Every Generation Has Its Heroes

This one is no exception.

Posted by Jack at March 22, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #135308

jack……just as we’re told to not attack the messenger along with the message…..I don’t ever attack the warrior along with the war !!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 22, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #135318


No offence pal, but you need a hobby.

Someday we will be able to rise beyond our rampant militarism, and collections, like this will only be for the memories.

Sadly, I don’t think humans will be moving in that direction anytime soon.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #135330

everyone has a story about there father, grandfather, brother, uncle, sister, or themselves about war, quote by a famous general war is hell.quote by a soldier yes but someone has to do it!. let us not forget the soldier, they bear the burden, give them hope and honor!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 22, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #135333

Thanks for the great link Jack.

Posted by: kctim at March 22, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #135335

Our fighting men and women are heroes.

That is why I can not fathom the supreme obscene irresponsibility of irresponsible incumbents to vote on pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare, and waste, when, while our brave troops risk life and limb.

If that doesn’t make you angry, nothing will.

The federal government has far too many irresponsible incumbents.

Here are just a few of the porker-award winners for 2005:

Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Robert Bennett (R-Utah) , Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo.), Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss., Senate) , Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Robert Cramer (R-Ala.), John Culberson (R-TX), Randy Cunningham (R-CA.), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA.), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), John Doolittle (R-CA.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Chet Edwards (D-TX) , Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.), David Hobson (R-Ohio) , Mark Kirk (Rill.), Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) , Tom Latham (R-Iowa), Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), John McCain (R-AZ) ($1 million for the brown tree snake), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), George Nethercutt, Jr. (R-Wash.) , Anne Northup (R-Ky.), John Peterson (R-Pa.) , Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala., Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) , Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, Senate) (he is the worst), John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), David Vitter (R-La.), James Walsh (R-N.Y.) , Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Chairman Bill Young (R-FL)

Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Marion Berry (D-Ark.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Robert “Bud” Cramer (D-Ala.), James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D-S.C.), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) , Mary Landrieu (D-La.) , Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) , Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) , John Murtha (D-Pa.), David Obey (D-Wis.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.)

And, they don’t want any one overseeing their greed either. Here is a list of politicians that voted against the creation of the Office of Public Integrity:
Senator Akaka (D-HI)
Senator Bennett (R-UT)
Senator Chafee (R-RI)
Senator Coburn (R-OK)
Senator Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Dayton (D-MN)
Senator Domenici (R-NM)
Senator Pryor (D-AR)
Senator Stevens (R-AK)
Senator Voinovich (R-OH)
Senator Warner (R-VA)

It’s time to truly honor our troops by stopping the corrupt and irresponsible politicians that endanger our troops lives directly, or indirectly, and threaten the future adn security of the nation.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 22, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #135339

steve i understand your emotions. would you have said the same about the korean war? was there a risk to our security then? if anything it was far less, would you blame truman? …JAY….

Posted by: JAY at March 22, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #135344

While the war against terror and terrorists may represent a real, long-term security risk for the United States, I’m hard pressed to understand how the de-balled saddam was any threat to us. Possibly the biggest problem we face is how to effectively fight terrorism. The experience of many occupying powers has been that it is almost impossible to prevail in an “asymmetric” fighting dynamic. For as long as we continue to try to fight ideology with soldiers, just so long are we destined for the same results as those who tried before us.

Posted by: steve miller at March 22, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #135345

Very heartwarming Jack. I think most people of goodwill will accept the idealism of the majority of the American men and women who serve in Iraq. And I believe it is the tendency for these people to eagerly answer the call of their leaders when told their nation needs them. That is why there is a sacred duty on those leaders to ensure that they are not sent into a quagmire that is not necessary in the first place.

Aound the world and in the US itself, there are many who sincerely believe that we were sold a pup about Saddam and his WMD’s and alleged links to Al Queda. Not alone that, but the war has been mismanaged from the beginning, with insufficient troops on the ground to secure the country, the disbandment of the army and police, and allowing chaos to reign and through a lack of security. Further, the corruption and incompetence in spending Iraq’s monies by the CPA leads many of us to despair of this administration. It gives me no pleasure to say that the future of Iraq is not in the hands of the US, but hostage to the fortunes of many other agendas. Which means that the US itself in its committment to Iraq, is hostage to fortune to volatile conditions and people, with no way out. What we all know of course, is that when the going gets too hot, i.e., when the American people tire of the drip drip of young American blood to no obvious avail, the administration will declare victory and withdraw, leaving Iraq to the tender mercies of some very merciless people.

All of those patriotic Americans who answered their country’s call may well feel that they were duped, and put in harms way by a cynical administration to further the ambitions of the neo cons. And all that will have been achieved will be the squandering of blood and treasure to make an unstable region even more volatile. It’s almost like the tragedy of the American war, as the Vietnamese call it. If you’re ever in Saigon, call into the American war crimes museum and listen to a little of the other sides version of history.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at March 22, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #135350

For those who are angry and bitter towards Pres. Bush just remember he is Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #135352

paul in euroland tony blair if i recall is not a neocon,and who clinton seemed to admire so much involved england because of his duty to the u.s.! baloney and hogwash.! and was not france and germany up to there asses in oil in iraq before the war but like little children they got caught and are pouting like babies. also the last election cycle saw huge gains for consertives in europe and canada. you eurosocials are a sad lot. almost makes wish we still were a isolationist country. JAY

Posted by: JAY at March 22, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #135353


That’s rather hard to forget. I’m not sure I get your point.


Poignant. Thanks!

Posted by: womanmarine at March 22, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #135354

My feelings and thoughts as I watched the video was the sacrafice that those men (and women if that isn’t too liberal) paid for our freedom.

I, fortunately, wasn’t asked to go to war during my service though I did have a bomb planted on my car when I was stationed in Greece.

Why? Because I was an American. They (the communist terrorists) hated me because of what I stood for and my being there. However, I was there because of relationship between our two countries, NATO, The Truman Doctrine and because it was where I was told that I needed to be.

What I fear, and what a lot of people don’t seem to understand, is to limit what America means… it its ideals, freedoms and rule of law to make sure that we don’t give “aid and comfort” to the enemy just don’t get it.

I, for one, did not serve so that America can cower and change who we are in fear of riling terrorists. That includes limiting debate in Congress, or opposition to the policies of the President.

Our military is the most educated, motivated and trained military the world has ever seen. Each person understands the Constitution enough and the inherent differences our political system relies upon to prevent us from tyranny. They know that questioning the reasons and the conduct of the war is not a reflection on them… but an expression of what they are fighting and dying for.

I love them dearly and my heart bleeds for them. That is why it is so difficult for me to believe that we need to stay the course. Yes, a liberal who disagreed with the justification, the execution and the aftermath of the war.

True morality means that we are now responsible for cleaning up this mess. It just cannot be avoided in my mind.

The errors and misjudgements and hubris of not listening to people with different opinions brought us here. The Powell Doctrine was designed to prevent exactly this. It was written years ago and believed by the military to be the defining blueprint for the use of military force. It was completely ignored… along with Powell’s misgivings.

No, we should treasure them by not sendint them to war lightly. Also, if we do, then we absolutely must stay the course until we fix what we broke.

This was was entirely optional…. that means that fixing it isn’t.

To all that disagree… well, go ahead and tell me how wrong I am… I am getting used to being told that reality isn’t reality because it is denied enough. I know what I know… I know the facts, the ones coming out and I have listened to all the rationalizations upto today.

Supporting the troops isn’t really such an issue. I believe that somewher in the neighborhood of 99% of Americans do. The real issue is not to use them lightly.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 22, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #135355

The point is simple. As Commander-in-Chief is is part of the military.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #135359


Here’s a link I’m certain you’ll find interesting especially when discussing our American heroes to those Bush-bashers. These are things never to be discussed on CNN—take a look at the photos below on the page and understand Bush is doing this all for all of America. GOP=God’s Own Party


Posted by: Republican Friendly at March 22, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #135366


or those who are angry and bitter towards Pres. Bush just remember he is Commander-in-Chief.
And I’m sure you urged your fellow conservatives to treat then-President Clinton respectfully for the same reason during the 90’s, right?

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 22, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #135371

AAAAND REMEMBER THEY HATE FREEDOM!!! That’s why our American forces had to execution-style kill those toddlers in the link I posted. We’re building a de-mock-racy just like Bush said. Heroes my ass!

Posted by: Republican Friendly at March 22, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #135373

Republican Friendly,

How many of the dead do you think the ‘bad guys’ killed in order to make it LOOK LIKE the Americans killed them? Or do you believe they wouldn’t do such a cold hearted thing to a child?
Maybe you believe that if we weren’t fighting in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, innocent people would not be dying at the hands of people like Zarqawi?

Posted by: bug at March 22, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #135374

You’re wrong again, good buddy.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #135375

Rep friendly

So, we got to 15 posts before we get this sort of thing. The advantage about Iraq v Vietnam is that most even most Americans who oppose the war still support the American troops. I think it shows that we have matured as a people.


