And now! For my next trick, I'll make a Senator speak!
or "How I threw my hat into the ring for 2008 and made an ass of myself doing it".
Chuck Hagel has become the new talking dog for the Democrats. Buh, bye, Cindy. Well, let's be honest. There is more than enough room for two talking dogs on this stage. We won't be saying "Bye" to Cindy for a long time considering the kind of money the special interest groups have backing her. Hell, she might even run for Congress. Who knows? She is the perfect candidate for the Democrats. She could be the next Paul Hackett, who misrepresented himself on his commercials and acted like he LIKED George Bush. Amazing what Democrats will do trying to be competitive.
Enter Chuck Hagel after Cindy left for CalEEfornia (It's the place you wanna be!) and Hackett couldn't "hack it".
"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar (is that a word? It's Like unfunny, I guess), dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," said Hagel.
The Vietnam card. I can't believe a Republican played the Vietnam card. Democrats have been doing it since Iraq was a glimmer in George Bush's eye. So, now I have to listen to every single Democrat interviewed say exactly the same thing (Charlie McCarthy oughta be proud- "My name is Daniel O'Day" - remember those? I had one. Little did I know others did, too, and each one of them ran as Democrats to Congress), "Even a Republican is breaking ranks with the President".
Let me just run this by you folks. The number of men who have died in Iraq are about 2000. The number of men who died in Vietnam was 58,000. I don't think any of us (except Democrats) are unable to do the math here. 2,0000 in 3 years equals 78 years to make it into Vietnam. Thanks Chuck, we really needed you to make that statement. You really are positioning yourself for the "moderates" in '08, but you will lose when you don't get the Republican vote. Here is a hint for you, Chuck. Think before you speak. It does wonders.
There are similarities, though. The Democrats are sabotaging the war effort again. It's sad to see, but it is true. Power means more to them than the safety of the U.S. But, you gotta give 'em credit, though. They act SOOOOO outraged when you state the facts.
No one wants to be in a war. I know I don't. But, this constant naysaying when there is no proof of what you claim is damaging and, dare I say it, criminal. And now we have Chuck helping them out. Thanks a bunch!
Chuck Hagel has become the new talking dog for the Democrats. Buh, bye, Cindy. Well, let's be honest. There is more than enough room for two talking dogs on this stage. We won't be saying "Bye" to Cindy for a long time considering the kind of money the special interest groups have backing her. Hell, she might even run for Congress. Who knows? She is the perfect candidate for the Democrats. She could be the next Paul Hackett, who misrepresented himself on his commercials and acted like he LIKED George Bush. Amazing what Democrats will do trying to be competitive.
Enter Chuck Hagel after Cindy left for CalEEfornia (It's the place you wanna be!) and Hackett couldn't "hack it".
"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar (is that a word? It's Like unfunny, I guess), dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," said Hagel.
The Vietnam card. I can't believe a Republican played the Vietnam card. Democrats have been doing it since Iraq was a glimmer in George Bush's eye. So, now I have to listen to every single Democrat interviewed say exactly the same thing (Charlie McCarthy oughta be proud- "My name is Daniel O'Day" - remember those? I had one. Little did I know others did, too, and each one of them ran as Democrats to Congress), "Even a Republican is breaking ranks with the President".
Let me just run this by you folks. The number of men who have died in Iraq are about 2000. The number of men who died in Vietnam was 58,000. I don't think any of us (except Democrats) are unable to do the math here. 2,0000 in 3 years equals 78 years to make it into Vietnam. Thanks Chuck, we really needed you to make that statement. You really are positioning yourself for the "moderates" in '08, but you will lose when you don't get the Republican vote. Here is a hint for you, Chuck. Think before you speak. It does wonders.
There are similarities, though. The Democrats are sabotaging the war effort again. It's sad to see, but it is true. Power means more to them than the safety of the U.S. But, you gotta give 'em credit, though. They act SOOOOO outraged when you state the facts.
No one wants to be in a war. I know I don't. But, this constant naysaying when there is no proof of what you claim is damaging and, dare I say it, criminal. And now we have Chuck helping them out. Thanks a bunch!
posted by W.F. at 6:51 PM
15 Comments:
Good post, your right, they are at it again.
