|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 26, 2007 18:01:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 18:59:12 GMT -5
I caught a tiny part of it.
Biden was answering- actually, not answering would be more apropo'- on abortion, claiming that SCOTUS in effect "discovered" a heretofore undiscovered infringement on the absolute right to abortion the Left favors.
Interesting is his omission that the right TO abortion was inarguably a 'heretofore undiscovered' right 'found' in the Constitution.
And Biden is supposed to be pro-choice but against abortion....
If he's the Democrat party "voice of reason" on this issue, that should tell us something.
Personally, I'm hopeful that Republican candidates will refuse en masse to go on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. because they know those networks will not give them a fair shake.
If Democrats think Fox is biased against them (incorrect) and refuse to take part in debates hosted or co-hosted by FNC, then Republicans are well within their rights to similarly reject the biases that those other networks have against them (correctly).
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 27, 2007 12:54:21 GMT -5
I think probably the biggest laugh of the whole event is seeing John Edwards try to pass himself off as a 'man of the people'.
Lessee....
Trial lawyer who made millions off junk jurisprudence.
Tries to bill his campaign for $400 haircuts.
Owns a twenty-eight THOUSAND square foot house.
Yep....just another Regular Joe, ain't he?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 27, 2007 21:09:25 GMT -5
$400 haircuts? Man, someone is ripping him off. I've seen better dos coming out of Cost Cutters at Wal-Mart.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 27, 2007 21:55:18 GMT -5
Edwards' real offense was that he tried to bill his campaign for the haircuts.
It was only after he'd been caught that he dug into his own (extraordinarily deep) pockets and reimbursed his campaign.
He did say he was 'sorry', but I wonder.....was he sorry he did it or sorry he got caught?
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Apr 27, 2007 22:07:49 GMT -5
Edwards' real offense was that he tried to bill his campaign for the haircuts. It was only after he'd been caught that he dug into his own (extraordinarily deep) pockets and reimbursed his campaign. He did say he was 'sorry', but I wonder.....was he sorry he did it or sorry he got caught? Blows my mind why a multi-millionaire running for the Highest Political office in the land >>>would be that STUPID<<< ?
He should be discounted as a serious candidate,... just for this Blunder!
Don't we have enough 'idiots' in charge of America?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 28, 2007 12:19:30 GMT -5
law-
It does make me wonder if pols are so arrogant as to believe that no one will notice when they do something, well, stupid like this.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 28, 2007 13:54:16 GMT -5
I just hope the ReichWingers keep telling America:
Global warming is a hoax. We are winning in Iraq. There is no Health Insurance problem in America.
They are going to get BURIED in 2008 and I can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 28, 2007 13:59:40 GMT -5
If the Republicans do win in 08 it will be because the Democrats lost. If they (Democrats) lose again, they might as well close up shop.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 28, 2007 14:06:02 GMT -5
I don't know. Guiliani is pro gay and for Federally funded abortions. McCain is Pro Environment.
The only two legitimate candidates they have. In a way, we've won already.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 28, 2007 14:27:37 GMT -5
Damn it, I am very anti-Environment. I hate it.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 28, 2007 14:33:08 GMT -5
good catch there dale, ANYBODY that thinks anyone is "anti environment" is giving insight into themselves......they have no desire for honest debate, they must LIE about the other side even before discussion begins!
and in this case they lack the courage to say it straight out.....like a wimp they plant the image without saying the words.
|
|
freeyourmind
Cog in Training
"Where no one has gone before."
Posts: 52
|
Post by freeyourmind on Apr 28, 2007 17:47:01 GMT -5
Kind of reminds you of the "If you're against the troops, you against the war," and "Democrats want to surrender," rhetoric we hear from some on the Right, no? Straw-mans have been the basis of arguments for both the Left and Right, so don't feel so superior billt. You also definitely don't want Repubs on anything other that FNC. Hell, a comedian named Jon Stewart torn both Bill O'Reilly and more recently John McCain a new one. And do keep the Left off of FNC. We'd hate to have to wipe it up with your face like slick Willy did several months ago.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 28, 2007 17:52:02 GMT -5
The "left" has avoided Fox News while the "right" has debate on MSNBC next week. The only people keeping them off Fox News is them, it is very cowardly and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 28, 2007 18:05:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but when a man who has been out of politics since 1981- and apparently out of his mind for far longer than that- emerges as the star of the debate, someone has got to wonder about the Democrat party:
Is THIS the best that you can do?
