On Sunday we play the Superbowl. On Tuesday we have Super Tuesday. For democrats, yesterday was both.
While the republicans are much better on policy, the democrats have proven better at getting their clowns off of the stage. How can the republicans eliminate Al Queda when they cannot even eliminate Ron Paul from the debates? The democrats may be useless, but at least they can stand up to Dennis Kucinich.
Before getting to the democrats, Sean Hannity announced his support for Mitt Romney, While Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Rudy Giuliani and Sly Stallone in supporting John McCain. Newt Gingrich insisted on staying neutral between the republicans. Ann Coulter shocked the world (which for her I did not think was possible) by saying that she would vote for Hillary over McCain. My head exploded, but I found my eyeballs on my carpet and popped them back into the sockets, and watched the debate. Alan Colmes then shocked the world and said something so offensive that I have to question his patriotism as an American. I have never attacked his liberalism, but he said, “I don’t care about the Superbowl, is there a good movie on at the time?”
Mr. Colmes, I can no longer agree to disagree with you. That was the first remark you have ever made that was unamerican. I pray for the love of all things holy, that being football, that you apologize and do volunteer work for NFL Youth. Nothing said in the debate would bother me as much.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had their final debate before Super Tuesday. There were no other candidates to distract them, and nobody to hide behind. I judged the debate not based on what I think of them, which is virtually nothing, or in Hillary’s case, less than nothing. I judged them solely on who won the debate.
I expected zero questions about Iran or North Korea, and time wasted on whether or not Hillary was snubbed by Obama, and why Bill Clinton does what he does. The answer? Because he does…oh, and because it works. I expected a question on how the split in the Kennedy family exists in the race, as opposed to a better question about why anybody should care what the most overrated family in America thinks about anything.
I was hoping this would be a replay of the Vice Presidential debate Between Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney in 2000. That was the gold standard of debate, a pair of adults sitting at the table discussing serious issues in a dignified manner, with one moderator who stayed in the background.
No, instead we had two separate chairs, followed by self congratulatory praise for several people who are apparently special because they ask questions. I refuse to elevate them into significance by mentioning their names.
With that, here is the recap of Obama vs Hillary, Mano a (Wo)Mano, or to be more accurate, Mano a (practically) Mano.
With that, here is the recap.
They started with opening statements.
Obama sucked up to John Edwards (who had dropped out the day before) and then mentioned that he and Hillary will remain friends after the race. This will of course only be true if Obama loses. He said the debate was not about race or gender, but the past versus the future.
Hillary laced into President Bush, although less briefly than normal. She sucked to Edwards as well, and listed a litany of problems we face.
Hillary was asked an intelligent question, that being what she thought the most significant policy distinction was between her and Obama. She mentioned that she favored universal health care, and Obama did not. She stated that she wanted a 5 year interest rate freeze, and that she wanted a more realistic foreign policy agenda than Obama with regards to meeting with dictators. She hammered home the point that they were both better than republicans.
Obama stated that on health care the issue is cost reduction, while Hillary wants to force people to buy health insurance. He stated that the enforcement mechanisms would make things worse. He stated that an interest rate freeze would actually cause rates to go up, hurting people Hillary wants to claim. He stated that he wants to reduce the influence of lobbyists, unlike Hillary. Lastly, he reminded the audience that he was against Iraq from the beginning, which reflects on both of their judgments.
Obama was asked why he had the superior health plan if it leaves 15 million uninsured. He explained that anybody who wanted coverage would be covered, but would not force those that do not want it to get it. However, he also emphasized that it is that they cannot afford the cost. He disputed the 15 million number. He praised Arnold Schwarzenegger on health care, and mentioned the Massachussets plan.
Hillary stated that her plan is the equivalent of the congressional plan. It was designed to be affordable. Hillary mentioned that a single payer system was difficult to achieve, as was an employer mandate. She stated that Obama was against mandates solely because it was politically scary.