You could never offend. I have hobbies. One of my cousins sends me these things and when there is one I like, I post it.

As long as people have something to defend, I suppose there will be fighting. The good news is that the zone of peace has increased remarkably in the last half century. The average 20 year old in Europe, Japan most of Latin America and North America have never witnessed war first hand. That is millions of people. It is amazing when you think about the whole sweep of human history. And we can thank these few guys. Maybe in the future, we will be able to say the same thing for the Middle East.

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #135377



Why are all these lefties against what Bush is doing in Iraq?—American military deathsquads are a good thing right? Killing families huddled in a back room reading the Quran with their children hate freedom don’t they Jack? You love to see that—senseless raids and murders of innocent civillians at the hands of our trained thugs you call heroes. You love that don’t you Jack? The smell of rotting human carcasses, childen killed execution style—you must, you support the Bush rhetoric. Let’s hope Jeezus looks upon you kindly you nihilistic prick!

Posted by: Right-wing punditry at March 22, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #135379

i supported president clinton during those bill wars almost lost count of all of them , one of the worst mistakes under clinton and he was sharply criticized by the world was the genocide in rwanda almost 800,000 people were cruley butchered. and the clinton administration did not one thing in direct violation of the 1948 genocide act of the un. mr bill turned his back on that one. …JAY…..

Posted by: JAY at March 22, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #135380

Republican Friendly,
No one believes that war is easy. Even with the best military and the best soldiers in the world we are going to have the capability of something like this happening. I am trying to withold judgement until more is known, but I fear the worse.

Again, if we introduce 10s of thousands of young men into situations like this these things are bound to happen.

I beleive that it might be a bit more arrurate to describe the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief as the civilian overseer and leader of the military. I do not believe that there is a comission, uniform or military rank per se.

We just did not want to have a military that wasn’t under direct civilian control and thuse assigned the role as commander-in-chief to the President. He is therefore, ultimately responsible for the military and its use.

I do not believe that military experience is necessary to be a good war time President… however, I believe that a good war President needs to really understand the use of military force to achieve political aims. The aims are of paramount importance and they were not clearly defined… one of the first tenets of war is to know your enemy and this was clearly not the case here. It was believed that the Iraqi people would have welcomed us with open arms… and they might have if there had been enough troops to insure their security and to take all weapons out of everyone’s hands.

Few are knowledgable enough to know how to truely utilize the military and to effectively wage a war. The generals that do it have dedicated their lives to this calling. Studying, war colleges, war games, leading men into combat.

My point I guess is that while it is a legal and moral position, I do not really believe that it is a practical position… one where the President should be involved in the unit to unit operations.

First, he uses Rumsfeld, who completely disregards the advice and experience of his military leadership. Rumsfeld has his own agenda and it involved the future of the military, not winning this war. He believed that winning a war consisted of beating the enemy on the battlefield. What an idiot.

The President and the Sec. of Defense were supposed to deal with the strategic aims towards which the war would achieve.

If anyone should fall on his sword, it is Rumsfeld. All the others (like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) who helped with the groupthink and arrogant assuredness of thier own insular ideas are now gone. Talk about incredible screw ups!!!! And, they are walking away without so much as a scratch.

I have more recouse if the barber cuts my hair wrong then we have against those men!

The military should have been responsible for the tactical means to achieve those strategic goals. Thus, manpower, troop numbers, weapons systems and all of that stuff should have been a military decision with the Sec. of Defense making sure that it was towards the goals set by the President.

Sadly, because of all the think tanks and neo-cons writing the obvious… that Sadam was a bad person and needed to be removed… they never thought about how. The neo-cons with their papers from the think tanks isolated themsevles within the defense department and refused to listen to the experts.



Once again, the President is getting it wrong when it comes time for a pull out. This is again a strategic, political decision and whenever asked he says that he will do it when the generals in the field tell him.

Giving a person a job title does not make that person an expert… and a truely wise President wouldn’t have run this war the way it was.

Remember during the war when journalists would ask a question concerning what was going on? He wasn’t even following the war. I guess this was so he could show that the politicans learned the lessons of Vietnam and were not going to micro-manage the war from Washington… but in fact, they screwed it up before the first bullet was fired.

Will we “win” this “war on terror”? Sure… eventually, and President Bush might even get credit for it… I hope not. But, I would say that it was a police, intelligence and international community matter that was made into a war.

The same results could have been cheaper… in American and Iraqi blood and our grandchildren having go pay it off.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 22, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #135388


If these things were widespread and true it would be terrible.

And hate is a terrible and consuming thing. You might want to think about that.

Posted by: Jack at March 22, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #135391

Our soldiers are heros. Please put Bush in jail for what he’s done to them. We can never this happen again. Great post Jack.

Posted by: Max at March 22, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #135414

“The point is simple. As Commander-in-Chief [bush]is is part of the military.”

good point! ship his cowardly ass over there! see how long *he* ‘stays the course’ then!

we must extricate ourselves from iraq with all due haste. our continued presence in iraq will not be the measure of our success, but of our failure. in order to justify the death and terror we have wrought upon that country, some of you would have us stay longer - but there is no justification for our actions there; when did more of a bad thing make anything better? do not continue to send our people to die in a foreign country to appease your own sullied conscience. these men have sacrificed their lives - at least do them the honor of sacrificing your own reckless pride.

… bush had his chance. he failed. i will not support his failure, nor the continued and unnecessary murder of our troops by this egomaniacal president’s negligent, insidious, self-concerned actions. may god forgive him. i will not.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 23, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #135415

Great post.

To all liberals please feel FREE to undermine you’re country and find all that is wrong with it, while at the same time giving hope to our enemies. Beautiful guys, it’s a wonder you’re side is not making decisions for this country.

Posted by: andy at March 23, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #135418

Jack, you provided such a simple message that meant so much. How unfortunate that some would twist and manipulate your message into another Bush-bashing session. And at the same time, continue to put out fire-breathing hate messages that has no effect on those who see the truth.

Differing opinions and constructive criticism is fine but to throw out ineffective comments full of hate or just plain name calling is childish. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

In regards to the claims that military units committed widespread atrocities, I believe that to be preposterous. I will not deny the possibility of it occurring in rare instances but definitely not as widespread as some are claiming. Experience serving in this environment allows me to make such a claim.


Posted by: CFT at March 23, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #135419

Rocky, Republican Fiendly & Right Wing-nut,

gee…where to begin. I hope the rest of us
humans can hope to some day be as advanced,
enlightened and evolved as you. I too hope
to reach a level of blind rage and hatred
so high that it drowns out all reason and
love for my country. If we could all be just
like you, we’d be…

Oh sorry, I had brief episode of schizophrenia.
I’m back to my senses now. Damn liberal

Posted by: Dale G. at March 23, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #135420

Good link to a website that Honors Our Troops; however, I must wonder out loud just how many people understand just way Our young Men & Women freely serve the Commander and Chief of America’s Armed Forces? Just listening to both sides, a person might believe that the Extreme Left would never raise their hand in anger for fear of being Politically Wrong in their actions & words. On the other hand, the Extreme Right seems to want to place Iraq and the War on Terror squarely in the center of a Christian vs. Islam War of Ideology. And this has been the problem brought on by the Main Stream Media and the Republican Spin Masters playing on the worst fears of people while leaving the Real Issues covered up for future Presidents and Congresses to straighten out.

Therefore, if the Left & Right really do support the Troops than they will set aside their differences and be willing to take each other on in a debate where “What is Politically Unalienable Correct Regardless of Race, Color, or Creed” is held to be The Law of the Land instead of this consent Blame Game given up by both sides still living to give their side of the story while leaving out what is known to be Right & True.

As I have said before, President Bush needs to draw a dissent line that separates Winning the Peace in Iraq and fighting the Osama Bin Laden’s Rapitalistic friends. Until that is done, Our Military is held hostage to the political whims of The President, Congress, and The Media. Than a good move from the President would be to encourage the American Public and Corporations to buy U.S. Federal Treasury Notes to help pay for The War without adding more Debt. However, that would be like asking 60% of Americans to out their money were their mouth is and that wouldn’t be Right would it?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 23, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #135423

CFT. conservative forward thinker i clicked on your link. and wow no bomb throwing ,no hate ,no do it my way or else stupid, just clear calm cool common sense and a high IQ and i agree with you about mars! thank you. as a (old) ABO optician i still marvel at our universe.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 23, 2006 2:53 AM
Comment #135424

Clearly, this liberal bias has been ongoing for many years now. I could sense it many years ago, even before Reagan.

It is clear to me, that being a reporter on a major news media outlet (such as NYT, CNN, NBC…) has now passed “Used Car Salesman” in believability, character and trust and is now to be considered at the utmost lowest ranking in integrity of any other profession.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at March 23, 2006 4:02 AM
Comment #135429


(as the Mighty Eagle wipes a tear from his eye)


Some understand,some don’t I guess.

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at March 23, 2006 7:06 AM
Comment #135432


That is an inspiring video that remined us of the great sacrifices of our men and women.

