America Being Led Into War by Chickenhawks Again

[Psychoblues]

These idiots that have never worn the uniform of an American troop that advocate further foreign military intervention can really just kiss this ol' county boy's ass.

Source: OpEdNews.com

By: Prof. Sam Hamod

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, when speaking recently at West Point, America's premier military academy, said, "If someone mentions going to war again soon, he should have his head examined."

Gates has learned what many of us experts on the Middle East and Islam said at the beginning of the George W. Bush debacle -- before Bush attacked Iraq based on lies -- you cannot win a war against a concept called "terrorism." Such a concept is unending, and "Islam" is a religion that will never be wiped out by armies; the more Muslims are attacked, the more they will retaliate against their attackers (in this case, America and its handmaiden, NATO, and other NATO countries in Europe).

Now one of the old chicken-hawks, the pro-Israeli minister of lobbying for Israel in the U.S. Senate -- Joe Lieberman -- has said we should get involved in Libya. Lieberman is advocating that we support the rebels, including furnishing them with weapons and possibly our military. He and the old warmonger, and perhaps not a hero after all as the stories by fellow prisoners come out -- John McCain -- are advocating this sort of intervention, in what is a nationalist matter.

Just what would America do if Mexico came across the border into Arizona to "protect" its citizens? We'd raise holy hell; go mad, and tell Mexico it's none of their business to come into America.

Then why is it that some of our ignorant congressional people say it is okay to go into Libya? I'll tell you why:

1. We want that cheap "sweet crude" for our sakes and the for sake of the EU. If we get rid of Muammar Qaddafi, an ardent nationalist, the EU and America will be sure to install a puppet and we'll get the oil cheap, or even free (as was the case of Iraq, and still is, because our oil companies steal Iraqi assets every day).............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................................

More: http://www.opednews.com/articles/America-Being-Led-Into-War-by-Sam-Hamod-110228-339.html

I hate fucking walnut desk war heroes that don't mind seeing others die miserable deaths and live horribly broken lives just for their ill-conceived and chickenshit ways. This kind of thing just disgusts me to absolutely no damned end.

Psychoblues

[actsnoblemartin]

sadly, we will eventually be at war with iran, when they try to nuke israel

[fj1200]

Source: OpEdNews.com

Stretching for "news" are ya?

[Psychoblues]

Stretching for "news" are ya?

Do you have a comment or are you just killing time?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Do you have a comment or are you just killing time?

Psychoblues

No, that was my comment. OpEdNews is an obvious contradiction and I needed to take a shower after perusing your two links from said source.

[Kathianne]

A bit on the distinguished doctor, yep he's been around for awhile:

http://old.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200405200841.asp


May 20, 2004, 8:41 a.m.
Hearts and Minds
We shouldn’t bother trying so hard.

You probably thought Nick Berg was slaughtered by Islamic militants, didn't you?

Just because, in an Arab country teeming with jihadists who target Americans every day, an American got butchered by hooded assassins who read a proclamation of grievances, laced with allusions to Islam, in Arabic, before hacking his head off while his shrieking agony was drowned out by that now-familiar soundtrack of atrocity, the Allahu akbar ("God is great!") chant, you probably rushed to judgment, right? Just because the barbarians recorded their handiwork and the tape, voila, instantly ended up on a website that reliably promotes militant Islam, which bragged that the decapitation was executed by none other than Abu Musab Zarqawi — whose extensive jihadist rap sheet defies accurate accounting in our limited space — you no doubt found yourself leaping to the rash conclusion that Berg's killing was carried out by Muslim extremists.