By all means, let the LIEberals keep telling us:
We have to lower our standard of living to slightly better than that of Sierra Leone- meanwhile giving China and India a free pass on pollution.
That they want to remove the corruption from Congress, yet keep people like Reid and Jefferson among their leadership and on key committee positions
Deliver on the promise they made to George "Daddy Antiwarbucks" Soros and the MoveOn.org crowd and leave our troops in battle without the funding they need to win
and Democrats will be consigned to the 'ash heap of history' along with their ideological soulmates, the Communists.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 28, 2007 18:11:07 GMT -5
Kind of reminds you of the "If you're against the troops, you against the war," and "Democrats want to surrender," rhetoric we hear from some on the Right, no? Straw-mans have been the basis of arguments for both the Left and Right, so don't feel so superior billt. You also definitely don't want Repubs on anything other that FNC. Hell, a comedian named Jon Stewart torn both Bill O'Reilly and more recently John McCain a new one. And do keep the Left off of FNC. We'd hate to have to wipe it up with your face like slick Willy did several months ago. I find it interesting that the Left is perfectly willing to talk to true enemies such as Asad and Ahmadinijiad but won't talk to imaginary enemies such as Fox News, President Bush and General Petraeus. What is the Left so afraid of? Meanwhile, Republican candidates continue to go on networks and on shows where there is absolutely zero chance that they'll be treated with courtesy or fairness. I think the only show on which Republicans do not go is "Countdown", and that's because KOok won't allow them on. He's absolutely terrified of having to defend his positions. As he should be. And as far as Stewart....John Bolton absolutely DESTROYED Stewart a few weeks back. Bolton even elicited some applause from the purposefully Leftists-stacked audience Stewart has as his audience. Bolton made the normally glib Stewart look like Bush on his worst day....
|
|
freeyourmind
Cog in Training
"Where no one has gone before."
Posts: 52
|
Post by freeyourmind on Apr 28, 2007 19:15:26 GMT -5
I won't comment on any Global Warming rhetoric mainly because I too believe that it is a tad bit blown out of proportion. I don't like fear-mongering, even when it's my side doing it. I do think that most of my party is a tad naive when it comes to peace talks with places like Iran, Syria, Palestine, ect. But if that's all we are doing, just talking, what is so bad about that. Should we just start bombing the hell out of everyone that does something we don't like. You have to remember too, though, in the case of Palestine, Israel basically came in, took it over, then said, "God said we could have it." I don't agree with the reasonings they have for claiming that land, but I do understand and respect their right to defend it, since it is theirs now. (I should also note here that I would support a war with Iran because I believe that they have been assisting to kill our troops and are the biggest threat in the WOT, much more so than Iraq ever was.) I find it even more interesting that Bush would ignore input from his former Generals, surround himself with yes-men, then replace the head General with someone who believes in the "surge", after realizing that the advice he previously ignored could have helped, if not end, then speed up a conclusion to this war. I am an avid fan of history, and I understand how war works. Adding 20,000 troops now is like adding salt to a big vat of shit stew to try and make it palatable. What he should have done (if not getting out completely and concentrating on Iran) was send 250,000 more troops to Iraq, 100,000 to the Iran border, 50,000 to the Syrian border, and 100,000 to Baghdad. If he's not willing to take massive collateral damage, then he isn't going to win this war in Iraq. The best alternative would be to pull all our troops out of Iraq and send them to Iran. Once Iraq sorted itself out via the civil war (free from Iran's influence), we could then pursue diplomatic relations (if that's turns out to be impossible, try to at least work out a non-aggression pact). Once Iran falls, it should be much easier in place like Syria, Lebanon, ect., since Iran is (IMO) the "man behind the curtain" so to speak. With Iran out of the way, it may even be possible to accomplish this with little military effort. Again, though, this would require massive amounts of collateral damage, but if we do end up killing around a few hundred thousand civilians, but succeed in bringing about stability and peace for, say, 60 or 70 years, wouldn't it be worth it? Wow, that all kinda came out at once, so if it doesn't make sense, just chalk it up to my delusional rantings brought on by sleep deprivation.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 28, 2007 21:30:35 GMT -5