However, the thing I noticed were the words “all gave some.” So I ask everyone, myself included, what have you given? Have you given up a tax cut so that our soldiers can have body armor? Have you done anything to conserve gasoline in order to decrease the influence that part of the world has over our economy? The vast majority of us have given nothing (and buying a $2 magnetic yellow ribbon for the back of your F350 that gets 9 mpg and has never hauled an ounce of actual cargo in the bed doesn’t count).

What have I given? Well it is a pathetically small sacrifice but I do all I can to conserve gasoline. When my 86 4-runner broke down I bought the most efficient car that could run around montana in the winter: a 4 cylinder subaru legacy. I take the time to properly fill the tires, drive 55 everywhere (including accross the bredth of the state) and drive as little as possible.

In addition I, along with many other residents of Bozeman, MT, petitioned to RETURN pork barrel spending obtained for our town to build a parking garage (which we wouldn’t need if we didn’t have so many fat-asses who where too lazy to walk a few blocks) by Dennis Rehberg (R-mont) (Dan: he should be on your list).

Posted by: montanademocrat at March 23, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #135437


“To all liberals please feel FREE to undermine you’re country and find all that is wrong with it, while at the same time giving hope to our enemies. Beautiful guys, it’s a wonder you’re side is not making decisions for this country.”

First, if what I read is correct… you are saying that there are things wrong and the Liberals are finding them? If so, then what are we supposed to do? Let them be? Ignore them? Pretend they aren’t there? Continue to let a wrong be unfixed?

Opposing the President and his policies are not liberals “undermining” our country. Are you missing the change in opinions of this war in the Republican and Conservative arenas?

Restricting speech and being unwilling to continue our democratic policies and traditions because some want to cower before the terrorists would be undermining our country.

Are we also now drawing no distinction between foreign and domestic issues? To oppose the President on stem-cell reasearch, tax breaks, social security reform or other domestic issues is now “undermining” our country and giving hope to the enemies? Man, the Republican party can run that one into the ground.

I am a Liberal and you will find my posts listing specific reasons why I disagreed with the President in his justification, execution and aftermath of the war. Is that undermining our country?

I also support keeping our troops in there… because unlike the GOP (God’s Own Party?) I believe that morality isn’t a political label to wrap yourself in and claim the Democrats are lacking. It shows in what you do, not what you say.

Most liberals opposed the war and are still opposed to it. Their beliefs are consistent throughout. They have not changed.

Republians and Conservatives who are now calling for withdrawl are the ones that, I believe, are morally bankrupt. Why? Because once the going got tough and it wasn’t killing people by remote control it was no longer “fun”.

This was an optional war which makes our committment to fixing what we broke non-optional. Period. End of story.

It isn’t a matter of two wrongs making a right as someone said here… at least in my opinion. It is a right correcting a wrong. The right thing is often not easy, clean and simple.

If our troops are paying the price (which I believe they are) then do not blame the people opposed to the war… blame the people responsbile for putting them in harm’s way for no reason.

Why no words against the people who went out of the way to justify this war? Why are they still walking around working in think tanks when they show an obvious inability to think clearly?.

*Sec. of Defense Donald Rumseld
*Richard Perle Pentagon policy adviser (resigned February 2004)
*Deputy Sec. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
*Under Sec. of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith
*Harold Rhode, Top Middle East specialist for *Douglas Feith
*David Wurmserfrom of the conservative think tank The American Enterprise Institute
*The Project for the New American Century
*F. Michael Maloof, former aide to Richard Perle
*Elliott Abrams special assistant to the president and senior director for the Middle East at the National Security Council.

It borders on the incredible that people believe that liberals are “soft” on terrorists. We just believe that we need to deal with the people who are a threat… note Afganistan and our support of that.

The opposite policy is to kill them all and let God sort them out? Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like a Muslim terrorist with a bomb strapped to his body? The infidels will go to hell, and if there are a few who are in God’s grace then they will be rewarded in heaven.

I guess it is true… the further out you go with each extreme… the closer they get to each other.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 23, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #135443


“Rocky, Republican Fiendly & Right Wing-nut,

gee…where to begin. I hope the rest of us
humans can hope to some day be as advanced,
enlightened and evolved as you. I too hope
to reach a level of blind rage and hatred
so high that it drowns out all reason and
love for my country.”

Please feel free to point out where I spew blind rage and hate for the United States.
I don’t expect much of a reply because you can’t.
My comment chiding Jack, was because in the 2/12 years I have been here, he has posted something like this about every 3 or 4 months.
Jack took my comment in the spirit it was given. You seem incapable of doing the same, and chose to be insulting.
I have never not supported our troops, though I do hope that someday America becomes enlightened enough to not require them to fight offensive wars.

Grow up.

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #135446

So there you have it. Never let it be said nothing good came of this war. We definitiely got some inspirational shots.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 23, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #135455

Everyone one of us that enjoys and appreciates the freedom we have in this great nation we have had better thank God for our brave men and women that serve in our Armed Forces. Without them and their sacrifice we wouldn’t have our freedom. And might not even exist as an country.
This is one reason that I make it a point to try to thank anyone that has served or is serving our country in the Military. And I thank God everyday for them.
Tahnks for the link Jack.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 23, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #135460


Thank you. I will add Dennis Rehberg (R-mont) to my list, which is growing fast.
Hurray for you for petitioning to return pork barrel spending, and being conservative.

Pork-barrel is a slap in the face of our troops when some go without body armor and armor for their vehicles, and go without medical care, and 1.7 million veterans go without health care.

Among the shortcomings:
The GAO said that soldiers, including many with severe injuries, are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations, procedures, red-tape, and bureaucracy, necessary to gain access to military doctors.

Injured soldiers sometimes have to pay their own medical bills or go into debt because their active-duty tours end and they are physically unable to go back to their civilian jobs.

As recently as Apr-2005, more than one-third of injured soldiers who applied to have their benefits extended were denied.

Congress can vote themselves a raise or perk$ in a heartbeat, but can’t even do the minimum, decent thing for those that sacrificed so much.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #135461

Only someone who had never been in ground combat would try to get away eith that tear jerking bull shit, as a defence for all the GOP’s who never heard a shot fired in anger.

Posted by: norman at March 23, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #135463

Republican Friendly
The link you provided looks to me like another one of those hate America First outfits.
Anyone can take a picture of some dead bodies and say anyone else did it.
The one thing missing is pictures of GI’s in the area. Much less actually killing those folks.
But hten if you hate the Military and the US it don’t matter does it?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 23, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #135464


Interesting too, since Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont) said the following:

Making sure America takes care of the veterans who have dedicated their lives to serving our country is a key priority for me. Veterans fought to protect our freedoms and way of life. The people of the United States owe our veterans a great deal, and should keep the promises made to them.

But, then Dennis Rehberg voted on pork-barrel that some citizens petitioned to have returned?
Seems hypocritical to me?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #135465

Jack, the video is unquestionably a picture worth a thousand words. None of those words should pertain or be construed to be supportive or critical of a political party, the right and wrong, cost, arguing responsibility ,etc of war.

I saw American troops doing what so many of us have done before and, (hopefully to a much lesser extent) what many may yet have to do. I refer of course to service to country, bravery, perserverence and compassion in action.

The message I received from the clip is, support, care, pray, honor and respect those troops.

Posted by: steve smith at March 23, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #135466


My point I guess is that while it is a legal and moral position, I do not really believe that it is a practical position… one where the President should be involved in the unit to unit operations.

It is almost impossible for a General to keep track of the unit to unit operations of the units under his command. It is completely impossible for the President to keep tract of them. Even if he didn’t have all the other responsibilities of office.

We were told when I was in service that Commander in Chief is a Military rank. Although the President isn’t necessarily considered a member of the Military.
The President is ultimently responsible for the complete Military just like the CEO of a corporation is ultimently responsible for the corporation. This is why I blame Carter and Clinton for the sad state that they let the Military fall into.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 23, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #135477



This is why I blame Carter and Clinton for the sad state that they let the Military fall into.


Why is that? Because they would rather spend more money on social programs instead of missles? I personally believe that if we changed our mindset and our consumption habits our military will become less and less neccessary thus in turn freeing more money for more noble expendatures.

Feeding people > blowing them up.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 23, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #135478

Pathetic liberal and Dem that I am…I posted first on this one saying that although I don’t support the war, I support the warrior! I also put my money where my mouth is…and even if it isn’t a great deal, I have a monthly contribution going to this effort. Please check it out…..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 23, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #135479

BUBAR: Bushed Up Beyond All Recognition

But, Bush is just one person.
But, it is sad how many lives are wasted due to the negligence, irresponsibility, and unaccountability of the gang of over two million in the hugely bloated Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller, bumbling 535 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees.

Perhaps voters should start taking responsibility too, and stop blaming the corrupt, irresponsible government of which voters tolerate ?

I’ll admit stupidly voting for some of the jerks that helped create the mess we are in.