Obama stated that people who try and cheat the system can be dealt with, and that Hillary’s plan did not have sufficient subsidies. He wants to not just cap premiums, but lower them by 25%. He cited his endorsement from Ted Kennedy. He mentioned that all parties should be brought together, and that the hearing should be broadcast live on C-Span, rather than operate in secrecy. That was a thinly veiled reference to Hillary’s 1994 task force.
Wolf Blitzer actually asked him if this was a swipe, and Hillary smiled broadly. Obama said it was not, as Wolf did her dirty work for her.
When Hillary was asked about her secret task force, she ducked the question, mentioned the -Chip program, and blamed President Bush for vetoing something. She then said we need to regulate the health industry more, and that nobody should ever be denied ever again. Perhaps she does not understand that companies need to make money to survive. She then stated that taxpayers pay for the research of the drug companies. No, they don’t. The companies pay for it themselves. She blamed the health industry for being “clever” and “extremely well funded.”
The candidates were asked how they could fend off attacks from republicans that they were “tax and spend liberal democrats.” Obama smartly replied that the republicans have no right to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, and that while John McCain was initially right to oppose the Bush tax cuts, somewhere along the line “the wheels fell off of the Straight Talk Express.” He then offered class warfare rhetoric that must have made John Edwards proud.
The camera then turned to show Jason Alexander, who played George Costanza on “Seinfeld.” I have no idea why.
Hillary would redistribute wealth, although she used other words to describe it. She complained that our health care system had the most money, but not results to match. She then said she would rein in the HMOs, who are supposedly as bad as the Bush administration. She then spoke of bipartisan negotiations with Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist, and mentioned the RAND Corporation positively. She mentioned electronic medical records.
When it was pointed out that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would raise taxes, they both chimed in that only the wealthy would be effective. Obama joked that the well dressed people in the audience would be ok with it, and Hillary mentioned that rates would go back to what they were in the 1990s, and people did oh so incredibly well then.
The next question was an illegal immigration question, and it was absolutely brilliant. I have said more than once that the democrats are a bunch of narrow interest groups that band together out of need, but really hate each other. This immigration question mentioned that illegal immigration disproportionately helps blacks. Yes, blacks against Latinos, a chance to see real tap dancing in action. It is impossible to kiss four rumpus cheeks at once.
Obama avoided the powderkeg by saying people of all stripes felt the economic pinch, and it was before the most recent wave of immigrants. He called blaming immigrants for the problems people face to be scapegoating. The crowd roared with approval. He then did offer a few mild words about border security, and cracking down on crooked employers, before mentioning a path to citizenship. He complained that tax cuts went up instead of down. I guess he forgot that this is positive.
Hillary also went after crooked exploitative employers. She then spoke about a black man who had a construction business complaining about illegal immigrants, before talking about bringing people together. She referred to “undocumented” workers. She said illegal immigrants should “come out of the shadows,” and that “we will register everyone.” They should also try to learn English. Why make them succeed? They only have to try.
Obama was asked how his immigration policy was more humane than Hillary’s plan. He spoke about working with Ted Kennedy and John McCain, stating, “although he might not admit it now.” He basically ducked the question.
Wolf Blitzer kept pressing, Obama began stammering, and Hillary grinned the widest grin I have ever seen. She truly enjoyed seeing Obama being targeted as an empty suit. Obama for some reason refused to criticize Hillary. He kept saying he disagreed with many people, but would not single her out.
Hillary was asked if she was missing in action while others were tackling the problem of immigration reform. She stated that she took the lead on this issue in 2004 before Obama entered the Senate. She then went overboard, even for her. She stated that the republicans wanted to criminalize good samaritans who assist illegal immigrants in any way. She said that would criminalize Jesus Christ himself. So now the republicans are against Jesus Christ. She then spoke out against demagoguery and mean spiritedness, which means her home does not own any mirrors.
