We are the 99%

January 17, 2008

Olbermann Tonight.

Wait for the last spot.



Here's the story he's talking about:

Fort Carson sent soldiers who were not medically fit to war zones last month to meet "deployable strength" goals, according to e-mails obtained by The Denver Post.

One e-mail, written Jan. 3 by the surgeon for Fort Carson's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, says: "We have been having issues reaching deployable strength, and thus have been taking along some borderline soldiers who we would otherwise have left behind for continued treatment."

Capt. Scot Tebo's e-mail was, in part, a reference to Master Sgt. Denny Nelson, a 19-year Army veteran, who was sent overseas last month despite doctors' orders that he not run, jump or carry more than 20 pounds for three months because of a severe foot injury.

Nelson took the medical report to the Soldier Readiness Process, or SRP, site on Fort Carson, where health-care professionals recommended Nelson stay home.

The soldier, who has a Bronze Star and is a member of the Mountain Post's Audie Murphy Chapter, was sent to Kuwait on Dec. 29.

To quote Keith:
Men like Denny Nelson are the heroes. The men who ordered them back, in the military and outside of it are the ones who accused those who criticised them of hating the troops or of being anti-American.

And frankly, those politicians, those commentators, and those senior officers can go to hell.
Amen.

27 comments:

Sherry said...

well said. amen.

Lady Liberty said...

My man Keith! He's in a class of his own!

Anonymous said...

John K. says: So if I get this right, you lefties admire soldiers who won't fight? Olbermouth missed the main story. Hillary Clinton did not like the fact that Obama is going to win Nevada so she is demanding a rule change even though she previously agreed to the rules. LMAO Olbermouth usually gets his facts wrong. I think he is now the only pundit still saying the surge isn't working. And to prove his point he applauds two soldiers who won't fight. That is just loony. And loony for anyone who says amen. And speaking of amen, I thought you left wing kooks wanted religion kept private. LMAO at how hypocritical you folks can be.

Anonymous said...

Listen you loathsome rush limbaugh wannabe, when our men and women in uniform are injured or recovering from injury they need to be TAKEN CARE OF SO THEY CAN BE WHOLE AND WELL. Sending them into a war zone when they aren't at 100% is inhuman and wrong.

If you think this is so funny and you are always so right why don't you put your money where your mouth is and JOIN THE ARMY.

You are a nasty coward.

not-shitrock said...

John K;

Read much? Take a look at the text. One of the soldiers mentioned (Nelson) has already won a BRONZE STAR.

How many Bronze Stars have you won?

And of course, you're the one changing the subject.

The story was about the despicable practice of sending wounded troops back into a war zone before they've been fully recuperated. The reason that's done is because Bush's war has strained the military.

Hey, I have an idea John K. The military is strained by the war you support so why don't you sign up? That would releave some of the strain, wouldn't it?

Why don't you?

Schmuck Shitrock said...

"The surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system and we need to find a way of getting back into balance."

Who said this? Was it some Defeatocrat lefty rag like the NYT or WaPo? Was it MoveOn.Org making another attempt to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory in Iraq? Maybe it was some liberal loonie like Kucinich or Gravel?

Nope. It wasn't even Hillary making a desperate attempt to make us believe she doesn't support the carnage over there. It was the frikkin' Army Chief of Staff in an interview with the frikkin' Wall Street Journal!

So it's good to know that when we send our brave kids back into battle with crippling wounds, the Joint Chiefs know why even though the chickenhawks don't.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

What was that last thing KO said in that segment, Koward? Oh, that's right: Go to Hell. Druggie Limbaugh won't be far behind.

Sherry said...

AMEN!

and while we are at it "screw you!"

one of my best friend's son was just sent to afghanistan and as i've said before my granddaughter's godfather has been to iraq twice and will probably go again.

THIS is what they can expect??

me, i had promised myself that i wouldn't feed the loathsome trolls but this is just too much.

a bronze star you jackass, a BRONZE STAR!!!!

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I am right. The injuries have nothing to do with it. You support soldiers who signed papers and gave oaths to fight and now won't. It is not hard to see thru this bunch. LOL LOL I own you.

