraders, filed a complaint against both of you.
They accused Jorge of posting threats against a political figure, and attacking Nighthawk's character. All overstated, and completely out of context, and nothing compared to what the your likely accusers have said to countless others.
Don't know if you remember bill b. putting him down personally (horse's butt remark), or gearhead offering to bloody his lip, or the numerous nasty, personal insults this group has hurled at Jorge, you and so many others, especially Nighthawk and his suspected aliasses.
Anyway, Jorge has responded to Mr. Bolton, and is waiting for a response. Doubt he'll be forgiving, if he wasn't with 'Wulf.'
Amazed they just take anyone's word, and don't ask questions first.
Jorge can't help but wonder if this group intentionally goes after anyone that annoys them, until they goad them into negative responses, and then turn them in. Bingo, bet that's one of their little tricks.
I thought the site was monitored by the Star, and was amazed most in this group hadn't been banned, but now we are pretty sure they don't do anything until someone complains, and then act without asking first.
I'm surprised at Joan T.'s comment, since Wulf might have been a little naughty yesterday, but that group is consistantly negative and putting down everything and everyone every day.
Hope both Wulf and Jorge get their privelages back, you two aren't the offenders in this forum.
39. Comment by Tom F. (NoBull)— February 18,2007 @ 6:38PM
Ratings:-0+0
Joan, as I said Wulf can get a little mean. "Passionate" is probably more like it. But I do know there were certain people on these pages that, when he first came on, demanded to know personal information about his military service and his units and who was his company commander, etc, etc, as though they had some god-given right to interrogate him. Then when he told them (Nightcrock) to go to he** because none of his personal stuff was any of his business the calls of "Liar" and "faker" and "phoney" and so forth began and they never let up until he turned the tables and went on the offensive back at them.
Just because NightCrock wants to brag about his (unverifiable)"accomplishments" in the last 7 wars going back to the American Revolution (Did you know Nightcrock was a scout for Washington?) that doesn't give him the right to slam other guys who don't want to talk about it anymore than acknowledging they were there. And I respect that.
Then it got to where, whenever I'd go on crock would slam me and say I was Wulf just because we're brothers and we sound alike and we both don't think much of him. Well it just got to be too much for him because now Nightcrock has managed to turn what was an honest discussion between people into something perverted.
And speaking of perverted, after he started getting tired of spouting his claims about me and Wulf being the same person, he himself adopted the persona of a girl named "Gina". He used Gina to slam us and praise himself. So yeah Wulf would lose his patience with that guy sometimes because of the "hypocrite factor". I think it's sad because he really did like this format and the talking and debating with the folks on here. Both those that agreed with him and those that didn't. He thought he'd be OK as long as he used the "*" in the cuss words, because some people don't even use those and don't get banned. Oh well. I also cannot wait to clear up this "fake name " mystery. The allegation alone makes me suspicious because it's as though someone complained about him. Because Nightcrock is the only one who ever called him a "fake" about anything and here he is getting kicked off for using some alledged "fake name". Strange.
40. Comment by Joan T. (roaxle)— February 18,2007 @ 6:39PM
Ratings:-0+0
re: 38. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)
Sophie S, Wulf was more than a little naughty yesterday and Jorge also went a bit overboard, but you are right about some of the other posters here. I am truly sorry that Jorge has been banned; I always enjoyed his posts.
Honestly, I don't quite understand why the Star takes this so seriously; I mostly find Harry D's rants absurd, but I often read them anyway. And when folks get into verbal wars, it makes me laugh.
41. Comment by Bill B. (#4485)— February 18,2007 @ 6:42PM
Ratings:-0+0
Sophie, you really think calling someone the south end of a north bound horse, or a horses back side is a serious personal attack? Mamm do you ever watch the senate or congress in session, far far worse is stated, in not such round about verbage. Or as you state we the "right wing conspiracy" oh man you got me rolling on the floor laughing myself into a cramp in my leg.. oh god, we;re all in this together in some plot.. what have you been smoking? At the top of this page is a filter system, i think it works pretty darn well. I've been called lots of things here.. I don't let it or me go to my head. This is a BB... hardly anything serious. Its more a time sink than anything. Oh do folks get hot.. yeah.. is it serious.. I would call this a echo chamber that is useless out side of seeing what and how the other side is really thinking about whats going on... say with this war. I hate to say it but this country is in some deep trouble, not due to the war, due to the great divide in the point of opinion.. god help us all.. but there again, its another divide, don't bring god into it.. That my dear is the greatest threat in my opinion. That they removed someones posting privledges.. I don't agree with that with even some of the guys I don't care for on this BB. Jorge.. I don't care for.. but I don't hate the guy.. lets just say I would'nt take the time to go drink beer with him, but I might buy him the beer.. you have a nice night and make some scramble eggs with those cracked eggs you say you have.
42. Comment by Tom F. (NoBull)— February 18,2007 @ 7:03PM
Ratings:-0+0
38. Comment by Sophie S.-
Just read your post about Jorge. What an unmitigated disaster. I am confidient now about who did what to whom. Wulf told me Bolton gave him an example of something "vulgar" he said to someone but he didn't put it in any context that Wulf said made any sense. Just "the most recent example " of something he said but not who he said it too or what that person had said to Wulf first before that remark, nothing.
I was living with Wulf awhile back and I noticed he was having fun debating everyone and I asked if I could get in on it too. He only had the one computer, so sometimes he'd come home and go post some comments and then realize I hadn't changed my log-in name back to "Dezrtwulf" and that got him p.o.'d because he'd look dumb. He and I both went on and explained the mix-up but Nightstick wasn't having any of it.That's when he scitzo'd out and did the Gina impersonation. Even a minute ago on the other page I addressed a question to "gina" and lo and behold Nighthawk came on and responded to it. He doesn't even try to hide the fact he's Gina now.
So Wulf emailed me this a.m. and forwarded a copy of Bolton's email to me. Anyway this whole thing could have been avoided with a stiff warning to Wulf but the whip came down right off the bat. It's sad because many people here actually would tell Wulf that they looked forward to his comments because they were funny or whatever. I know Wulf never intentionally tried to hurt anyone's feelings,except maybe in the case of anyone who would go out of their way to hurt him first. Wulf will give you the shirt off his back but once you have pushed him and pushed him so far then you've made an enemy of him and that's sad because I know he didn't want it that way. I called Wulf right now to read this to him and he says to tell Jorge good luck for him and hopefully he can at least get back on. I read and reread the posts to Jorge yesterday and I was wondering if the guy who threatened to bloody his lip was banned or any of the other insults were dealt with on the same level of severity. (?)
Politics has no place in deciding who gets banned. Ban the white guy and keep the native
44. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)— February 18,2007 @ 8:11PM
Ratings:-0+0
#40, Joan T.,
Thanks for commenting and the support.
Jorge wanted you to know that it got a bit 'testy' yesterday because 'the gang' was bringing up things he said weeks ago, and misrepresenting them, and people he didn't even recognize were attacking him personally. Some days it just gets to you.
Anyway, I'm making a last post for Jorge after this.
Appreciate your vote for a return, but I'm doubtful about Mr. Bolton's response, since it was really minor infractions, and you had to really reach to make a case against Jorge, but he did anyway.
Mr. Bolton seems just a little too happy and eager to ban someone before he has all the facts, in our opinion. Don't know why they can't give us a warning first, and a chance to respond, before they act.