She also mentioned that she takes this personally. She takes everything personally, which means she takes nothing personally. She stated that she had the endorsement of the farm workers. She also claimed that those who made immigration a political issue were “undermining the values of America.” I tried to see her, but her moral high horse is so far above me that can only gaze from afar. She then spoke about bringing people together. She then implied that trying to round up all illegals was not cost effective, even though none of the serious republican candidates ever mentioned doing that to begin with. She stated that she still did not favor giving illegals drivers licenses.
Obama finally decided to get mildly tough, expressing that Hillary had several positions over the past 6 weeks, and that she did make this political. He stated that she does not have a clear position, but it took awhile. He then backtracked, scared of being seen as too harsh. This is why Hillary can eat him alive. He calmly expressed that it was a complex issue, but she had changed positions. He stated that he supported Bill Richardson’s approach, and that Hillary’s newest ideas were ones he had already been working on.
Hillary pointed out that she said she would support Governor Richardson, but that Obama waffled. She then offered pablum about bringing people together in a coalition of democrats and “fair minded republicans.”
Obama answered the question about his lack of experience by ticking off his political life story. He does have accomplishments, and he mentioned all of them.
Hillary was asked what being First Lady has to do with experience, since she has very little more Senate experience than Obama. She then mentioned the phrase “35 years,” and I fell asleep. She is morally superior because she worked for children’s issues instead of joining a law firm. She mentioned about reforming the education system in Arkansas, neglecting that this was a failure and cost her husband the Governorship. She also went to 82 Countries, claiming that she negotiated agreements. She spoke about teaming up with Lindsay Graham to work on health care for veterans.
Another excellent question came in the form of an issue often brought up by Mitt Romney. It was pointed out that neither Obama or Hillary have ever run a business. How could they run an economy?
Hillary blathered that the USA is “more than a business, it is a trust.” She then made my eyes jump out when she said the USA IS “not out to make a profit, it is out to help the American people.” What is it about businesses making profits that this woman cannot grasp? Businesses should make profits. Profits are good. She then slammed President Bush as the “CEO MBA President.”
Obama joked that Mitt Romney “has not gotten a good return on his investment” in this campaign. He was willing to compare his own management style to Romney’s any day.
The debate finally got very substantive when the candidates were asked about Iran and North Korea. The candidates responded forcefully, showing they were ready.
JUST KIDDING. The idiotic question about Ted Kennedy was finally asked.
Hillary praised Ted Kennedy, reinforced her own support from JFK’s useless offspring, and then spoke about change and having a woman President. The election was about us.
She is as boring as Obama is inspiring. They both say nothing, but he does it better. She then claimed to be excited and humbled.
Obama was asked if Americans are right to remember the Clinton years fondly. Before the question could be answered, somebody should go to Wolf Blitzer and ask, “What do you mean ‘we,’ Kimosabe?”
Obama was trapped, and stated those years were much better than the Bush years. He also gently reminded the audience that people need to be judged on their own merits. He correctly pointed out that he has bringing in so many new voters. He then drifted into class warfare talking points. He then reverted back to his strongest point, that voting has doubled due to his participation. This was the first time all night Hillary looked dour, although moderately so.
Hillary was asked how she could be an agent of change when we have had only 2 families in the White House for the last 30 years. Actually, it would be 20 years, unless one counts the 8 years the first President Bush was Vice President.
She then played to the crowd by stating that she “deeply regretted that there was a Bush in the White House at this time.” She said that “we are all judged on our own merits,” even though she is hiding behind her husband, as she has been her entire married life. She then took credit for her husband’s administration, and got off a very powerful line after that. She said, “It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.” The crowd would have cheered all night had the moderator not eventually stepped in. Hillary smild broadly, basking in the glow of getting in the line of the night. She had won the sound bite war, the equivalent of a triple reverse slam dunk on ESPN.
Hillary was then asked why voters should not see her Iraq position as an open ended commitment since she does not have a specific withdrawal timetable. Hillary attacked the Pentagon. Other than that, her answer was incomprehensible, as if she cut herself on the sharp edge of her triangulator. She sees the issue as complex. Then she blamed President Bush. I disagree with at least half of her positions, but perhaps not all of them.
