The Big O seems to have little oversight on many slip-in innuendos. Sometime, not often, it goes the other way. But far too many times it is a dig into a democrat. Fair play has never been an outstanding force under Fred Stickles control. The editorial page abounds with on/off again fickle sides of an issue,as if no one is in charge. I would prefer the stand being for something than no real stand at all, even if far left or far right.

The Oregonian owes Gov. Nesbitt an apology too. They keep calling Ted Kulongoski "Governor"!

"REAL SECURITY...The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore our Leadership in the World" includes the below sentence, under the heading "Iraq" (see page 3):

Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

That's right kids, we need to IMPEACH BUSH in order to Protect America.

Why would rural Americans believe that Democrats are less interested in our national defense than election year politics? Because they are!

Here's the question to answer in this election cycle: do you want to elect a Democratic Majority so they can begin impeachment proceedings on President Bush?

Bonus question: if you answered yes, do you think that impeachment hearings are likely to A)encourage, or B)discourage, further terrorist attacks?

Here, here!

But let's hope that the love and respect of the everyday Democrat for our troops results in pressure on Congress to thoroughly investigate the long term effects of depleted uranium on our soldiers and the civilians of Iraq and other places where we have been using them. Our inability as a country to recognize the reality of Gulf War Syndrome is disheartening. Particularly since we are already seeing dramatic increases in cancer and birth defects among soldiers returning from the current conflict in Iraq - and their families, as well as the citizens of Iraq. Rep. Blumenauer is one of the original sponsors of H.R.2410, the "Depleted Uranium Munitions Study Act." He wrote to me about it just this week:

I am pleased that provisions of this bill requiring a study of the health impacts of depleted uranium munitions were included as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I also recently sent a letter to the NDAA conferees asking that they include this provision in the final version of the bill. I believe that the sanction of an official Department of Defense study should lend credibility to the concerns about depleted uranium. While it is not the comprehensive response called for by H.R.2410, this amendment is a valuable step towards keeping our troops and communities healthy and safe from depleted uranium.

Please voice your support for this effort to protect our troops by letting Rep. Blumenauer know you're with him on this.

Why not just poll the current military and see how they feel about Democrats honoring veterans?

Oh, "they're too stupid to know any better"?

Democrats ridicule and belittle veterans and the current military every day.

You owe them the apology.

Question: How many times has Gordon Smith returned to Oregon to attend a funeral for a serviceman or servicewoman who died in Iraq?

Answer: ZERO

Question: How many funerals for our fallen troops has Gov. Kulongoski attended?

Answer: Almost all of them.

I called Smith's office maybe two months ago and asked why he does not attend funerals and the Governor does? I was told by a whiny staffer: Ohhh, It's 3000 mile away!!!

And how far away is Iraq, jackass?

And how long is forever, jackass?

ooooooh the funeral card!

That must mean TK is better?

How superficial can you and he be? TK, in liberal fashion, would prefer to yank control of the Oregon National Guard away from the feds.

That would be a fine howdy doody. Give all the little liberal governors control of our national guard. What a crock.

Jennifer W. and Karen J -

We knew that unpatriotic, America-haters like you want to destroy the middle-class and our democracy. But we are constantly suprised by how much you outdo your self everday, and how shameless you are, in expressing just how much contempt you have for our troops. What we want to know now is if you are part of our dry-drunk, chicken-hawk-in-chief's campaign to destroy the Geneva Conventions so that our brave troops can be tortured if they are captured?

All -

As far as the Oregonian. What can you expect from the type of uncurious folks who tend to be in the majority in newsrooms of the second-tier major dailies like the Oregonian? After all, they are the hires of the editors and managers whose ranks long ago were largely decimated of anyone who could honestly be called journalists, and are now dominated by those who lack intellectual substance and mistake cynicism for intelligence.

To be sure, there are a few good reporters at the Oregonian, and every reporter and the Oregonian editorial board occasionally does come through and live up to the reasons we have a First Amendment to protect journalists. Unfortunately, examples of the best journalists can be are becoming even rarer exceptions rather than the norm. The only oddly bright spot is that this is what the Founder's pretty much imagined the press was and would always be, since in their day the press was thoroughly partisan.