Here is a piece VDH wrote a while back, in which he said:
"Vietnam is much evoked by the Democrats, who apparently believe the country was lost in 1973-4 when they cut off money for further support. So it is now the hour for them likewise to conjure up that time-tested Vietnam remedy by cutting off the money, bringing home the soldiers and calling it quits. If they really care about the troops at war, they must either support their efforts or bring them back — but not leave them in limbo as they damn their mission."
I was long gone from there by the time Our country started pulling the rug out from under our Troops.
I left in late 69 after two tours and came home via W. Reed in early 70.
But, I remember it like it was yesterday, watching on tv the people clawing and crying, trying to get on our helicopters and planes.
But in the end, we left them to try to escape on their own or to be imprisoned for years, tortured and worse.
And, of course, to be murdered by the thousands.
I pray to God, we don't let that happen again.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Papa Ray, you bring up a ver scary scenario, which unfortunatly might come to fruition if we allow the Dems to have their way. They did it before & they're trying to do it again.
Sheila Jackson Lee used Vietnam earlier today. These people are caricatures of real people. Why do reporters allow them to get away with this kind of nonsense.
A majority of reporters on the same side. Remember, Kerry's grades were worse than Bush's but no one in the press made an issue of it during the campaign.
Very nice blog you guys! Please check out this
page too!
President Bush is an Alumnus of Phillips Academy, But Which One?
Both Presidents with the last name Bush attended Phillips Academy. You may be surprised to learn that the school they attended was in Andover, not next to the St.
Good job...you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a the perfect income system site. It pretty much covers the perfect income system related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Your blog is great If you have a traffic issue, I'm sure you'd be interested in web site traffic optimization There's lots of information about web site traffic optimization
W.F.
It does not matter if ts 58,000 or 2,000 every life is important. The main argument is why, why did we go to war? WMD's? I geuss not. To remove a brutal dictator that we helped support and arm. We gave him the gas he used against the Kurds. Don't believe me, do the research. We imposed sanctions on the country that killed 2 million children and Madelaine Albright claims it was worth it.
Now we ARE Losing the war. We couldnt even secure the green zone. Right now there is a battle for baghdad. Most of the coalition casualties came from the insurgency and yet the insurgency is alive and growing while our boys are dying. And again I ask you for what reason, to fix the mistake of some administration. What offends me is that our government whether its democrat or republican continues to feed us lies and feeds wastes the lives of our young men and women.
And if you think the number is really 2000, I have a plantation in mars I'd like to sell you. If you are so inclined to follow the Rush Limbaugh or conservatives in general blindly, at least acknowledge that they lied, you could forgive them that they lied but you must realize that they did otherwise your only fooling yourself my friend.
BTW if your interested I have a poli blog as well irvinecoyote.blogspot.com, if you wish post your thoughts, I would always like to debate anyone who has a different view than mine.
Cheers
Well, sorry Irvine, but the facts that are coming out just do not support what you say. One could ask you why you are so willing to blindly follow the liberals, Air America, Ted Kennedy, and Howard Dean.
You obviously have an issue with what you characterize the administration's truthfulness. I am sure you have proof other than just "There were no WMDs". He had them, he used them, and then we were unable to find them. But he had had them. Ask your buddy Bill Clinton. He said they had them, too, and were actively trying to get more as late as 1998. All of the Democrats demanded he go to war because Iraq was engaging in these activities. And he didn't because he was bogged down in his own missteps socially and domestically. He shot a few rockets off and killed a few tents.
And just for the record: We didn't arm Saddam. I guess you missed the fact that he was using T-80 tanks in all of his military actions and his rockets and helicopters were also supplied by the U.S.S.R.
We aren't losing the war. I guess in a perfect world a war a country wins there would be 0 casualties on one side and the other side would have 100%, but it does not work that way in real life (tm). In real life, true heroes end up dying because real life is not like the movies. Did you know we lost upwards of about 6000 men at Kasserine Pass. Under your logic, we would have quit World War 2 and went home, citing "We are losing the war" we're so sorry England and France.
Whenever I get replies like this, I have to wonder if you are the true enemy flocking to the internet to sow confusion and doubt amongst the true U.S. citizens. Or if you are just a misinformed liberal. I would not want to be either.
I say they are one and the same...
W.F. you're an excellent debater.
I am the a Liberal, a True Enemy and, dare I say it? A criminal. We're Losing! We're losing! bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Yeah, name calling makes for great debate, NY girl.
Dan,
you are beginning to bore me and that can be considered the deathknell of any conversation, so I'll just say this.
