Yup.

Because, as is noted, instead of condemning her actions, you spin, obfuscate, and start screaming about Republicans.

One would think that if you truly opposed her actions, you could condemn them — much as this blog, myself, and other commentors made it clear we did for Larry Craig’s actions.

If that would have happened during WW2, those congressmen, befire sunset, would have been hanging from a tree.

Maybe in Nazi Germany but hopefully not in the USA. Is that what you fought for - generals running the country and executing anyone who questioned their rosy scenario statements?

Tell me - they didn’t die in vain

So far, no, they didn’t. But with authoritarians like Bush/Cheney and their cult followers trying to turn this beacon of freedom into just another banana republic, perhaps they’ll wind up actually having died in vain.

Based on that, you’re already a dishonest bastard. Why not? What you think is insignificant anyway.

Should I surmise that ALL gay Republicans are closeted, self-hating, toilet-trolling lawbreakers based on Senator Craig’s actions? I don’t think so. Or that ALL Republicans will stop at nothing, including treasonous acts to exact personal revenge against their enemies, like members of the White House staff did in the Wilson/Plame affair? I don’t think so.

Is that what I spent 4 years, 3 overseas, in the army for. I am lucky. I am here. Five of the boys that were in school with me are now in graves in France or in the cold water of the Pacific. Tell me - they didn’t die in vain?

John W

Yet these seem people, whenever a terror plot is broken up before it comes to fruition, are the first to declare it “no big deal” or “amateur terrorist wannabes.” So, apparently, they even ridicule their own preferred approach to the Islamic Fascist menace.

So, why should anyone take anything they say about being tougher or smarter on terrorism seriously?

We must have a stockpile of body bags that would accomodate all of Africa and half of Asia. Body bags are not sophisticated, technical equipment that must be updated regularly. They are not used for other purposes. They are not too difficult to manufacture and they don’t take up much room.

But they are always “being ordered” whenever the press says so.

We did not go into Iraq with the intention of occupying it. General Shinseki was duplicitous in his assessments because he was certain we must have a military government to gain control in Iraq, but he would not say it outright. His call for huge numbers of troops was his way of setting up “de facto” military occupation of Iraq.

Should we have taken military control or will the fledgling Iraqi government come out on top? Only time will tell. If we run like school girls, the answer is clear. Ultimately, OBL is dead right. The liberals in this country do not have the strength of character to stand for much of anything that doesn’t “feel good” to them. That includes looking radical Islam in the eye and seeing it for what it is. They are convinced that they can talk the terrorists out of their core beliefs.

Should have read:

And how many body bags would be filled as promissed by “those who understood what it would take”?

We were told early on that we would need thousands (I forget the exact number predicted) of body bags by “those who understood what it would take”. The same folks who promissed us that we’d be bogged down in urban combat in Baghdad.

In both cases, and many others, “those who understood what it would take” were wrong. Ian, on the other hand, doesn’t care either way. It’s his blind, sociopathic hatred of Bush that matters and anybody who disagrees with the president is a hero in his blood-shot eyes.

They were working for Saddam, the UN and their wallets. Too bad Bush pissed in their Cheerios.

WAAAAAHHH!!!! Somebody disrupted the corrupt liberal’s cash flow! WAAAAHHHHH!!!!

And how many body bags would be filled by “those who understood what it would take”?

How about those who understood what it would take and disagreed with Shinseki. Oh nevermind because liberals can idolize him and use that as a weak ass example of how they give a fcuk about our soldiers.

In view of that I would like to suggest (and its only a suggestion) that we all stand up, put our right hand over our heart, and as in the days of old, WE sang, “We Ain’t Coming Back Until its Over, Over There”. Oh, you don’t know the song? Sorry.

John W

P.S. Just being silly!!

The strong reasons not to go to war in Iraq were?

Dealing with the aftermath of overthrowing Saddam especially with the small force favored by Rumsfeld but opposed by those who understood what it would take e.g General Shinseiki. Even Bush the elder and Cheny himself at one time argued against overthrowing Saddam. I’ve been proven right in that I agreed with them that it would be a quagmire that we didn’t need to fight. As for the inspections they were in place and working. Hans Blix turned out to be far more aware of the truth of the situation that any of the Bushco liars. And yes, it was a vanity war.

Compared to the inaction and lack of interest during the 90’s, I’d say that we did. Of course Bush could have sat on the pot like lord BJ and made empty promises, but he didn’t.

Plus, we were quite ready to deal with Iraq

But you just said that there was no reason to do so. Which is it?

1. The strong reasons not to go to war in Iraq were? (And why didn’t the Democrats in the Senate know these strong reasons and act accordingly?)

2. In what specific ways have you been proven right?

3. Who, exactly, was quite ready to “deal” with Iraq?

4. What “robust inspections” were being carried out? Will you be relying on Hans Blix and UNSCOM, Scott Ritter, and/or Tariq Aziz for your proof or do you have an unknown ace up your sleeve?

5. By the Bush “vanity war” do you mean that it was all his idea to pump up his ego or something? If so, why didn’t the ever prescient members of the Democrat party both in government and in the lofty heights of superior wisdom scream like banshees or other orders of old women in dire distress? You sure give a lot of credit to the idiot from Texas.

Therefore, you quite obviously consider Saddam and the UN stealing billions of dollars from Iraq under the full legal auspices of “sanctions” and “inspections” to be insignificant.

And you quite obviously consider that over five hundred thousand children — just children, mind you, not including adults — had already died of the effects of “sanctions” and “inspections” to be insignificant.

Furthermore, if inspections had been so important to Democrats like yourself, you wouldn’t have yanked the inspectors on Saddam’s orders in 1999.

What inspections were was a stalling tactic– and a means of looking like something was being done while perpetuating Saddam’s kickbacks and bribes to UN diplomats and leftists so that they could eat lobster and caviar while hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children starved.

Dems say there was zero reason to invade or deal with Iraq.

Wrong. Those of us who opposed the war insisted that any reason to invade was more than offset by strong reasons not to. We were proven right. Plus, we were quite ready to deal with Iraq - indeed that’s just what was taking place with the robust inspections being carried out until Bush insisted on his vanity war.

All of you Dems say there was zero reason to invade or deal with Iraq.

Therefore, you quite obviously consider Saddam and the UN stealing billions of dollars from Iraq under the full legal auspices of “sanctions” to be insignificant.

And you quite obviously consider that over five hundred thousand children — just children, mind you, not including adults — had already died of the effects of “sanctions” to be insignificant.

Why else would you and your fellow leftists have wanted so badly to perpetuate that system? Didn’t the Democrat Party argue over and over and over again that sanctions were the only way to go?

So, we reinstate the draft.

Of course you do if you truly believe we are in an existential battle upon which the very survival of western civilization is at stake. Along with the other measures I suggested. Now I don’t happen to think we’re in that battle - at least not yet - but continuing the fiasco in Iraq will ensure we’re in an unbelievably weakened situation if and when that battle does come. To continue with insufficient forces to establish a secure enough situation for a political solution guarantees failure whether that’s realized tomorrow or ten years from now. 500,000 troops might be enough to do the trick in Iraq - I’m doubtful - but you probably think it would That would require this country to go onto a full war footing for the foreseeable future including a draft. So that’s what you’re faced with. Sh!t or get off the pot.