Skip navigation

Flushing Out the Traitors!

or Register to post new content in the forum

66 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 23, 2007 5:25 pm

Regarding the petraeus outrage:

  Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?   Valerie Plame?   Eric Shinseki?    
Oct 23, 2007 6:17 pm

[quote=BondGuy]Regarding the petraeus outrage:

  Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?   Valerie Plame?   Eric Shinseki?    [/quote]   I've learned that those people don't matter.    Outing a CIA operative?  Of course no one in the current administration had anything to do with that.  Otherwise they'd be in prison, right?
Oct 23, 2007 6:29 pm

[quote=Big Taco]

Sure, freedom of speech and fiscal conservatism... far left tenets.  I had no idea.

[/quote]   Still trying to attach those unrelated issues to this one, eh? Sorry, no takers....
Oct 23, 2007 6:34 pm

[quote=BondGuy]Regarding the petraeus outrage:

  Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?   Valerie Plame?   Eric Shinseki?    [/quote]   You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.   What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....   Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....
Oct 23, 2007 6:37 pm

[quote=Big Taco] 

Outing a CIA operative?  Of course no one in the current administration had anything to do with that.  Otherwise they'd be in prison, right?[/quote]   Actually it was someone in the administration, and we know who it was, Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald (the IP) knows who he is, he admitted he did it, yet he was never charged with a crime. I doubt that the fact he was a critic of the war in Iraq had anything to do with the fact he wasn't charged with any crime.....
Oct 23, 2007 7:25 pm

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]Regarding the petraeus outrage:

  Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?   Valerie Plame?   Eric Shinseki?    [/quote]   You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.   What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....   Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....[/quote]   I'll take that, that you are not outraged by the lies the right wing hate machine manufactured against these fine people.  You only wave the flag when it's the left doing the bashing. Convenient!   Mike, while you're enjoying the trapese act put on by your heros, that's elephant shit that you're standing in. And you gladly stand in it with a smile on your face. The best part: I've lost you, you are clueless as to what i'm talking about. Ah, the life of a sheep...   As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, and then the right's hate machine, while he was a four star general, in uniform, unable to respond. Not a stretch - a fact. Yet you, the defender of all slandered military men and woman, remain silent.    And the best part, Shinseki was right. look at the mess Iraq has become. All can tracked right back to not having enough troops in country to get the job done. Unfortunately we don't get a do-over. We can only guess at how different the outcome would have been had Rumfeld listened to his General instead of castigating him.   You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?      
Oct 23, 2007 7:57 pm

Oh, and by the way, i didn’t say it was wrong that he was defended, just a waste of time.

  Political grandstanding. Playing to the crowd.
Oct 23, 2007 8:41 pm

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]Regarding the petraeus outrage: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?

 

Valerie Plame?

 

Eric Shinseki?

 

 

[/quote]

 

You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.

 

What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....

 

Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....

[/quote]

 

I'll take that, that you are not outraged by the lies the right wing hate machine manufactured against these fine people.  You only wave the flag when it's the left doing the bashing. Convenient! [/quote]

 

Huh? Look, bondguy, there’s no shortage of hate out there, and you certainly didn’t hear me defending any of it from any source. Funny thing is, the only person defending vicious attacks is, well, you.

 

Unfortunately, but you continue to want to lump all sorts of people who simply aren’t in the position that Petraeus was, an commander of troops in the field, vicouisly attacked and unable, by virtue of his position, to defend himself. Again, while you hyperventilate about this, the vast majority of both parties in the Senate agree with me. Enjoy your lonely little corner of the world.

 

[quote=BondGuy] As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, …[/quote]

 

I feel a “they made the NY Times apologize” moment coming on, here. I didn’t see Rumsfled attack Shenseki, perhaps you have a source.

 

[quote=BondGuy] 

You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Where’s the source, where’s the equivalency? Where’s the logic? Lol…

Oct 23, 2007 8:44 pm

[quote=BondGuy]Oh, and by the way, i didn’t say it was wrong that he was defended, just a waste of time.