What they never imagined was how it would become so undiversely partisan, and they gave us the First Amendment in a valiant effort to make sure that diversity would exist. What is unique in this time is just how utterly contemptuous unpatriotic, America-hating, neo-fascists like Jennifer W and Karen J and their kind, led by a dry-drunk and thieving second-in-line would of our core American values starting with the First Amendment and respect for our troops.

Democrats ridicule and belittle veterans and the current military every day. You owe them the apology.

Karen, I don't know where you were Thursday night. I was at an event for Paul Evans with Max Cleland and Jim Rassman. There were other local veterans there.

When the Republicans apologize for the way the Saxby Chambliss campaign (he's not a veteran, btw) and the Republican party treated Max Cleland in the 2002 election, maybe I will take complaints like yours seriously. Cleland thought for himself and wouldn't follow orders to vote the way the Bush Administration told him to vote. (Where is it written that veterans who enter politics they are obligated to vote the way a president tells them to vote? )

I liked the remark made about that situation in 2004. Cleland is a triple combat amputee (the way he was treated in 2002 put the lie to the idea that "Republicans support the troops"--unless it means only in a rhetorical sense and not individual veterans). The remark was made about the way the GOP treated him in 2002 "What did they want from him--his other limb?".

(Karen, have you ever documented a case where any Democrat treated Bob Dole as badly as the GOP treated Cleland? Everyone I know admires Dole's combat bravery, however they may have disagreed with his politics.)

There are Republicans and Democrats who honor veterans. There are also those who give rhetorical/symbolic respect. They may speak in favor of "the troops" or have ribbons, signs, bumper stickers, etc. They may walk up to someone in uniform and say "thank you for your service". But that is as far as it goes.

The real "support the troops" folks aren't partisans. Whatever their party registration, they are the folks who befriend vets back from combat, as part of their everyday lives. They are the folks who visit the wounded in military hospitals. They are the folks who fight for the best possible armor for troops in the field, for armored Humvees and other logistical solutions. They are the folks who fight for full funding of veterans benefits (not the folks who treat veterans benefits as "just another social program"). They are (as some vets have said) those who help channel veterans into constructive ways to use their energy as they rejoin their communities. They try to prevent what according to some reports are real problems with returning vets--from divorce to suicide.

Swift Boat Vets for Obfuscation were not "supporting the troops". They were running an attack ad trying to benefit the candidate who served in the National Guard at a time when many ordinary folks (incl. my high school friends) did not have any such chance to avoid service in Vietnam (and his VP, Dick "had other priorities" Cheney).

You may recall that when Al French appeared on that ad, some said "Hey! Who said he served with Kerry?" and French had to admit he hadn't--had relied on stories from friends. Hearsay evidence?? There were a number of veterans in Oregon who were offended by that commercial. As you may recall, the Oregonian did a better job of covering that story from all sides than the national media (whatever else they may have done before or since, I don't recall national coverage as extensive as what the Oregonian did). Now, if they would only report on this story: http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/08/swiftboating_pa.html

So Karen, maybe you can answer this question: There is a debate within the Republican Party these days between John Warner (WWII vet, former Sec. of the Navy), John McCain (Vietnam vet, former POW), L. Graham (JAG reservist) and Colin Powell (General, former Chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff) on the one hand, and the Bush Administration on the other hand when it comes to detainee trials. Those who agree with Warner et al say that the Bush version of the bill could put our troops in danger.

So which faction truly "supports the troops"--the Senators with military experience, or the Bush Administration?

It would be interesting to see if you are capable of answering a question where it is impossible to blame Democrats in your answer.

I often wonder why these people at the Oregonian continue their stereotypes of rural folks, Democrats and others. I thought they were mainly college educated and should know better.

Karen writes, "Democrats ridicule and belittle veterans and the current military every day. You owe them the apology."