I guess it's OK though for Harry to call Hillary Clinton a whore in their public forum. So much for anyone accusing this paper of being pro-liberal.
45. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)— February 18,2007 @ 8:14PM
Ratings:-0+0
Bill B.,
Thanks for proving one of Jorge points. I'm new poster, and yet you are nasty, rabidly insulting, and intentionally rude.
New meat, you must be drooling.
And, you've missed the whole point, which I'm guessing is your usual.
Jorge was banned in part for expressing his displeasure of Nighthawk's return, and hoped he'd go away again soon. (Horrors!!!!)
Someone complained about this, something definitely less harsh than telling Jorge he was a horse's behind, and low and behold Jorge says he believes it was your post that called him a horse's behind! Is likewise permitted, billy? If things with Jorge didn't "go to your head," why did you directly insult him? Tough one for ya, billy?
Jorge didn't run and cry to Mr. Bolton, cause he didn't think it was a big deal.
Apparently expressing displeasure with Nighthawks return is a big deal in your camp. Cry baby cry, make your mama ---- astonished.
Jorge didn't run and cry to Mr. Bolton when gear-less head wanted to bloody his lip in a dark alley, when Jorge had never directed anything at him. He just took Jorge's opinions personally -- you know, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Like you, Nighthawk, and 'the others' have been belittling, insulting, aggressive, etc., especially to new posters, and it seems forever after, if they don't agree with you, right at the get go. It never stops. You didn't have to attack my post, and misrepresent what I said, but you couldn't control yourself.
Then you go cry to 'the authorities' if things get to rough for you, when you folks have been the instigators, bashers, and trash talkers the majority of the time. You're probably going to take something out of context in this post and send it to Mr. Bolton, and I'll be happy to help Jorge send in some of your lovely, endearing posts.
Guess I've managed to sweep away those eggshells for you, not to worry billy boy.
Those little games you folks all play, will eventually be your downfall. Now that your little game has been posted, don't think other's won't follow your lead, and judging by the thumbs down you folks get most of the time, Mr. Bolton will be hearing a lot about you folks, I hope. Maybe they will finally discover why so few individuals actually use their commentator forum, that it's mostly just your 'gang.'
Does it make you feel important because you can upset people, is that your goal or need? Because there is no reason for your behavior or attack on me.
Well, now I'm understanding how one gets sucked into this nonsense, and the feeding frenzy you guys must go into for this nonsense. Goad, goad, goad.
One last comment, billy, the eggshells -- it was a take off of the old expression "walking on eggshells," not that I have cracked eggs, as you stated. The point was, Jorge punishment was for minor infractions, if that, and yet your group got him banned. Another grand example of your amazing comprehension.
You folks better watch for those eggshells too, if Mr. Bolton is going to ban Jorge and Wulf for minor nothings, you abusers are in big trouble.
46. Comment by NightHawk P. (NightHawk)— February 18,2007 @ 8:36PM
Ratings:-0+0
Don't get sucked in Bill. All they want is to play little child games. I just don't respond to them anymore, and it drives them nuts. That's why the mass amounts of thumbs down when ever I post. Just on the off note if anyone wants to learn about how they attacked that young lady called Gina just google Dezrtwulf and place her name after. Everything written on these blogs as well as all public newsgroups are recorded there for years. To include mine.
47. Comment by Bill B. (#4485)— February 18,2007 @ 9:17PM
Ratings:-0+0
Hello Nighthawk.. to be honest sir, I'm not quite sure why this is all being spoken about like its some bid deal.. I was trying to be nice to Sophie, but sucked in.. thanks for the warning sir. Its getting late, another day of work, its gonna be some kinda week. While I post here once or twice during a day, it usually early morning or maybe while I'm eating a sandwich at the office. I'll assume there are lots of folks who are retired that do this much more extensively, it'd be nice to have that kind of time. Oh man Ms Sophie with her.. your gang stuff.. gotta tell ya has me laughing.. simply because it is just so damm laughable that someone would assume it.. a gang.. oh man.. cut back on the coffee I guess.. I gotta go.. this has been interesting. Nite Nite Sophie.. and to think some place all this is recorded. What a waste of ram.
48. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)— February 18,2007 @ 10:50PM
Ratings:-0+0
#42, Tom F. (NoBull),
Hope this post isn't too late. First free time I've had this evening.
I understand exactly what you are saying about Bolton's email accusations. Jorge forwarded his to me so I'd understand the situation a little better before I posted for him. Mr. Bolton seems a little to eager to find them guilty on minor infractions, so there must be some really convincing, complainers contacting him, making things sound a lot worse than they were, and making themselves sound like the victim-good-guys, pure as the new fallen snow.
Wonder whose 'innocent' name they posted the complaint under? Wondering this, because if Mr. Bolton had looked at some of the other posters in this forum that day, there were more serious infractions being made by others, who Jorge suspects are the source of the complaints against Wulf and himself.
I feel the Star has really stretched to find infractions against Wulf and Jorge, which I too don't understand.
Especially after reading some of Nighthawks and Harry Dog Dude's posts, even today. Harry calls Hillary Clinton a whore in their public forum this morning. Guess it's OK to insult Democrat politicians in this disgusting manner.
Wonder if I'd get banned for calling Bush something as disgusting as Harry posted about Hillary Clinton, to see if they are favoring someone like Nighthawk or Dog Dude. Could Harry be Nighthawk too? Just a thought.
By the way, Jorge is an independent -- no political party affiliation. Just for the record.
................................................................
.
You stated: "I read and reread the posts to Jorge yesterday and I was wondering if the guy who threatened to bloody his lip was banned or any of the other insults were dealt with on the same level of severity. (?)"
NO -- Reason -- because Jorge didn't write and complain to Mr. Bolton about gearhead, the threatener, or any of the others. The Star isn't monitoring the posts, they waiting for 'complaints,' apparently from any source, without question. Thus, bye-bye Wulf and Jorge only.
I might help Jorge file some of those lovely posts, if they don't ban me too. I'm guessing someone will complain about my earlier post to bill b., that nice person that called Jorge a horse's behind and then implied Jorge (who didn't complain) was 'too sensitive.'
But I won't be surprised if they don't listen to me or Jorge, for the Star will probably think it's just unfounded retaliation, and I can't help but feel, like Wulf, something else is amiss here.
The Star is accusing Jorge of posting "PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OTHER USERS AND DEATH THREATS OR DEATH WISHES AIMED AT PUBLIC OFFICIALS."
Don't want to 'repost' word for word, but Jorge's "personal attack" was basically saying he wasn't thrilled Nighthawk was back in the forum, as some others had posted, wouldn't mind if he didn't stay long, and felt he dragged the forum down. Not particularly nice, but tame compared to many other posts I've seen, even against Jorge on that same page that day. I think it's more a personal opinion by Jorge, than a horrible attack on Nighthawk.
The other 'crime,' is due to a very OLD comment Jorge made about a Saddam--Bush/Cheney punishment comparison he posted when Saddam Hussein was hung, and has been taken out of context by pro-Bush commentators over and over again, by various posters, in various more recent articles, including yesterday's forum Jorge was banned for.
The death threats or death wishes aspect of Jorge's crime -- basically Jorge had expressed weeks ago if Bush/Cheney were FOUND GUILTY of 'murdering' our soldiers due to their intentional, misleading lies to make us believe we had to go to war with Iraq for our own protection, they deserved a murderer's death, even hanging like Saddam.