  Political grandstanding. Playing to the crowd. [/quote]   You mean doing the right thing by a guy who couldn't defend himself.   Speaking of "a waste of time" and "Political grandstanding. Playing to the crowd" I notice you've been silent on the Democrats in the Senate doing the very same thing going after Limbaugh based on MediaMatters talking points.
Oct 24, 2007 4:21 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]Regarding the petraeus outrage: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?

 

Valerie Plame?

 

Eric Shinseki?

 

 

[/quote]

 

You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.

 

What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....

 

Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....

[/quote]

 

I'll take that, that you are not outraged by the lies the right wing hate machine manufactured against these fine people.  You only wave the flag when it's the left doing the bashing. Convenient! [/quote]

 

Huh? Look, bondguy, there’s no shortage of hate out there, and you certainly didn’t hear me defending any of it from any source. Funny thing is, the only person defending vicious attacks is, well, you.

 

Unfortunately, but you continue to want to lump all sorts of people who simply aren’t in the position that Petraeus was, an commander of troops in the field, vicouisly attacked and unable, by virtue of his position, to defend himself. Again, while you hyperventilate about this, the vast majority of both parties in the Senate agree with me. Enjoy your lonely little corner of the world.

  They are politicians wasting my time and yours.

 

[quote=BondGuy] As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, …[/quote]

 

I feel a “they made the NY Times apologize” moment coming on, here. I didn’t see Rumsfled attack Shenseki, perhaps you have a source.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

 

[quote=BondGuy] 

You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Where’s the source, where’s the equivalency? Where’s the logic? Lol…

  www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/215826/698   Kinda tough to pin the Betrayus name origination on Moveon when it's been in the public domain since at least 2005. So, my questions stand. Why would his own troops call him that? You don't have to answer. i know that you can't[/quote]   Mike, I'm not a moveon fan. Nor am I a democrat. If you could free yourself from being a Bush lapdog for just a minute a whole new world would open up to you. It's call reality. Try it. Over here where the sky is blue and gravity exists we are taught to think for ourselves. I know it's a novel idea. But really you should give it a shot. Once free thought takes hold not only will you realize that I'm not fringe left,  you will understand that what the NYTs did was apologize.
Oct 24, 2007 5:58 pm

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

 

[quote=BondGuy] 

They are politicians wasting my time and yours. [/quote]

 

If you call it a waste of time to defend a commander with troops in battle who can't defend himself, fine. OTOH, you're pretty selective about when their "waste" of your time offends you....

 

[quote=BondGuy] As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, .....

 

I feel a “they made the NY Times apologize” moment coming on, here. I didn’t see Rumsfled attack Shenseki, perhaps you have a source.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki [/quote]

 

You figure that supports your claim that Rummy "publicly humiliated" Shinseki? Really? Golly, how dare the boss disagree with comments made by the underling,  when he directly contradicts the boss, why, that amounts to “public humiliation”.  You’ve offered up some lame stuff before, bondguy, but equating this to calling a commander with troops in combat a  betrayer is just laughable.

 

[quote=BondGuy] 

You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?

 

Where’s the source, where’s the equivalency? Where’s the logic? Lol…

 

www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/215826/698

 

Kinda tough to pin the Betrayus name origination on Moveon when it's been in the public domain since at least 2005. So, my questions stand. Why would his own troops call him that? You don't have to answer. i know that you can't

[/quote]

 

Ask me if I'm surprised your source is none other than Daily "Screw 'em" Kos...... Why would troops bitch about the commander? Gee, because it’s an age-old right of troopers to bitch? That’s not really news to you, is it?

 

The posting makes it clear why the guy said he had a nickname, he made them stay in uniform and hold a rifle, which off of the “safe” position, with the finger off the trigger.  Sometimes troops don’t like being made to do the right thing. Seriously, I know you weren’t in the military yourself, but is this sort of thing as revelation to you? For crying out loud, even Patton’s troops had a nickname for him.