Obama stated that “we will not have permanent bases” In Iraq. He also had “the audacity of dope” to state that John McCain does not “understand the situation.” Next he will say Hillary has no idea how to be a woman. Ok, bad example, but you get the point. He also reminded the crowd that he was against the war from the beginning.
The debate was practically a lovefest, as the candidates refused to drag each other down further. Hillary then announced support from Maxine Waters, which makes her qualified to do…well, nothing. Hillary expressed the perils of withdrawing too soon, and blamed President Bush some more.
Hillary was asked why she voted against a particular amendment restricting President Bush’s authority with regards to the war. She stated that she voted for another amendment that would have limited his authority to one year. She said that if she knew then what she knew now, she would not have given him the authority. However, that is the typical Clinton non-apology apology. She did not say “I apologize,” or “I was wrong.” She also stated that her vote was not an authorization to go to war. I guess in her mind it was a vote to authorize people to think about it and dither. Perhaps she truly does think we are the United Nations. Had she been completely truthful, she would have stated that she does not want to limit Presidential power because she wants to be President. She would have to be more tactful about expressing it, but that would at least be honest.
She then truthfully pointed out that the republicans are committed to President Bush’s policies. Yes, and they should. She claimed that the republicans, especially McCain, accused her of a policy of surrender. Yes they did, and they should continue to state this. She welcomes this debate. So do I. She also used the word gravitas, a very veiled reference to Obama being a neophyte. She spoke very forcefully.
Obama stated he wants the Iraq mission completed “honorably,” but wants to bring people home. He also, using very careful words, stated that we are not winning right now. Obama parried the gravitas issue by stating that he was against the war from the beginning.
Wolf Blitzer has been criticized during most of the CNN debates, but in this debate I have to give him what the kids would call “props.” I think that means “proper respect,” and I think the kids do still say that. For the second time during the debate, Wolf posed a question five minutes after I had already posed it (scout’s honor, even though i was never a scout…Tygrrrr’s honor perhaps). He wanted to know why she could not just say her Iraq vote was a mistake.
The real answer is because she simply can’t. She can’t do it. I cannot leap tall buildings, and she cannot ever apologize for anything.
She babbled about believing in “coercive diplomacy.” I credit Obama for keeping a serious look on his face. She then again blamed President Bush. Had she been President, we would have focused on Afghanistan. She said we must be as strong or stronger than the republicans on national security. I saw pigs growing wings somewhere, but it could have been the special brownies I ate…oh no wait, that was the Clintons as well (no no, he did not inhale). When she criticized President Bush on the issue of body armor, Wolf failed to cut off her filibuster.
Wolf Blitzer then asked her, “So are you saying you were naive in trusting President Bush?”
Hillary flashed a major fake smile. The crowd was mostly cheering, with some booing, as Hillary said, “Good try Wolf.” Obama had his moment to smile broadly, but he was smiling along side her. It was her turn to twist. When Wolf asked Obama if Hillary was naive, Hillary interjected by saying that the question was asked of her, and she should answer it.
This was odd in that a hot potato could have been tossed away from her, and she chose to take it back. Either this was hubris, or perhaps she thought answering was better than leaving the question unanswered. The Wolf remarked, “I thought you weren’t going to answer it.” She then again remarked, “That is a good try Wolf.” She continued to ramble about the consequences of President Bush’s actions, and how the resolution was only about inspections. She stated that “we” bombed Hussein in 1998 over inspections.
She then offered one of the best attempts at triangulaton in history, and if it succeeds, Hillary is every bit a genius as her husband, and the AMerican people are imbeciles.
“I offered a reasoned judgment, but the person executing the policy did not.”
I could picture Bill Clinton saying that and everyone believing it. Whether or not Hillary can pull it off might be talked about 30 years from that line. She never answered the question, and it should be asked over and over until it is answered.