If voters really want to help their troops, the least they can do is have some outrage against the bloated, corrupt, irresponsible and unaccountable politicians in D.C. that are irresponsibly threatening the lives (directly and indirectly) of our troops.

Irresponsible incumbents are 51% of the problem.
Voters that allow it are 49% of the problem.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #135481


Your point here is a good one and easy to understand. NeoCons want this war because it gives them wet dreams of WWII, the chance to wave the flag, and the right to shove their supposed nationalism down everyone’s throats. When you have no points to make, you can always whip out a slideshow of WWII.

But this war is different insn’t it - even unique. After all, we’ve never had an official policy where we tortured our prisoners, not when we fought the Nazis and not when we fought the VietCong, and that was part of what made us heroic. Historically we have a higher set of ideals we honor than what we do today.

It’s precisely because of the high regard I have for our troops and the United States that I find Bush’s official policy of torture disgusting. My religion makes me find it amoral.

The pictures from this war will not look like the slide show you posted, they will always include the pictures from Abu Ghraib. Neocons do not honor our military.

Posted by: Max at March 23, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #135482

Not to mention the profiteering by some corporations.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #135483
…where we tortured our prisoners…
And, sometimes, they were an American soldier (such as Spc. Sean Baker) tricked into a dangerous training activity.

And, still, no one has been held accountable.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #135489

treehugger, was you on this planet when carter was president? under his watch the soviets and cuba expanded in africa, south america, he totally botched iran. remember the iran hostage crisis? where they spend 444 days in captivity. and his failed rescue attempt to rescue them. they crashed in the desert then we had to watch the iranians on tv desecrate our dead brave men who crashed in carters badly planned rescue attempt? he gutted our military and we have paid dearly for it.he was a total disgrace and failure to our country foreign and domestic. he was a pure regulator of the worst kind.

Posted by: JAY at March 23, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #135497

Carter was terrible.
I’m always amused when some say he was the most intelligent president we ever had.
He was very ineffectual.
He’s a better ex-president, but still fuels petty partisan warfare.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #135504


These posts just show, that as non-partisan and good-hearted as your post and link was, you’ll still have A LOT of these Self-Loathing-Americans telling you how awful the President is, the military is, the country in general is …

D.A.N. seems to be one of the VERY few offering an intelligent, acceptable rebuttal on military issues. Although, I still don’t know why most people just can’t say “Yes Jack, we do have heroes over there today, nice link” and leave the politics for the next thread.

It’s just a sad state of affairs, yet unusually uplifting knowing this disgusting vitriol is all leftists have in their saggy bag of tricks.

Posted by: Steve Chaw at March 23, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #135505

Carter was bad, but Bush is worse. Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had, and we’ll all be paying for his mistakes for a long, long, long, time to come.

Another difference between WWII and now is the kind of leadership provided by Franklin Roosevelt, the best president we’ve ever had. What a differene compared with his Bushness.

If someone had told me after 9/11 that we would lose a war to Osama Bin Laden I would not believe there was a leader so stupid and incapable that that would be possible. His Bushness fell for every suckerpunch Osama gave. If in addition, I leared we let that leader walk away without tarring and feathering him I would not have believed it. I guess that part remains to be seen…

Posted by: Max at March 23, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #135506

And I will expect the site editor’s immediate public condemnation of RtWingPun’s comment:

“Let’s hope Jeezus looks upon you kindly you nihilistic prick!”

I will also expect that he be barred to the greatest extent possible from posting on this site.

Posted by: BTO at March 23, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #135509


Are you talking about when Clinton let Osama walk out of the UAE even though we had him dead to rights? Yes, I agree, that was awful.

And if you think the war against OBL is so dreadful, well, hey! They’re always looking for help!

And if it was 1941 you would be calling FDR “the worst President ever” for attacking Germany when we had only been attacked by Japan. FDR had MANY naysayers from both parties who thought he was nuts for trying to fight both wars at once.

And I agree we’re losing the war on terror. The strike in Chicago killing 5300 people on Dec 12 2001 … the strike in LA killing 2700 people on Feb 22, 2002 …. Dallas losing 1600 people on June 8, 2002 … and who can forget about Orlando, Nashville, Seattle, Boston, and St. Louis losing over 100,000 people over the next couple years. My God! We should just surrender now shouldn’t we???!!!

Posted by: BTO at March 23, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #135518


Gee, I wondered how long it would take you to blame Clinton. Funny how you guys used to say Clinton was too obsessed with Bin Laden before 9/11, when Clinton was training CIA operatives to kill him, bombed his training camp (missing him by a couple hours)bombed his chemical facility in Sudan, etc. Clinton came closer to killing Bin Laden than Bush ever did with no international or domestic support at all, just NeoCon criticisms. Bush came into office and his security advisors warned him of the importance of Bin Laden and of possible attacks by planes and what he do - big fat nothing, then he rode the tragedy for all it was worth to grab all the power he could. You NeoCons are a world disgrace, and the worst part is none of you are man enough to admit your mistakes.

Posted by: Max at March 23, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #135529

“bombed his training camp (missing him by a couple hours)”

This training camp?
—-In an interview with National Review Online, retired general Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region at the time, described the 1998 cruise-missile raid as a “million-to-one-shot.”

“There was a possibility [bin Laden] could have been there,” Zinni recalls. “My intelligence people did not put a lot of faith in that….As I was given this mission to do, I did not see that anyone had any degree of assurance or reliability that that was going to happen.”—-

Sounds to me like he ignored intel that did not support what he wanted to do. Hmmmm.

“bombed his chemical facility in Sudan”

—-Clinton ordered the military to pump as many as 20 Tomahawk missiles into what he said was a chemical-weapons plant in Sudan financed by bin Laden. It turned out to be a pill plant owned by a Saudi businessman to whom the administration later had to pay $1 million in interest for seizing his plant.

Intelligence officials at the time expressed reservations about including the plant on the target list. Clinton picked the target himself.—-

Cherry picking intel again. I thought Bush was the only one to ever do that.

“You NeoCons are a world disgrace, and the worst part is none of you are man enough to admit your mistakes”

Ah yes, a disgrace. Those evil NeoCons.
Under clinton, we suffered 6 major attacks that were orchestrated by Bin Laden.
I guess ignoring the problem doesn’t really work to well does it.

Posted by: kctim at March 23, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #135541
Although, I still don’t know why most people just can’t say “Yes Jack, we do have heroes over there today, nice link” and leave the politics for the next thread.

Steve Chaw,
Very good point.
Because, somewhere in the partisan bickering, the welfare of the troops may get lost.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #135543

That was a typo on my part. I do hope that the remainder of the message… the context showed that. It was supposed to say the President DOESN’T get involved in the unit to unit.

I am glad to see that you read my comments closely enough to catch that. Can I assume, that since the typo was the major jest of your comment to me that you might agree a bit?

That was my point exactly… that it is the responsiblity of the President to set the strategic goals of a war. Especially the strategic goals of the peace afterwards. Since this isn’t a two front war the strategy isn’t necessairly about which theather to concentrate on first.

However, the President should have had very specifich goals such as:
1)Provide enough soldiers to effectively subdue the country.

(This was the Powell Doctrine which was completely trashed by the neocons… as well as Powell’s repuation and the man himself.) This isn’t hindsight…It was all there… it was just ignored. The doctrine was from our military that we are all supporing… unless it isn’t within the political schema of neocons, conservatves and Republicans.

This would have included the follow up troops able to clean out pockets of resistance and arms caches. This was determined to be “overly cautious military mindset” by Runself so to paraphrase his word… “You go to war with the military that I feel is sufficient.” This was because he was fighting the war of the future as he envisioned it.

There was obvious tension between the military and the Sec. of Defense. However, because of the President’s overvalued sense of loyality, he will choose that over the expert advise of the military…. our military that we say we care so much about. However, when it comes to picking between political pissing matches and the best advice of our military the politican wins out.

This outlines exactly what I am talking about:

People try to revise history and say “no one knew… no one said anything… 20/20 hindsight…”

2)Ensure enough forces to ensure the secuirty of the population.

It was political “fact” that we would be welcomed as liberators… and we might have… if we could have provided a safe enviroment for the majority of the Iraqi people and not let the sectarian fighting get out of hand. But, we didn’t have the troops. Rumsfeld and his cabal… the President did not want to make the tough choice.

Speaking of the President as CEO… errrr, he has been a CEO before. Once or twice. Ahhh, mmmmm, he didn’t do a very good job.

3)With enough troops a dusk to dawn curfew could have been imposed and anyone with a weapon could have been arrested. We couldn’t do that because we didn’t have enough troops…. since they were going to welcome us… and it escalated.

4)Using only American companies and employees really sent a messed up message. American companies profiteering (rightly or wrongly, that was the message). Iraqis left out in the cold. Every possible job should have been given to an Iraqi to do.

The list could go on and in greater detail.

Ron, Ron, Ron, Ron, Ron… Clinton? The sorry shape our military was in? Come on… was that an inadvertant slip of the fingers out of habit? I am sure that there is someone out there that has written a piece on how a military objective wasn’t taken or something and this is all President Clinton’s fault.