 

More importantly, since when does the fact that the troops have a nickname for a commander (he earned his as a <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Col., many, many moons ago) make the moveon ad defensible? What kind of logic is at work here? I’d say none, what’s at work here is a desperate grasping for straws.

 

 [quote=BondGuy]   . Nor am I a democrat. [/quote]

ROFLMAO, please, Bondguy, if there’s a more reliable repeater of the left fringe of the Democrat talking points than you who isn’t on a DNC payroll somewhere, I have a bridge to sell you….really, we’ve all read everything here you’ve ever written on politics, and you’d make James Carville blush.

More to the point, defending the move the MAJORITY of the Senate, BOTH parties, made to defend Petreaus doesn’t make anyone a “Bush lapdog”. Harry Frink’n REID voted to support it, I suppose he’s a “Bush lapdog” too….
Oct 24, 2007 8:05 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

 

[quote=BondGuy] 

They are politicians wasting my time and yours. [/quote]

 

If you call it a waste of time to defend a commander with troops in battle who can't defend himself, fine. OTOH, you're pretty selective about when their "waste" of your time offends you....

I do and it was. It was a cheap political stunt. Perhaps if our then republican controlled senate had chosen to spend as much time defending Shinseki as this senate has Petraeus we would have gotten the troop strength we needed to get the job done. Oops! we didn't  have the troops to get the job done. My bad. Defending Shinseki would have meant no invasion.  

The Senators are, imo, free to use their own time to take to the bully pulpit and defend Petraeus to their hearts content. Just don't waste our time with it. That you don't see the political high wire act going on here reveals your wooly nature. And, i never said i was offended. Disappointed that our leaders chose to waste their time with this.  

[quote=BondGuy] As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, .....

 

I feel a “they made the NY Times apologize” moment coming on, here. I didn’t see Rumsfled attack Shenseki, perhaps you have a source.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki [/quote]

 

You figure that supports your claim that Rummy "publicly humiliated" Shinseki? Really? Golly, how dare the boss disagree with comments made by the underling,  when he directly contradicts the boss, why, that amounts to “public humiliation”.  You’ve offered up some lame stuff before, bondguy, but equating this to calling a commander with troops in combat a  betrayer is just laughable.

Try reading it instead of skimming it. Please name a time in our history when a sitting Secretary of Defense publically disagreed and humiliated one of his top generals? Sources please! 

That Shinseki was right really get to you doesn't it?  

[quote=BondGuy] 

You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?

 

Where’s the source, where’s the equivalency? Where’s the logic? Lol…

 

www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/215826/698

 

Kinda tough to pin the Betrayus name origination on Moveon when it's been in the public domain since at least 2005. So, my questions stand. Why would his own troops call him that? You don't have to answer. i know that you can't

[/quote]

 

Ask me if I'm surprised your source is none other than Daily "Screw 'em" Kos...... Why would troops bitch about the commander? Gee, because it’s an age-old right of troopers to bitch? That’s not really news to you, is it?

  Mike you keep accussing me of making it up. Sorry you don't like my source. Given more time i could dig down to the primary military source of the name. Of course then again, so could you. So, have at it and let us know how you make out.   But, thanks for the concession that I was right. Pinning the Betraeus name origination on Moveon was a major plank in the right's effort to discredit them. And as a sheep/lapdog you of course bought into what they were saying. Back on planet earth, free thinkers asked if that was true. Turns out it wasn't. And it didn't take much to figure that out.

 

The posting makes it clear why the guy said he had a nickname, he made them stay in uniform and hold a rifle, which off of the “safe” position, with the finger off the trigger.  Sometimes troops don’t like being made to do the right thing. Seriously, I know you weren’t in the military yourself, but is this sort of thing as revelation to you? For crying out loud, even Patton’s troops had a nickname for him.