Yesterday, Jorge only stated he supported hanging for murderers, and didn't include 'convicted' this time, since it was as old, recurring argument the other's couldn't let go of, and unfortunately he didn't spell out, again, all the important points in this latest response to this tiresome, recurring, old rant against him on this issue. The 'death threat and death wish' is way over stating any of Jorge's comments.
Jorge said he's tried to explain this to Mr. Bolton, in an email, and is waiting for a response.
Guess Jorge got under their skin a little more than usual yesterday, and they used these two comments, without sharing any of the history that led up to the exchanges. Taken out of 'context' (so to speak), someone new could make the wrong conclusion, but a little explanation could have cleared this all up, but the effort wasn't made. Makes me wonder how well this paper believes in getting both sides to their stories.
................................
Jorge got a little hot under the collar yesterday too. The usual instigators were twisting his words again. Of course Jorge and Wulf were not the only ones in this forum that have over reacted a little, but they just never turned anyone in, and shrugged it off. After all, they do consider the source. Apparently, the others have been carrying a big grudge, and they found a tiny little in yesterday 'to punish' Jorge and Wulf. Happy little bunch for now.
Jorge is a good person too, like Wulf. Everyone has their bad days when we go a bit too far, so I hope Wulf isn't feeling he did anything really horrible, he didn't. Nothing to beat himself up over. Reading his posts made me laugh.
Certainly Jorge and Wulf did nothing as bad as 'the others' do on a daily basis of twisted mud slinging at Democrats, immigrants, environmentalists, etc., and posters like Jorge and Wulf. Unending negativity and attacks, but they're OK by the Star's standards!
The 'others' enjoy feeding the fire, and when it gets too hot back at them, they retaliate unfairly, in my opinion.
Like Bill B post to me, they are currently laughing at Jorge and Wulf, patting themselves on their backs, feeling they 'won' something, but eventually they'll bring their just rewards on their own heads.
Well, this forum isn't going to be the same without Jorge and Wulf. I hope Mr. Bolton surprises us and reinstates them. The other's will have to entertain themselves, with fewer commentators to attack. Maybe they'll get bored and start attacking each other.
49. Comment by Tom F. (NoBull)— February 18,2007 @ 11:06PM
Ratings:-0+0
46. Comment by NightHawk P. -
Yes by all means google Dezrtwulf and the Gina. You'll see how Nightcrock was just as full of himself back then as he is now. I'm actually glad I took you up on that crock. I saw how, in the same paragraph, you'd call Wulf a "wannabe" and the go on to say how "you don't bash anyone". Anyone else see the little hypocrite for what he is? As far as Gina's concerned and your statement how,"if anyone wants to learn about how they attacked that young lady called Gina". WHO exactly IS "they" Gina? I mean "nightcrock"? Or whatever name you're using tonight. From what I could see Wulf was constantly being stabbed for disagreeing with you. You'd start with the name calling and then he'd defend himself. What really perplexes me though is why you would actually WANT poeple to go back and see that Wulf was right about you the whole time? You invited people to go back and prove his point about you! That to me, indicates someone with some real issues when they don't even know what the consequences of their actions will be. I also saw how Wulf would be talking to someone and ask them a simple question unrelated to you or your other chick-name and he'd get like 6 TD's! It was especially odd too because he was talking to "friendly's". It's like,"well I guess Night-stalker found me again". Dude, you made that man's life miserable with you constantly following him around on his posts and using all 10 of your aliases to TD him. Especially when his statements were so benign.
50. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)— February 18,2007 @ 11:10PM
Ratings:-0+0
Last look over this forum, LOL, more untrue claims, and false 'high road' above it all postering now, especially when someone exposes what you think is hidden.
Don't worry kids, Jorge or myself aren't anymore interested in you, than you claim you are in us, but what you did to Wulf and Jorge, in my opinion was underhanded, and you're now trying to separate yourselves from your actions, or actions you support.
51. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)— February 18,2007 @ 11:11PM
Ratings:-0+0
Tom F., (No bull),
My posts initially started just for Jorge to vicariously touch base with Wulf's brother and discuss what happened.
I'm not going to continue in this forum, but I will keep this user i.d. open. If for some reason you need to contact Jorge through me, place a post to Sophie S. in a article you think Jorge would normally read, and hopefully one of us will see it. I read the paper online, but didn't post until today.
52. Comment by Tom F. (NoBull)— February 18,2007 @ 11:13PM
Ratings:-0+0
48. Comment by Sophie S.-
"Harry calls Hillary Clinton a whore in their public forum this morning."
Is this the comment you were referring to Sophie?
1. Comment by NightHawk P. -
"It's fun to watch a political whore trying to white wash their spots."
He had many people agreeing with him cause he got alot of those pretty purple... wait a minute. The purples are the "TD's" right? Uhhummmm, well he got 15 of those...... (?)
We've added a feature to the comments pages - the ability to easily add paragraph breaks, boldface type and a few other typographical aids to your comments. Launch toolbar
Use single or double carriage returns to put line breaks or paragraph breaks in your comments.
At the same time, we removed the ability to put HTML coding into the comments. People were misusing that feature by pulling in cartoons, photos and other copyrighted materials from publications elsewhere. We won't allow you to use our pages to violate other publications' copyrights.
We've added a story to the site that includes a few tips to resolve common problems. You can use the comment thread attached to that story for practice and testing of the markup tools: Go to story | Go to the practice thread
General Instructions
Welcome to the story comments section of StarNet. Here are some helpful hints with you:
You must be logged in to comment or rate comments. Log in or create an account through our registration system.
All comments are subject to our guidelines (listed below) and our user agreement.
Comment Reporting
You can report other users' comments that are in violation of the StarNet User Guidelines. Users are limited to three (3) reports per day and are not allowed to report their own comments.
Any comment that has been reported will be moderated by StarNet. The comment will either be approved or rejected. Approval or rejection is based solely on the StarNet User Guidelines. Comments are only able to be reported once and are not viewable while awaiting moderation.
If you are a registered site user and are logged in, you can vote thumbs up or thumbs down on the comments.
The total votes of approval and disapproval on that comment will be updated when you vote — including your vote and any other votes that have been cast since your browser last loaded this page.
Votes by users who have been banned from commenting don't count in the totals.
User Guidelines
We welcome your comments on articles, editorials, columns, other topics on StarNet or any subjects important to you. Commentary submitted to StarNet (www.azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in www.azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See terms of service for more information.
Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.
Don't violate other publications' copyrights.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. StarNet reserves the right to remove comments that violate our guidelines policy.
Giffords, Kyl visit Iraq to gauge state of nation, conflict firsthand
At a time when unprecedented debate about the war in Iraq is taking place on Capitol Hill, Sen. Jon Kyl and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords visited the war-torn country this weekend to take a first-hand look at its "new way forward."Once again The Red Star is being dishonest to you the reader with this obvious campaign photo of Giffords that is labeled
That is not "Giffords meets with Brig. Gen. Keith L. Thurgood at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait"
Be that as it may we get this..
So if there is "no doubt that by sending more troops that we will be able to calm the violence" why are so many Democrats against it?
Because they want us to lose the war, losing the war by cut and running will help elect more Democrats including a Democrat President.
Getting control and handing that control over to the Iraqi people (winning the war) will help Republicans.
So Democrats like Murtha are trying hard to force us to lose the war. They are against sending re-enforcements to help your daughters and sons, hero's one and all because they want more GIs to die so they can stand on their back to sabotage the troops and the war.