Anonymous said...

John K also says: Screw Me? And then you use the term "Amen". Gee, for a religious person, sherry, you sure can be vindictive. That time of month again eh? Oh well.

Sherry said...

Amen is a derivative from the Hebrew verb aman "to strengthen" or "Confirm".

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Stop hiding your arguments behind religion Sherry. Put your pants on and make your points like a man.

"Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

Idiot Troll:

That time of month again eh? Oh well

He's not just an idiot, he's an idiot and a misogynist.

Sherry said...

you truly are a fool.

i gave you the definition of a hebrew word. a word, that is just that, a word in a dictionary.

it is not a religious word per se. it IS however used in some christian religious texts and ceremonies.

just like many words.

you, have just shown YET AGAIN, how under-educated, childish and petty you can be.

with supporters like you, the right wing fanatics need no enemies.

"bronze star" nuff said!

starve troll, starve. bye.

C.H. said...

I'm getting pretty tired of far-left hypocrisy. You people have done everything to force the military out of schools and some of you, including John Kerry, demean our soldiers as nothing more than a bunch of dopey, toothless, rapists who come from the ghetto or the hills of appalachia. You make it seem like everyone who is in the military enlisted because they had no choice, as opposed to patriotic reasons. Now you demand that ANYONE who dares to suggest that going into Iraq was the right thing to do has to serve in the military.

The ordained ministers in your far-left kook-fringe movement (like Brian De Palma) put together ferocious hit-pieces about our soldiers and make it seem like the actions of a handful of criminals represent what the military is doing in Iraq. Not to mention how dangerous it is if hateful propaganda like that ever got into a mosque in Pakistan or Indonesia.

...and Mr. Olbermann is just as bad. I can't even begin to say how repulsive it is when someone hopes for failure in Iraq just for the sole purpose of making Bush look bad. How much coverage has NBC given to the good news that is coming out of Iraq? There's plenty of it ie the dramatic drop in violence, the handover of Basra, the pact between the sadrists and their rivals in southern Iraq, the continuing prosperity of Iraqi Kurdistan, and the stability of the al-anbar province are just a few to point out.

It's amazing, the better things get in Iraq the more angry and ferocious you people get...

fascinating

Sherry said...

have you seen that the same man from the "swiftboat" vets has now gone after mccain?

HOW can anyone demean that man's service and yet?

and that , believe me, is republican far right dirty tricks, just as it was for kerry.

Sherry said...

i'm gone. reading you is like listening to limbaugh. just a waste of precious time since all you do is parrot him.

so do your little happy dance lol bit.

what a childish man.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Actually, Sherry, Limbaugh is much more proficient at lying and mischaracterizing than C.H., who is simply wayyyyyyy to rabid to make much sense.

It's hard to imagine anyone crazier than Rush, anyone more hateful of the people who actually care about our soldiers, anyone more critical of those who actually served, but we don't have to imagine it. We have the Laughing Chickenhawk and the Militant Mononucleosis.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

C.H., this last comment of yours is very disappointing. Whereas your posts are always full of stylistic, rhetorical, logical, and factual errors, they normally reflect at least a modicum of self-respect. This one is nothing but an empty emotional rant, bereft of any truth whatsoever.

Let's analyze just a few of the brightest, shiningest lies and flaws with which Messrs. Limbaugh and O'Reilly have burdened you and your fellows.

The "far left" segment of society that you mis-describe -- that is, the segment that opposes the Iraq war -- comprises well in excess of half of the American population. And even the most generous poll results show that Mr. Bush's disapproval ratings have levelled off in the neighborhood of 60 percent with the bulk of his detractors disapproving "strongly." As a result, your attempts to portray a large majority of the public as marginal come off as rather pathetic and desperate -- some might call them delusional.