Fortunately, now comes al-Jazeera's Sam Hamod to straighten you out. Hamod, a 68-year-old Lebanese American (born in Indiana), is not only an esteemed member of the American academy — a retired professor at Princeton, Iowa, Howard, and Michigan Universities, according to one of his recent screeds — but also a poet, author, former director of the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., and, according to his own assertion in several published stories, a former adviser to the United States Department of State. Never one to engage in bombast or draw extravagant conclusions on less than airtight proof, it was only about a week ago that we found Professor Hamod helpfully explaining how the Abu Ghraib prison abuse illustrated that...George W. Bush is not a real Christian. ("No matter what President Bush says about being a 'born again Christian,' I think he is a false witness to Christ, and that God will deal with Mr. Bush in this life and certainly in the next." To see the rest of this scintillating essay, entitled "A Muslim Leader Speaks Out", it is here ).

Now he is back with a new piece: the "Muslim Perspective" on the Berg homicide. And what might that perspective be? Well, that Berg almost certainly was not killed by Muslims.

...

Oh and he tries to be 'cool' with sock puppets:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/04/sock-puppet-sam-hamod-returns-again.html


Saturday, April 04, 2009
Sock puppet Sam Hamod returns again
"Dr." Sam Hamod, liar extraordinaire, returns to the comments, pretending to be the fictional "Rabbi Shmuel Handelman:"


Dear deluded shmucky "Elder" (what nonsense for you to call yourself an elder):

I am a rabbi, but you are a fraud.
I should sue you for libel and slander, but you are not worth the bother. I wonder if you are a Jew or Zionist--you know, if you are truly a Jew, that they are not the same thing, as I have been trying to point out in my articles.

Enough said.

Shalom,
Rabbi Handelman
rabbi shmuel handelman | 04.03.09 - 5:57 pm |

So I looked a little further, and found absolute proof that Hamod is "Handelman". In a message written in 2006 to a Yahoo message board, there is a comment by this "rabbi" - but Hamod forgot to log out from his own Yahoo account when posting it. (The original page is gone, this comes from the Google cache):


Neither Balfour of England, nor the UN had the right to give Palestinian land to Israel; thus, the whole concept of true justice was thrown out the window. At this time, Israel refuses to clarify where it's borders end; one radical in Israel says it ends in Iraq. Who knows? Frankly, I think it extends into Washington, DC and takes over most of America and its assets, and pulls America into one disaster after another. My question is, how long will we American people allow this madness to go on, and continue supporting the terrorist state of Israel? Shalom, Rabbi Shmuel Handelman, Temple Shalom
Posted by samhamod@sbcglobal.net on Thu, Feb 16, 2006 2:26 AM ET
197

...

[Psychoblues]

A bit on the distinguished doctor, yep he's been around for awhile:

http://old.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200405200841.asp



Oh and he tries to be 'cool' with sock puppets:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/04/sock-puppet-sam-hamod-returns-again.html

For whatever reason, Kath, your first piece is written by Andrew C. McCarthy, a politico that supports waterboarding, makes outlandish claims about President Barack Hussein Obama not being serious about protecting US national security against threats from radical Islam and elsewhere, and bloviates incessantly about the troubling ties and associations President Barack Hussein Obama has with radical leftists. He sounds like a good candidate for a FoxNews position but not as any trustworthy journalist.

Insofar as the second source concerning the author I will give you several more links to very much the same story from possibly more trustworthy journalists and that pretty much justify my own disgust with the warmongering bastards that put us into Iraq to start with.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2011/03/rumsfeld-vs-gates-/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/26gates.html

http://www.startribune.com/nation/116959943.html

I can come up with a lot more but the story of the speech and the disgust of Secretary Gates with the nutty wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now quite easily found and justify my own anger for the walnut desk war heroes.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/26gates.html

Methink you see what you want to see. Nevertheless it sounds like he's doing some advocating of an activist military to save having to go to full scale war.


“The odds of repeating another Afghanistan or Iraq — invading, pacifying, and administering a large third-world country — may be low,” Mr. Gates said, but the Army and the rest of the government must focus on capabilities that can “prevent festering problems from growing into full-blown crises which require costly — and controversial — large-scale American military intervention.”

[Psychoblues]

Methink you see what you want to see. Nevertheless it sounds like he's doing some advocating of an activist military to save having to go to full scale war.