Obama had to tread lightly, because whenever he criticizes her, he is being “mean.” This is ironic given that he is a nice guy and she actually is mean, but perceptions of hitting a girly girl have really weakened his ability to strike back. He stated that the language of the vote stated that it was an authorization to go to war, and that was obvious. He stated that “Senator Clinton claims experience on day one, but one has to be right on day one.”
That line was the equalizer to her earlier comment about a pair of Clintons and a pair of Bushes. Yet her line contrasted with republicans. His line contrasted with her.
The candidates were asked about censoring television programs that were obscene with sex and violence. Obama remarked that his children watch Nickelodeon, but that he was aware that they “knew how to operate that remote.” He also mentioned the internet, but mentioned that censorship was not the answer. He felt that the industry should show some thought. That is asking too much.
The female moderator who I care not to remember wanted to ask a question about Presidential spouses. Hillary offered fake laughter,and Obama immediately let her off the hook by saying that “Michelle Obama could share some stories too.” I am amazed that he keeps rescuing a person who wants to drown him.
Hillary was asked how she could control her husband in the White House when she cannot even control him on the campaign trail. She cackled loudly, which she does when she is enraged. She could not give a true answer, which is either…1) she can but chooses not to do so…2) she can’t.
She stated that she and Barack had “passionate spouses that defend them at every turn.” Obama concurred for his own safety. Michelle Obama is not a lightning rod. Period. Yet Hillary continued.
The issue is not about defending, it is about slashing attacks. Hillary made it clear it is her campaign, which ducks the question.
Although it was most likely a camera angle issue, Obama looked like he was asleep. He almost looked smug in the sense that his nose was in the air (literally in terms of posture) and his eyes were closed. As we learned on “South Park,” smug people listen and talk with their eyes closed. I know this is not substance, but the only time he gets in trouble is when he reminds everybody that he is better than she is. People have to conclude that without him looking like he is actually expressing it.
The last question was a waste. Wolf Blitzer brought up the issue that most democrats saw the two of them as a “dream ticket.” This was the largest approval line of the night, and it came from the moderator. Hillary cackled loudly, and then in perhaps a bizarre coincidence, the camera panned to another woman famous for an odd laugh, “The Nanny” Fran Drescher. Yes, this debate was in Los Angeles, although Jack Nicholson did not yell “Go Lakers” during the event.
Yes folks, what John Kerry would call “the heart and soul of America,” continued to repulse me. I wonder how many ordinary people were in the audience. My guess was zero, not counting ushers.
When asked if they were open to a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, Obama smartly replied, “well obviously there is a difference between those two.”
Like an Al Pacino movie where he starts calm but spends the last third making bombastic angry speeches, a calm Hillary near the end of the debate could not stop cackling.
Obama stated that such speculation was “premature and presumptuous.” He then spoke about what he wanted in cabinet members. He said something very intelligent when he stated that he wanted people who could “say no to him,” which would avoid group think. He did not want “yes men and yes women.” He admitted that he “is not right all the time.” Can anyone picture Hillary saying that? He ended on a very positive, lofty note. When pressed further about Hillary, he said that “she would be on anybody’s short list.”
Clinton stated that she “agreed with everything Barack just said.” She said that “there will be a unified democratic party.” She then plugged her next online internet townhall meeting. Wolf joked that “We do the plugs around here.” Hillary cackled again, and Wolf let her off the hook.
The candidates then shared a very warm moment, although their words were not audible. They whispered in each other’s ears for a few moments.
Each candidate had one good line, but overall I felt the debate was a draw. The crowd liked them both, and neither one delivered a knockout blow. I also felt that each blunder would not matter because their own voters would let them off the hook. The goal was not to impress me. It was to impress democrats.
I would argue that a tie goes to the favorite, which would be Hillary. I think Obama had to knock her from the top, and he did not succeed.
They are both smart, and must have observed how turned off the republican crowd (myself included) was by the intra-party fighting.
Yes this was a stage, and I am sure once they exited the Kodak Theatre they went back to tearing each other’s eyes out. Yet they were on stage, and they made nice.
