The Hollywood Liberal

7 Responses to “Former Gung Ho Soldiers, now see the Truth”

1. Buzz Says:
   February 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

   HL if you had ever been in the military or even asked anyone that has been. You would know that there are ALWAYS people YES even in the service who don’t want to do what they are doing.

   There are some who LOVE it a bit too much. I always thought the real gung ho guys were going a bit overboard but to each his own I guess.

   If it is such an issue they should have refused deployment. They could have done the time in the brig at home……well after all kinds of legal this and that. Once done dishonorable discharge and go home end of story um LT Wada I think his name is. I might have the name wrong but he is doing it and anyone in the service can.

2. Bill Says:
   March 1st, 2007 at 11:07 pm

   Whata’s sad is he can only come up with an interview every now and than, and yet if you ask the majority of the people who are in or were in they will all tell you the same thing that the percentage that have these views are the same ones that joined for the ” college money” and didn’t take their oath seriously. So by all means HL keep putting the bleeding hearts up so everyone knows who it is that doesn’t give a SHIT about their country and than lump your self in with them.
   I posted facts on here about troop reenlistment and you deleted it because it proved your “facts” wrong and 3rd and 4th tours in Iraq so I know just what you goal is and that is to lie about as much as you can and get people to believe as much of your crap as you can. Well it isn’t working keep trying.

3. JAFO Says:
   March 9th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

   Bill and Buck. Buck and Bill. Trolls extraordinare. If you two are so certain that Dick ‘n Dubya’s vanity oil “war” in Iraq is really the central front of the Glorious War On Terror, then get up off your fat, effing arses and ENLIST! It’s so obvious that you two are such manly men who know how to kill in 23 different languages. Why don’t you ENLIST, go to Iraq and show us French loving cheese eating surrender monkeys how it’s done. Show us first hand what this “war” is really about. Stop talking about it and just do it. You have no excuse; the military will take you, I guarantee it. If they are taking Reservists who already fought in other wars who are now 50 year old grandparents, if they take felons, skinheads, mentally challenged, they will take you. If you are real-god-and-country-the-President-is-doing-god’s-work-on-earth-my-country-right-or-wrong patriots, and you really believe in this “war”, then go and fight for it. Just do it. Just shut up and ENLIST NOW. But I’m betting you won’t because, truth be told, on top of all your manly prose, you’re a couple of wusses. FOAD.

4. Bill Says:
   March 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

   JAFO spoken like a true LIB. as a matter of fact I have been in the military and no they wont take me back in because of my age contrary to you quote “If they are taking Reservists who already fought in other wars who are now 50 year old grandparents, if they take felons, skinheads, mentally challenged, they will take you.” by the way shows that once again a Lib is talking out his A*S and doesn’t know a thing about what he/ she is saying. Unlike yourslef who would rather sit at home and bitch about what is going on not knowing the truth but believing every word the Liberal media spews out as truth. Oh and I know that someone like yourself would never in your wildest mind ever thank a Vet. for the freedoms that you so greatly enjoy now but than that is to be expected from people like you. At any rate. YOUR WELCOME and keep sucking up the B.S. that your media keeps feeding you.

5. JAFO Says:
   March 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm

   “JAFO spoken like a true LIB.”

   Oh Bill, that really hurt! Please don’t call me any more names, Bill!

   “Unlike yourslef who would rather sit at home and bitch about what is going on not knowing the truth but believing every word the Liberal media spews out as truth.”

   What I said about who the military is taking is not based on the “Liberal media” as you call it, but is based on people I know, people I work with, friends and relatives who have all been sucked up into the military for their own various reasons and ended up in Iraq. Besides, the media are not liberal, or the media wouldn’t have been so eager to sell the “war” to us back in 2002-03 to begin with. Why haven’t you figured that out, Bill?

   Yeah, like you say; “3rd and 4th tours in Iraq”. Why is that Bill? Because they can’t get any more people to enlist and fight for their lie anymore. Why haven’t you figured that out, Bill?