Methinks you see what you want to see, fj. I am by no means anti-military or soft on national security. That's a lot different than supporting stupid assed nutty wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Am I going to have to go back to a,b,c and 2 + 2 with you now every time we speak? You've always impressed me as being much more intelligent than you have been presenting yourself the last couple of days.

Psychoblues

[LuvRPgrl]

hmmm
These idiots that have never worn the uniform of an American troop that advocate further foreign military intervention can really just kiss this ol' county boy's ass.

Source: OpEdNews.com

By: Prof. Sam Hamod

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, when speaking recently at West Point, America's premier military academy, said, "If someone mentions going to war again soon, he should have his head examined."

Gates has learned what many of us experts on the Middle East and Islam said at the beginning of the George W. Bush debacle -- before Bush attacked Iraq based on lies -- you cannot win a war against a concept called "terrorism." Such a concept is unending, and "Islam" is a religion that will never be wiped out by armies; the more Muslims are attacked, the more they will retaliate against their attackers (in this case, America and its handmaiden, NATO, and other NATO countries in Europe).

Now one of the old chicken-hawks, the pro-Israeli minister of lobbying for Israel in the U.S. Senate -- Joe Lieberman -- has said we should get involved in Libya. Lieberman is advocating that we support the rebels, including furnishing them with weapons and possibly our military. He and the old warmonger, and perhaps not a hero after all as the stories by fellow prisoners come out -- John McCain -- are advocating this sort of intervention, in what is a nationalist matter.

Just what would America do if Mexico came across the border into Arizona to "protect" its citizens? We'd raise holy hell; go mad, and tell Mexico it's none of their business to come into America.

Then why is it that some of our ignorant congressional people say it is okay to go into Libya? I'll tell you why:

1. We want that cheap "sweet crude" for our sakes and the for sake of the EU. If we get rid of Muammar Qaddafi, an ardent nationalist, the EU and America will be sure to install a puppet and we'll get the oil cheap, or even free (as was the case of Iraq, and still is, because our oil companies steal Iraqi assets every day).............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................................

More: http://www.opednews.com/articles/America-Being-Led-Into-War-by-Sam-Hamod-110228-339.html

I hate fucking walnut desk war heroes that don't mind seeing others die miserable deaths and live horribly broken lives just for their ill-conceived and chickenshit ways. This kind of thing just disgusts me to absolutely no damned end.

Psychoblues

Seems to me that if one wants to avoid being a hypocrite ( not as though that would matter to you at all regarding yourself), that one should not allow a chickenhawk into the discussion opposed to war if one doesn't allow the opinion of a chickenhawk into the discussion for going to war.

[NightTrain]

hmmm

Agreed.

I've thought that for a long time now.

[gabosaurus]

There are two definitions of chickenhawks. On the Republican side, I would say that some match both of the definitions.

1. chickenhawk

1. Older male who seeks the company or favours of an younger male. The term has homosexual overtones.

2. A politician or other person who promotes war without having had any personal experience of it; especially those who have avoided the experience.

[fj1200]

^So you disagree with civilian control of the military?

[sundaydriver]

I would think that whenever the word "chicken-hawk" is heard, A pic of Dick Cheney pops into most people's mind.

[SassyLady]

I would think that whenever the word "chicken-hawk" is heard, A pic of Dick Cheney pops into most people's mind.


and now it's Obama and Hilary

[sundaydriver]

and now it's Obama and Hilary

How many draft deferments did they have? :laugh:

[fj1200]

How many draft deferments did they have? :laugh:

So now a draft deferment is a requirement for chicken-hawk status? Alert the media.

[sundaydriver]

So now a draft deferment is a requirement for chicken-hawk status? Alert the media.

Cheney had 5 deferments claiming he had more important things to do! That always made his claim to be a "patriot" seem a little weak to me.

[fj1200]

Cheney had 5 deferments claiming he had more important things to do! That always made his claim to be a "patriot" seem a little weak to me.

So Bill Clinton's patriot claims are weak as well?