  Sources please! Did Patton's men pin him with a disingenuous name as well, or was that reserved only for Petraeus? Why no outrage at his troops? That's a pretty nasty name.

 

More importantly, since when does the fact that the troops have a nickname for a commander (he earned his as a <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Col., many, many moons ago) make the moveon ad defensible? What kind of logic is at work here? I’d say none, what’s at work here is a desperate grasping for straws.

  I never said the ad was defensible. Only understandible. It doesn't need to be defended. it is what it is, a nasty political shot at Bush and a cheap shot at Petraeus.   Rumsfeld policized the military. He did so by initiating a civilian versus military control struggle for the Pentagon. Guess who won? It wasn't the top brass. Bush, for political reasons needs the surge to work. Hey, better late than never with enough troops huh mike? Of course we all need the surge to work. I digress. In light of the history this admin has of horrible treatment of its top military commanders it is fair to ask whether Petraeus succumbed to political pressure to help out his boss, or whether he gave a fair and honest assessment. Sorry if you don't like that or agree with it. It is a non partisan viewpoint.    As for Moveon's ad, it sure got the point across, but imo, they shouldn't have targeted the General. Their beef is with Bush.

 

 [quote=BondGuy]   . Nor am I a democrat. [/quote]

ROFLMAO, please, Bondguy, if there’s a more reliable repeater of the left fringe of the Democrat talking points than you who isn’t on a DNC payroll somewhere, I have a bridge to sell you….really, we’ve all read everything here you’ve ever written on politics, and you’d make James Carville blush.More to the point, defending the move the MAJORITY of the Senate, BOTH parties, made to defend Petreaus doesn’t make anyone a “Bush lapdog”. Harry Frink’n REID voted to support it, I suppose he’s a “Bush lapdog” too….

[/quote] You point to reid like that should upset me because he's the senate  majority leader and a democrat. As I said, i'm not a democrat. Every senator who voted did so as a political stunt. It's Shiavo all over again. Political grandstanding at its worst.   And because I'm not a bible thumping conservative from a red state who believes the world is flat doesn't make me part of the left wing fringe. However, from where I sit I have a lot more respect for them than I do for the likes of you. At least they question. They refuse to be a nation of sheep who accept the Bush Doctrine of Manifest Destiny for the 21st century. They don't accept face value. It was people like them who built this nation. It is the flat earther's, the sheep, who will destroy it.    
Oct 24, 2007 8:29 pm
Bond Guy, It really amazes me that folks like you think that this is just a Bush issue and everything that's happened in the world in the last few years is attributable to Bush and his poor decisin making.  Let's look at a few other items that have happened over the past few years.


There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there wer e 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

                     

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

                           

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost
an average of 112,500 per year.

                         

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us .
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .
an average of 18,334 per year.
                           
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
                             
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
     
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
                   
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.

But Wait                
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..
                               
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.
                             



It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts

But wait!             There's more!         
JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel
do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.
                 
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me . . as I went the other day...
to a veteran's hospital and look those men ..
with their mangled bodies ..  in the eye, and tell THEM
they didn't hold a job!
     
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
that their DADS didn't hold a job.

                       

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags.

          

You stand there, and you think about this nation,
and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?'
For those who don't remember
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA . 
           
Now he's a Senator!

Is this guy your senator bond guy!!??
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran

Oct 24, 2007 9:11 pm

Outstanding post, FreeFromJones. Simply outstanding! Bravo Zulu!

Oct 24, 2007 11:44 pm

[quote=FreeFromJones]Bond Guy,

It really amazes me that folks like you think that this is just a Bush issue and everything that's happened in the world in the last few years is attributable to Bush and his poor decisin making.  Let's look at a few other items that have happened over the past few years.

Ok, I'll listen. Please direct me to where i said I attribute everything to Bush?