Didn’t we just agree that the President isn’t really responsible for the unit to unit, final exact landing spot of a bomb or missle?

Didn’t President Clinton bring down Milosivic and save Kosovo with this military that you say he screwed up?

See… it is like I have been saying to the Republicans and Conservatives. Screw the “Let’s all pull together behind the President” garbage. You guys never did it.

When asked, Republicans and Conservatives have been very silent about their supporing President Clinton when he was in office to the same degree that they want us to support President Bush.

Hey, want a real mind blower? Hmmm, chew on this a while. What if the terrorists were encouraged by the Republican’s behavior towards President Clinton? What if they saw America divided, worrying about oral sex and definitions of “is”, and stains on black dresses?

When did they start flight training? The twin towers bombing (which lead to arrests and trials, no war needed).

Afganistan yes… Iraq was a big NO. Blaming the liberals for pointing out the obvious screw up of the Republican President does not give aid to the enemy, undermine the President’s ability to carry out the war (might even make him listen to others once in a while and avoide screw up…. NOTICE HIS OPEN MIC PRESS BLITZ LATELY? THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!!!)

Quite using our troops as political pawns for your political agenda… they are smart enough to know that politics is politics and does not reflect on America’s support for them from BOTH parties. To believe otherwise is insulting to the intelligene of our service people.

Ooops. Darn liberal in me. I meant Servicemen. Women can get a back hand acknoledgement to avoid being PC here.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 23, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #135549

“What if they saw America divided, worrying about oral sex and definitions of “is”, and stains on black dresses?”

Or maybe they were encouraged when they were ignored and allowed to do whatever they pleased.
We will never know.

“Quite using our troops as political pawns for your political agenda”

One side says: “support our troops” and “God bless our troops.”

The other side says: “no war for oil” “Bush is a murderer” “this is a Republican war” and “our troops deaths are nothing.”

Yeah, I guess they are being used as political pawns aren’t they.

If you want to insult their intelligence, keep telling them that you support them but not what they are doing for their country. That makes so much sense.

Posted by: kctim at March 23, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #135571
Clinton ordered the military to pump as many as 20 Tomahawk missiles into what he said was a chemical-weapons plant in Sudan financed by bin Laden. It turned out to be a pill plant owned by a Saudi businessman to whom the administration later had to pay $1 million in interest for seizing his plant.

Not true. In the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda who bombed the African embassy, they testified the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons. You see, that’s a confirmed result of hurting al-Qaeda, something we never got from Bush.

I know you think I am being partisan so I would never believe Bush could do anything good, but I am stunned he hasn’t succeeded at anything. Seriously, I am blown he did not succeed with the whole country behind him and billions and billions of dollars. The only thing more unbelievable to me is people who turn around and say Clinton was just as bad and it’s all spin. Excuse me, not it’s not, Clinton was simply a far, far, far, superior man to Bush.

Under clinton, we suffered 6 major attacks that were orchestrated by Bin Laden.

And under Bush we were actually successfully attacked exactly as described months earlier and thousands of people died. Then the defense secretary that previously worked with Bush Sr. and Clinton quit in protest, trying to get people to not vote him in a second time.

Did you ever think at the end of Bush’s second term all the Bushies would have to say is that he wasn’t worse than Clinton? I mean, isn’t that a Bushies worst insult?

Posted by: Max at March 23, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #135573

Hey treehugger…

If you blow people up, you don’t have to worry about feeding them…right?

Before you get your hemp panties in a wad - I say the above as an example of warped logic, which I see used all too frequently coming from the either side extremists.

Get real. War/violence has been used ever since we figured out how to crawl out of caves - and for different reasons too! Does that surprise you? It shouldn’t. We are a race that uses violence. Woulnd’t it be logical to just take that as accepted fact? Assuming that this is true, and you could have a choice, wouldn’t you want to be holding the cards of having the best equipped, best prepared, most technological, efficient and lethal fighting tools? And if this were true, wouldn’t you also have to spend money to design and develop new weapons. And test them too! Now lets see…how would one go about effectively testing a new weapon…

You see where I am going with this? Reality can be so unreal when your head is up your ass.

Posted by: bombay at March 23, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #135580

Why is it that the Left & Right want to blame each others party while attempting to make their political party smell like roses. The fact of the matter is that Our Youth of the 60’s Leadership is failing to address the underlining causes of the War on Terror due to the fact that they have no answers to a group fighting against people who believe that keeping the Masses “Dumb” is the best way to insure the Kings & Queens mentality that has kept them in power.

What America needs is a group of leaders that is not scared to release the Dogs of War and hunt down the Leadership instead of the foot troops. However, that would be like asking the Republican Leadership to go after the Employers of illegal Aliens instead of workers themselve.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 23, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #135588

The only trouble I have with what you linked to is that it changes nothing about what I already believed. And that is only because I agreed with it already.

My thought at the beginning was, “I’ve already seen this before, and it was called Saving Private Ryan” It sounds a little mean, but I think y’all should consider that this movie signifies much about our attitude towards war, and about what is right and wrong in it.

Spielberg’s film faces things in war that I don’t think the modern Republican party is willing to. It faces the fact that the leadership often wants things and does things that endanger and waste the efforts of the soldiers under them. It faces the fact that the soldiers do admirably even despite that. It faces the facts that not all things these admirable soldiers do is admirable, and that the darkness of war can bring out the monsters in people. It even faces what I think few if any Republicans have been willing to face in Capt. Miller’s approach to the abyss, culminating in his collapse at the machine gun nest before the village, out of the sight of his men.

The brilliance of the film, is that the soldiers are presented as human beings, not saints, that the darkness of war is confronted, not avoided, and that the violence is presented unflinchingly, not dulled down, softened up for home consumption. Yet despite this, ones outlook on the war present is one of heroism, of courage and admiration. The brilliance of the film is that the appreciation is earned, not imposed from without

The Republican approach, by comparison, is full of euphemism and pretense. Ironically, they feel the need to inform us the realities of war, despite their phobias about whether showing such realities might cause trouble for morale.

Meanwhile, a simple search can show you our soldiers shredded, bloodied, blasted, and shot up, and the same done to the other side. More than any other generation in modern times, this is a public more aware than ever before about the horrors of war, and also considerably less patient about its being waged fecklessly or cynically. We are willing to make sacrifices, but those sacrifices require good faith leadership, with people willing to do the thinking necessary to deal with blindingly obvious problems to start with, if nothing else.

Supporting the troops is only one step on the road to honoring their risk and their sacrifice. We must support them with the supplies and gear they need, and we must give them the plan and accompanying orders and leadership necessary to get the job done. Sadly, too much of “supporting the troops” in this country has revolved around whether one stands behind the President’s policy or not, a distinction arbitrary in many people’s minds to their support of the troops.

Ultimately the loyalty of your average American, Democrat or Republican, should not be question. What should be the question is whether our CINC has bothered to do his homework and direct the course of this war truthfully and properly. If he hasn’t, then his actions will waste the sacrifice of the troops and all the support for them in the world will not turn the tide.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #135598

>>The point is simple. As Commander-in-Chief is is part of the military.

Posted by: tomh at March 22, 2006 08:25 PM


This has nothing to do with the thread, but the Commander in Chief is NOT part of the military. That part is against the Constitution. He can’t be part of the military, becaus that might set up a banana republic mentality in someone in that high office…oh, that’s right, it’s happening right now!

Posted by: Marysdude at March 23, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #135606

tree hugger
I could care less about missiles and bombs.
Carter cut the Military budget so far that didn’t have even enough money to preform maintenance on the helicopter I flew in. The reason the Jolly Greens crashed over in Iran was because of his budgets cuts.
Equipment that could have made my job easier, and safer, couldn’t be afforded.
Clinton pulled the same thing. He cut the Military budget so far that they couldn’t afford to maintain the equipment they had much less buy new equipment. Like body armor.
When the Military couldn’t even get the money for this, how in the hell do you think that they could’ve got the money for new missiles and bombs?
So yeah, both Carter and Clinton let the Military fall into sorry shape.
I would love more than you to see us not even need a Military. But unless human nature changes 100% it’ll never happen.
I also would love it if our fighting Men and Women would never have to go to war again. But then again, human nature will have to change 100%.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #135607

The fallen heroes fund is a very worthy organization. I’m sighing up myself.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #135609

I agree that Bush needed to have a better strategy for the war. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan. While his stated intentions were good, he failed to plan further than ousting Husein.
While time tables aren’t very practical in combat situations, there needs to be a list of objectives to be achieved. And an exit strategy for after these objective are reached.
This is where I feel Bush has screwed the pooch.
He also underestimated the enemies willingness to fight and even die for their objectives.