Once again we see Democrats wanting to hand Iran control of Iraq, yes Iran, you know the nation who is suppling the terrorism in Iraq. The same Iran and Syria who supplied the weapons used to bombard Israeli cities killing innocent Jewish children and women. Giffords wants to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria, you do remember the leader of Iran calling for the annihilation of Israel and the murder of every Jew on earth not very long ago don't you?
The Democrats don't care about that.
Why do so many Jews still support the Democrat Party that is helping or wants to help Iran who wants to murder all Jews?
The same Democrat Party who back stabbed the most qualified and honest politician in the DNC, Joe Lieberman, because he supported winning the war against the terrorists who want to murder every Jew on Earth.
Why do so many Jews still support the Democrat Party that is helping or wants to help Iran who wants to murder all Jews?
Report this comment
Harry I've got bad news for you. By liberating Iraq we gave Iran influence in Iraq's politics simply because the Iraqi Shia and Iranian Shia have such close ties, and Shia rule Iran.
Report this comment
Wow, without that great insight above, I would have been fooled into thinking that the general in the photo with Giffords had a cloaking device that rendered him invisible in the photo. That darn dishonest Red Star surely fooled a lot of people with that dishonest ploy.......OR was it just ineptitude?
Typical ploy of some commenters to change the subject.....
Report this comment
I think Giffords should stay there a year or so and find as many facts as she can. Go talk to some insurgents and get their opinions. Ask them why they don't give a damn about rules or engagement whereas our soldiers are handcuffed by ridiculous rules of engagement. And then she should think long and hard about either backing a massive increase in US troop numbers, allowing them to fight an all-out war or demanding all troops be withdrawn immediately and letting Irag fall back into the primal ooze. Because the way the war in Iraq is being fought right now, it's just going to drag out forever. And the rest of the world laughs at how this country can't seem to figure out what it wants to do.
Report this comment
Kyl says:
"Much of the violence that's occurring right now would never have occurred if it weren't for al-Qaida terrorists fomenting the violence."
In truth, all of the violence that's occurring right now would never have occurred if it weren't for the U.S. invading and occupying a sovereign nation for no reason.
Report this comment
Get over it Joan 5, like it or not we are in this war.
The thing to do now is win the war not obsess over the reasons we got into it, which btw was not because of 911 but rather Saddam's refusal to live up to the Gulf War cease fire agreement..
Report this comment
Joan #5,
I hope you're not implying that Iraq was a tenable government before the US invaded. This is a man who tried to kill Bill Clinton and Bush 41.
Saddam Hussein did his level best to convince the world he was still in possession of employable WMD. Now our progressive friends criticize Bush 43 (and the world) for being beguiled?
Why do I get the nagging feeling none of this criticism would take place if the only circumstance that changed were that the President were a Democrat?
Report this comment
#6 Harry,
This is the first reasonable comment I've read from you in weeks. You are right; I need to get over it (though you seem not to be able to get over the Clintons...).
So I've decided to concentrate my energies on ending this war and preventing the next.
Here from Frank Rich in today's NY Times:
"No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn't know about the briefing and couldn't endorse its contention that the Iranian government's highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq."
"Embarrassingly enough, The Washington Post reported on its front page last Monday — the same front page with news of the Baghdad E.F.P. briefing — that there is now a shortfall of 'thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs.' Worse, the full armor upgrade 'is not scheduled to be completed until this summer.'"
"We know what Mr. Bush wants to distract us from this time: Congressional votes against his war policy, the Libby trial, the Pentagon inspector general's report deploring Douglas Feith's fictional prewar intelligence, and the new and dire National Intelligence Estimate saying that America is sending troops into the cross-fire of a multifaceted sectarian cataclysm.
That same intelligence estimate also says that Iran is 'not likely to be a major driver of violence' in Iraq..."
I vow to stop obsessing about the Iraq lies, and instead to begin obsessing about the Iran lies. We must not enter a war with Iran; our military is stretched to the limit now, and who knows who will end up rushing to Iran's side.
Report this comment
#7. Eric H. (ericharris) says:
I hope you're not implying that Iraq was a tenable government before the US invaded. This is a man who tried to kill Bill Clinton and Bush 41.
I'm not sure what you mean by tenable, Eric H. But this was a government that Reagan and Bush 41 supported and thought they could work with. And it also had sectarian tensions under control, albeit with grave human rights abuses to go with it. Still, I don't see how Iraqis are any better off today, and I know that Americans are not better off today.
This war has proven to be the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have hoped for.
Report this comment
Joan #9,
You are correct that the US supported this government; as long as Saddam only waged war on Iran we were content with his regime. Once he decided Kuwait would make a nice accessory he crossed a line never to return.
The unkind truth is that the Middle East will never be reformed, only pacified. Eventually we'll collectively realize that the only viable option is a region that poses no threat to the West.
Report this comment
We need send Joan over to Iran, then she can make nice with the Kuds, Iranian National Army, Al-Sadr (who has run to cover with all of his Iranian-backed commanders), Hezbollah, Al-Qaida and all of the other cultural leaders who practice misogeny and the murder of their own children as models for the radical-left anarchists and George Soros funded fools to follow.
Report this comment
Who knows? Maybe she just wants to pick up a couple of 'traditional dress' burkas? Then she could parade around town and show off next years 'election year' liberal style.
Report this comment
maybe giffirds should stay there???? yeaaaaaaaaaaa
Report this comment
#10. Eric H. (ericharris) says:
The unkind truth is that the Middle East will never be reformed, only pacified. Eventually we'll collectively realize that the only viable option is a region that poses no threat to the West.
On this we agree.
We can start by investing in alternative energy research.
And we need to start talking to Iran. Aside from Ahmadinejad, the Iranians show signs of being reasonable people, people we really can work with. They have a stake in a stable Iraq and are in a much better position to make it happen.
Report this comment
Did Gifford bring her new banner, the White Flag? Just wonderin'
Report this comment
Harry #1, there is a need for the star to spend some money and take another picture but don't you think there is a good resemblance to a certain astronaut who has been in the news lately?
Her comments well explain her qualifications for this trip. I hope this district appreciates what they have done sending her to D C.
Report this comment
#8 Joan T - if you are really going to put your effort toward not having a war with Iran, then I suggest you start communicating about the leading war mongor towards Iran for the last year. The lone representative who has criticized our President for trying to work with the Europeans and the UN through diplomacy. And that person is......
"As the war in Iraq metastasizes into what General William E. Odom calls "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history," and the cost in lives and treasure continues to escalate, we are already being set up for Act II of the neocons' Middle East war scenario – with the Democrats taking up where the Republicans left off.
The Bush administration, for all its bellicose rhetoric, has shown little stomach for directly confronting Tehran, and this has prompted Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran. Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:
"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428
Oh - but maybe she really doesn't mean it - like her vote to invade Iraq.
So since we can't trust Hillary you suggest we should have some tea with the man calling for the elimination of Israel?
Report this comment
When they talk of first-hand look at its "new way forward."
Is this what they are referring to....
the Surge/Escalation
Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56+ people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week......
The twin blasts tore through the open-air market in the mostly Shiite district of New Baghdad. The death toll was reported by police and ambulance service officials on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media......
Report this comment
A good Headline this morning would have been, Giffords is missing in Iraq. I am surprised she did not take her adopted daddy, Lard Ball with her, seems he goes wherever she goes.