[Kathianne]

Cheney had 5 deferments claiming he had more important things to do! That always made his claim to be a "patriot" seem a little weak to me.

Deferments or having served doesn't make one right or wrong on a particular war. In the case of Vietnam, he was one of the tens of thousands that had the money and grades to do so. It was wrong, but not to those doing so at the time. It was also wrong in the Civil War.

[sundaydriver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4&feature=player_detailpage

[fj1200]

So?

[Gaffer]

Cheney didn't lead anyone into war. He was VP last I looked. His job was to preside over the senate, advise the president if asked and be there in case anything happened to the president.

His deferments were all legal and he probably did take advantage of family connections. Unlike BJ who left the country to hide out and avoid the draft.

The present buffoon in charge doesn't even know the difference between corps and corpse. We have stepnfetchit and jokin joe protecting the country, I bet that really helps you sleep better at night.

[sundaydriver]

Cheney didn't lead anyone into war. He was VP last I looked. His job was to preside over the senate, advise the president if asked and be there in case anything happened to the president.

His deferments were all legal and he probably did take advantage of family connections. Unlike BJ who left the country to hide out and avoid the draft.

The present buffoon in charge doesn't even know the difference between corps and corpse. We have stepnfetchit and jokin joe protecting the country, I bet that really helps you sleep better at night.

I sleep like the proverbial log at nite thanks. Thanks also for taking the time to explain to me what a VP does and that Cheney wasn't the POTUS.

I can always tell the "right" people by their immediate stoop to name calling. :lame2:

Cheney =chickenhawk to me!

[revelarts]

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/screenshotbonv001bushbama.jpg

6 and Half dozen on the war front. Drone into Libya now. no declaration of War and no "invite", not self defence. Clearly just an unconstitutional aggressive actions of war

[LuvRPgrl]

So?

What Cheney said is very true. I don't know why so many liberals have such a problem with him. President Bush basically chose him to help him win the election and to have around as an advisor.
Cheney, like all VP's, had no power whatsoever to make any kind of policy. And, it actually gave the Dems a foothold on the following election, because typically, the sitting VP will run for the office of President following his term. We all knew Cheney wasnt going to do that.

[LuvRPgrl]

I sleep like the proverbial log at nite thanks. Thanks also for taking the time to explain to me what a VP does and that Cheney wasn't the POTUS.

I can always tell the "right" people by their immediate stoop to name calling. :lame2:

Cheney =chickenhawk to me!

Please enlighten me, is that hypocrisy or irony?

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/screenshotbonv001bushbama.jpg

6 and Half dozen on the war front. Drone into Libya now. no declaration of War and no "invite", not self defence. Clearly just an unconstitutional aggressive actions of war

WOW!! thats an incredible picture.

[Gaffer]

I sleep like the proverbial log at nite thanks. Thanks also for taking the time to explain to me what a VP does and that Cheney wasn't the POTUS.

I can always tell the "right" people by their immediate stoop to name calling. :lame2:

Cheney =chickenhawk to me!

I guess ignorance is bliss.

You like so many other liberals seem to think Cheney was POTUS, and no matter how many times it's pointed out to you that he wasn't, you still come back with the same accusations.

I'm always "right". Any name calling I do is out of disdain for the person. Now go back to sleep, stepnfetchits on the job.

[red states rule]

These idiots that have never worn the uniform of an American troop that advocate further foreign military intervention can really just kiss this ol' county boy's ass.

Source: OpEdNews.com

By: Prof. Sam Hamod

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, when speaking recently at West Point, America's premier military academy, said, "If someone mentions going to war again soon, he should have his head examined."

Gates has learned what many of us experts on the Middle East and Islam said at the beginning of the George W. Bush debacle -- before Bush attacked Iraq based on lies -- you cannot win a war against a concept called "terrorism." Such a concept is unending, and "Islam" is a religion that will never be wiped out by armies; the more Muslims are attacked, the more they will retaliate against their attackers (in this case, America and its handmaiden, NATO, and other NATO countries in Europe).