This was a deadlock.
Now that the democratic debates are over, I can thankfully quit being an objective analyst and go back to being a partisan. They are both dreadful candidates against the republicans.
eric
“When Hillary was asked about her secret task force, she ducked the question, mentioned the -Chip program, and blamed President Bush for vetoing something. ”
Something??? He vetoed the S-Chip bill!
JMJ
Hillary has promised to take us all with her to the White House in spirit. What more can we possibly ask?
Didnt she do that once already during the White house christmas tour ?
Either of these two candidates will tear through John McCain like an M1 Abrams through a wall of tissue paper. They’ve both shattered all previous fund-raising records, which is especially impressive for Democrats, since Republicans usually raise more money. They’ve both shown the ability to bring in huge numbers of unlikely voters (though Obama more so).
Kindly old John McCain doesn’t have a chance against either of them.
My stomach hurt during most of the debate. All they have to say is, “we need for Blacks, whites, browns, and Asians – can’t forget the Asians – and rich and poor and bountiful and needy and liberal and conservative to get together and we’ll be a great nation – especially once Bush is gone” and stupid people howl and clap with vigor. Sheep that need to be sheared.
Great report on another dreadful night. Hillary did everything she could BUT say that the Iraq invasion was justified… she even said something to the effect of, “We knew he had been developing WMD in 1998 and stopped him then, so it was credible he was doing it again…”. Obama says nice things but is naive – we’ll find a way to pay for it – just don’t expect me to articulate a plan. At least Hillary knows that somebody has to pay – so when the $200K plus crowd start paying higher taxes, where do they start cutting?
Both their comments did a disservice to Soldiers. I know I’ve said this a different way, Eric, but no matter how often you say you support the troops, if you say the mission the Soldiers are conducting isn’t something we should be doing, you are making mercenaries out of the Volunteer Army, and you are questioning why they are fighting for the American people. You are also giving aid to a patient enemy. To hell with both of them..
Now Al, take it easy. It was by far the most thoughtful debate thus far on either side, and that was probaly because it wasn’t so muddied up with lesser tier candidates. Taxes can’t always just go down. That’s just inane. You don’t have to agree with a war to want well for the soldiers fighting it. Again, just inane. Take off your ideology hat for one minute, take a breath, and be realistic. Be it a president Hillary or Obama, Romney or McCain, things aren’t going to change all that much. The great mosquito hunt of the GWOT will go on. The wealthy will stay wealthy and most of the poor will stay poor for it. Free trade will continue on it’s merry way. Life as you know it wil pretty much stay the same. Try to put things into perspective.
JMJ
Jersey, You are speaking a sad truth. Granted, I’m old enough and ALMOST wise enough to get through the garbage that Obama never agreed and Clinton didn’t really vote to go to war, but to have both of them denouncing the Commander in Chief to the world while we have Soldiers in harms’ way is not inane – it’s treasonous. Joe Tentpeg hasn’t the experience I have – and not every Soldier has the same convictions I have. Both politicians are planting dangerous seeds. If Joe Schmo says it, so what, but they are both Senators – representatives of the US Government – one body of legistators who approved taking out Saddam and who have continued to fund the aftermath – no matter how ugly it is. The “United” in States used to mean something, and it’s a sad day when representatives of the citizens – elected officials – blast our Commander in Chief during wartime. I say again, To hell with both of them.
Oh c’mon Al, it’s not treasonous to denounce a commander in chief in a time of war. That’s just nonsense. It’s like the 4th Commandment – it says honor they father and thy mother, not agree with them all the time. If the president does something wrong then nothing is more patriotic then to call him or her on it. Heck, this is why we have America in the first place! Some people, like me, think this is an evil colonial oil war, ill planned and executed, profiteered and corrupt, and I believe intentionally so. None of this is a the fault of any soldier – not a one. It is the fault of the commander in chief. The buck stops there. In my opinion, anyone who says we should just be quiet and support him regardless of what he does just because he is the commander in chief in a time of war is acting like a sheep – or better put, a leeming on his way off a cliff. Our founders roll in their graves every time someone says that we should stifle dissent, ever.