Report this comment
Erpesto Portillo Jr. is all concerned about Jackass Ibarra leaving the city council. The Erpesto does not even live in Tucson, but he is always whinning about what takes place here. Maybe he to could visit Iraq and become MIA, or rather Missing While Visiting.
Report this comment
Both Kyl and Giffords would do well to pay attention (along with the rest of this stupid country..) to where the real terror is being done...right here in Arizona, in the form of illegal immigration and these people slipping through our borders to create havoc in the next few years. Socially we are being destroyed economically. Democrats are stupid, and Republicans stupider! Heads in the sand and no idea that we no longer had the country of stregth that we once were.
The more politicians LIE the more confident the American people are that they have our best interest at heart.
God forgive us for what has become of this country.
Report this comment
Why is it that hearing Giffords talk about world affairs sounds like a high school kid giving a book report?
Report this comment
Taking Giffords to Iraq was a waste of lift capacity and one of the few random acts of kindness on the part of Senator Kyl that I disagree with. She has no interest in guaging our success, only in furthering her agenda of back stabbing the troops.
A commentator from NY noted today that the nonbinding resolution dissing President Bush and the surge that Giffords and Grijalva supported is the most disgraceful congressional action that has occurred since the Democratic Party untied to defend slavery.
Of course, if we could get her and Grijalva to go there and take a walking tour through the down town markets it might be worth the effort.
OK, wingnuts...hit the thumbs down button. It is what you are doing to the soldiers...thumbs down all the time.
Report this comment
"Look at North Korea right now," she said. "Here we ignored North Korea for years, and finally when we sit down with North Korea it looks like we will have a resolution." Giffords
Giffords cannot be taken seriously if this comment is any indication of her grasp on foriegn affairs.
We didn't sit down with North Korea any differently than we have for the past six years, under the guise of 6 party talks. In fits and starts.
There was no one-on-one diplomacy reported that brought on this half-baked "breakthrough" already denounced by "I am the Walrus" John Bolton, the previous stealth ambassador to the UN.
This "breakthrough" is the same charade the Clinton administration has been repeatedly taken to task for by the neocons (remember them?).
The only difference is this time it is the beleagured Bush administration agreeing to be blackmailed by the tiny terrorist of North Korea. "We'll send you billions in heavy crude, if you promise to lay off the nukes." Great idea. It's not like we need the oil.
Representative Giffords should engage her fact checker before putting her press releases out for public consumption. Her grasp of critical foreign policy issues is as convincing as her day trip to Iraq.
Report this comment
Harry, Jack and the rest of the war-backers,
How many more people, American and Iraqi, have to die to make the previous deaths justified? We went through this same argument over the American War in Vietnam; if we leave now, all the previous deaths will have been in vain.
Seems to me that the best way to "Support our troops" is to bring them home.
It really confounds me what short memories the American people have. I thought the legacy of Vietnam would be that we would never, ever get involved in another mess like that again.
Report this comment
25. Comment by Chris M.
Chris, I'm not a "war backer". I was lied to by the administration, and bought their story or nuclear arms, and chemical weapons.
Now, we are there, and there is a big difference between this war, and the war in Viet Nam. The Vietnamese never had the ability or desire to attack us here. With the mess we have made in Iraq, there are now many factions that have both the desire, and the ability. If we leave now, they will also have the opportunity.
We need to help stabilize the government there, in order to prevent the chaos which will inevitably lead to a rise in power of Al Qaeda, Iran, and other groups that would like to see us hurt.
Report this comment
Indeed, Ms. Giffords should mount a Tank or humvee and get out into the field, meet the people, see what we're doing, talk directly to the troops in the field, get some real facts about what these folks are doing and thinking.
Of course if she were to change her mind that would be the end of her short political career. So lets see who's rear she really looking after here. Will she go out and talk to even five real combat troopers, or just pretend that this is a fact finding tour and have lunch in the green zone and fly away saying I've been, I've seen, I know. Yeah I doubt it;.
Report this comment
#1 Harry re: Joe L.
Dems are increasingly aligning themselves with the Palestinian movement. At a recent fundraiser John Edwards said Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was the greatest threat to peace on the region. Silence. The party ended.
Last time I checked, Israel didn't say the were going to drive anyone into the sea.
Report this comment
They will be shown a "dog & pony show" and will talk to the troops that the brass want them to talk to.
What a joke!
Report this comment
Chris M. From one Viet combat vet who remembers very very clearly.. and this war in Iraq has one thing in common with VietNam, folks like you. Your soft. Like I keep saying, hey you demo's cut the money, evacuate the troops now, cut and run you fools. Quit the nonsense echo chamber of, oh we don't agree, we ahhh want to make it known that we are sending a strong message of decent here.. ahhhh we're not supporting this and.. well you don't even have the stuff you need to fight a war and its your fault and your a lier lier pants on fire.. and shut up,.. cut and run or don't they have the cohones to do that either. You won't see it becasue the democrats don't want to carry that blame for the results of this cut and run for the next 30 years when it really gets a war going. Go ahead, make our generations day. When this next part of the war gets going after we abondon this one in Iraq.. oh man, its going to be here and the world will never be the same again. Let the games begin.
Report this comment
BTW: Who was it who started the real war against terror? Ahh the guy all true democrats love to hate: Nixon! and who took up the flame from him... GBush.. and even Clinton a bit.. although he hated the military just like any good democrat. .. and ahhh Chris M.. I remember one more thing about Viet Nam.. LBJ sent me there. Yes it was indeed the great society.
Report this comment
Bolton banned Dezrtwulf today. Wulf is my brother. He said it was because he used the "*" symbol to censor his words. He also said it was because he used a "fake name" and that he was "vulgar". This "fake name" accusation brings up an interesting question. The only name I could think he might mean is "Dezrtwulf".
I didn't even know and obviously Wulf didn't know, we were expected to give out our real names as this policy seems dangerous as well as a privacy issue. As long as we register with all our real information, why can't we use an any online moniker we want? The way some people react out there you'd think it would be a no-brainer to expect posters to do this. The world's a sick place you know.
Anyway Wulf has emailed him and asked him for clarification on this "fake name" charge since no specific info from him was forthcoming.
He also asked him if he banned all those other people who don't even censor themselves and use the entire "f" word regularly for example.
Wulf said all he had to do was email him and say "don't do that anymore" and he wouldn't have, but to go straight for the ban seems a little harsh. Some will be glad he's gone but others who do like him will now have one less ally in the war of words against the anti-free speech crowd. Wulf may have come across a little mean sometimes but he never crossed a friend and he never left a man behind even when it meant he may not make it himself.He's loyal and he's true-blue. So if you don't see him again on these pages, keep up the good fight.
Let's also remember, we could be next.
Report this comment
#30 & 26 Bill B. and James M.
I'm sorry you had to go to Vietnam. You can always find some differences between different wars. You can also find a lot of similarities; young people will die and be maimed in the most horrible ways, civilians will bear the brunt of the suffering, our country will be divided, old, rich people will send young and poor people to die, the munitions and supply corporations will make a lot of money, and, yes, people like me will be screaming for it to stop. There never has been anything honorable or glorious about war. I'll bet if your lost comrades from Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Khe Sahn or Normandy could speak to us now, they wouldn't be saying, "More killing, more dying, please. Nothing will honor our memory more".
And now we hear the same old arguments about leaving; "it may have been a mistake to start this, but it will be a bigger mistake to leave". I don't buy this now any more than I did then.