Over here in Crook Co, we have veterans as members of our County Democratic Central Committee, we support our veterans, we have family currently in the military, -- exactly how is it we are doing harm to our current active soldiers and veterans? I have attended most of the State Democratic Central Committee meetings in Oregon for the last two years. I have never seen any instance of disrespect for veterans.

So, those of you like Karen who think we are doing something in Roseburg, Prineville, Portland, etc. that is anti-veteran - exactly what the heck are you talking about? Give me some specific examples?

If there is some renegade Democrat out there - those of us who are the main stream of the Democratic Party will confront them!

If you really want to see disrespect for veteran's and soldiers, go to my prior post on this blog regarding Greg Walden's voting record. Our only Republican in the House from Oregon is entirely disrespectful in how he votes.

As for Jennifer W's note - too long to requote here - I'd say that an investigation into the President's mishandling of intelligence, mishandling of the wars, diversion of billions of dollars to corporate profits, etc. etc. is in fact in service to our troops and veterans. When you put a soldier in harms way without proper equipment, equipment that we could have had, then you are being disrespectful to the troops. If that ultimately leads to impeachment - fine. Does that send a message to terrorists that American is weak? No, it sends the opposite message. In the context of a war triggered by a religious notion that we are the great devil in the world, it sends a message that we are a moral nation guided by principal. Rather than play into the hands of the extremists over there, we play a different game that ultimately starts the path towards winning the hearts and minds of the mainstream Muslim people. Today, the mainstream Muslims have to conclude that a religious war is being conducted upon them based upon the words and actions of our government. So, yes, a little investigation is good for America, good for our troops, and good for the general good order of the world. Jennifer, the world is not black/white, for us or against us, support the President or support the terrorists. Your world view isn't based in reality.

http://www.americansforsharedsacrifice.org/DAV_Ratings.htm

http://capwiz.com/dav/keyvotes.xc/?

www.vawatchdog.org

These resources pretty much settle the debate over who supports veterans and current service members.

The War on Terror is bullshit, and Bush should be in prison. The Oregonian seems to be under pressure recently to spout GOP drivel. Pitts' idiotic editorial mocking the 911Truth movement was so GOP echo-chamber that it defies logic. The same is true for any implication that the chicken-hawk GOP supports, or even respects, those who served in war.

I have a protest sign that touches on the source of this "debate" -- Bush Went AWOL - How Dare He?

Styve

the democrats i know all want what's best for people in the military. right now that's to bring them home without waiting for the bumbling republicans in power to defeat an emotion ("terror").

The Oregonian owes no one an apology. It is merely describing Douglas County. It's the bumper sticker owners you have a problem with, and they're free to do what they want. Grow up and stop acting the victim.

I think that the oregonian shouldnt have to apologize. While I think that it is a poor quality newspaper, in terms of politics and sports, its not a error for them to state the truth that republicans like to put up support the troops and such bumper stickers.

"its not a error for them to state the truth that republicans like to put up support the troops and such bumper stickers."

It is an error if the implication is that support for the troops is the domain of Republicans no matter what community they're in.

UT, what makes you think that "support for the troops" can be measured in bumper stickers?

I have friends who have served in combat. I have volunteered in efforts to gain better treatment for veterans.

I don't have a "support the troops" (or for that matter any other slogan)sticker on my car. I do have a sticker for a member of Congress who has actually helped veterans with red tape, with the cause of full funding of veterans programs and making sure troops in the field have equipment they need.

And this story wasn't about Republicans supporting the troops-- the way it was worded, it was implying that Democrats don't. And that is something they should apologize for. Those bumper stickers have very little to do with supporting the troops and everything to do with supporting the war in Iraq.

I agree with Jenni. Deal with it!

UT, what exactly have you done to "support the troops"? Do you have friends who are veterans? Are you a vet? Belong to a veterans organization? Or is this all about bumper stickers and hype?

Just read this AP story:

FAIRFIELD, Conn. (AP) - Sen. Joe Lieberman on Friday criticized Republicans who accuse Democratic critics of the Iraq war of encouraging terrorists, arguing such talk "demeans the freedom we are all fighting for."

