American Sniper and a quartet of horse’s asses


horses asses all

I know. They could be siblings.

There are times when you in your life when events transpire which are not just puzzling, but confounding. This is one of them.

Michael Moore called Chris Kyle a “coward.” The rotund coward Moore is accompanied by nine bodyguards.

Moore cornered, pressed and embarrassed an aging and failing Charlton Heston, who was kind enough to grant Moore an interview. Subsequently, at the 2005 National Board of Review Awards, Clint Eastwood had a warning for Moore:

“Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.”

“But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you.”

After some laughter, Clint added:

“I mean it.”

Unfortunately, Moore hasn’t taken up the challenge.

Seth Rogen compared “American Sniper” to a Nazi propaganda movie. Rogen has arguably the most annoying laugh on Earth.


Rogen, like Adam Sandler and Barbra Streisand, is virtually the same character in every movie. Id wager that he thinks Fahrenheit 911 was a historically accurate documentary.

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone said

“Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism.”

He also called Kyle a “dick.”

You’ll recall that Rolling Stone wrote a fraudulent story about a rape scandal at UVA.

I’d love to see these horse’s asses have to pick up a weapon and experience combat. Unlike in movies, getting killed means you don’t get up once the director yells “cut.” They need to know what it feels like when one of your friends is killed next to you. They see war as it is in “Tropic Thunder.”

Chris Kyle is a real American hero. Even Geraldo Rivera, who I cannot normally stand, noted this morning that what Kyle did was “clean” as he put it. What he meant was the shooting a solitary bad guy at a time resulted in no collateral damage.

And that brings me to Barack Obama.

It was disclosed that Obama has a personal kill list. Obama’s drone strikes have resulted in the deaths of 2400 people. Moreover, those drone strikes have killed approximately 200 children.


Have you one heard a word about that from these horse’s asses? have you heard one word about this from any Hollywood celebrity?

To his credit, Taibbi has been critical of these drones strikes but I have seen not a single instance in which Taibbi calls out Obama- and Obama personally directs these strikes. He ducked that issue big time:

The news that the executive branch had claimed for itself the power to assassinate Americans managed to very briefly raise the national eyebrow, but for the most part, the body politic barely flinched. I got the sense that most of the major press organizations sort of hoped the story would go away quietly (aided, hopefully, by the felicitous appearance of some distractingly thrilling pop-news/cable sensation, like Chris Dorner’s Lost Weekend).

No, Matt. It wasn’t the “Executive Branch.” It was Obama- personally. But Taibbi did manage to call out Sen. Lindsey Graham:

Would Lindsey Graham be able to look the mother of some dead Pakistani child in the eye and still call for a resolution praising the president for braving the criticism of “libertarians and the left” to kill people by remote control?

You can see the O’Reilly interview with Chris Kyle here.

In that interview Kyle says

“I’m committed to making sure every service member that was out there, whether American or ally, came home..”

Every time I watch that interview O’Reilly sends my blood pressure up with the tone of his questions. O’Reilly says

“But as a sniper your job is to kill them, not wound them, not arrest them…”

WTF??? In a firefight with Al Qaeda is the “job” of the American military to “wound them” or “arrest them”? Sometimes O’Reilly can also be a horse’s ass.

The horse’s asses above seem to view war as a gentlemen’s exchange, a game of chess at the park.

It’s not.

Chris Kyle was a guy you’d want next to you anywhere, any time. Who knows how many American lives he saved?

Five Bronze Stars and two Silver Stars. It doesn’t get more heroic than that.

And to this day he remains ignored by Barack Obama.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I recognize Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly in the photos above, but who are the two in the middle?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy in our history
We got rid of a secular despot and instead enabled the religious Shia to bond with Iran and the radical Sunnis to become ISIS
You think Saddam wasn’t better for our national interests ?

Obama made sure of the shia bond to Iran. His hands are not clean in this.

Rolling Stone was also the rag that ran a flattering picture of the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on their front cover as if he were the latest teen heart throb. Yeah. I trust their judgement.

Liberals ‘lie’ all the time. I truly wonder “if” Michael Some moore even “had” an Uncle who EVER served in WWII. I think, like much of his spew, his story of an Uncle is B/S
The other one, and those of his kind are idiots, and sadly ‘proud to be an idiot’ too.

“Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism.”

Then Taibbi goes on to mention Bush’s “walnut-sized brain”, so total objectivity in reporting, leaving his own mis-guided politics aside, is not his forte either.

Every time I watch that interview O’Reilly sends my blood pressure up with the tone of his questions. O’Reilly says

As sympathetic O’Reilly was and remains to what Kyle has done, I’m not sure he was trying to be critical but to but an unbiased flavor to the interview. Actually, there is no question: of COURSE the sniper shoots to kill. First, usually he only gets a head-shot presented to him. Secondly, when he shoots, he reveals his position. Fighting the terrorists is not like a land war with nations where it is beneficial to overload the enemy’s support capabilities by flooding it with severely wounded soldiers. Terrorists don’t care about their wounded because they are on their way to their rendezvous with their virgins.


The invasion and occupation of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy in our history
We got rid of a secular despot and instead enabled the religious Shia to bond with Iran and the radical Sunnis to become ISIS
You think Saddam wasn’t better for our national interests ?

I assume you left out “disaster” from your standard left wing talking point. It was only a disaster inasmuch as the intelligence showing the threat posed by Hussein’s WMD’s was severely flawed… not Bush’s fault. However, once we had defeated the Iraqi military and defeated the insurgency, Iraq was a hard-won success. Obama turned it into the disaster we are experiencing today. Put the blame, as long as you are doling it out, where it belongs.

Bush’ policies of invading and occupying Muslim countries have resulted in creating more jihadists than we could kill
Anybody prefer Saddam ?

@John: No, John. Obama’s policy of abandoning our friends and ceding countries and territory to Islamic terrorists has created more jihadists. The mere sight of him gives them hope in ultimate victory.

Bush got the intelligence that he demanded
Analysts were ordered to find results that said Saddam had WMD
You can’t hide the huge infrastructure needed to build nukes
Bush gave Tennet the head of the CIA the highest medal a civilian can be awarded for that bungled
Bush was given just what he wanted to justify an invasion
And America hated him for that he was the most despised POTUS ever
With polls down to 22%

I went and saw the Movie last night and it was brilliant and this guy is a real hero!! To listen to Michael Moore and believe anything this coward says is like listening to Al Sharpton and not believing he is a racist!!

Is the last photograph on the right a close up of the fool’s/pres.’s face?

Dear John, put down the talking points of those Art Voice articles that you purloined about evil Bush and the creation of violent jihadists.
If you want an alternative opinion, Victor David Hanson, The Greatest Lie, would be a start. As to the topic posted: Kyle is a warrior and hero while Moore is not.

John #11… if those WMD’s didn’t exist, then why was it so concerning when ISIS fighters took over an old WMD factory in Iraq? And it was mentioned that there were a bunch of drums of bad chemical weapons there as well… then suddenly that wasn’t mentioned anymore by anyone. And before you blame it on FOX News, I read it online on AP…

And most of Hollywood wouldn’t amount to a pimple on the ass of any Navy SEAL, except maybe Jesse Ventura’s and he’s a big enough ass to hold all of them.


It was only a disaster inasmuch as the intelligence showing the threat posed by Hussein’s WMD’s was severely flawed… not Bush’s fault.

The intel wasn’t as far off as the left makes it out to be. He had stockpiles of the older WMD, something the left claimed he never had. It is the left that is now backtracking their statements claiming that they “knew all along” that he had the stockpiles of older WMD. This of course is a flat out lie but the left doesn’t have the honesty, integrity, or honor to admit that they too were wrong. The only point of contention is whether or not he had newer stuff and there is evidence indicating he did but it went to Syria amongst other places. Given how far off all of the original reports were as far as what he had in the way of older WMD (none) their conclusions as to whether or not he had an active WMD program are to be viewed with skepticism.

Dr. J- Your last picture of the quartet is worth a thousand words when speaking of the American left.


Bush got the intelligence that he demanded
Analysts were ordered to find results that said Saddam had WMD

Not according to the Silberman-Robb Report.

The Commission also found no evidence of “politicization” even under the broader definition used by the CIA’s Ombudsman for Politicization, which is not limited solely to the case in which a policymaker applies overt pressure on an analyst to change an assessment. The definition adopted by the CIA is broader, and includes any “unprofessional manipulation of information and judgments” by intelligence officers to please what those officers perceive to be policymakers’ preferences (p. 188).