The morbid fascination that the Right seems to have with John Kerry is similarly bizarre. In the first place, the man is a bona fide military hero. Your attempts to demean his bravery and patriotism would be ludicrous even if most of you had not avoided military service and in some cases even deserted their safe, cushy posts. Second, your characterization of him as a troop basher is not only 180 degrees from the truth, it isn't even internally consistent. If he had done as you claim, he would be calling himself a "dopey, toothless, rapist" wouldn't he? Finally, he has proven himself quite ineffective as a threat to your neoconservative dreams of world domination. Why not leave him to enjoy his dotage?

Here's a simple lie that Rush and Bill have fed you and which you were as eager to swallow as Ms. Lewinsky was with Clintonian smegma: That those of us who are sufficiently awake to recognize Iraq as a debacle are "hoping" for a defeat. This is false on a number of levels. Inasmuch as the Bush/Cheney/Podhoretz/Kristol axis has already achieved a rather glorious defeat, the point is moot in any case. Perhaps your side would call the deaths of some 4,000 brave young Americans to no purpose a victory, we would not. Perhaps Friday's statement by the Iraqi National Security advisor that his country is at a stalemate after five years of death and destruction swells feelings of pride in accomplishment for you, not for us. Your side of this argument has a rather distorted view of what success means, we can see that the Ship of Success has long left the Iraqi port, laden with dross. Our "hopes" are that our men and women come home whole, that our great grandchildren are spared having to pay another trillion dollars to bolster Mr. Bush's self-esteem.

Well, I have gone on far too long, hardly leaving a mark on the surface of your fallacy-rich philippic. I'll leave you with just one more glimpse at reality, which you will surely ignore since it doesn't come to you wrapped in hate and vainglorious epithets. This sentence from your first paragraph is a falsehood: Now you demand that ANYONE who dares to suggest that going into Iraq was the right thing to do has to serve in the military. It's another canard from your Bedlam Echo Chamber. We do not, in fact, make such a demand. We DO find it somewhat macabre that those who are most likely to claim patriotism and accuse their opponents of treason are also those who are least likely to have served and the most likely to have betrayed the trust of America.

C.H. said...

Shitrock, by now you must be well aware of the fact that I don't like it when people accuse taking positions I have not taken. Your ranting about my using Limbaugh and O'Reilly as the source for my views is not only wrong, its dishonest. While I will admit I have listened to Limbaugh on occasion, by no means do I agree with everything he says, although I do admire him for calling people like Harry Reid and Nancy pelosi for what they really are. O'reilly is a bit different. For one thing, someone who actually suggests that Bill O'reilly is as right-wing as Rush Limbaugh obviously knows very little about either of them. O'reilly has taken many positions against the Bush administration (ie global warming, gun control, CIA interogations, etc.) While he may have a tendancy to lean towards the conservative, he is by no means a right-winger in the same league as hannity, limbaugh, or glenn Beck...and if you believe he is, you have spent to much time on the far-left blogs.

Also, you claim to admire moveon.org and defend keith olbermann. The far-left attacks they have committed are far worse than anything Limbaugh or o'reilly have done.

Just making sure your sticking to the facts my friend...

C.H. said...

Shitrock, by now you must be well aware of the fact that I don't like it when people accuse taking positions I have not taken. Your ranting about my using Limbaugh and O'Reilly as the source for my views is not only wrong, its dishonest. While I will admit I have listened to Limbaugh on occasion, by no means do I agree with everything he says, although I do admire him for calling people like Harry Reid and Nancy pelosi for what they really are. O'reilly is a bit different. For one thing, someone who actually suggests that Bill O'reilly is as right-wing as Rush Limbaugh obviously knows very little about either of them. O'reilly has taken many positions against the Bush administration (ie global warming, gun control, CIA interogations, etc.) While he may have a tendancy to lean towards the conservative, he is by no means a right-winger in the same league as hannity, limbaugh, or glenn Beck...and if you believe he is, you have spent to much time on the far-left blogs.

Also, you claim to admire moveon.org and defend keith olbermann. The far-left attacks they have committed are far worse than anything Limbaugh or o'reilly have done.

Just making sure your sticking to the facts my friend...

Schmuck Shitrock said...