My retort above was aimed at richbrout to a far greater degree than at you. Your viewpoint on this one is refreshing, especially coming from "my (your) side". I've said more than once that those who believe in anthropogenic global warming would do themselves and their viewpoint a great service if they toned down the rhetoric about, oh, seventy-five notches- as you've done. "Over-hyping" a situation or circumstance can be very detrimental to proving your case. Just ask Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. re: Iraq... The difference is that, if the Bush Administration did send officials to deal directly with Iran, Syria, etc., they would be doing so from a position of strength, whereas Democrats doing so, due to their opposition of dealing with threats to the country in any forceful manner- if at all- would/are being perceived as coming from a position of weakness. In the context of the 1930s, Asad and Ahmadinijiad are Hitler, Bush is Churchill and the Democrats are Chamberlain/Daldier. So much that is wrong or perceived to be wrong comes back to Israel. Sensible. But you do realize that Democrat Party obstruction and undermining of the effort in Iraq has made intervention in Iran impossible under any circumstances short of a nuclear bomb with a big "Made In Tehran" sticker on it going off over New York (and maybe not even then unless someone can prove Karl Rove wasn't around at the time). We sent enough to win the war but not enough to win the peace. I understand Rumsfeld's viewpoint in advocating a so-called "Small footprint" strategery. I can similarly understand why there was ample reason to expect that, given life under Saddam, the Iraqis would be very favorably disposed towards the Coalition. I can also understand FDR's viewpoint that Pearl Harbor was not susceptible to air attack by Japan, Germany or Martians. Hindsight gives us all pretty good vision, no? (to be fair though, there were those who did predict what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was removed. There were also those who suspected that Pearl Harbor, after Taranto, was susceptible to air attack. It's kinda like predicting tomorrow is the end of the world...eventually, you'll be right) At one time, Bush might well have been willing to 'take the gloves off'. In the direct aftermath of 9/11, I think he would've nuked someone provided he knew exactly who to nuke. He had no problem with the use of "Daisy Cutters"...and those do almost enough damage to be considered WMDS in their own right. I tend to agree here. Had we gone into Iran and deposed the leadership there, I don't think Iraq would have been the threat to destabilize Iran that Iran is to destabilize Iraq. I don't think Saddam Hussein was suicidal; I'm not so sure about Ahmadinijiad. The Left, both here and abroad, have made that kind of total war a political impossibility. Hey...it made more sense than alot of what's posted here and that by people who aren't sleep deprived.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 29, 2007 8:01:34 GMT -5
Jon Stewart is dead on.
I loved it when he said this is a war to protect our civilization's continued existence? You really believe that and your response is to send 10,000 troops. If you really believe it then you should institute the draft now.
As far as GLOBAL WARMING, I side with the scientists, not the bowling alley guy.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 29, 2007 8:26:39 GMT -5
On the war- thats not all they got wrong. WMD's disbanding 100,000s of the Iraqi army (now pised off armed men) "We will be greeted as liberators" "the insurgency is in its death throes" Not enough troops to secure the peace, not listening to shenseki,Zinni and all the other generals that told them what they needed telling everyone you support Rumsfeld and "Stay the course", and the day after the Nov election, go a different direction (playing politics with American lives) Abu Grahb Not controlling the looting and instead your response is to have Rumsfeld say "Democracy is messy" NO LEADERSHIP in terms of conservation, instead telling Americans to "vacation and go shopping"-THE WAR TO PRESERVE OUR WAY OF LIFE and we are told to vacation and go shopping? But the ones who seem to have gotten EVERYTHING wrong, now tell us 10,000 more troops in Baghdad will do the trick. AMERICANS are no longer buying their BULLSHIT. Whats UNAMERICAN is using the back door draft and extending these troops stay after their service is completed,and the condition of Walter Reed Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 29, 2007 9:13:47 GMT -5