Why do you think a liberal is a bad word? I guess it is because most liberals run from the word like a scalded dog. But, most of the liberals used to embrace the word. They still like to say they think "liberally".
So, using the word misinformed liberal is namecalling? Am I not allowed to say that they are misinformed? Someone saying we armed Saddam Hussein who used T-80s, SA rockets, and Hind helicopters in his wars is misinformed. Don't believe me? Find me any book that says we produced these types of weapons. You won't. They are Soviet design.
If we had armed Saddam he would have been using M1A1 Abrams, Modified Stingers, and Apache helicopters. Prove to me at any time Saddam had these types of weapons.
Thanks, I thought so. Next thread?
Are you saying we didn't send support to Saddam during the 80s? Or just that it wasn't weapons? Sending money to Iraq so that they can buy weapons is the same as arming them, if you ask me.
I don't think Liberal is a bad word. Nor do I think Conservative is a bad word. But both have very negative political connotations.
Conservative has come to mean greedy, selfish, immoral, power-mad, lying, polluting corporate whores.
Liberal has come to mean spineless, greedy, sleazy, loosey-goosey, lying corporate whores.
I don't particularly want to be associated with either.
I'm progressive in my thoughts, Green in my politics, conservative in my support of the environment and personal and fiscal responsibility, and liberal in my concern for the poor and love for humanity.
Even you, W.F., although I have to remind myself of that sometimes.
Here's a brief report on some of the support given Saddam in the 1980s, happy reading!:
The Reagan administration provides covert support to Iraq in an effort to prevent Iran from overrunning the oil-rich states of the Persian Gulf. [New York Times, 8/18/2002; Washington Post, 12/30/02; The Nation, 8/26/2002]
US Air Force officers are secretly deployed to Iraq to assist their counterparts in the Iraqi military. [The Nation, 8/26/2002]
The US provides satellite photography to Iraq revealing the movements of the Iranian forces. [New York Times, 8/18/2002; Washington Post,12/15/1986 Sources: Unnamed informed sources interviewed by reporter Bob Woodward, senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program]
The US provides Iraq with intelligence gathered by Saudi-owned AWACS operated by the Pentagon. [The Nation, 8/26/2002]
Iraq uses US-supplied military intelligence “to calibrate attacks with mustard gas on Iranian ground troops....” (see 1984) [Washington Post,12/15/1986 Sources: Unnamed informed sources interviewed by reporter Bob Woodward]
“[M]ore than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency .... secretly ... [provide] detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.” [New York Times, 8/18/2002 Sources: senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program]
President Reagan and Vice President George Bush personally deliver military advice to Saddam Hussein, both directly and through intermediaries (see 1986). [Washington Post, 12/30/2002 Sources: Teicher Affidavit]
The US closely monitors “third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq [has] the military weaponry required.” [Washington Post, 12/30/2002 Sources: Teicher Affidavit]
I am not sure what you are getting at. So, you are saying that we cannot ever support a government with any kind of support or we are in jeopardy of them ever doing something wrong that we will get "in trouble" by you?
You do realize that FDR met with Stalin, gave him all kinds of aid, and was generally an ally of his and then later Stalin murdered between 20 million and 40 million people? Funny how I never see that being mentioned by anyone.
The only one of those supposed damning articles would be the mustard gas one and to be honest, "unnamed sources" just does not cut it for me.
We gave aid to a country that was a direct enemy of the U.S. I do not see how you can blame us for something we could not know (how Iraq would act in the future). But, I guess you can. Good for you. I guess by your standards, if you let a friend or even an acquaintance borrow some money because they were down on their luck and then later you learned they used the money to buy a gun and rob a store and kill someone that you would be just as guilty even though you had no knowledge of what he would do.
It must be hard to carry so much self righteousness.
You said "armed". "Armed" means arms, military arms and we gave him none.
This is why I get furstrated with people like you. You so hate this country that we can do no right. We must always be only friends with countries who have never made mistakes, who are always on the up and up. Well, we would have lost WW2 with your principles.
Peace at any price is the motto of people like you. Neville Chamberlain would have been proud.
I, personally, have a more realistic view of the world. Iran was an enemy of ours. An 8 year war that kept Iran occupied was just good statesmanship.
Nothing you can ever do or say will change that unalterable fact.
Post a Comment
<< Home