This week, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Democrats "are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has raised the specter of Nazi appeasers in his attacks on war critics, part of the GOP's steady drumbeat of rhetoric contending Democrats are weak on national security.

"It is wrong for some on the right to imply that some Democrats don't care if the terrorists succeed, or that debating the merits of the president's policies on the war on terrorism emboldens our enemies," Lieberman said in a speech at Fairfield University.

"That kind of attack on the motives of our fellow Americans and our right to debate and dissent demeans the freedom we are all fighting for and divides and weakens us as a nation," he said.

In December, the Connecticut senator publicly scolded anti-war critics within his party's rank-and-file, drawing criticism from many Democrats.

I never said support for the troops could be measured in bumper stickers. I said they were descriptive of what the journalist saw. That's the whole point of the article, to describe what he saw -- not to support one side over another.

And my support for the troops is none of your damn business.

Kari-

The Oregonian doesn't owe anybody an apology. It was actually a very well-written article by Michelle Cole, who is an excellent journalist. You should stop trying to tell journalists like Michelle Cole how to do their job. All you do is create cookie-cutter websites for Democrats, then post crap here about how anybody who doesn't pay you is somehow corrupt. The article itself was an accurate portrayal of the people in Roseburg and how they feel about the state of things. They feel that Portland elitists such as yourself don't care about them. And by nitpicking a single sentence in that article, you're proving as much. How do you think people in Roseburg would react to this post? I imagine they would find it as ridiculous as I do.

While it is true that Portlanders do not reflect the views of those of us in the other 30 some odd counties outside the Portland area (and yes, rural Washington and Clackamas county residents likely agree with rural voters more often than they agree with urban Portlanders), it is playing into a stereotype to have the quote Kari provided. Perhaps it was an unintentional slip, but people who are upset by such things have the right to say so.

Michelle Cole is a reporter I respect, but that wasn't the best choice of words. Small town American can "honor veterans" without voting straight ticket Republican. They can do so by welcoming vets back home, providing help in case of financial need, household need (esp. for wounded vets), perhaps even finding a job in case of job loss while in combat. As we have seen recently, there are Republicans who likely voted for Bush in 2004 who are no longer agreeing with him on everything. And as has been written elsewhere on this blog, they can question whether Republican officials (incl. those in Congress) have a pro-rural or anti-rural voting record.

I don't think the poor word choice was intentional, but this nonsense has gone on too long and there is no problem with talking about it publicly.

While on vacation in Calif. in 2004, I saw a bumper sticker that was probably truer than some would like to admit. Not the sign and bumper sticker often seen in this state, but "Support President Bush and the troops". I suspect lots of people displayed the "support the troops and Pres. Bush" signs and bumper stickers as campaign artifacts. Or maybe they wanted to make sure vets returning from combat didn't get the nasty treatment some gave troops returning from Vietnam.

If only it were that simple. There have been those who use "support the troops" to mean "give Republicans unquestioning support" rather than giving actual support to veterans returning from combat.

I heard recently that of the 35 veterans running for office this year (was that just Congress?), 34 of them are Democrats. Whaddya bet that in some of those 35 districts there are towns as rural as Roseburg?

The article was a description of a particular locality. But I wonder how many who live there agree with all the quotes, esp. the concluding quote from a forest products CEO about leadership and the 2 candidates for Gov.

Who ever said ALL democrats? Get real folks. You know darn well Democrats trash the military on a daily basis. They undermine their mission, inspire the enemy, weaken the effort to win and then play stupid games about how they are so supportive.

It is spot on that some Democrats don't care if the terrorists succeed, or that debating the merits of the president's policies on the war on terrorism emboldens our enemies. They want things to go as badly as possible in order to make political gains. With the war and the economy.

You know darn well Democrats trash the military on a daily basis. They undermine their mission, inspire the enemy, weaken the effort to win and then play stupid games about how they are so supportive.

Karen, you didn't take Steve Bucknum's challenge to be specific.