Whats UNAMERICAN is using the back door draft and extending these troops stay after their service is completed,and the condition of Walter Reed Hospital. A few points... Back door draft? This is the most bogus point anti-war folk make, extending troops in assignment and length of service comes as no surprise to those involved. It sucks, but they know about it going in. Walter Reed and the problems in those areas are unforgivable, but I would not so quickly pin that on anyone except the folks on the ground there. Whoever is responsible needs to fry. But lets remember those photos we saw on the news were of a temporary outpatient lodging facility and the problem was also partially user related, living like pigs (poor upkeep of personal space, like you will see in every barracks or dorm facility. Abhorrent? Yes. New? No. Getting fixed? Yes, this includes addressing the bueracracy that plagues every single government entity. That said, VAs have improved greatly in the last 30 years, my father needed medical attention and would not go to the VA based on how they treated him during the Vietnam era, once he went he was amazed by the improvement.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Apr 29, 2007 9:23:25 GMT -5
A voice of reason in a crowd of idiots. Thank you. Once again, reason. I agree that talks with the leaders of the Middle Hell is futile. I also see the crapstorm about Pelosi talking with those people as rather blown out of proportion. She's not that mentally agile, so what real harm could she do? Promise something that those folks know damned well we won't deliver? She only stood to make herself look foolish, which she did. Disagree. The Jews were driven out long before the "Palestinians", who really aren't even an entity, showed up. The "Palestinians" are merely displaced Arabs from every Middle Hell country you can think of. The Israelis have made every possible overture toward them. If they'd merely stop barking at the moon and blowing things up, they might actually find a life. The whole thing loosely parallels our having pushed the Indians to the side. (I should also note here that I would support a war with Iran because I believe that they have been assisting to kill our troops and are the biggest threat in the WOT, much more so than Iraq ever was.) Respectfully, this is a moot point. The war in Iraq, or rather the war for Iraq, was actually won. In a matter of days! What we see now is the occupation of Iraq, and our supervision of/collaboration with/participation in ........their civil war. The "war" can be over for us as soon as the last troop is pulled out. What will remain there is the age-old bitch about which goat rancher, sheikh, or imam crapped in which wadi first, dancing about in the hot sun chanting "My turban's bigger than your turban......" ............and once again, there's that word "surge". Such idiotic verbage. Sounds to me like Bush got pissed, experienced a "surge", and wanted to project a little more testosterone over Iraq. I like the shit stew thing! ..........but shit stew is still shit stew. No amount of salt will change that. No amount of troops on this or that border or in Baghdad will change the situation. .............and to send the amount of troops you suggest will leave us with about 17 soldiers to defend our nation. He isn't, and he isn't.That is exactly what has to happen. Iraq has to sort it out. However, there is one other scenario that has merit, and unfortunately it is being espoused by Joe Biden, but that doesn't diminish it's credibility. That scenario holds that the best solution for Iraq is a loose federation of sorts. Let the people who want to play together in their respective sandboxes stay together. Three federated Republics. The Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. Sunnistan, Shiitestan, and Kurdistan, or something like that. I suppose Baghdadstan would become something along the lines of Washington, D.C.stan. But, I digress.............. You forgot Indonesia, Europe, Toronto, Vancouver, and Minnesota. You forgot Indonesia, Europe, Toronto, Vancouver, and Minnesota.If it required massive amounts of collateral damage, how would it be possible to accomplish this with little military effort? Ditto for me.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 29, 2007 10:48:07 GMT -5
RE: Walter Reed
Have they taken the "Buck Stops here" sign off the President's desk?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 29, 2007 11:04:48 GMT -5
i have dealt with the VA for over 30 years, they have improved without question.....the problem is they were so bad before almost by any measure they HAD to improve.
is it acceptable to you folks that 100% disabled veterans have to wait 6 months to be seen for any problem they have?
i must inject that for emergencies they can go to the nearest hospital for treatment BUT if they do they will spend a couple of years dealing with lawyers/bill collectors trying to collect from them because the VA is so slow to pay!
is it acceptable that they are also entitled to dependents healthcare, BUT the CHAMPUS system has been so slow in paying that about 10% of doctors accept that insurance?
FACT the way veterans get treated is a national disgrace, that most people are completely unaware of.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 29, 2007 12:01:10 GMT -5
Rich - He is responsible, responsible to fix problems, on this one he is. He is not personally responsible for the operation of VA hospitals.