   And I’m not sitting at home bitching about what’s going on. I’m working on helping to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The U.S. troops in Iraq are not defending the U.S., Bill. The troops are in Iraq defending the Iraqi oil for Exxon. Why haven’t you figured that out, Bill?

   “I know that someone like yourself would never in your wildest mind ever thank a Vet.”

   That’s cute Bill. Next, you’ll say that I’m not patriotic, or that I’m a traitor to the country, or that I’d spit on returning soldiers, or some such bullsh*t. Tell you what Bill; find me a Vet who actually defended this country from attack and I will thank him/her. Last time I checked, that would have been WW II. So, unless you fought in WW II, Bill, I’ve got nothing to thank you for. All our “wars” since then have really been “police actions”, or illegal, undeclared wars that were actually occupations. And none of them were in defense of this country. They were, however in defense of “our interests”, or in defense of “our way of life”. Why haven’t you figured that out, Bill?

   Yeah, I know, “9/11 changed everything”. Did you know that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, and no hijackers were from Iraq? And we were already in Saudi Arabia (from the first Gulf “War”), but we invaded Iraq? And that Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, but we invaded Iraq? And that Saddam didn’t have anything to do with Al-Qaida, and in fact, there wasn’t any presence of Al-Qaida in Iraq until after we invaded? And that Al-Qaida gets most of their funding from Osama bin Laden’s buddies in Saudi Arabia? You remember Osama bin Laden, don’t you, Bill? Here’s one that you won’t find out from the “Liberal media”; his family belonged to the Carlyle Group, the same Carlyle Group that had both George Bush Sr & Jr on its board of directors. Hey man, the bin Laden and Bush families go back over 30 years. That’s a long business association. Lots of influence there, I bet. Enough influence to keep Junior from catching Osama? What do you think, Bill; figured that out yet?

   There are two things that are constant throughout history, Bill. The first thing is that people like the bin Laden family and the Bush family and “investment groups” like the Carlyle Group can always count on a war to make money. Always. And the second thing is that these wealthy people can always count on people like you Bill, to fight their wars of profit by saying that you are defending “our interests”, or “our way of life”. In other words Bill, they know people will fight and die for a lie.

   I refuse to fight for a lie, and I will not profit from a lie. That’s why I’m Just Another F*cking Observer. And the way I see it, Bill, since you are for the “war”, you are either a rich war profiteer, or you are a fool. Let me know when you figure it out, Bill.

6. Bill Says:
   March 11th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

   JAFO
   You are as bad as the rest when it comes to lieing to people.
   Lie #1. ” but is based on people I know, people I work with, friends and relatives who have all been sucked up into the military for their own various reasons and ended up in Iraq.”
   Everyone that joins the military right now knows that they are going to go to Iraq or that there is a real good chance that they will be going so that means that they either don’t have a problem with the war or they support it. And if they are joining just to get the “education” than they should be shot because that isn’t what the military has ever been for.
   Lie #2. “Besides, the media are not liberal, or the media wouldn’t have been so eager to sell the “war” to us back in 2002-03 to begin with.
   The Liberal media was backing all their Democrat buddys and I know you have seen just how many of them stand behind what they said to get the US into this “war”
   Lie #3. “Because they can’t get any more people to enlist and fight for their lie anymore.”
   You better pull your head out of your ass and start doing some research. Here I’ll make it easy for you.Friday, January 26, 2007
   Military Re-enlistments
   W. Thomas Smith at NRO reviews military re-enlistments numbers for new VA Senator James Webb (D), who stated in his response to the SOU speech that the majority of the military no longer supports the war. Smith finds some pretty conclusive evidence to the contrary that the soldiers and Marines on the ground believe both in the service and in the war.

