I think the Pukes will be all for "pull-out 2006"

"The war is over, we won, etc, etc, by the way, vote for me"

I can hear it now

I read a comment over on the Raw Story blog. I think it is spot on.

The blogger there calls the MSM "THE PRESSTITUTES", which I believe is a term that will be catchy, and which is better than MSM.

The PRESSTITUTES are now reporting stories saying we will be in Iraq for 25 (Hardball, on the show last week) and one year (This Week, on the show today).

All bases are covered, except the permanent US bases in Iraq. All stories are well oiled except the Iraq oil story.

PRESSTITUTES says it well.

Also, by watching Meat the Press & Face-off the Nation this morning, their getting them new-fangled voting machines programmed up for a McCain vs Kerry ticket in '08

We can expect the PRESSTITUTES to be active in the upcoming Iraqi Elections.

But lest we be deceived I am posting AGAIN, the news from 1967, 40 years ago, about the elections in Vietnam.

They lied then by saying the vietnamese were showing their propensity for democracy by voting, even in the face of viet cong killings.

September 3, 1967

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Don't let the PRESSTITUTES lie us out of Iraq like they lied us into Iraq as they slept in the neoCon administration's bed.

Without condoms ... the Jeffie Gannon style PRESSTITUTES are pregnant with fascism.

But lets remember to think oil, follow the oil, and do not forgive the whores.

The right was right on the iraq war. They will have a right to use to for future elections. The left will hide from its record and refute its quotes against the war just like they refute the quotes for the war now.

Now here's a man with common sense and experience !

I sure am proud that we still have good ol fashion Conservative Democrats with Common sense

Was comment # 5 written by a sober person over the age of six?

Yeah, I can hear Lieberman next year when everybodys
screaming "Pull-Out", he'll still be saying "Stay the Course", what a goofy prick he is

There are some good posts about pre$$titution at pre$$titutes dot com

Check it out ...

Murtha supposedly spoke directly with generals on the ground in Iraq (somehow, all the generals have escaped the suicide bombs), and the generals told Murtha, "This is a disaster, but we're afraid to approach Bush with the truth because he won't listen to us."

Inside-the-Beltway gossip, admittedly. But it's been around for a few days and Murtha hasn't refuted it, so it's probably true. Given that Bush says, "I listen to my generals (in deciding how many troops are needed and what to do next)," it kinda' makes you wonder, "Which generals is Bush listening to?"

Although I would love it if Murtha were right, I very very much doubt we will be pulling out any significant number of troops. I bet a year from now, we have at least 80% of current troop levels in Iraq. The Military Industrial Complex will not give up their war so easily.

Jack Murtha is a voice of reason in the midst of the morons.

Rummy used to like to scare us with doomsday scenarios of mushroom clouds over DC, courtesy of Saddam.

Of course that was just a fairy tale. But here, let me see if I can scare Rummy.

Lets talk bin laden.

Actually I strongly suspect ain’t bin laden in a while is in the disputed region, between India and Pakistan, known as Kashmir.

If you recall back in early 2002, bin laden was suspected of having frostbite on his hands. It was believed he got this by climbing up above the snow line.

When you look at the globe it’s clear that this would be a prime location for him to hold up. Thick dense jungle makes for poor quality satellite photos, constant fighting in the region makes it difficult to enter (US military is not permitted in without escort and jumping through a lot of hoops) and dangerous to send small forces.

Al Qaeda is purported to flourish in this region, and loyal supporters of bin laden comprise a large percentage of the Pakistani population.

Now consider this doomsday scenario.

Suppose bin laden and his army, move out from the Kashmir region and into Pakistan. There they rally loyal followers of bin laden, (purported to be over half the population)and overthrow the Pakistani army (or simply convince them to join them), and Musharraf and seize the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Then we would have a ball game.

As I am sure you are aware, these missiles don’t just threaten India, they threaten Israel.

In fact, this was a common concern back in early 2003, and was discussed openly.

“The CIA is clearly concerned about the very real possibility that an Islamic general could take over one day -and acquire control of the arsenal”. - The Independent – April 10, 2003

But somehow that concern has been overshadowed, by this administrations insistence on protecting us from a country that had no nuclear arsenal, presented no real threat to anyone, and was “contained” by international law and weapons inspections, not to mention the “no-fly” zones.

I guess President Bush should have just “stayed the course”.

But now we ignore real threats, countries that really threaten the US, with Nukes and massive armies, and we don’t even bother looking for bin laden, because Bush is not concerned with capturing bin laden.

He’s too busy talking tough, and looking tough, and acting tough, to actually “be” tough.

An interesting note. Guess where Pakistan got their nuclear arsenal?

That’s right, North Korea.

Jack Murtha is a voice of reason in the midst of the morons.

Rummy used to like to scare us with doomsday scenarios of mushroom clouds over DC, courtesy of Saddam.

Of course that was just a fairy tale. But here, let me see if I can scare Rummy.

Lets talk bin laden.

Actually I strongly suspect ain’t bin laden in a while is in the disputed region, between India and Pakistan, known as Kashmir.

If you recall back in early 2002, bin laden was suspected of having frostbite on his hands. It was believed he got this by climbing up above the snow line.

When you look at the globe it’s clear that this would be a prime location for him to hold up. Thick dense jungle makes for poor quality satellite photos, constant fighting in the region makes it difficult to enter (US military is not permitted in without escort and jumping through a lot of hoops) and dangerous to send small forces.

Al Qaeda is purported to flourish in this region, and loyal supporters of bin laden comprise a large percentage of the Pakistani population.

Now consider this doomsday scenario.

Suppose bin laden and his army, move out from the Kashmir region and into Pakistan. There they rally loyal followers of bin laden, (purported to be over half the population)and overthrow the Pakistani army (or simply convince them to join them), and Musharraf and seize the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

Then we would have a ball game.

As I am sure you are aware, these missiles don’t just threaten India, they threaten Israel.

In fact, this was a common concern back in early 2003, and was discussed openly.

“The CIA is clearly concerned about the very real possibility that an Islamic general could take over one day -and acquire control of the arsenal”. - The Independent – April 10, 2003

But somehow that concern has been overshadowed, by this administrations insistence on protecting us from a country that had no nuclear arsenal, presented no real threat to anyone, and was “contained” by international law and weapons inspections, not to mention the “no-fly” zones.

I guess President Bush should have just “stayed the course”.

But now we ignore real threats, countries that really threaten the US, with Nukes and massive armies, and we don’t even bother looking for bin laden, because Bush is not concerned with capturing bin laden.

He’s too busy talking tough, and looking tough, and acting tough, to actually “be” tough.

An interesting note. Guess where Pakistan got their nuclear arsenal?

That’s right, North Korea.

Victory and Murtha

The "victory" the president and his admin now pray we will accept is tired.

They defined "victory" originally to be seizing WMD in Iraq. That war could not be won because it was a fantasy war.

Next "victory" was defined as being welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi's did not, however, like shock and awe and random killings of their women and children, less water than before, less electricity than before, less security than before, a hyper increase of terrorists and terrorism, nor did they welcome US as liberators, and so that "victory" is also an illusion.

Next "victory" was bringing "freedom" to Iraq via elections. Like Vietnam elections where "83% of the vietnamese registered voters voted" in September of 1967 even tho the viet cong were terrorizing the populace, vietnam fell not too long thereafter. Having an election is not the hallmark of freedom in case neoCons have not noticed.

The word "victory" is another empty, meaningless, and useless term which is touted as the pinnacle of admin policies and the talking points of shills like Rush and O'Reilly.

The word "victory" is the new lie word.