Bill - No it is not acceptable at all, but I have gone to the VA during clinic hours and got all the treatment I needed, including being sent to a specialist. The 6 month wait is very true and as a non-disabled, non-injured, non-destitute, non-retired vet I am the last of the last on the list. My father a purple heart recipient, Vietnam vet, military connected disability recipient gets his appointments faster. But when dealing with that many people and that bureaucracy any system will have those slow downs.
The thought that Bush walk in those temporary quarters and said "yeah this will do" is laughable. We all know that never happened. Pinning this crap at Walter Reed is like pinning the missing data on him too. it is ridiculous and politically motivated. And you all know I will trash Bush on the times it is necessary, this isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 29, 2007 12:18:29 GMT -5
Let's examine the list:
We have found WMDs and other weapons and equipment proscribed Saddam by the terms of the 1991 Gulf war cease fire. true, we haven't found "stockpiles" (yet?) but even a single weapon, regardless of condition, is a material breach of the terms of the cease fire.
Did we keep the Wehrmacht intact, including the Waffen SS- in the wake of WW2?
Even a NY Times correspondant says that we were, if for only a brief time.
So "death throes" can take a while.
If Democrats would quit trying to pre-emptively surrender to the terrorists, maybe we'd actually get it done a tiny bit faster...
You mean all the generals who based their tactics on 20/20 hindsight? Who waited until after they were fired to write books blasting the strategery- and make a few bucks at the same time?
So far, the only legit criticism you've raised.
Although had Bush fired Rumsefeld BEFORE the elections, your side would have screamed he was "playing politics" then too.
How conveneient.
College fraternity initiations are far tougher on folks than anything that happened there.
Although being sexually harassed by Lynndie England does come awfully close to crossing the line.....
So this is the only instance of looting ever recorded in the aftermath of a military defeat?
Rumsfeld and the US is neither any more nor any less guilty of "allowing" looting than any other entity in history.
Maybe you missed the looting in Somalia after Clinton cut-and-ran. I didn't.
Bush has dramatically increased funding for research into alternative energy sources- far more than anything Clinton did during his regime.
Still, Bush realizes one rather salient point that the environMENTALists consistently overlook- that we can't simply wave a magic wand and instantaneously transition from a petroleum-based economy to a non-petroleum-based economy. It doesn't work that way.
That's why he had advocated tapping secure, in-hemisphere sources of oil and gas in places like (the tiniest sliver of) ANWAR and off the California and Gulf coasts so that we can first wean ourselves off unstable sources of oil from, say, Venezuela and the Middle East, substituting 'local' sources during the transitional period- and creating tens of thousands of very high paying jobs in the proceess (isn't the Left in favor of good jobs? seems like I heard that about them...)- while at the same time researching and perfecting things like sucrose-ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel, wind, solar, etc.
As for Democrats caring more about the envioronment than Republicans, I'd urge a bit of research on the mercury levels permitted in potable water. Bill Clinton was President for eight years and it was only in the last week of his presidency that he signed an Executive Order to reduce the allowable mercury levels from what had been the standard.
Once Bush became President, he countermanded Clinton's order and restored accetable mercury limits to the previous standard.
If mercury levels in drinking water was such a threat to the health of the public, why did Clinton wait 7 years 360 or so days to do something about it?
Also, it points out yet another Democrat double standard:
Bush rolled back mercury restrictions and the Left and the MSM claims that he permitted 'increased mercury levels' in water.