We conclude that good-faith efforts by intelligence consumers to understand the bases for analytic judgments, far from constituting “politicization,” are entirely legitimate. This is the case even if policymakers raise questions because they do not like the conclusions or are seeking evidence to support policy preferences. Those who must use intelligence are entitled to insist that they be fully informed as to both the evidence and the analysis (p. 189; footnote omitted).

Excerpt from the SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence:

The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities (p. 284).

The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq’s links to terrorism. (p. 363)

Scott read and blogged on the SSCI Phase II Report which also makes for good reading.

James Kirchick of the LATimes going off of the SSCI Phase II Report on Pre-War Intell and other investigations over the years:

the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” — that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction — administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: “Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don’t get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were “misled” into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats — not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others — sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees — who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors — many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats’ lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

So who is manipulating the truth, John Ryan? Who is fabricating lies? Who is creating false pretense and a distorted narrative on how and why Bush decided “regime change” Clinton policy on Iraq finally had to be enforced, post-9/11?


So who is manipulating the truth, John Ryan? Who is fabricating lies? Who is creating false pretense and a distorted narrative on how and why Bush decided “regime change” Clinton policy on Iraq finally had to be enforced, post-9/11?

The left which is why they aren’t worthy of any type of debate.

Nobody called out the Democrats for moving the boarder stakes between the U.S. and Mexico “creating proof” that the Mexican army entered U.S. territory. Also the Alamo was technically in Mexico.

The Democrats lied about the Lusitania which was a weapon supply ship with human shields on board.

The Democrats lied about Pearl Harbor. The U.S. was already supplying men and weapons to the allies before Japan attacked. The U.S. was already helping the allies and got called on it.

The Democrats were the only ones to authorize the use of weapons of mass destruction including poison gas and nuclear weapons.

The Democrats might have let the secrets of the atomic weapons slip into Soviet hands on purpose and purposely got the U.S. involved in the Cold War. Although the Rosenbergs were executed at least two known spies were never charged, one was traded in a swap and a couple got light sentences. Also U.S. generals lied about how many bombers the Soviets had. The Soviets had three bombers while the generals claimed 300 (at its height it had 79 bombers). Two thirds of the Soviet ground and air forces were along the Chinese boarder while NATO forces were pressed up against the boarder with the Warsaw pact. The Democrats also claimed that the Soviets were better than they were. On the other hand the troops were often drunk, 1/3 of their nuclear missiles were said not to work, the MIG-29 has yet to get a kill on a Western aircraft and a captured BMP was deemed unsafe to drive because the transmission could catch fire and kill the crew.

The U.S. involvement of the Vietnam conflict was based on several lies. My guess on why the U.S. got involved was technology through trial by fire. Just like WW2, a huge defense budget for Vietnam could produce all sots of things from faster computers, to better medical technology to more advanced weapons. By the time the Soviets tried the same thing with Afghanistan, the U.S. was far more advanced and it could only last for 9 years as opposed to the U.S. which was in Vietnam for 20 years.

The Cuban Missile crises started when JFK put nuclear missiles in Turkey. He also loved black operations including the destruction of voting booths in Latin America by the CIA using grenades.

The U.S. oil embargo in the 1970s was also a sham by the Democrats looking for alternative energy. It turns out the U.S. had so much oil now that it became the number one exporter of oil (which is why Saudi Arabia launched its recent oil war).


The invasion and occupation of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy in our history

You don’t know very much about history do you? I’d say our WW2 “foreign policy” or the Cold War were both far bigger, greater and much more far reaching. Iraq was more on a “foreign policy” level perhaps with the Korean or Vietnam war, with the exception that it failed to be very decisive or effective in conducting the supposed mission of a “War on Terror”. Terrorist groups still abound and instead, here in America we take off our shoes, get our junk touched, and our government increases it’s intrusiveness and espionage on it’s own citizens.

@MOS 8541:

Why, yes it is!

@another+vet: Kid Rock and Ted Nugent—-talentless, animal slaughterers.
Couldn’t shine Bob Seger’s guitar.