   “The Army’s reenlistment numbers for the past six years break down as follows: For Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06), the Army’s goal was to retain 64,200 soldiers already on active duty. The service exceeded that goal by retaining 67,307 eligible soldiers. In other words, 3,107 soldiers — in addition to the ones the Army had hoped to re-up — raised their right hands and swore to continue defending the nation even if it meant service in Iraq. That’s 105 percent of the goal of re-upping eligible soldiers ”

   The Army hit 108% of goal in fiscal 2005, 107% in 2004, 106% in 2003, and was around 102% in 2002 and 2001. The Marines have already hit 82% of their 2007 retention targets, with 8 months to go, and routinely exceed their numbers as well in recent years. It would appear that the people doing the fighting certainly think that continued service is worth pursuing, even with multiple deployments and dangers that I can only imagine.
   I guess that blows the hell out of your people don’t want to fight for a lie. And that doesn’t cover the new enlistments, how bout that.
   Lie#4. “The troops are in Iraq defending the Iraqi oil for Exxon.”
   Once again you are spewing the same crap that the media and HL like to post and yet have no proof to back up what you say. You show me were it is that the troops are there for the oil when the troops who are there who have been ask have said that they haven’t been anywhere close to an oil rig since they have been there. But than HL hasn’t been able to show me the proof that we are there for the oil and he does do research so I wont hold my breath waiting for you to post the proof either.
   Lie#5. “find me a Vet who actually defended this country from attack and I will thank him/her. Last time I checked, that would have been WW II.”
   Here is a history lesson for you we were not defending any part of the US during WWII since Hawaii and Alaska didn’t become part of the US, 49th and 50th states until, now pay attention 1959. Now by my history classes that would mean that they became states AFTER WWII. So please tell me how many wars have we”defended this country”? answer, you have to go back as far as the American Revolutionary War if you want to say that we were defending this country. So you want to try another lie.
   Lie#6.”Saddam didn’t have anything to do with Al-Qaida, and in fact, there wasn’t any presence of Al-Qaida in Iraq until after we invaded?” You should really stick to something that you know for a fact because I am having to much fun picking this apart. Here goes again. Try reading this before you start post shit you pull out of your as*. nysun.com/article/29746 just put the www in front of it. To help you out it states that Iraq did have alot to do with the Al-Qaida but than you suck up what you lib media tells you like a sponge so you wouldn’t know any different. Sad part is that it is the New York Sun that put it out. And the Al-Qaida getting most of their funding from Osama is a give in since he was a part of the Al-Qaida you don’t have to be a brain doctor to figure that out. But here I’ll make it easy for you were did Osama get his money from? Give up?
   King Faisal the king of were? non other than Saudi Arabia. And were did you say that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from? Saudi Arabia, now you want to try and tell me more crap, please.
   As for the Carlyle Group it was started by who? Oh yeah David Rubenstein and who’s administration was he in? That’s right good ole peanut boy himself Jimmy Carter so I guess that means that the whole lot Democrats and Republicans are in on it because Carlyle Group employs them all. Yup Darman is Managing Director right now and he was part of Clintons Admin. how bout that. How bout that guess who shows up again Clinton’s adminstration on non other than Osama Bin Ladden. Go figure. Thanks for bringing that up nice point, it’s about time one of you libs pointed out that clinton was in with osama.
   Oh and not to forget if you read about the Bin Ladden family they also say that they have nothing to do with Osama and haven’t for a long time, but than they are just lieing to cover their but.
   And the last but not final lie in this post of yours is the best. “I will not profit from a lie” you ARE profitting from a “lie” as you put it with gas prices staying as low as they are. If you weren’t than the price of gas would be like it is in other countrys of more than $5.00 a gallon. Oh and that was just for you since you libs keep saying that we are only there for the oil and that is it.
   Hope you enjoyed this informative correction to your post as much as I did:)

7. JAFO Says:
   March 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm

   OH Bill, the keyboard commando! Lightning quick with that Google search! “Just follow my lead; add a www in front of karlrovespewsthelatesttalkingpointsfromhissphincter.com”

   Yes, Bill, anyone you don’t agree with is a liar. Clean and simple. Spoken like a true brown shirt wearing fascist enabler. Either a liar, or a liberal, or both. Makes for a clean and simple response.