Democrats promise to roll back Bush's tax cuts and then cry "Foul!" when Republicans point out that that is a de facto tax increase.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 30, 2007 1:22:42 GMT -5
1. Any WMD's found were from first Gulf War or Iran/Iraq War. No where near the "immediate threat" or "Mushroom cloud" implications of this admin. They either lied ot were just dead wrong. Hans Blink was right. How can you be 100% sure they had WMD's and have no idea where they were. 2. The analogy to the wehrmacht is inaccurate. One could argu that Nazi Germany at the end of WW2 was the most homogenized country in history. Iraq with its ethnic divisions was ripe for this kind of sectarian vilolence. The Administration has admitted this was a mistake. 3. I think its pretty clear to anyone after 4 years that we have not been greeted as liberators. More like Occupiers. 4. "death throes" We can disagree about what ths was intended to imply. As much as this Admin and its supporters would like to cast the blame for failure on Iraq to the DEMs and MSM, when you have the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first 6 years-Its your baby- This April has been the bloodiest month to date-the MSM reports on the war from the green zone predominatly, its hard to blame them for not reporting on how good things are going in the country, when they can't leave the green zone for fear of having their head removed. 5. I saw Gen Shenzeki before the war discuss his troop desires. No ONE denies this. www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html6. Abu Grahb seriously damaged our cause in Iraq. It made us look like what Bin Laden said we were. Though done by a few screw ups who were put in a position they NEVER should have been with no training for guarding prisoners, this was a huge PR nightmare across the Middle East. The actions of a few fools undercut the hard work of honorable troops. 7. the looting created an atmosphere of lawlessness when stability was needed and it could have been avoided with more troops. 8. Have we been asked to conserve??? While I will grant you Bush has made some initiatives toward renewable energy, they are not aggresive. If we are in a war for our Civilizations' existence, I would expect it to affect our lives. I would expect us to be on a World War 2 type massive move to switch our economy off of fossil fuels toward energy independence. Do you truly believe we are doing the best job we can to accom[plish this and we are approaching it with the level of commitment we would if our civilization depended on it?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 30, 2007 17:24:17 GMT -5
Again, whether he had 1 or 1000 is completely irrelevant. the fact that he had ANY is what matters and he did.
Remember, among the many conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire was that Saddam account for all the WMD he was known to have prior to that conflict and to provide unequivocal evidence that he had destroyed them. It wasn't up to US or the IAEA to prove whether he did or didn't have them; it was up to Saddam to prove he did not. He failed, and he's with 72 virgins who all hopefully look like Ugly Betty right about now.
I've pointed out before that all Saddam had to do was to co-operate even the slightest bit with the UN and their arms inspectors and he'd still be Dictator-In-Chief, killing and terrorizing millions while his thug sons kept their rape playrooms open and busy. The UN, because they were being bribed to do so, set the bar for acceptably levels of cooperation so absurdly low that even one such as Hussein shouldn't have had any trouble exceeding it. "He chose......poorly."
Patton certainly thought that we should keep former German army personnel and lower-level NAZI Party functioanries in place to keep the wheels of civilization turning. In fact, he advocated re-arming the Wehrmacht and turning them loose on the USSR because he "knew they knew how to fight".
Still, we didn't. There were fractures in the Germany populace all during the NAZI years. Not nearly all of the people were fervent- even lukewarm- NAZIs; many just wanted to be allowed to get on with their lives (much like the Shi'ia in Iraq). The NAZIs had oppressed their own people, to say nothing of what they did to Jews and other "Untermenschen". Yet the oppressed people, by and large, did not strike back at the NAZIs when they had the chance. I'll concede that the hatred doesn't go back hundreds of years as it does in Iraq, but, at the same time, the presence of a robust-enough military to keep the peace did so in Germany and can yet do so in Iraq.
"Politics stop at the water's edge."
Democrats were well within historic convention to object to troops being sent to Afghanista, Iraq and wherever else. I freely grant that.
However, once the decision to deploy troops was made by the one and only Commander In Chief, the Democrats continued to do whatever they could to undermine the effort, in a politically-driven effort to destroy the President. No rational person can come to any other valid conclusion.
What was the vital national interest in the Balkans? Haiti? Somalia? Republicans objected- loudly- to Clinton sending troops there but, once Clinton, as C-in-C, had made the decision to send them, the debate largely ended- EXACTLY as it should be.
And what of the MSM?
Well, let's examine their 'coverage' of the British decision to begin pulling troops out of Iraq.
Instead of reporting on the positive- that the British areas of Iraq are largely free of sectarian and insurgent violence and under the control of Iraqi politicians- the MSM framed it as Blair giving up, acknowledging defeat and brining his involvement in the fiasco to an end.
Talk about your 'glass half empty' mentality....
I'll get to addressing your other points down the road a bit. Those three jumped out at me as being the ones needing rebutting first.
|
|