JMJ
I’ll give him credit for using a historical democratic talking point against hillary last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtYhy_qqykM
Jersey, I think you missed my point. You have every right, and an obligation, to speak out as a tax paying, voting citizen. However, Clinton is a Senator who publicly stated, on more than one occasion, that Saddam is a threat and must be stopped. She is a representative of the US government, no longer an average citizen. She voted on the resolution to take Saddam out of power. She voted to continue funding the war – more than once. Do you know why she did that? Because she knows that Saddam was a threat in 1991, a threat in 1998, and a threat in 2003. She said so herself! All she’s doing now is pandering to an ignorant public who has been terrorized by a lying media. I don’t expect to convert you, but for those who are “on the fence”, they need to know that Hillary is quite brilliant, and she is calculating. She wouldn’t have voted to go to war if she didn’t think it were necessary. For the same political reasons, she can’t support it now because the “Saddam” threat is gone, and she, like her polling husband, will say just about anything the public wants her to say…and she voted to continue funding the war for one or two reasons: first, she knows we must maintain a balance of power there or the Middle East will come crashing in – and she doesn’t want to be responsible for that inevitable truth. Second, she knows that as much as Hollywood and the media hate this war, and as much as even average citizens hate it, most citizens do not support a cut and run tactic. You listened to the debates – neither Obama nor Clinton support getting out any time soon. Again, the Commander in Chief didn’t make a mistake; if he had, she wouldn’t have supported it in the first place. Obama didn’t support it because he wasn’t “behind the vault” or in the know at the time – he was a state legislator living the high life. I don’t question your information about recycling because I didn’t live it for 10 years. It’s rather odd you would question my information since I’ve lived it for 28 years.
JMJ;
“You don’t have to agree with a war to want well for the soldiers fighting it. Again, just inane.”
Not inane at all. Even Greg whos son is over there right now agreed with me when I asked him;
” How can you tell your son you support him when you dont support what he’s doing ?”
Real support is when two people or more have the same goal in common.
You do what you can to help the one you claim to support.
Wanting well for them is different than wishing them success in completing their mission.
You’re just saying you hope they dont get killed , thats all.
Stop insulting peoples intelligence.
I support everyone in a foot race, but I cheer for the ones I want to win. Theres a huge difference.
Al,
“She voted to continue funding the war – more than once. Do you know why she did that? Because she knows that Saddam was a threat in 1991, a threat in 1998, and a threat in 2003.”
No, she voted for the AUMF and subsequent funding because she’s a political coward just like the rest of the weak-kneed Dem idiots who backed the war in the first place. They knew better but they gave Bush and the GOP enough rope to hang themselves and all the rest of us. Too much rope. She certainly knows it now, and her argument is only flawed in that she’s trying to appease the wrong audience. She’s never going to get about 40-45% of the vote, let alone the small minority that still thinks the war was a good idea. Why she even bothers playing to them is beyond me.
“…most citizens do not support a cut and run tactic.”
No one does, Al. It would be dangerous for our troops and possibly catastrophic for Iraqis if we just up and left. Everyone gets that.
“Again, the Commander in Chief didn’t make a mistake; if he had, she wouldn’t have supported it in the first place.”
I call sophistry!!! There’s no way in monkeyland I’m buyin’ that logic! If he had then she wouldn’t have? C’mon! LOL!
“I don’t question your information about recycling because I didn’t live it for 10 years. It’s rather odd you would question my information since I’ve lived it for 28 years.”
I know politics. I’ve followed it my whole life. No matter what I was doing, or where I was living, I always followed politics. I also have always intently followed modern history. So in that sense, and in a broader sense, in that world trade and politics and wars are all tied together, we’re pretty much on the same wavelength.