I personally think that Husein had weapons of mass destruction. I also believe that he hid them somewhere, most likely outside of Iraq. He may be a mad man and a murderer, but he ain’t stupid.
If I had illegal items and I knew the cops were going to be coming to get them and me, I’d sure has hell would hide them. What makes anyone think that Husein is any different? And it ain’t like he didnt have plenty of time, what with the Democrats stalling things by insisting on another UN resolution that Husein wasn’t going to go by anymore that he was the others. He knew it would be a matter of time before we went in there.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #135612

See, that is why I admire you and probably respond to your comments more than others… you may be opinionated with opinions opposite of mine… but you do deal in reality. If everyone started from that basis then there could be a means for people to come to a common ground.

You do not deny reality for the sake of winning an argument or supporting your position. That is what makes it so hard to discuss things with some people… even when shown evidence it is dismissed as “partisan) (because it doesn’t agree with their belief), irrevelant or ignored all together. Some won’t even deal with the most commonly used definitions of common words, hoping to wear down the opposition and deflect the discussion.

In all actuality… even when I believed that this war was optional, ill advised and distracting of our resources and international goodwill… if it had been executed better it might have worked. Believe me, I would love to have saved 2,300 lives and said I was wrong.

What drives me up the wall though are people that refuse to admit anything may have been done differently, or if they do, they believe that it is only through use of hindsight.

To help maintain my own sanity and my understanding of events so they don’t get confused with denials and revisionist history I am compiling articles prior to the invasion.

I have heard the WMD were moved to Syria just prior to the invasion. I watch Jon Stewart and he had Sadam’s #2 Air Force general on who was saying that he knows this as a fact.

I don’t want to play “whack the mole” all over the middle east looking for these weapons, if there are any.

What I wonder, is what… after 3 years we cannot come up with someone, anyone that was involved in the creation, storage or transportation of said weapons? What we have are suppositions, second hand accounts and an inherient distrust because nothing was found when it was believed to be there.

Don’t you think a truck driver, a lowly weapons tech or someone would have stepped forward and tried to gain from his knowledge?

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 24, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #135626

Your last post was great and I appreciate the manner in which you said it.
The reasoning behind my posts is NOT to make one side look better than the other and it is never meant to shuffle the blame.
You believe one was superior to the other? Others believe the exact opposite. Both sides believe their proof excuses their guy and condemns the other. Its been a never ending cycle that has brought us to where we are now as a country. We fight amongst ourselves instead of for ourselves.
Look at what Jack did here. He posted a link for all of us, nothing more. But it quickly became about Bush and the true story was forgotten. Why? So either side could use it against the others beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #135627

>>I personally think that Husein had weapons of mass destruction. I also believe that he hid them somewhere, most likely outside of Iraq. He may be a mad man and a murderer, but he ain’t stupid.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 01:01 AM


Any nation crazy enough to hide Saddam’s WMDs would also be crazy enough to have used them by now. Why else would they take them…face it Saddam was delusional and had visions of grandoure, but he was harmless to anyone but the Iraqis. We invaded his sovereign nation, without justification, without enough allies and without an exit stratigy. Thank Cheney/Bush for that.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #135628

>>Look at what Jack did here. He posted a link for all of us, nothing more. But it quickly became about Bush and the true story was forgotten. Why? So either side could use it against the others beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 09:19 AM


Jack posted for an altruistic reason? And, he does so out of the purest intent every few months? Sure…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #135633
… if it [war] had been executed better it might have worked.

That’s what is very upsetting.
Our troops are endangered due to the negligence of irresponsible politicians.
Same thing happened in Vietnam.
NOTE: that is not a criticism of our fighting men and women. It is a criticism of our arrogant, bumbling, fumbling civilian leaders mismanaging it, who think they can do anything they want, and isolated themselves, eliminating the benefit of wiser advice and ideas.

While our troops risked life and limb, and some died, our irresponsible politicians were back home votin’ on pork-barrel, and raises and perk$ for themselves, and cutting medical benefits and pay for troops and veterans.
On 1/17/2003, Bush said: “Seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm’s way.”

The President made these comments on the same day that his Administration announced it was cutting off access to its health care system for approximately 164,000 veterans. The Administration was also pushing for a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding, despite the fact that UPI reports “hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait - sometimes for months - to see doctors.”
On 7/9/2003, Rumsfeld said “The services and the Joint Staff have been working with Central Command to develop a rotation plan so that we can, in fact, see that we treat these terrific young men and young women in a way that’s respectful of their lives and their circumstances.”

Then, over the next few months, “Troops were told they’d be going home in May. Then in early July. Then late July.” Then Rumsfeld said August. Then officials changed the story again, saying “they could make no hard promises.” Then the Pentagon announced for the first time since Vietnam, they might “have to start serving back-to-back overseas tours of up to a year.” Then Secretary of State Colin Powell said some troops would probably be serving at least another year in Iraq. And now the Pentagon acknowledges that the “United States will have to provide the overwhelming majority of the occupying troops indefinitely.”
One 1/3/2003, Bush said: “I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay.”

But, a few months later, “The Bush administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.”
On 1/3/2003, Bush said: “I want to make sure the housing is the best possible for our military families.”

But, Bush’s 2004 budget proposed a $1.5 billion reduction in funds to military family housing/medical facilities – a 14% cut.

See how we treat our troops? We should be ashamed. Where’s the outrage? It doen’t say much about us does it?

And, please don’t tell me I hate America. I’m just saying we could and should do much better. And, I’ll be the first to admit that I mistakenly voted for some of these arrogant jerks (including Bush). I am very sorry and ashamed for that, because that makes me part of the problem. But no more. I’ll be paying much closer attention from now on. Irresponsible, arrogant incumbents will never get my vote again.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 24, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #135637

I cannot speak for Jacks motives on posting this.
But I do know what was typed:

Every Generation Has Its Heroes
This one is no exception.

Why take these words and believe its some type of propoganda?
Why not take them at face value and appreciate the fact that somebody took the time to create this slideshow in order to honor our soldiers and show the hardships they face?

Every topic posted on here does not have to be based on partisanship, so why must the replies?

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #135642

>>Why not take them at face value and appreciate the fact that somebody took the time to create this slideshow in order to honor our soldiers and show the hardships they face?

Every topic posted on here does not have to be based on partisanship, so why must the replies?

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 10:46 AM


You are right not everything posted HAS to be partisan…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #135646


My replies addressed this post. Our military is not as heroic to me as WWII’s or Vietnam’s, because they have a policy of torturing prisoners. That opinion is not just mine - it’s shared around the world by many. Just because you are fighting in a war does not mean you get to automatically slap a medal on yourself and call yourself a hero.

The reasoning behind my posts is NOT to make one side look better than the other and it is never meant to shuffle the blame. You believe [Clinton] was superior to [Bush]? Others believe the exact opposite. Both sides believe their proof excuses their guy and condemns the other.

You’re equating Clinton and Bush and saying they’re really the same. Well, they’re not. A lot of people in 2000 said there was no difference between the parties, so they might as well vote for Nader or not vote. I say our billions of dollars of debt, this ridiculous war, Katrina, and our loss of self-respect under this mire of scandals shows that is wrong. There is no equivalency. Bush is worse. His mistakes really hurt us. To pretend otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

Posted by: Max at March 24, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #135651

Believe it or not, but I do not believe fighting in a war automatically makes one a hero, heroic actions do.
And torture is needed in every war. Fact of life, sorry.

In YOUR opinion, Bush is worse. Others believe clintons actions were worse.
clintons actions that you dismiss as being “nothing,” were of much concern to many people. Just as your concerns of Bush are to you.
If you were not and still aren’t willing to listen and respect their concerns, then how can you expect them to do that for yours?
There is no real difference between the two. You insult your own intelligence by not being willing to see it.

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #135657

The slide show was great.
It should inspire us all to work harder to hold our politicians accountable for their mismanagement, negligence, and irresponsibility (all of them, both Democrats and Republicans), and make sure they stop doing it.
It should not decay into a partisan issue.
The facts, sadly show how corrupt, bloated, arrogant, irresponsible politicians have hurt our troops.
So, if anything good is to come from this, it should be some outrage at corrupt government that needlessly, and irresponsibly squanders lives and life saving resources.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 24, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #135661


Torture is needed in every war. Fact of life, sorry.

Not as official policy applying matter of factly to all prisoners.

In YOUR opinion, Bush is worse.

Nope. For the deficit, successful attacks on our soil, responsiveness to natural disasters, and job creation there is no opinion involved at all, just facts.

You see these are things most people call differences, so I don’t like it when you spin them as not being so.

Posted by: Max at March 24, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #135663


What we’re not supposed to be the same as is this:

Here’s an interesting transcript from a trial of Japanese interrogators after World War II, who “waterboarded” American detainees in captivity. The war crimes prosecutor is getting testimony from an American soldier who was waterboarded:

“Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at that time?

A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.

Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.

A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again.

Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you questions?

A: Yes sir they did.

Q: How long did this treatment continue?

A: About twenty minutes.

Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the towel, what did you physically feel?

A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death.”