And I am neither a republican or a democrat.
Report this comment
28. Comment by vince d.
Vince, I'd like to see a link that supports your claim. The TotallyJewish web page has a different take on Edwards. They see him as a big supporter of Isreal.
Here is some of what it reports...
Until Israel has a real partner, according to Edwards, Israel has the right, and indeed the obligation to defend itself, and should be strengthened militarily, politically, and economically.
In a further display of support for Israel, Edwards went so far as to suggest that Israel should even be made a member of NATO, saying it was only natural that the organization would seen to include Israel next.
link
Report this comment
26. James H. (#5248) says:
We need to help stabilize the government there, in order to prevent the chaos which will inevitably lead to a rise in power of Al Qaeda, Iran, and other groups that would like to see us hurt.
The problem with this, James, is that the presence of American troops inflames the insurgency and the public in Iraq. If I thought there were any way we could help bring stability, I would support the surge. The truth is that Iraqis want us out; we should oblige them.
Report this comment
#32. Tom F. (NoBull) says:
Bolton banned Dezrtwulf today.
I am sorry about this Tom F. I have enjoyed some of Dezrtwulf's comments, but yesterday I thought he was out of control. He went off on NightHawk, and brought up some foolishness about a poster named Gina; he was over the top.
I was banned once--a case of mistaken identity--and I called Bolton. I found him to be a very reasonable guy; he admitted his error and reinstated me.
Of course, in the end, it is StarNet's house, and they may allow or disallow anyone they wish.
Report this comment
#33 "our country will be divided, old, rich people will send young and poor people to die" IF You bought into this statement that you posted then you must have bought into a ton of crap that is being pushed now and then. (If you'd like I can post by ethnic grouping, area of the country, etc. all that were KIA in VietNam, your little sterotype is nothing but bunk) I don't need your sympathy regarding my service time in Viet Nam, I joined the Army and asked to go. Old rich people did not send me to this war, nor did they send the current combat troopers. Your view of its only the "old rich" so what they can self enrich themselves.. you must be some kind weenie bastid without a pair, you self rightous ass. Is this all you can come up with for an answer as to why this war took place, is this why you think Viet Nam occured? Hell you stupider than I thought... NUTS! is what I say to you sir.. you not worth time of day, nor have your earned the right to critize the combat veterans with your meal mouth "the old rich people are sending you the young to war at your risk for their greed", that is what your saying,... your a low class puke sir. Go have your peace demonstration, the better part of you ran down your mothers leg. Proud to have seved sir! Wish I was stil young enough to have gone this time around sir!
Report this comment
#32, Commentator Tom F. (NoBull),
Please ask your brother to read this post. I hope you see this, and let me know he saw it.
Jorge J. was banned also today. I'm a friend and neighbor. He won't be posting anymore.
He believes that someone like Nighthawk, or the whole delightful group of degraders, filed a complaint against both of you.
They accused Jorge of posting threats against a political figure, and attacking Nighthawk's character. All overstated, and completely out of context, and nothing compared to what the your likely accusers have said to countless others.
Don't know if you remember bill b. putting him down personally (horse's butt remark), or gearhead offering to bloody his lip, or the numerous nasty, personal insults this group has hurled at Jorge, you and so many others, especially Nighthawk and his suspected aliasses.
Anyway, Jorge has responded to Mr. Bolton, and is waiting for a response. Doubt he'll be forgiving, if he wasn't with 'Wulf.'
Amazed they just take anyone's word, and don't ask questions first.
Jorge can't help but wonder if this group intentionally goes after anyone that annoys them, until they goad them into negative responses, and then turn them in. Bingo, bet that's one of their little tricks.
I thought the site was monitored by the Star, and was amazed most in this group hadn't been banned, but now we are pretty sure they don't do anything until someone complains, and then act without asking first.
I'm surprised at Joan T.'s comment, since Wulf might have been a little naughty yesterday, but that group is consistantly negative and putting down everything and everyone every day.
Hope both Wulf and Jorge get their privelages back, you two aren't the offenders in this forum.
Feel like we have to type on eggshells.
Report this comment
Joan, as I said Wulf can get a little mean. "Passionate" is probably more like it. But I do know there were certain people on these pages that, when he first came on, demanded to know personal information about his military service and his units and who was his company commander, etc, etc, as though they had some god-given right to interrogate him. Then when he told them (Nightcrock) to go to he** because none of his personal stuff was any of his business the calls of "Liar" and "faker" and "phoney" and so forth began and they never let up until he turned the tables and went on the offensive back at them.
Just because NightCrock wants to brag about his (unverifiable)"accomplishments" in the last 7 wars going back to the American Revolution (Did you know Nightcrock was a scout for Washington?) that doesn't give him the right to slam other guys who don't want to talk about it anymore than acknowledging they were there. And I respect that.
Then it got to where, whenever I'd go on crock would slam me and say I was Wulf just because we're brothers and we sound alike and we both don't think much of him. Well it just got to be too much for him because now Nightcrock has managed to turn what was an honest discussion between people into something perverted.
And speaking of perverted, after he started getting tired of spouting his claims about me and Wulf being the same person, he himself adopted the persona of a girl named "Gina". He used Gina to slam us and praise himself. So yeah Wulf would lose his patience with that guy sometimes because of the "hypocrite factor". I think it's sad because he really did like this format and the talking and debating with the folks on here. Both those that agreed with him and those that didn't. He thought he'd be OK as long as he used the "*" in the cuss words, because some people don't even use those and don't get banned. Oh well. I also cannot wait to clear up this "fake name " mystery. The allegation alone makes me suspicious because it's as though someone complained about him. Because Nightcrock is the only one who ever called him a "fake" about anything and here he is getting kicked off for using some alledged "fake name". Strange.
Report this comment
re: 38. Comment by Sophie S. (herbs60)
Sophie S, Wulf was more than a little naughty yesterday and Jorge also went a bit overboard, but you are right about some of the other posters here. I am truly sorry that Jorge has been banned; I always enjoyed his posts.
Honestly, I don't quite understand why the Star takes this so seriously; I mostly find Harry D's rants absurd, but I often read them anyway. And when folks get into verbal wars, it makes me laugh.
I hope Wulf and Jorge can return.
Report this comment
Sophie, you really think calling someone the south end of a north bound horse, or a horses back side is a serious personal attack? Mamm do you ever watch the senate or congress in session, far far worse is stated, in not such round about verbage. Or as you state we the "right wing conspiracy" oh man you got me rolling on the floor laughing myself into a cramp in my leg.. oh god, we;re all in this together in some plot.. what have you been smoking? At the top of this page is a filter system, i think it works pretty darn well. I've been called lots of things here.. I don't let it or me go to my head. This is a BB... hardly anything serious. Its more a time sink than anything. Oh do folks get hot.. yeah.. is it serious.. I would call this a echo chamber that is useless out side of seeing what and how the other side is really thinking about whats going on... say with this war. I hate to say it but this country is in some deep trouble, not due to the war, due to the great divide in the point of opinion.. god help us all.. but there again, its another divide, don't bring god into it.. That my dear is the greatest threat in my opinion. That they removed someones posting privledges.. I don't agree with that with even some of the guys I don't care for on this BB. Jorge.. I don't care for.. but I don't hate the guy.. lets just say I would'nt take the time to go drink beer with him, but I might buy him the beer.. you have a nice night and make some scramble eggs with those cracked eggs you say you have.