So I will add another one. When veterans who are Republicans (Chuck Hagel, for example) question the wisdom of Bush's policy, is that OK with you because they are not Democrats?

If it is "spot on that some Democrats don't care if the terrorists succeed, or that debating the merits of the president's policies on the war on terrorism emboldens our enemies." give us some examples.

Otherwise, you're just playing the talking points game.

UT,

"That's the whole point of the article, to describe what he saw -- not to support one side over another."

That's a cop out.

It is the Oregonian who draws the distinction through implication and they chose to print what the journalist wrote. The Oregonian could have edited the piece (or directed the journalist to do so), but didn't.

Shame on the Oregonian.

Karen,

"The hypnotized never lie..." and you are in one heck of a trance.

As far as the Goryonion goes---

it's the same old, same old. For those who want to defend Michele Cole, one must keep in mind that it is also quite likely that one of the editors slipped that little sentence in, rather than Michele writing it herself. Wouldn't be the first time, nor would it be the last time. I've known stringers from the Oregonian who've had such done to them, on issues I've worked on, to the point where I just plain don't necessarily jump to blame the writer.

I also find it quite entertaining that all the right-wing trolls are marching into BlueOregon to bash Democrats and the like. As LT, AskQuestions1st, Jenni Simonis and others have pointed out, in actual really truly Democratic Party meetings, veteran-bashing just doesn't happen. Makes me wonder if someone isn't astroturfing BlueOregon--Kari, are any precautions being taken against astroturfing here? Here's a site which leads you to some discussion on the issue, for folks unfamiliar with the concept:

Look, folks. I was active in the Lane County Democratic Central Committee in the late 70s/early 80s. Vets weren't bashed; in fact, we had some activists who were LCDCC members. Vet bashing in that era came from outliers that some of us strongly suspected were agents provocateurs. While disputes about Vietnam still leaked into our issues, they were centered around what folks Did or Didn't Do Against The Man--and at least one person who testified against Black Panthers who beat up Navy Recruiters had that used against him. But there were other issues involved, and I'm digressing....

As for the old "Portland elitist" line, that tends to come from the good ol' boys and their followers rather than the populace as a whole. Too damn many spouters of that line forget that a sizeable number of Portlanders started out in places like Roseburg, and may decide to retire back to the ol' home town. As one of that ilk, I can name more than a few folks who'd be considered "Portland elitists" who ain't from Portland, but are from places like Springfield, Cloverdale, Dayton, Scio, La Grande, Enterprise, Burns, and so on....

Chris: it's not a cop-out. It's called journalism -- the reporting of facts. That includes bumper stickers. Clearly you can't handle it and prefer your news biased. I do not. Grow up and stop acting the victim.

"...It's called journalism -- the reporting of facts. That includes bumper stickers. Clearly you can't handle it and prefer your news biased. I do not. Grow up and stop acting the victim."

Reporting does not equal fact. It is you that needs to grow up.

Great comeback, Chris! What intellectual depth you demonstrate....

You want intellectual depth? Read this book review about a book studying Paul Bremer's tenure as the administrator of Iraq after the invasion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401329.html

UT:

You sure showed him who's the man, Dawg. Whoof! Whoof!

UT, come on. You give Chris #1 the smackdown for telling you to grow up, when that's precisely the reasoning you used in your own argument? Or are you too still-born to realize that?

See what I did there?

But more to the point ...

Reporting may very well include the recording or reporting of fact, but as with any linguistic medium, and with questions of language more generally, problems of interpretation and insinuation will persist. Sometimes those problems are deliberate, other times they are incidental or accidental.

Whether facts even exist (and how do we present or describe them?) is a fundamental philosophical question. To not appreciate such finer points and intricacies would be a gross mistake.

As regards this debate, Kari has posed a reasonable argument pertaining to the Oregonian's reporting. Is the problem a sinister one, or did arise as an accident or mere error in construction? A blatant politicization or a cascade of coincidences by which the passage snuck past the writer and editors? Who knows, and moreover, such questions and their answers may ultimately be trivial.