Now one of the old chicken-hawks, the pro-Israeli minister of lobbying for Israel in the U.S. Senate -- Joe Lieberman -- has said we should get involved in Libya. Lieberman is advocating that we support the rebels, including furnishing them with weapons and possibly our military. He and the old warmonger, and perhaps not a hero after all as the stories by fellow prisoners come out -- John McCain -- are advocating this sort of intervention, in what is a nationalist matter.

Just what would America do if Mexico came across the border into Arizona to "protect" its citizens? We'd raise holy hell; go mad, and tell Mexico it's none of their business to come into America.

Then why is it that some of our ignorant congressional people say it is okay to go into Libya? I'll tell you why:

1. We want that cheap "sweet crude" for our sakes and the for sake of the EU. If we get rid of Muammar Qaddafi, an ardent nationalist, the EU and America will be sure to install a puppet and we'll get the oil cheap, or even free (as was the case of Iraq, and still is, because our oil companies steal Iraqi assets every day).............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...................................

More: http://www.opednews.com/articles/America-Being-Led-Into-War-by-Sam-Hamod-110228-339.html

I hate fucking walnut desk war heroes that don't mind seeing others die miserable deaths and live horribly broken lives just for their ill-conceived and chickenshit ways. This kind of thing just disgusts me to absolutely no damned end.

Psychoblues

Wow, a liberal talking about Pres Obama like this? Seems that hope and change is not going to well for you PB

Of course anytime you listen to Obama speak you need this

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/174999.gif

[red states rule]

Do you have a comment or are you just killing time?

Psychoblues

Here is a commnet made by Obama himself

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/174082.jpg

[red states rule]

I sleep like the proverbial log at nite thanks. Thanks also for taking the time to explain to me what a VP does and that Cheney wasn't the POTUS.

I can always tell the "right" people by their immediate stoop to name calling. :lame2:

Cheney =chickenhawk to me!

Newsflash!!!!

Bush and Cheney are not in elected offfice any longer. Your guy Obama is

What the hell happened to all those promises about ending wars, closing GITMO, US Federal court trials for terrorists?

Seems the Messiah is falling short on the promises made and yry the libs want to try and blame Bush once again for the failures of Obama

[sundaydriver]

Newsflash!!!!

Bush and Cheney are not in elected offfice any longer. Your guy Obama is

What the hell happened to all those promises about ending wars, closing GITMO, US Federal court trials for terrorists?

Seems the Messiah is falling short on the promises made and yry the libs want to try and blame Bush once again for the failures of Obama

If this thread is about chickenhawks leading to war. Cheney is still the posterchild. And where do you ever get the idea that Obama is my man? I am right of middle, I just didn't fall off the dock and into the water when they said; everyone take a step to the right. :laugh:

[sundaydriver]

I guess ignorance is bliss.

You like so many other liberals seem to think Cheney was POTUS, and no matter how many times it's pointed out to you that he wasn't, you still come back with the same accusations.

I'm always "right". Any name calling I do is out of disdain for the person. Now go back to sleep, stepnfetchits on the job.

I never thought Cheney was the Pres, Facts prove themselves (unless you avoid them regardless of personal wishes), I am not the Pope so I have a lot of fall ables and I would rather raise the bar than lower it for my personal behavior.

[fj1200]

I never thought Cheney was the Pres...

Seems that's not true.


If this thread is about chickenhawks leading to war. Cheney is still the posterchild.

The VP doesn't do that.

[red states rule]

If this thread is about chickenhawks leading to war. Cheney is still the posterchild. And where do you ever get the idea that Obama is my man? I am right of middle, I just didn't fall off the dock and into the water when they said; everyone take a step to the right. :laugh:

Being VP Cheney could not "lead" anyone. The Dems in Congress approved the use of force and Pres BUsh was the CIC

Get over it - Bush and Cheney are no longer in charge. Obama is.

At least until January 20, 2013