@Rich Wheeler: I guess our ancestors, you know the hunters and gatherers, were slaughterers too. Being an animal lover, I don’t hunt but have no problem with those who do and I do eat meat. I take it you are a vegetarian then or do you let others “slaughter” your meat sources for you? As for Ted Nugent and Kid Rock’s politics, at least they are unabashed supporters of the troops unlike the overwhelming majority of those on the left. I didn’t figure you’d be sticking up for Moore and Rogen over their Kyle comments.

@another+vet: Can’t stand Rogen’s comments or his movies.
Moore said he was referring to MLK , RFK shootings.
Not a fan of Nugent’s or Rocks music. Their abuse of animals for sport sicken me. I’m a vegan.

@Rich Wheeler: Rich, I hope this note finds you well. I went and saw American Sniper Friday and was very touched by the movie. These are hard for me having been a Corpsman in Viet Nam. I noted that the first thing Kyle said when his friend Giggles got hit was “Corpsman”!! I can’t tell you the feeling I had at that moment. Good good movie and certainly this guy was NOT a coward. My wife and I agree that the fact that Moore said what he did is no surprise but NOT worthy of any press coverage. It’s like recognizing Al Sharpton as the leader in race relations.

@Common Sense: When I hear “Corpsman” I get chills. The true HEROS of war. Thank you.

@Rich Wheeler: A vegan, huh?
That explains (at least in part) many of your comments here.
I’m surrounded by a portion of the LDS community (not all of them are like this, btw) who believe that meat/fish/eggs/cheeses should all be eaten SPARINGLY.
Their shopping carts look like vegan ones.
Their protein-starved brains are a real problem here in Utah.
They also (way more often than average) suffer from a protein-starvation side effect: waking up paralyzed for a time.
This they often mistake for spiritistic interventions into their lives.

@Nanny:” Their protein starved brains.” “They are waking up paralyzed” .That’s bullshit even coming from you Nan.
I’m 70, run, lift weights, never taken a med and get plenty of protein from a plant based , cruelty free diet.
Fortunately the Mormons have god fearing animal slaughtering Evangelicals like yourself to set them straight.

@Rich Wheeler: You are unfamiliar with what doctors here keep trying to stop: too many people preventing their own children from thriving.
Adults who often wake up paralyzed for a few minutes.
It has been covered by local news on TV here at least three times in the two years I’ve been here.
Plus I’ve met people who suffer from it.
I invited an LDS woman over for dinner only to watch her pick at one segment of a chicken wing while porking out on the stuffing, the veggies, the dessert.
She is morbidly obese yet she abstains from proteins as if they are ”the plague.”
She explained her praying over food that it become ”nutritious,” as if that miraculously turns carbs and fats into proteins.

@Nanny: Meat eaters are much more likely to be diseased than vegetarians. Coronary problems come to mind. Consumers of flesh are the big pharmaceutical med takers in our society.
Ever think of the incredible waste of money spent fattening these animals only to merciless slaughter for your consumption- the steroids you are consuming. You’re the one who wakes up ill–with a bad stomach.
The gasses sent into the environment from their waste?
There really is no good rationale for meat consumption other than your trained taste buds.
” Too many people here keeping there children from thriving” ?? By promoting compassionate, healthy, environmentally sustaining food choices? Really?
Do you have any idea how much protein there is in a cup of broccoli, garbanzo beans, nuts? Vegetables can provide the same amount of protein as meat and chicken. Much better for your health, the environment and of course the sentient beings you cease to consume.
I’ve talked with some folk who swear dogs are much tastier than pigs or cows.Give em’ a try.

@Rich Wheeler: Moore is a liar if he claims he was referring to MLK and RFK. His comment was about a movie that had nothing to do with MLK or RFK. It was about Chris Kyle.

@another+vet: Moore’s comparison was to a military sniper who supposedly shot his uncle, not to an assassin. Moore is a disgusting excuse for a human being.

@Rich Wheeler: I take it you eat organic veggies since they put crap on those as well to make them grow faster etc. and in the process destroy the nutrients. One of the healthiest diets out there is the Paleo diet which relies heavily on meats etc. I would argue that the biggest dietary culprit with health problems are refined carbs/sugars. That and a lack of exercise are the main causes for the bulk of our health problems. We have become a nation of fat asses (see Michael Moore) and given our youth’s penchant for hanging out at home and playing video games instead of going outside and playing, it’s only going to get worse.