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there wer e 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

I guess you mean american servicemen KIA?  So, what did you do here just pick a month out of thin air that happens to be a low casualty month? How many Iraqies were killed in january. let's put that number up and compare it to detroit. You were kidding with this , right?

                     

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following: 
That statement doesn't make sense, but I'll play anyway

                           

a. FDR led us into World War II.
And that would be wrong. We were neutral, but leaning towards getting involved. We viewed it as a European war. The German's sinking our supply ships didn't sit too well with FDR. Still, here's the order of play: Japan was acting aggressively with China, one of our trading partners. By the way China, not a communist country then. We then in 1940 cut off trade with Japan in retiation. This pissed off the Japenese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We declared war on Japan. of course they had aready declared war on us. Three days later Germany and italy declared war on us fully pulling us into WW 2 on two fronts.

So how does that equate to FDR leading us into WW 2? 

Bet you wished you had paid attention in history class. read on it gets worse.



b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost
an average of 112,500 per year. 
Yoh Skippy, see above and try to comprehend its meaning. Germany declared war on us. Get it?

                         

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us .
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .
an average of 18,334 per year. 
Do you mean the Korea that was split in two after ww 2 dividing it into the North Korean nation and the south Korean nation, where the north was communist, and where the North invaded the south? Is that the Korea you mean. Because if it is, well again a little better attendance in history class would have served you well here. The North, those would be the commies, the guys with the black hats, you know, the bad guys, attacked the good guys. The good guys were our ally. An attack on them was an attack on us. So again how did Truman lead us into this?
                           
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us. 
Skooter, this is so far off base it's embarassing. Pay attention, and what ever you do, don't ever discuss world history with your clients. The French wanted to re-colonize Vietnam after ww2. Vietnam, like Korea was split into North and South. The french to press their case were fighting the communist from the north. That is until they got their butts handed to them at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The French had enough of Vietnam and pulled out in 1955. Eisenhower, not wanting South Vietnam to fall to the north, started sending in Military assistance. For his part kennedy wanted out of Vietnam but kind of got stuck with it. He sent in more military advisors in an effort to get us out. He didn't start it, he tried to finish it.
                             
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.    Interesting that you, Mr. Pro- military, would blame a civilian for a military failure. OK. to be fair there is enough blame to go around here, but if you think Johnson owns our failure in vietnam apparently you weren't paying attention in Military history class at West Point

     
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
Went to war? Did I miss a war someplace?  Oh, you mean Operation Deliberate Force! That was a NATO mission. NATO's an acronym, say it slowly. It means North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Yup, we bombed Christians that were committing genocide. They were killing Muslims, which is why I suppose you are unhappy we did it. We stopped them. We being NATO.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.   And yet another departure from reality. How about a link so we can read up. Billy bob, here's a dose of reailty for you. You hold Clinton responsible for not doing something that Bush has also been unable to do. For Clinton to "get Osama" he would have had to invade Afghanistan. Look it up, it's a soveign nation. He would have had to do so without the backdrop of 9/11 giving us the political will to launch a preemptive invasion. That means congress would have said no. And the American people would have said no. Not to mention unless there's been a major geological shift in the last ten years that invasion would have been into an area in which we have no friends, or means of sustaining an attack. That Bush has been unable to bring us "Osama's head on a platter" after six years in country doesn't ring a bell with you? Clinton should have done it first? Like it was easier ten years ago? Huh?   But if you must blame Clinton for something blame him for averting Nuclear war between Pakistan and India. That he did do. look it up.  
                   
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea   Um, what two countries would that be?  
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.   maybe it has something to do with Cheney telling us we would be bringing our troops home by the fall of 2003. Just a guess.  

But Wait                
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.. 
Maybe it's just the news here on the east coast, but here we haven't gotten the news yet that we've taken iraq. Here news is, it's a quagmire.
                               
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.
                             



It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts

But wait!             There's more!         
JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel
do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.
                 