I don't think you really want to get into a discussion of honesty, C.H., inasmuch as you are now using your THIRD handle on this blog (not the hallmark of an honest debater, wouldn't you agree?), and the very post in which you complain about MY honesty contains at least one outright lie in addition to your normal quota of mischaracterizations, errors, and poor judgement.

But I must once again express my disappointment. Notice that when I comment on your rhetoric, I do just that -- I comment on your rhetoric. OTOH, when you make a comment, it's always about a person rather than his or her ideas. Everyone to the left of you is a hypocrite, you claim. Schmuck Shitrock is dishonest. Keith Olberman is "just as bad," "hateful," and "hopes for failure." This kind of stuff is called ad hominem, and is universally acknowledged to be a tactic employed by the loser in an argument when his points have all been discredited, as in your case.

Speaking of points, another source of disappointment is that you doggedly refuse to answer mine. I pointed out and linked to a WSJ article showing that the Army Chief of Staff agrees with me. Your response: "". I pointed out that Kerry, as a decorated military hero, is quite unlikely to disparage other military heros as you so falsely claim. Your response: " ". When you claimed that we were succeeding in Iraq and I showed that the Iraqi National Security Advisor disagreed with you, you angrily replied, "".

So why don't we leave each others' characters out of the discussion, shall we? They have nothing to do with the politics of the situation.

As a peace offering, I'll even offer a bit of career advice: A person who aspires to professional writing should learn the difference between "your" and "you're." He should also learn the difference between a complaint about "sticking to the facts" and actually presenting one. When you make these kinds of sub-rookie mistakes, you come off looking like John K. I'm sure you don't want that to happen. (Perhaps after the way you blew that "Hitler was a Catholic" argument, you've given up on the writing ambitions. If so, good for you. Wise choice.)

You're welcome.

C.H. said...

So you want me to provide links and citations in my blog comments from now on, shitrock? Okay...

If you don't believe me that things are getting better in Iraq, maybe you should ask the UN envoy to Baghdad, who is hailing the reconciliation efforts over there.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16848819.htm

Also, the Inernational monetary fund and the United Nations are predicting progress for Iraq in 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7193174.stm

I should also tell you that UNHCR, the UN refugee agency I am a proud member of, has documented that thousands of Iraqi refugees have returned home. I don't have anything in my hands to show you right now, but I'll be attending several UNA-USA meetings this weekend in Berkeley and San Francisco. Evaluating the situation in Iraq, as well as Darfur, Gaza, and Somalia, will be on the agenda so I can get you some statistics if you would like. How's that sound?

I do applaud you for having the courage to bring up our little hitler debate yet again. That debate, after all, was your "major andre" moment on this blog when your claims that Hitler was a religious extremist were debunked repeatedly. While you did suceed in making the point that he was a christian when he was younger, quotations from Adolf himself when he was ruling Germany and preparing for the holocaust dramtically contradicted your claims. By the way, read the book "The Greatest Battle" by Andrew Negorski. It details the hatred both Hitler and Stalin had for religion and how the two men were not that different in their brutality towards their people.

By the way, I accept your peace offering as far as character assassinations go. That has nothing to do with this debate after all, as I have said before myself. I will however, continue to debate you and all of the other unique characters I've come across on this blog. I may just be a wing-nut, but I have strived to make some valid points on this blog.

"Honest disagreement is often a healthy sign of progress"
-Mahatma Gandhi

Schmuck Shitrock said...

You are quite nimble when changing the subject, C.H., but let's see if I can change direction with you. Let's see, you started off talking about "left-wing hypocracy." Having been soundly thrashed on that subject, you decided that accusing me of dishonesty might yield better results. That was disasterous for you as well, so now you're going to try to revive the tired, discredited "but the surge is working" ploy.

Sorry, but you seem to have picked still another loser unless you consider these reports to be indicative of sectarian reconcilliation From McClatchy):


Iraq's national-security adviser said he was briefly taken hostage Saturday in a Baghdad mosque and implied that his captors were al-Sadr supporters. Mowaffak al-Rubaie was released only after intervention by Iraq's interior minister, who oversees the police.