Posted by: Max at March 24, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #135664

I know what you mean by folks not wanting to see the reality of things. It drives me up a wall at times.
I have to deal with folks that hate Bush so bad that if he balanced the budget, paid off the national debt, lowered taxes to 3% for everyone but the rich who would pay 80%, got unemployment down to 2%, and got every country in the world to live peacefully, they’d still insist that he’s wrong and an idiot. I’m not all that crazy about him either. I didn’t vote for him in either election, but of the two main party candidates he was the lesser of the evils.
I’ve heard the WMDs were moved to Syria too. But I’m not really sure where they went, or even if they existed. I just think they might have.
I can’t and won’t try to explain why we can’t find anyone that would have any kind of knowledge of where the weapons are. Unless they’re all dead. I wouldn’t put that past Saddam one bit.
I’m with you on not running around all over Hell’s half acre trying to find WMDs. We need focus on getting things stable enough in Iraq and Afghanistan that we can get our troops home.
From one of your post I know you were in service, but I don’t know if you were ever in combat. Having been there myself, the last thing I wanted to see is our sons and daughters going off to war. But sometimes it’s necessary and I’m very thankful that we still have young folks that are willing to serve and make the sacrifices it takes to fight in a war. I just wish that I could go in some of their place so they wouldn’t have to experience the awful tragedy of war. But they tell me I’m to old. Hell 59 ain’t old, life’s just starting.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #135665


The slide show was great.
It should inspire us all to work harder to hold our politicians accountable for their mismanagement, negligence, and irresponsibility (all of them, both Democrats and Republicans), and make sure they stop doing it.


Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #135668


I already told you the weapons are buried in the secret moon base where the libbies are hiding Osama. Sheeesh!

Posted by: Max at March 24, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #135670


Sorry. The moon rocket exploded on takeoff and both Osama and the weapons of mass destruction were blown to smithereens. Sabotage is suspected, as a “Dean for President” button was found amond the debris.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 24, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #135671

bill m then the mission was aborted.

Posted by: JAY at March 24, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #135689

Hi Ron,
Nope, no actual combat experience and the ones that come close were too local or got washed out of the news by other events. But, if you read about the Bobby’s Bar bombing in Athens Greece I missed that one by my girlfriend and I deciding to not go that night. We got a taxi and went home… which was unusual for me ‘cuase I never missed an opportunity to go there when I was in Glyfada (the neighborhood).

The other was when the local communist party planted a bomb on my car. What was funny was how simple things were back then. The police found the bomb, removed it from under my car (a couple of sticks of TNT taped together), placed it in the front yard of their police station and then came and got me. I told them I had never seen it before, it wasn’t mine and they said, “Okay, go home.” That was the last I heard of it.

It was so surreal I almost don’t believe it myself but my ex mentioned it one time and brought it back to me. Funny how the mind works, huh?

You are right. I am 46 and on my way to my third or fourth career… getting my teaching license. While most of the time I feel invigorated and young being around the college students, the gulf between our experiences leaves me shaking my head in amazement at times.

While it is possible that Sadam could have killed off all the people involved in WMD like the kings of old and there workers who built their tombs I just can’t see something that large and complex being so well contained once the Baathist regeim was removed.

I have met many Iraqis who were expatriots in the 1980s because they didn’t want to go to war with Iran for Sadam. They were reasonable, intelligent and well educated. Most just wanted to find some pocket money so they could go into the local bar in the Plaka to dance. Kinda strange contrast to the “all Muslims are terrorists” rhetoric that we hear. I refuse to hate all Arabs, Muslims or what have you because of the acts of some.

One woman tried to jusify her friend’s bigotry of blacks because her friend had been mugged by a black person. I explained to her that it was a good thing the mugger wasn’t white, because to use the same logic then she would have to be a bigot against all whites. That would be unreasonable, don’t you think? She had never thought of it like that before.

Attaching the terrible behavior of some to all of the people is common in war times, I guess I should just accept it. We did it with the Huns and Krauts, the Japs, the VC “Charlies”… I love watching the History channel when old warriors from differnt sides come together…

Sir, thank you too for your service. The true Band of Brothers can extend even across countries and former sides.

The crazy making? That it isn’t politically correct, or it is too liberal to know that there are many decent Muslims in this world and not accepting the fear of a religion that is different and misunderstood by people who get their understanding from God knows where.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 24, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #135700

“You see these are things most people call differences, so I don’t like it when you spin them as not being so”

I’m not spinning anything.
deficit: I agree, its out of control. We have to stop it. But it won’t be the Reps or Dems that do it. It will have to be the people.

successful attacks on our soil: Yes, 9-11 happened. But placing the blame on clinton or Bush is wrong. We were caught with our pants down, we learned a valuable lesson. At least it wasn’t Americans killing Americans again.

responsiveness to natural disasters: Yes, it could have been better. It can always be better. Here in the midwest, we thought that during the massive floods of the 90’s.

job creation there is no opinion involved at all, just facts: Ok, I will take your words on job creation and give them some thoughts. Right now, I believe we are doing pretty good. You may have the “not quality jobs” train of thought going, I do not. I actually thought 9-11 occuring during a recession was going to hurt our economy alot more than it did and am thankful things are going as good as they are.

Now, your free to claim I’m spinning because I don’t support your opinions on everything, I dont mind one bit. Your entitled to them.
But if you were to apply the same rules and logic to BOTH administrations in an openminded way and compare what they have done, you will see that the other half of the country have valid points also.

Posted by: kctim at March 24, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #135701

Hey Darren,

I thought the dress was blue? Or at least blue polka-dotted after Billy got finished with it…

hard-dee-har - geeze I crack myself up.

Posted by: bombay at March 24, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #135716

>>In YOUR opinion, Bush is worse. Others believe clintons actions were worse.
clintons actions that you dismiss as being “nothing,” were of much concern to many people.


You are right…half the country thought lying about a BJ was more serious than our current BJ lying about everything, and getting thousands of people killed, wounded and maimed…go figure.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #135717

>>Here in the midwest, we thought that during the massive floods of the 90’s.


That was one of the most successful responses to a natural desaster in our history. What in the world are you talking about?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #135729

>>”With that sorry record, the leaders of the Democratic Party have decided to run on the theme of competence. If they’re competent to fight this war, then I ought to be singing on ‘American Idol,’” Cheney said.

Here’s an American hero…Swiftboating half the Amreican people…don’t you love it?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #135763

You are right…half the country thought lying about a BJ was more serious than our current BJ lying about everything, and getting thousands of people killed, wounded and maimed…go figure.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2006 06:33 PM

The thing that most folks were upset about was Clinton lying under oath. Not his getting a BJ.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #135766

Yeah I got you on the bigot thing. I’m supposed to hate all Black folks according to that logic because one stole my car once. What a crock. Fact is the thief was a 14 year-old joy rider. He was caught before the car was damaged. A deputy that knows me saw him driving it and got curious. Turned out that I know his daddy. The boy had more trouble at home than he ever would have in court. So I talked the DA into dropping the charges. The kid today is married and has 3 youngins of his own. He also has a good job and told me about a year ago that taking the car was the dumbest thing he ever did.
But because the boy is Black I’m supposed to hate all Blacks? Hardly.
It’s easy in war to look at all the folks on the other side as the enemy. In Vietnam we called all the Vietnamese VC. This didn’t make it so, but it was so hard to tell the VC from everyone else that it was just easier to look at all of them as VC. I still catch myself doing this even after all this time. I’ll see a Vietnamese person and the first thing that I think is VC. The hell of it is most the ones in this area, there ain’t too many but they’re here, were born here in the US. The majority are 18 to 22 years-old and going to college in Valdosta.
I don’t hate these kids any. And I know none of them ever took a shot at me. But still my first reaction is to look at them as VC.
I reckon it that way with Arabs. It’s easier to look at them all as terrorist than to try to tell the difference.

PS. Love this spell check on the Google bar.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 25, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #135789

>>The thing that most folks were upset about was Clinton lying under oath. Not his getting a BJ.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 24, 2006 11:52 PM

Ron B,

Do you know when Starr began his investigations? Do you know how many investigations there were? Do you know what the results of those investigations were? Do you know how long it took to back Clinton into a corner that he felt it necessary to lie about that BJ? Do you know how long it took Cheney/Bush to tell his first lie? Do you know how many lies he has told?

I know you believe what you say, but I also believe you say it because the Rovian Robots have convinced you of it.

Anyone ho says it’s about the lie under oath, hasn’t really thought it through. Oh, to have a man as honest as Clinton back in office again…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2006 5:12 AM
Comment #135811

Funny thing about how folks see things. You seem to think there are some kind of robots running around brainwashing folks, and I know they don’t exist. Think maybe those robots got to you buddy?
The fact is most everyone I’ve talked to is more interested in the fact that Clinton lied under oath than the fact that he got a BJ.
But even at that, he was wrong in getting the BJ from who he got it from.
First he’s a married man.
Second the Monica was an intern, he was her boss. If he had been in the real world instead of the never never land of DC he’d of been fired.
I find it also interesting that Congress didn’t impeach him for it. They impeached for perjury, you know, lying under oath.
If Clinton was as honest as yaall want to claim then why didn’t he just come out and say he got the BJ?
Fact is NO politician is honest. If they were they’d never get elected. And that’s a very sad fact.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 25, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #135818

>>Fact is NO politician is honest. If they were they’d never get elected. And that’s a very sad fact.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 25, 2006 10:58 AM

Ron B,

I did not bring up Clinton, kctim did. No individual is totally honest, hence no politician is totally honest. We agree on that…now for the hard part…is catching a husband and father in a lie that might protect his standing in his family more serious than catching one in lies after lie that gets innocent people killed, injured and maimed for life?