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me . . as I went the other day...
to a veteran's hospital and look those men ..
with their mangled bodies ..  in the eye, and tell THEM
they didn't hold a job!
     
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
that their DADS didn't hold a job.

                       

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags.

          

You stand there, and you think about this nation,
and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?'
For those who don't remember
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA . 
           
Now he's a Senator!

Is this guy your senator bond guy!!??
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran

[/quote]   A commie, my senator? You think that because I question my government that i'm a commie? Nice!   This is embarassing, for you.    Metzenbaum never represented communist. He was a labor lawyer. As such he represented labor unions. One of the unions he represented was The Communication Workers of America. Note it's not the communist workers of america. Hey, it's an honest mistake if you're a moron.   You can look this up. here's a link:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Metzenbaum   Throughout this thead my overriding theme has been not to take what is said at face value. Doing so makes you a sheep. You are a most perfect example. You've been fed this BS for god knows how long and bought it hook line and sinker.   Speaking of teachers, obviously you had some who taught you how to read and write. It is a shame you never had one to teach you how to think.  
Oct 25, 2007 3:21 am

FreeFromJones - Outstanding work!  I certainly cannot argue with anything, especially since you have done such a commendable job reviewing all the facts.  My only comment is that neither John Glenn nor Howard Metzenbaum was in the Senate in 2004.  Since you failed miserably on that simple fact I will simply consider the rest of what you copied and pasted to be as erroneous.

Oct 25, 2007 3:41 am

BondGuy, as a point of fact I believe that Usama Bin Ladin was in the Sudan for most of Clinton’s term of office, not Afghanistan.

Oct 25, 2007 5:20 pm
joedabrkr:

BondGuy, as a point of fact I believe that Usama Bin Ladin was in the Sudan for most of Clinton’s term of office, not Afghanistan.

  I'm aware. Not to complicate the answer, Osama became enemy number one after the 98 African embassy bombings. By then he was in Afghanistan, or mostly in Afghanistan. Earlier in the mid 90s he moved between both countries.   There is enough blame to go around here. Clinton could have done more, at least early on. Bush also could have done more. For that matter Bush 1 shoulders some blame as well.   My point is that buying into the right wing echo chamber's pinning it on Clinton is dangerous as well as misinformed.          
Oct 26, 2007 4:05 am

If Bush I had a set and finished the job by going to Baghdad, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now.

Oct 26, 2007 3:20 pm
joedabrkr:

If Bush I had a set and finished the job by going to Baghdad, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now.

  Or, we would have been in it in 91.   In 91 we had enough troops to get the job done but more reasonable heads prevailed. They reasoned taking Saddam out would lead to a civil war along tribal lines, as well as destabilizing the region leading to a long occupation. Interestingly, one of those reasonable heads was then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Cheney's early 90's statements defending the admin's decision not to "finish the job" stand in stark contrast to his "who knew it would go this way?" statements regarding our current situation. Such statements serve to undermine the current admin's veracity.    Sadly, because both Bush admins were staffed by so many of the same players, it shows that our leaders knew better and moved forward anyway. Bush didn't get the foreign affairs leadership he sorely needed and we, along with the citizens of Iraq are paying the price. What he got, was the Vulcans. Advisors with a built in agenda.     Another factor in not finishing the job -  1991 Saudi Arabia knew letting American troops on their soil was a big no-no in the world of Muslims. While they welcomed us to help subdue the thread posed by Saddam, they wanted us out as quickly as possible. Once the threat was over, the welcome mat was pulled. We were still friends,  however we had to pull almost everyone out.  About 4000 troops were left to support the no fly zone operations. Relations continued to cool to the point that Saudi Arabia refused to let us use their bases to stage the 03 invasion into Iraq. They also refused to let us stage planes on their soil. They did let us direct air ops from their AFB.    The significance of this is to understand that in 91 we could not have sustained an extended occupation of Iraq because our strongest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, would not have stood for it.   And yeah, it sucks! Thanks for nothing Huh?