Report this comment
38. Comment by Sophie S.-
Just read your post about Jorge. What an unmitigated disaster. I am confidient now about who did what to whom. Wulf told me Bolton gave him an example of something "vulgar" he said to someone but he didn't put it in any context that Wulf said made any sense. Just "the most recent example " of something he said but not who he said it too or what that person had said to Wulf first before that remark, nothing.
I was living with Wulf awhile back and I noticed he was having fun debating everyone and I asked if I could get in on it too. He only had the one computer, so sometimes he'd come home and go post some comments and then realize I hadn't changed my log-in name back to "Dezrtwulf" and that got him p.o.'d because he'd look dumb. He and I both went on and explained the mix-up but Nightstick wasn't having any of it.That's when he scitzo'd out and did the Gina impersonation. Even a minute ago on the other page I addressed a question to "gina" and lo and behold Nighthawk came on and responded to it. He doesn't even try to hide the fact he's Gina now.
So Wulf emailed me this a.m. and forwarded a copy of Bolton's email to me. Anyway this whole thing could have been avoided with a stiff warning to Wulf but the whip came down right off the bat. It's sad because many people here actually would tell Wulf that they looked forward to his comments because they were funny or whatever. I know Wulf never intentionally tried to hurt anyone's feelings,except maybe in the case of anyone who would go out of their way to hurt him first. Wulf will give you the shirt off his back but once you have pushed him and pushed him so far then you've made an enemy of him and that's sad because I know he didn't want it that way. I called Wulf right now to read this to him and he says to tell Jorge good luck for him and hopefully he can at least get back on. I read and reread the posts to Jorge yesterday and I was wondering if the guy who threatened to bloody his lip was banned or any of the other insults were dealt with on the same level of severity. (?)
Politics has no place in deciding who gets banned. Ban the white guy and keep the native
Report this comment
Dang!!! I hate it when I do that!!
As I was saying, ban the white guy and not the native American? That sounds a little suspect to me.(??????)
Report this comment
#40, Joan T.,
Thanks for commenting and the support.
Jorge wanted you to know that it got a bit 'testy' yesterday because 'the gang' was bringing up things he said weeks ago, and misrepresenting them, and people he didn't even recognize were attacking him personally. Some days it just gets to you.
Anyway, I'm making a last post for Jorge after this.
Appreciate your vote for a return, but I'm doubtful about Mr. Bolton's response, since it was really minor infractions, and you had to really reach to make a case against Jorge, but he did anyway.
Mr. Bolton seems just a little too happy and eager to ban someone before he has all the facts, in our opinion. Don't know why they can't give us a warning first, and a chance to respond, before they act.
I guess it's OK though for Harry to call Hillary Clinton a whore in their public forum. So much for anyone accusing this paper of being pro-liberal.
Report this comment
Bill B.,
Thanks for proving one of Jorge points. I'm new poster, and yet you are nasty, rabidly insulting, and intentionally rude.
New meat, you must be drooling.
And, you've missed the whole point, which I'm guessing is your usual.
Jorge was banned in part for expressing his displeasure of Nighthawk's return, and hoped he'd go away again soon. (Horrors!!!!)
Someone complained about this, something definitely less harsh than telling Jorge he was a horse's behind, and low and behold Jorge says he believes it was your post that called him a horse's behind! Is likewise permitted, billy? If things with Jorge didn't "go to your head," why did you directly insult him? Tough one for ya, billy?
Jorge didn't run and cry to Mr. Bolton, cause he didn't think it was a big deal.
Apparently expressing displeasure with Nighthawks return is a big deal in your camp. Cry baby cry, make your mama ---- astonished.
Jorge didn't run and cry to Mr. Bolton when gear-less head wanted to bloody his lip in a dark alley, when Jorge had never directed anything at him. He just took Jorge's opinions personally -- you know, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Like you, Nighthawk, and 'the others' have been belittling, insulting, aggressive, etc., especially to new posters, and it seems forever after, if they don't agree with you, right at the get go. It never stops. You didn't have to attack my post, and misrepresent what I said, but you couldn't control yourself.
Then you go cry to 'the authorities' if things get to rough for you, when you folks have been the instigators, bashers, and trash talkers the majority of the time. You're probably going to take something out of context in this post and send it to Mr. Bolton, and I'll be happy to help Jorge send in some of your lovely, endearing posts.
Guess I've managed to sweep away those eggshells for you, not to worry billy boy.
Those little games you folks all play, will eventually be your downfall. Now that your little game has been posted, don't think other's won't follow your lead, and judging by the thumbs down you folks get most of the time, Mr. Bolton will be hearing a lot about you folks, I hope. Maybe they will finally discover why so few individuals actually use their commentator forum, that it's mostly just your 'gang.'
Does it make you feel important because you can upset people, is that your goal or need? Because there is no reason for your behavior or attack on me.
..................................................................................
Well, now I'm understanding how one gets sucked into this nonsense, and the feeding frenzy you guys must go into for this nonsense. Goad, goad, goad.
One last comment, billy, the eggshells -- it was a take off of the old expression "walking on eggshells," not that I have cracked eggs, as you stated. The point was, Jorge punishment was for minor infractions, if that, and yet your group got him banned. Another grand example of your amazing comprehension.
You folks better watch for those eggshells too, if Mr. Bolton is going to ban Jorge and Wulf for minor nothings, you abusers are in big trouble.
Play nice ya'll, if you know how.
Report this comment
Don't get sucked in Bill. All they want is to play little child games. I just don't respond to them anymore, and it drives them nuts. That's why the mass amounts of thumbs down when ever I post. Just on the off note if anyone wants to learn about how they attacked that young lady called Gina just google Dezrtwulf and place her name after. Everything written on these blogs as well as all public newsgroups are recorded there for years. To include mine.
Report this comment
Hello Nighthawk.. to be honest sir, I'm not quite sure why this is all being spoken about like its some bid deal.. I was trying to be nice to Sophie, but sucked in.. thanks for the warning sir. Its getting late, another day of work, its gonna be some kinda week. While I post here once or twice during a day, it usually early morning or maybe while I'm eating a sandwich at the office. I'll assume there are lots of folks who are retired that do this much more extensively, it'd be nice to have that kind of time. Oh man Ms Sophie with her.. your gang stuff.. gotta tell ya has me laughing.. simply because it is just so damm laughable that someone would assume it.. a gang.. oh man.. cut back on the coffee I guess.. I gotta go.. this has been interesting. Nite Nite Sophie.. and to think some place all this is recorded. What a waste of ram.
Report this comment
#42, Tom F. (NoBull),
Hope this post isn't too late. First free time I've had this evening.
I understand exactly what you are saying about Bolton's email accusations. Jorge forwarded his to me so I'd understand the situation a little better before I posted for him. Mr. Bolton seems a little to eager to find them guilty on minor infractions, so there must be some really convincing, complainers contacting him, making things sound a lot worse than they were, and making themselves sound like the victim-good-guys, pure as the new fallen snow.
Wonder whose 'innocent' name they posted the complaint under? Wondering this, because if Mr. Bolton had looked at some of the other posters in this forum that day, there were more serious infractions being made by others, who Jorge suspects are the source of the complaints against Wulf and himself.
I feel the Star has really stretched to find infractions against Wulf and Jorge, which I too don't understand.