Other Chris: Kari's problem was a faulty interpretation. He tried to conflate a bumper sticker with a newspaper's entire attitude towards Democrats, when in fact all the reporter was trying to do was report on the journalistic picture she saw in front of her. It's hardly a secret that many counties outside Portland skew Republican, and despite Kari's whining the Oregonian reporter owes no one an apology for reporting on that fact. That's all this is about. Jesus fucking Christ.

"Kari's problem was a faulty interpretation."

No Kari's interpretation is equal to anybody else's interpretation.

And yes the Oregonian should apologize because they have a responsibility to report in a balanced fashion. The reporter will submit a piece, but the big O has to understand the implications of that reporting.

That is really it.

Chris: The Oregonian DID report. It's only you who doesn't like the facts. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that Douglas County residents prefer Bush, whereas I do not, and it doesn't in the least diminish my opinion or threaten my well-being. We all have a right to our bumper stickers. Only you, and Kari, do not understand and accept that.

UT - point well taken, but did Kari attempt to conflate a bumper sticker with the Oregonian's "entire attitude?" I can understand how you might think that Kari assigns some kind of blame to the Oregonian as a paper essentially biased against Democrats, but I don't think he did - he merely stated that it might be appropriate for the Oregonian to apologize in this one instance, on behalf of this one reporter.

And just to put a little spin on this, why do we assume that this writer, or the paper, even, is spinning or advancing a Republican view here? I wouldn't be surprised if the writer or paper is projecting or reflecting a naive belief about itself (as a Democratic hanger-on who has come to believe - rightly or wrongly - that his party doesn't "support the troops").

And Chris, I would respectfully warn against a categorical notion that any interpretation is equal to all others. The practical repercussions of such an attitude would be frightening.

But why are we bickering about this anyway? I suggest we all go read some Sontag and come back all the wiser.

UT -

I think you may have lost the point?

Simple English construction folks: 1) Republicans > Democrats - No arguement 2a) Bush/Cheney bumper sticker - Republicans - no arguement 2b) We honor veterans - same as B/C sticker - not that I know of

Two sentences, same paragraph, separated by a period and nothing else, indicates continuity of thought and subject. Subject & predicate sentence 1) easily verifiable and also true, sentence 2) predicate 2a) easily inferred and high probability truely reflects 1) but predicate 2b) connected by conjuctive and thus equal or equivilent in sentence structure is in fact neither, it is in fact a slander to imply that 1=2b.

Get over it??? This is exactly the subtle slanting of "news" that creates perception, it is one step below the "1st Amendment support by Rob Brading = he encourages porn viewing by kids. Your news can be slanted by those with an agenda, considerably more subtly than Fox does it on most occasions. Because you do not pay attention to it does not mean that an alteration of perception is not induced, it is that simple step above subliminal, it is obviously there when noted but not egregious enough to arouse resistance on consumption.

While you, UT, may bemoan the continued belief by the American public in disproved political lies you seem to fail to see where that continuation comes from. Perception is frequently more persuasive than fact.

Former Salem Staffer -

nd rest of those here who may not be familiar with what it means to be a good, much less an excellent, reporter. Let's go back to "Phil 101 - Logic" and analyze the quote appearing under Cole's byline. (17yearoldwithanopinion, while it's too late for a lot of the folks who like to post here, this is offered in part to give you the opportunity to appreciate the value of taking Philosophy, and particularly Logic, in college.)

First, let's recall the quote where I've added the missing adverbs DO and THEREFORE indisputably implied by the construction of the comment, and highlighted the adverb not which will come to figure in the analysis.

Registered Republicans DO outnumber Democrats in Douglas County. THEREFORE It's not uncommon to see a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker or a sign outside a coffee shop that reads: "We honor veterans."