It’s you call. But, please remember that it took seventy to one hundred million dollars to find that one lie that Clinton told. How much did it cost and how long did it take to catch Cheney/Bush in his first one? And his lies continue one after the other after the other.

No insult intended, but blinders are blinders are blinders…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #135825

Have you seen me defending Bush?
A lie is a lie is a lie. It doesn’t matter who or what the circumstances are. One isn’t worse than another. The consequences might be, but not the lies.
All it took to catch Clinton in a lie was to actually listen to him. Just like with Bush.
I will give Bush this. I think he really believes some of the things he comes up with. Unlike Clinton who believed the way the polls said he should. Proof of this is, Bush hasn’t changed his position even though the polls are against him.
The only thing Clinton didn’t flip flop on is his desire to be King of The United States.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 25, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #135840

>>The only thing Clinton didn’t flip flop on is his desire to be King of The United States.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 25, 2006 11:57 AM

Ron B,

Wrong…king seekers can’t change their minds or their positions on anything…that would be very unkingly. Clinton made many policy changes because it benefitted the nation. Changing ones mind is no crime or sin. Being unchanging in the face of opposing evidence is very king-like. Better luck next time…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #135845

Oh come on now! I’m not the country’s biggest Bush supporter, but the only time Clinton changed any policy was when the polls suggested his popularity numbers were at risk of going down. Clinton was and is the quintisential liberal, more inclined to do what’s popular as opposed to what’s right. And Clinton’s inability to act when action was clearly called for is the reason we’re in Iraq in the first place. Better luck next time indeed!

Posted by: Bill M. at March 25, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #135848


I can’t believe I just now got around to checking out the website in your original posting, “Every Generation Has Its Heroes.” To say I was moved is an understatement. My father was one of these heroes, a proud member of the “Greatest Generation.” And I had the honor and privilege to serve with and fight alongside some of these heroes in Vietnam. And if I wasn’t so old and crippled, I’d serve alongside this new generation of heroes. God Bless them all. Anyone not moved by their sacrifice doesn’t deserve to call themselves an American.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 25, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #135890


you’re right. I probably shouldn’t have lumped
you together with those other two hit & run
lib-nuts. And I agree that Jack needs another
hobby. What’s happened to the other article
writers in this blog?

I disagree though that the U.S. is involved in
“rampant militarism” or that we’re fighting an
“offensive” war. If we hadn’t been attacked on
9/11 there’s a good chance we would’ve never
gone into Iraq. Saddam was a danger to at least
the region if not in a much smaller way to the
U.S. and he DID have W.M.D.s at one time. Only
time will tell whether he moved them somewhere
out of Iraq or still has them hidden very well there.

I too would love to see a world where war is a
thing of the past. Unfortunately that utopia
only seems to exist on the Star Trek series
where war doesn’t exist among nations on Earth.
Speaking of which. Is it just me ( please tell
me there’s other sci-fi nerds out there ) or are
there a lot of similarities between radical
Muslims extremists and Klingons? Just a thought.

Posted by: Dale G. at March 25, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #135896

marysdude, it was not 1 little lie clinton told about a bj. it was 30 + years of living a lie he was a woman chaser and has been all of his adult life .it is a problem of a addictive personality disorder. you cant live in denial. the real problem is how they handled it (excuse the pun ) (the clintons.) you cant believe for a minute that mrs clinton did not know after 20 some years of marriage.her response was total denial (it was a right wing CONSPICERY) where were all the womens groups at?! the only one women who came out against clinton was tammy bruce on kfi radio she was a critic of clinton by the way she was a very open minded and a very intelligent person and a gay person and told it like it was!that clinton was a man with a problem.but she found out you cant critique a democrat. she only spoke her mind that poor lady took more abuse from the left and womens groups. like she said (if it was a republican who did it he would be out on a rail!and justice should work both ways) sadly it did NOT for her she lost her job. well the right came to her rescue! good for her! and she is doing fine!ALSO KEN starr was appionted to investigate the death of vince foster and whitewater years before there was a monica cigar bj scandal. remember vince foster a very close friend of mrs clinton. you dont get out of a lie by telling 100 more lies like the clintons did! then when he could not lie any more he came out and told the truth remember all of the ministers who prayed with bill all those nights in the white house, so much for separation of church and state! the clintons also went to church to! he should have been censured by the congress .they the republicans blew it (pardon the pun) by going for impeachment that was a mistake. it polarized the country and gave the clintons a boost in sympathy that they capitalized on. hey bill was a politician it was the only job he ever had! yes bill clinton was a good president. was he above the law no!

Posted by: JAY at March 25, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #135917


“he DID have W.M.D.s at one time.”

Of course he did, he used them against the Iranians and the Kurds in the eighties, that was a known, known going into all this. It also is a known, known that Saddam paid terrorists to work against Isreal. What has not been proved however, is that he supported the Sept. 11th attacks.
As far as being a threat to his neighbors, we were already there and had kicked his ass once already and still had a presence in the region.
Saddam wasn’t going anywhere.
In a world filled with bad guys, and surely Saddam was one of them, why pick him first when there were more deserving bad guys to pick on?

Look, while I am all for the spread of democracy, and have said so, I also think that those who want it badly enough, should also do most of the dirty work to earn it, and I don’t just mean purple fingers.
We “gave” Iraq democracy, and they are doing exactly squat to ensure that they keep it.

America shouldn’t have to bankrupt itself to bring somthing “everybody wants” to the world at large.

Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2006 3:09 AM
Comment #136049

“That was one of the most successful responses to a natural desaster in our history. What in the world are you talking about?”

Really? Please tell me which small town you were in so we can compare stories.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #136096

Did hear me say Clinton was Kingly? I said he wanted to be King. As far as I’m concerned he don’t make a pimple on a pimples ass when it comes to running anything but his mouth.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 27, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #136711

Ron, Ron, Ron,
Please sir… it does discredit to the argument that us liberals should support the President on a basis of bipartisan fellowship when such things words are used about President Clinton.

It harkens back the the 1990s. Ah, the good old years… America’s over whelming issue was a black dress and the definition of “is”. Simpler times.

When it comes to morality and all that… well, we could, as I have mentioned before, shoot jaywalkers… but that would digress the conversation.

I really would love a full accounting of President Clinton’s and President Bush’s personal lives… After all, you don’t wake up hungover on after your 40th birthday and just become sober.

If you look at the predominance of sobriety stories you will find an underlying theme… it is called the “Spiritual Awakening” or the “Moment of Clarity.” I know, of which I speak because I have been sober over 20 years and have experienced it. I don’t worry about my anonymity here because the whole name things is anonymous.

This experince is usually caused by some life altering event… one that really causes the alcoholic to “hit bottom” and finally do something.

As Jay mentioned (thank you by the way) an addictive personality and addiction itself is known as the disease of denial… Whether that disease be sex or alcohol.

President Bush is a confirmed alcoholic so let’s not distract from that fact.

We do not know, what or if, anything “unsavory” is in President Bush’s past… but, I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar there is.

We Democrats are not stupid. We watch, we take notes, we learn. We have waited a loooooooooong time for payback for what was done to our President… the same office of which Republicans and Conservatives say we should all repect.

I, for one, would really love to take the low road… but, being a liberal, I am too soft and I do want to be compassionate and understanding of the flaws in all of us. Judge not, lest… etc. Throwig stones in brick…

I guess as long as we can distinguish a person’s sex life equating to the totality of the person’s contribution to society we will always have President Clinton come up as lacking… But, then again… we might also have to rethink our other Presidents based on this criteria, not their accomplishments. Just their personal lives.

Why bother taking into consideration anything positive that might have been done in 8 years? Why do people say that we need to not base our opinions of President Bush only on the negative of Iraq?

That is what I so love about Conservatives… they do not get caught up into the hyperbole… they deal rationally, view all sides of the issues, ponder, ask questons, research a bit more and then come to a weighty and sound conclusion.

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 29, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #137019

darren all the things you eluded to the conservatives. are true thank you. compliments are rare these days and when we get one we sure savior it! thank you!

Posted by: mb at March 30, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #137045

I forgot to mention their complete inability to detect irony.

(Must be why they don’t get Jon Stewart. It isn’t “fake” news… it is news with an ironic twist.)

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 31, 2006 5:03 AM
Comment #137134

darren we understand irony and twist and spin the media and truth

Posted by: mb at March 31, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #137479

btw DARREN 7160, THE NAME IS MB. but i can imagine you will come up with some sorry metaphor!

Posted by: mb at April 2, 2006 9:12 PM
Post a comment