@proof: And that’s being kind.

@another+vet: Refined carbs and sugar–bingo. Exercise is crucial and truly delays the aging process.
To be clear I’m talking primarily about the horrors of factory farming. Anyone with an ounce of compassion should watch Earthlings or Farm to Fridge.

@Rich Wheeler: When you think about it though, given population growth, in order to meet the demands it is probably the only realistic approach. We are no longer a nation of 60 million where people’s needs can be met by farming without the use of the junk they use. As the world’s population increases, we can only expect the human diet to become even less polluted. Soylent Green anyone? : )

@another+vet: You’re O.K with factory farming?
I ask a favor of you as a fellow Vet—Watch Farm to Fridge and Earthlings.Farm to Fridge will take you less than 12 minutes. Earthlligs Watch as much as you can handle.
Sorry I can’t post them right now. Thank you AV. Semper FI

@Rich Wheeler: I realize it is cruel, but what’s the alternative to help feed people? Like it or not, meats trump veggies as protein sources and protein is necessary. If it were a puppy mill I would be highly irate. But it’s not.

@another+vet: Meat does not trump a plant based diet for protein. I’m strong and get all the protein I need without consuming animals. Gorilla’s are vegetarian.

@Rich Wheeler: What’s the difference between eating puppies or pigs? In Asia they prefer to eat puppies. Spend that 11 minutes with farm to fridge—then comment back–Thanks again

@Rich Wheeler: I watched the video. As violent and disgusting as it was, there is no nonviolent way to kill an animal. Animals raised for food have always been killed one way or the other it’s just that now it is on film. Which brings me back to my original question, how do you propose fixing the problem that there are over 7 billion people on the planet and counting and they need to be fed? Expect more “innovative” ways to increase food production both in terms of animals and fruits and vegetables. Ideal? No. Necessary? Most likely.

What’s the difference between eating puppies or pigs?

Puppies grow up to be dogs which are man’s best friend and are better than most people. I enjoy spending time with my dogs more than spending time with people. Enough said.

Meat does not trump a plant based diet for protein. I’m strong and get all the protein I need without consuming animals. Gorilla’s are vegetarian.

That’s debatable. A vegan web site would make those claims but others would make strong arguments against it. Diets are like workout philosophies. Just like there is debate on whether it’s best to do split routines as opposed to full body routines, or whether multiple sets are better than single sets, or whether training short of failure is better than training to failure there are debates as to what the best diet is. Paleo, Mediterranean, Atkins, vegan, lacto vegan, ovo-lacto vegan etc. diets all have their advocates.

As for the gorilla, I prefer to compare myself to an animal that has more of my genes and body chemistry and that would be prehistoric man. They were heavy consumers of meats, fish, poultry, nuts, fruits, and vegetables. No breads or pastas. Look at who the strongest humans were in modern times (Paul Andersen, Bruno Sanmartino, Franco Columbo, Ken Paterra to name a few) they were all meat eaters. No vegans.

@another+vet: “Now the slaughter is on film” Exactly and it’s getting worse. To turn away from the suffering and do nothing. Now that I’ve seen it. Can’t do it.
The money spent feeding these animals to obesity–a waste. Spend it on feeding the hungry of the world a healthy plant based diet.
The gasses sent into the environment worse than any carbon emissions. Factory farming will eventually obliterate the environment.Nothing left for future generations.
I got 2 golden retrievers that are like my kids–better than people—agreed. All animals deserve to live their lives with the same dignity that is accorded to our pets. They are intelligent sentient beings that have families.They have emotions and most definitely experience pain.Why should we treat them like unfeeling objects, here only to assuage our palates. As humans we should be better than that.
There are many strong vegan bodybuilders–We don’t need to consume violence to live strong healthy lives. Compassion, health, sustainable environment. Mercy For Animals
Thank you for watching Farm to Fridge.
Gary Yourofsky “Best speech you will ever hear” makes the best case I’ve heard. Think you’d enjoy it and would love your always intelligent feed back
Dr John or any other FA’er I invite you to watch this outstanding presentation and give feedback. Thank You.

@Rich Wheeler: Thanks Rich it means a lot to me. Sadly I saw real heroes give all and snipers save good men!! I wished I could have saved more.

@veteran of productive work (building): Thank you for the view from your colon.