Now since, Cole asserts this to be a "true" statement --- after all she is a reporter who only is supposed to write falsehoods she believes she can get away with --- the contrapositive of this statement is also what is unarguably implied by her statement. That is, if "A implies B" is true, then "NOT B implies NOT A" is also true. After transposing the two sentences of the original quote, inserting the appropriate NOTs, and noting the parenthesized NOT not is a double negative which could be omitted, the contrapositive of the quote reads as :

It's (NOT not) uncommon to see a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker or a sign outside a coffee shop that reads: "We honor veterans." THEREFORE Registered Republicans DO NOT outnumber Democrats in Douglas County.

That is, the quote is clearly saying that if one did not see many signs "We honor veterans", one should conclude that Democrats equal or outnumber Republicans in Douglas County.

This pretty clearly is an editorial slam on Democrats in a supposed reporting piece, and a particularly egregious one at that.

So perhaps the Oregonian doesn't owe us Democrats an apology (although I believe Kari is completely justified in demanding one). But if they want to push their BS being an honest "unbiased" purveyor of the truth (probably a foolish assumption on my part) they do have an obligation to reprimand Cole and fire her editor. For either this juvenile slam on Democrats is Cole's, and that editor is either incompetent or in support and let it go to print, or, as jrw suggests, the editor slipped it in on his or her own.

Since UT may not be familiar with me, I am a long time resident of Baker County, I'm a Democrat, I'm seriously outnumbered, Portland doesn't upset me - except when they vote garbage down our throat and then blame us when they don't like the results, and I'm more left than most of those "elites."

Karen, you've refused to answer the simplest requests to be specific in your claims of anti-soldier Democrats. Your avoidance of such a simple request shines a bright light on your intentions. You are simply a troll.

Here's your facts: Loyalty to GOP trumped know-how of staff sent to rebuild Iraq. If that doesn't make you angry I guess that puts you on the same side as Dick "I'd do everything exactly the same" Chickenhawk Cheney.

Karen, are you ok with this? "To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration."

OK with this? "Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting."

How about this? "O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade."

You ok with this? "To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience."

Or this? "Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000."

You ok with this? "One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors."

I'll bet you're just fine with this? "As more and more of O'Beirne's hires arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room. Bumper stickers and mouse pads praising President Bush were standard desk decorations. In addition to military uniforms and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" garb, "Bush-Cheney 2004" T-shirts were among the most common pieces of clothing.

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."

I could go on, but I'll end with this: "Bremer wanted to privatize Iraqi assets, but an occupier cannot sell the assets of the occupied nation. So, they set up their puppet government, and made CPA rules the law of the land until elections were held.

“Bremer had found his legal loophole: There would be a window—seven months—when the occupation was officially over but before general elections were scheduled to take place. Within this window, the Hague and Geneva Conventions’ bans on privatization would no longer apply, but Bremer’s own laws, thanks to Article 26, would stand. During these seven months, foreign investors could come to Iraq and sign forty-year contracts to buy up Iraqi assets. If a future elected Iraqi government decided to change the rules, investors could sue for compensation.”

Republicans run every branch of the federal govt. Your attempts to blame Democrats (talk about your victim mentality) for the Neocon failures of war-making, nation-building (how very conservative, cough), or finding the true culprit, bin Laden, of the 9/11 attacks is not working with the American public. They have quit listening and/or buying into the fear-mongering of the Incompetent "Trust Me" Brigade. I, like

Here's the "Iraq-for-Dummies History 2003-06", the condensed version: Bush wasted the first six months after the fall of Baghdad by creating a privatizing bonanza for his cronies, contributors and even neocon administration figures like Richard Perle. Despite all the rhetoric and all the promises, there were no WMDs to be found which destroyed one reason for the war. As for the fall back position, democracy-building was a joke in the first six months as Iraqis watched their country first looted, then sold to the highest bidder. The incompetent Admin. fools didn’t think the Iraqis noticed. An insurgency, terrorism, discontent and anger grew while Republicans pursued their get-rich schemes. And then these clowns let Iraq slip away into chaos, and here we are today with monthly death rates at their highest, the Anbar Province in the control of al Qaeda, Afghanistan slipping back into Taliban control, Osama still on the loose, and the Next Great Idea = trenches around Baghdad. You are obviously proud.