   Too bad you don’t comprehend what you read. But then, you are the type of person who’s needed to support grand and glorious wars. Someone who doesn’t pay attention to details; someone who’s easily swayed by appeals to their emotions. What a rube.

   Lie #1:
   How is this a lie? It’s a statement based on my observance of friends, family, co-workers, etc, who have entered the service. Yeah Bill, they should have known what they were getting into when they put their names on the dotted line. Especially the ones who went into National Guard. I didn’t know the National Guard was for fighting wars on foreign soil. That’s a new one on me, Bill. But then, I always said that the military would say anything, even lie, to get you to join. Then they use you up and throw you away. Maybe they give you a medal and a parade. Then you get sick and die. In Viet Nam it was Agent Orange. What will it be in Iraq?

   Lie #2:
   How does backing a Democratic candidate make the media liberal, Bill? Here’s something to chew on, Bill; the “liberal” media isn’t liberal, nor conservative. It’s not Democrat, nor Republican. It’s “establishment”, Bill. That means it’s for whatever big business is for. It means making a buck. It means backing a winner and screw the little guy. And big business was for the war, Bill. They sold the war big time to the American people. Until the war started going wrong. Then, the Democrats who said the war was wrong started looking like winners. And since big business is for backing a winner, it then backed the Democrats.

   Lie #3:
   You need to take a “reading for comprehension” course, Bill. That NRO article is about reenlistment numbers; that is, keeping people who are already in the service. I was talking about getting new people into the military. And enlistment, not reenlistment, numbers are down. That’s why the military has to lean on people they already have to reenlist, because there aren’t that many new people joining up. The word’s out, Bill. Nobody’s willing to enlist and die for a lie, Bill.

   Speaking of NRO, Bill, here’s an article for you about the “liberal” media;

   http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNlNGNhMTlkYzA3YTU3MWZiYTMxMWFiNzg0MWEzN2Q=.

   It’s by Bruce Bartlett. He was an advisor to Ronald Reagan, that notorious commie pinko President. The third paragraph is the money quote;
   “In my view, the media did have a strong left-wing tilt for many years. But over the last 20 years or so, I think that has mostly disappeared. Major newspapers like the Post and New York Times are now fairly evenhanded in their news coverage. Their editorial pages are still pretty liberal, of course, but the Post in particular is far less liberal in its editorial positions than it was in the 1970s.”

   The problem Bill, was that their front pages and editorial pages were selling the war, too. And any articles that questioned the war got buried in the paper. Don’t believe me? Here, read for yourself; this is from the New York Times;

   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1400990400&en=94c17fcffad92ca9&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

   Here’s the money quote;
   “Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.”

   The media sold us the war, Bill. Not liberal, not conservative, but pro-war big business; the establishment.

   Lie #4:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

   and also

   http://www.answers.com/topic/2003-invasion-of-iraq

   “The invasion was swift, with the collapse of the Iraq government and the military of Iraq in about three weeks. The oil infrastructure of Iraq was rapidly secured with limited damage in that time. Securing the oil infrastructure was considered of great importance to funding the rebuilding of Iraq after the invasion ended.”
   …

   “It was reported that the National Museum of Iraq was among the looted sites. The assertion that U.S. forces did not guard the museum because they were guarding the Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior is apparently true.”

   Then here’s fearless leader giving his “Oops; my bad” speech back in January;

   http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

   And the money quote;
   “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions.”

   Can’t let those dirty Islamic extremists get to the oil, can we Bill? No? How about his State of the Union Address two weeks later?

   http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html

   Money quote, please;
   “For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists — who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.”

   Yes, got to protect our way of life *cough*oil*cough*. It’s about the oil, Bill. Remember, fearless leader is a self proclaimed Texas oil man.