Friday, a spokesman for al-Sadr warned that the cleric might not extend a six-month cease-fire by his Mahdi Army, which U.S. officials say has contributed to the reduction in violence in Iraq.

Police attacked the booby-trapped mosque on the outskirts of Nasiriyah the day after its members attacked police in Basra and Nasiriyah, killing more than 100 people and injuring more than 200 in the two cities.

Friday's clashes were the worst violence in months in Basra, where British forces handed over control of the city a month ago. Nearly 100 people were killed, including 80 cult members, another 112 were reported injured...



So to review the bidding: On my side of the argument, we have

-- hundreds dying over the weekend
-- kidnapping of high-ranking Iraqi officials by groups under the control of other high-ranking Iraqi officials
-- the American Army chief of staff telling us that the war is destroying our armed forces
-- the Iraqi National Security Advisor calling the situation in his country "a stalemate."
-- Al-Sadr threatening to call off his army's cease-fire.
-- The worst year for our troops in Iraq in 2007.
-- American deatg in January 2008 already exceeding those in Dec of 2007 -- on Jan 20!
-- 3929 dead American kids.

On your side of the argument, we have:
-- two international organizations (both of which would be dismantled if most people on your side of the argument had their way) making predictions about what might happen during the next Friedman unit -- the same kind of rosy predictions we've been hearing, Vietnam-like, for half a decade.

As for your boast that "thousands of Iraqi refugees have returned home," that seems to be true. Millions have not returned home, however, and "thousand" is one-tenth of one percent of a million. In other words, if we were talking about money, we'd have $100 and a dime coming back and calling it a success. While Republicans seem to consider this sort of finance to be sensible, most rational folks do not.

BTW, neither of us should be too anxious to have millions of Sunnis returning to Iraq to find their homes now occupied by Shiites. This could lead to an enormous increase in sectarian tension and turn the current Iraq conflagration into another Rwanda, except that this time American soldiers will be directly in the crossfire.

Nice try saving face on the Hitler thing, but "courage?" Why would it require courage on my part to raise a point from which you had to slink away in embarrassed retreat? But since you and John K. have such similar views, don't you think it rather weakens your argument to bring up your debating teammate's gaffe? Well, that's OK. I'm sure your next post will change the subject once more.

C.H. said...

Some key points I'd like to pick at...

a) Why would I want to get rid of an organization I am a member of? As I pointed out to you, I am a proud member of an organization that works to help people all over the world who are suffering--UNHCR. I am also a member of UNA-USA, a organization that works to increase to effectiveness of the United Nations.

B) While I myself have been concerned by the recent bluster coming from Al-Sadr, he is unlikely to escalate the tensions in southern Iraq after months of negotitation with his rivals, the government, and the US. Also, I don't think the people of Iraq would stand for it--just as they have chosen to no longer tolerate the murderous campaign of bloodshed by AQI. A couple of months ago, Iraqi Shiites decided they were tired of the antics by the radical Shiite militias and their Iranian supporters.

Read about it here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL2156942820071121?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

As you can see, if the Iraqi people and the US-led coalition can stop the horrific attacks by AQI and bring calm to Anbar and Baghdad, there's little doubt they can rise up against the extremism sponsored by a retarded fat boy who wraps himself up in the banner of Islam. In reality though, he has done nothing except divide his people and harm the innocent, both sunni ans shiite.

p.s.--I have changed my handle on this blog because I'd rather use my initials instead of a nickname. Do you have a problem with that?

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Why would I want to get rid of an organization I am a member of?
Learn to read, sir.

Al-Sadr...is unlikely to escalate the tensions in southern Iraq after months of negotitation with his rivals, the government, and the US.

Let's see, I can accept your interpretation of al-Sadr's intentions, or his spokesman's. Which to choose, which to choose...

he has done nothing except divide his people and harm the innocent, both sunni ans shiite.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was really starting to like the guy.

No response, once again, to any of my primary points. How long do you think you can keep me interested in your bob-and-weave? Debate or get off the pot.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Thank you, C.H. for deciding to get off the pot. It's not only wise, it raises the quality of the blog.