Three final questions, Karen: 1. what do loyalty and competency have to do with each other? 2. why are loyal Republicans so bad at their jobs ("great job, Brownie!")? and, 3. how did any of the above help to protect our troops or secure the country?

To bring it closer to home, I'm sure our little "pro-troops Karen" also agrees with Walden's tie-breaking vote to NOT give our troops in Afghanistan or Iraq a $1500 bonus, his vote to NOT protect financially distressed military families, and his vote against holding Bush accountable for the $400 billion that has been squandered in Iraq.

Wow that's one helluva Support the Troops sentiment Karen. Unfortunately, from the looks of your other comments, all we're gonna get from you is more babbling Apologism.

Wow. So Michelle Cole writes a story profiling one of the Reddest of Oregon's 36 counties by offering the observation that it's not uncommon to see Bush-Cheney bumper stickers outside a coffee shop with "We Support the Troops" in the window. Duh. In Nov 2004, Douglas County voted for Bush (36,000) over Kerry (18,000), 2-1.

Would this thread even exist if she wrote that in Multnomah County, Democrats outnumber Republicans and it's not uncommon to see Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers outside a Belmont coffee shop with "Attack Iraq? NO!" in the window?

Slow news day, indeed.

• Wes

Cole reported that visibly "supporting the troops" means you're Republican. It implies that democrats don't "support the troops."

If you don't understand why that's inappropriate in a newspaper, then you are incapable of adding any thing intelligent to this discussion.

It was thoughtless, sloppy reporting and editing.

But if the Oregonian aplogized every time that occurred, the daily paper would be the size of the Sunday edition, and 95% of the pages would be apologies. They wouldn't even have room for the funnies.

Here's a little test to determine the orientation of the Oregonian or any other newspaper: first take all the pages filled only with ads and place them into Pile 1; next, remove all the ads from the remaining pages and add them to Pile 1; then, take all the pages with sports or other entertainment material and place them into Pile 2; finally, place the "news hole" pages (pages that actually have news articles), sans ads, and place them into Pile 3. Now, from the tiny percentage of the paper that actually is news, Pile 3, separate out business-related stories, including the "business section", which all corporate papers have, and add them to Pile 1.

The Oregonian, like all other corporate media, is overwhelmingly devoted to Pile 1, and secondarily to Pile 2. The tiny portion related to non-business-related material, Pile 3, is about the same size as the brains of all those who want to debate over whether or not calling attention to the relationship of Bush-Cheney bumper stickers to Republican registration is offensive to Democrats.

What pile am I in if I consider political news as entertaining sport?

• Wes

Wes: "What pile am I in if I consider political news as entertaining sport?"

You're in a pile of shit if you expect to get it from the Oregonian or any other corporate rag.

Of course, my editor should have said, "Pile 3...is about the same size as the brains of all those who want to debate over whether or not calling attention to the relationship of Bush-Cheney bumper stickers to honoring our troops is offensive to Democrats.

Actually Kari, the article only implies that Democrats are less likely to have a bumper sticker that says "we honor veterans." Which isn't the same thing as saying democrats don't care about veterans.

Jim (a veteran, and a Democrat)

In all of this chest-thumpin' about who is more "patriotic" than who, did anyone notice that since 2001 Republicans gained 5,000 more voters in Douglas County, goin' from 3,000 over the Dems to over 8,000 in only five years? Didn't Gov Kitzhaber come from 'ol Doug County?

Some of us un-city'fied folk want to know how that happened? Any ideas, fearless leaders?

Some of us un-city'fied folk want to know how that happened? Any ideas, fearless leaders?

State rep. districts 2 and 7 down that way have over 8000 registered voters who didn't register in a major party--in line with many other districts around the state (incl. the one with S. Salem and a chunk of Polk Co.).

Could it be that "the fastest growing party is no party at all" and neither "major" party is going to have a majority of registered voters anytime soon?

Last election the House control was decided by 7 races decided by 1000 votes or less. Looks like the NAV folks control the outcome of more elections than some partisans might be comfortable with.

<hr/>