   Lie: #5:
   Hawaii was annexed in 1898; it was a U.S. territory until it became a state. Besides, Pearl Harbor was a U.S. military base when it was attacked in 1941. It’s the same thing as U.S. soil, just like an embassy (whose flag was flying there?). My father’s best friend was in the navy, stationed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. He was on his ship when it was hit. He managed to pull two other guys with him to shore before their ship went down, then picked up a gun and started shooting at the Jap planes. There is no way you’d tell him he wasn’t defending the U.S. unless you wanted one upside the head. We lost 3000 people that day and they died defending the U.S., you idiot. And you call yourself a Vet? FOAD.

   The rest of your # 5 screed just proves my point; that the military was mostly used not to defend America, but to protect “our interests” or “our way of life”. Thanks, but no thanks.

   Lie #6:
   Bill says’ “I am having to much fun picking this apart.”

   Sounds more like you’re having too much fun picking lint out of your belly button. Again, reading comprehension, Bill. Didn’t you further your education with the G.I. Bill, Bill?

   HA! That crap in that New York Sun article is old news! Really. The 1995 meeting was presented as evidence of a link before the invasion. The Sun article says the document presents more details than were released in the 9/11 Report. But the document doesn’t state anything new. The meeting between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi envoy doesn’t prove squat. They met. So what? What became of that meeting? Nothing, that’s what. And that Sun article is a year old. Anything new come out since then to confirm the relationship? No.

   Remember, that was in 1995. Bin Laden started Al-Qaida long before that. They were in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets in the 1980s. After that, bin Laden moved back to Saudi Arabia, but was kicked out, moved to Sudan, then back to Afghanistan in 1996. If there was a meeting in 1995, why didn’t Saddam let bin Laden come to Iraq? I guess that Saddam told bin Laden that Iraq was only big enough for one militant group, and that was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s.

   Again remember, that was in 1995; 8 years before the invasion. What happened in those 8 years? Why isn’t there any other proof of a relationship? It wasn’t until after the invasion that al-Zarqawi got the Al-Qaida in Iraq franchise.

   Look at it this way; You say John Smith married Jane Doe. I say they aren’t married. You say they are married because they met once 8 years ago. I say that was 8 years ago. Yes, they met. Yes, they talked. So what? What became of that meeting? Nothing, that’s what.

   No, it’s not sad that the Sun would print this tired, old, crusty turd of an article; it’s typical. And it’s typical that The Weakly Standard (pun intended) would jump on this. But there is no there there.

   You must have had a Woodstock acid flashback Bill, with your next screed. You helped me prove Al-Qaida’s tie in with Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. That’s what I was saying; why did we invade Iraq when Al-Qaida’s ties were with Saudi Arabia, not Iraq?

   Your last point in this just drives home the difference between you and me, and why you are a brown shirt Fascist enabler. I don’t give a sh*t who started the Carlyle Group, nor what party they were in prior to this. I’m also no fan of Bill Clinton, and I really don’t want to see his wife become President. I am not a Democrat, Bill. See, it’s like this; you write and think like a 12 year old. You see politics as a big game you play on the schoolyard. There are only two teams in this game of yours. You are either on one team, or you are on the other team. You either win, or you lose. Black or white, up or down. Just like fearless leader, you don’t do nuance. How juvenile. You don’t see this as being about the establishment, the big bucks, the top 1%, screwing over everyone else. And they are winning, no thanks to people like you. In Nazi Germany, they had a name for people like you, Bill; useful tools.

   And I don’t own a car, Bill, so I’m not “profitting” from low gasoline prices. And the price of gas in other is higher in other countries because they have higher taxes on gas than we do. Crude oil is bought and sold on an open market; everyone basically pays the same for it.

   What you are seeing now in this country is nothing new, Bill. It’s all happened before; the rich trick the masses into fighting and dying in some useless war of profit. So, in backing this “war”, Bill, you are either a war profiteering son of a b*tch, or you are a fool.

   Chew of these quotes, Bill;

   “Naturally the common people don’t want war … but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along…. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
   –Hermann Goering

   “The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press — in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years.”
   — Adolf Hitler

   Here’s one from that anti-big business, commie pinko, Thomas Jefferson;

   “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”