Especially after reading some of Nighthawks and Harry Dog Dude's posts, even today. Harry calls Hillary Clinton a whore in their public forum this morning. Guess it's OK to insult Democrat politicians in this disgusting manner.
Wonder if I'd get banned for calling Bush something as disgusting as Harry posted about Hillary Clinton, to see if they are favoring someone like Nighthawk or Dog Dude. Could Harry be Nighthawk too? Just a thought.
By the way, Jorge is an independent -- no political party affiliation. Just for the record.
................................................................
.
You stated: "I read and reread the posts to Jorge yesterday and I was wondering if the guy who threatened to bloody his lip was banned or any of the other insults were dealt with on the same level of severity. (?)"
NO -- Reason -- because Jorge didn't write and complain to Mr. Bolton about gearhead, the threatener, or any of the others. The Star isn't monitoring the posts, they waiting for 'complaints,' apparently from any source, without question. Thus, bye-bye Wulf and Jorge only.
I might help Jorge file some of those lovely posts, if they don't ban me too. I'm guessing someone will complain about my earlier post to bill b., that nice person that called Jorge a horse's behind and then implied Jorge (who didn't complain) was 'too sensitive.'
But I won't be surprised if they don't listen to me or Jorge, for the Star will probably think it's just unfounded retaliation, and I can't help but feel, like Wulf, something else is amiss here.
------------------------------------------------THE DETAILS----
The Star is accusing Jorge of posting "PERSONAL ATTACKS ON OTHER USERS AND DEATH THREATS OR DEATH WISHES AIMED AT PUBLIC OFFICIALS."
Don't want to 'repost' word for word, but Jorge's "personal attack" was basically saying he wasn't thrilled Nighthawk was back in the forum, as some others had posted, wouldn't mind if he didn't stay long, and felt he dragged the forum down. Not particularly nice, but tame compared to many other posts I've seen, even against Jorge on that same page that day. I think it's more a personal opinion by Jorge, than a horrible attack on Nighthawk.
The other 'crime,' is due to a very OLD comment Jorge made about a Saddam--Bush/Cheney punishment comparison he posted when Saddam Hussein was hung, and has been taken out of context by pro-Bush commentators over and over again, by various posters, in various more recent articles, including yesterday's forum Jorge was banned for.
The death threats or death wishes aspect of Jorge's crime -- basically Jorge had expressed weeks ago if Bush/Cheney were FOUND GUILTY of 'murdering' our soldiers due to their intentional, misleading lies to make us believe we had to go to war with Iraq for our own protection, they deserved a murderer's death, even hanging like Saddam.
Yesterday, Jorge only stated he supported hanging for murderers, and didn't include 'convicted' this time, since it was as old, recurring argument the other's couldn't let go of, and unfortunately he didn't spell out, again, all the important points in this latest response to this tiresome, recurring, old rant against him on this issue. The 'death threat and death wish' is way over stating any of Jorge's comments.
Jorge said he's tried to explain this to Mr. Bolton, in an email, and is waiting for a response.
Guess Jorge got under their skin a little more than usual yesterday, and they used these two comments, without sharing any of the history that led up to the exchanges. Taken out of 'context' (so to speak), someone new could make the wrong conclusion, but a little explanation could have cleared this all up, but the effort wasn't made. Makes me wonder how well this paper believes in getting both sides to their stories.
................................
Jorge got a little hot under the collar yesterday too. The usual instigators were twisting his words again. Of course Jorge and Wulf were not the only ones in this forum that have over reacted a little, but they just never turned anyone in, and shrugged it off. After all, they do consider the source. Apparently, the others have been carrying a big grudge, and they found a tiny little in yesterday 'to punish' Jorge and Wulf. Happy little bunch for now.
Jorge is a good person too, like Wulf. Everyone has their bad days when we go a bit too far, so I hope Wulf isn't feeling he did anything really horrible, he didn't. Nothing to beat himself up over. Reading his posts made me laugh.
Certainly Jorge and Wulf did nothing as bad as 'the others' do on a daily basis of twisted mud slinging at Democrats, immigrants, environmentalists, etc., and posters like Jorge and Wulf. Unending negativity and attacks, but they're OK by the Star's standards!
The 'others' enjoy feeding the fire, and when it gets too hot back at them, they retaliate unfairly, in my opinion.
Like Bill B post to me, they are currently laughing at Jorge and Wulf, patting themselves on their backs, feeling they 'won' something, but eventually they'll bring their just rewards on their own heads.
Well, this forum isn't going to be the same without Jorge and Wulf. I hope Mr. Bolton surprises us and reinstates them. The other's will have to entertain themselves, with fewer commentators to attack. Maybe they'll get bored and start attacking each other.
Report this comment
46. Comment by NightHawk P. -
Yes by all means google Dezrtwulf and the Gina. You'll see how Nightcrock was just as full of himself back then as he is now. I'm actually glad I took you up on that crock. I saw how, in the same paragraph, you'd call Wulf a "wannabe" and the go on to say how "you don't bash anyone". Anyone else see the little hypocrite for what he is? As far as Gina's concerned and your statement how,"if anyone wants to learn about how they attacked that young lady called Gina". WHO exactly IS "they" Gina? I mean "nightcrock"? Or whatever name you're using tonight. From what I could see Wulf was constantly being stabbed for disagreeing with you. You'd start with the name calling and then he'd defend himself. What really perplexes me though is why you would actually WANT poeple to go back and see that Wulf was right about you the whole time? You invited people to go back and prove his point about you! That to me, indicates someone with some real issues when they don't even know what the consequences of their actions will be. I also saw how Wulf would be talking to someone and ask them a simple question unrelated to you or your other chick-name and he'd get like 6 TD's! It was especially odd too because he was talking to "friendly's". It's like,"well I guess Night-stalker found me again". Dude, you made that man's life miserable with you constantly following him around on his posts and using all 10 of your aliases to TD him. Especially when his statements were so benign.
Report this comment
Last look over this forum, LOL, more untrue claims, and false 'high road' above it all postering now, especially when someone exposes what you think is hidden.
Don't worry kids, Jorge or myself aren't anymore interested in you, than you claim you are in us, but what you did to Wulf and Jorge, in my opinion was underhanded, and you're now trying to separate yourselves from your actions, or actions you support.
Report this comment
Tom F., (No bull),
My posts initially started just for Jorge to vicariously touch base with Wulf's brother and discuss what happened.
I'm not going to continue in this forum, but I will keep this user i.d. open. If for some reason you need to contact Jorge through me, place a post to Sophie S. in a article you think Jorge would normally read, and hopefully one of us will see it. I read the paper online, but didn't post until today.
Hope to see you post again soon.
Report this comment
48. Comment by Sophie S.-
"Harry calls Hillary Clinton a whore in their public forum this morning."
Is this the comment you were referring to Sophie?
1. Comment by NightHawk P. -
"It's fun to watch a political whore trying to white wash their spots."
He had many people agreeing with him cause he got alot of those pretty purple... wait a minute. The purples are the "TD's" right? Uhhummmm, well he got 15 of those...... (?)
Report this comment
Hey Tom F. (No Bull),
Thanks for clearing up my mistake, confusing Harry for Nighthawk, and posting his comment again.
Guess my mind categorizes Harry and Nighthawk as one in the same.
Pretty sure your brother was right about Nighthawk also being Bill B. So 'cute' the way they talk to eachother.
Good humor and quick wit must run in your family.
Always enjoy a good laugh. Thanks.
Report this comment