Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"I assume you're lying about having served. I assume you're lying about being blocked from future service. I assume you've lied so long and so deeply that you no longer have any sense of truth or semblance of decency."
I guess if I were a liberal who could not counter the documented facts presented by a conservative, I, too, might be tempted to offer a response such as yours.
I served from 1982 to 1986. Since I cannot complete a total of 20 years of service prior to turning 60, I cannot reenlist.
As I mentioned above, Obama says he will increase the number of troops in Afghanistan because he says that's where we need to fight the real war on terrorism. Assuming you are not currently serving and are eligible for military service, will you enlist after Obama is sworn in?
Thank you for the article. I am somewhat disappointed that you failed to mention the opposition of George Bush to stem cell research. While scientists have found ways to work around this opposition, the years of valuable research and possible medical advances lost because of his obstinance is incalculable. In a somewhat more abstract consideration, his lack of a scientific and logical approach to this issue seems emblematic of his entire administration.
My suggestion for your next article would be a listing of the accomplishments of Vice President Cheney.
The largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class, in the history of the world, happened as a result of the collapse of the dot.com stock market bubble - during the Clinton administration.
Bush has been a terrible president, but no administration can control "irrational exuberance", any more than they can control the greed of Bernie Madoff.
"History shows otherwise:"
Even liberals acknowledge that Reagan's policies brought down the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War.
"It is probably true that Reagan's intensification of the arms race … hastened the collapse of the Soviet economy. In a reversal that did him enormous credit, he … outdistanced his own national security bureaucracy in taking Mikhail Gorbachev seriously and in moving to end the Cold War." - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/la-na-policy6jun06,0,6371808,full.story
Scott McClellan said that George Bush and Dick Cheney become so wrapped up in trying to shape the story of WMD's to their advantage that they ignored facts that didn't fit the views they were promoting.
In my book I call that lying.
Trainman,
Yes, it's true thatGorby officially ended the Cold War. And that communism was indeed collapsing. (Another good reason not to implemnt it here). But the fact of then matter is thatReagan forced hios hand not just in their meetings but with the arms race that essentially bankrupted the already weakend country. Just imagine Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton accomplishng this. Gorby would have laughed at them.
And Barack, I'd be surprised if Putin even meets with him.
"Thank you for the article. I am somewhat disappointed that you failed to mention the opposition of George Bush to stem cell research. While scientists have found ways to work around this opposition, the years of valuable research and possible medical advances lost because of his obstinance is incalculable. In a somewhat more abstract consideration, his lack of a scientific and logical approach to this issue seems emblematic of his entire administration."
Fortunately, the new guy is a man who believes in science and logic:
"It's an unofficial election day superstition for Barack Obama: playing basketball. On Tuesday, he did not shoot those ritualistic hoops."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-skips-ele.html
"Amongst the things that Barack Obama carries for good luck are a bracelet belonging to a soldier deployed in Iraq, a gambler’s lucky chit, a tiny monkey god and a tiny Madonna and child."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/12/obamas-superstitious-too/
Wow, it is amazing that Groenhagen et al. (if indeed there is more than one of them) have a lot of time on their hands. Must be that Bush's plans worked out and they are now independently wealthy enough to spend all day pissing in the wind. Or maybe he/they are unemployed.
Oops, have to get back to work!
"Scott McClellan said that George Bush and Dick Cheney become so wrapped up in trying to shape the story of WMD's to their advantage that they ignored facts that didn't fit the views they were promoting.
"In my book I call that lying."
Again:
"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent."
- Hillary Clinton, September 24, 2003
"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." - Hillary Clinton, April 21, 2004
"Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials." - John Edwards, February 4, 2007
So, do you also believe that the Clinton administration lied about Saddam's WMD? Or were Hillary and the Breck Girl lying?
Newsflash...wow, wars cost money?? lots of big numbers being thrown around there...So the 'cost' of our recent warmongering is to cap out conservatively at 3 trillion, give or take a couple hundred billion. Ok, Iraq war has been an enormous blunder, lets shoot fish in a barrel. Our country has been at war some 6-7 years now with enormous costs to our nation and many others. Granted.
The three trillion number, does that account for the gross cost of warfare or the net. All those deployed would be pulling a paycheck just being on active duty here in the 'safe' confines of the USA. i safely assume they would have been training here at home for future battlefield excursions, using ammunition, fuel, etc.., is that money deducted from the 3 trillion? It was going to be spent either way, here or in Iraq.
US soil has been safe from attack since 9/11 (thank your lucky star for shoebomber Richard Reid choking at 35,000 feet, would we even have an airline industry if he succeeded?) but Al Queda has struck a Bali night club, Spanish trains, London subways and many more. Their reach is global, southeast asia, somalia, middle east, and the painfully obvious Pakistan. Assuming we had ulterior motives in Iraq, our goal was to chase Al Queda down worldwide. If we had not gone to Iraq, is it fair to assume we would have one to many of these places in efforts to eradicate Al Queda. Is that assumption factored into the 'cost'. What about a full scale attack on Afghanistan, is that factored in? Does anybody know what that would have cost? Ask Russia, they might be able to help.
Nothing lies more than facts. Are we cooking the books here in an effort to make W look even worse than we already know? And the gain in doing this? Deconstruct those big numbers being thrown around, are we fear-mongering to our base like some other party we know does? Is it not a little hypocritical to cook the data for such unnecessary self-serving needs? We spare few opportunities to self-righteously point out to our loyal sheep the manipulative methods applied by W with WMD etc...its hard to digest equally manipulative methods by those on the left, who fuel the flames of a soon gone problem instead of utilizing their talents to galvinize those who care about our future and steer our collective intellects toward what the world needs now, solutions. Is that factored into your 'costs'?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