JMJ
JMJ;
“anyone who says we should just be quiet and support him regardless of what he does just because he is the commander in chief in a time of war is acting like a sheep ”
So, you support the troops, even though you dont like the mission.
But you dont support the president the same way on the same mission ?
Why dont you tell the solsiers that they are supporting an evil colonial oil war, ill planned and executed, profiteered and corrupt, and I believe intentionally so.
You say its not the fault of the soldiers, only the fault of the commander in chief.
But the soldiers volunteered to back him in the same quest, for more than one tour in many cases.
So when you bash the president, you are bashing all the volunteers who put there lives on the line for same belief as Bush.
Micky,
Again, I call sophistry, but this time it’s starting to annoy me. I, and every other American, “support” the troops. We wish them well. We want them to be happy. We want them to accomplish certain tasks once in a while as the bargain of service, and so we try to be careful about taking them up on it. We have used 600,000 guards-men and women since 9/11 and most of them for Iraq. That is not what guards are supposed to be used for. Guards by definition are people who mind the home territory not the expeditionary. This is military history 101, for Patton’s sake! (Joke intended) We cut taxes in war. That is so ridiculously unprecedented for a reason. You don’t cut taxes in war. It’s stupid.
You see, Micky, it’s not only that the war was stupid, it’s the way it has been managed from the office of the Commander in Chief. And that’s not a coincidence. And so, in a valid argument, I can say that speaking against this misbegotten mission and this sorry excuse for an administration is one and the same, and the beneficiaries of the argument are all but the administration.
Soldiers are people. People do what they have to do. Sometimes its good and sometimes its bad. As long as what they do is ethical, then they should be happy and we should be happy with them. You can no more blame a soldier for a bad mission than you can blame him for his nose. He didn’t ask for it.
Of course, Ike warned us that one day the MIC may start asking for it, and we’d better watch out for that… er… oh, yeah, Iraq proved his point…
JMJ
She said she had gravitas.
Grape soda was coming out of my nose.
Oh B.S !
Dont freaking give me that history 101 of yours like you’re so much smarter than everyone else. Because you’re not !
I am damn well aware of how, why and when we went to war.
I also know the stats of who in the military supports the mission they are fighting.
75% voted for Bush ! And 70% support the mission !
These guys volunteer in a time of war knowing damn well where they;re going.
The marines, army , navy, air force . All of them new what was at stake !
How about common sense 101 Jersey ! Bushs mission is the troops mission , whether you like it or not.
True, mistakes were made. But that happens in any war. But nobody sat back and said “oh, Bush made a couple mistakes, so were not going to enlist.
You can dance and BS your way around this all you want.
JMJ;
“Taxes ” Trying to change subjects ? Who said anything about taxes ?
JMJ;
“Stupid war ” Thats just an opinion. Toss that one
JMJ;
“Misbegotten mission ” Thats just an opinion. Toss that one.
JMJ;
“Sorry excuse for an administration ”
A hell of a lot better than that sucky congress with a 2% approval. Toss that one.
JMJ;
“Soldiers are people. People do what they have to do. ” Except when they volunteer Jersey ! Toss that one.
JMJ;
“You can no more blame a soldier for a bad mission than you can blame him for his nose. He didn’t ask for it.”
Once again, english 101. They volunteered
I’ll bet you wont accuse them of fighting and volunteering for a mission you dont believe in.
Jersey, Believe it or not, I know where you are coming from in some of your arguments – and based on the administration’s terrible job of information operations – coupled with an anti-Bush media, I can understand the negativity. When I mentioned 28 years, I wasn’t talking politics – I was talking military service – and the experience to gather information, process it, and determine whether there is a viable threat. We have belabored the point, but again, “…she (Clinton) voted for the AUMF and subsequent funding because she’s a political coward just like the rest of the weak-kneed Dem idiots who backed the war in the first place” is a product of the aforementioned biased media, poor information operations, and lack of knowledge. You would have to be a serious conspiracy theorist to believe the majority of our legislators went to war for big oil, especially considering we haven’t reaped any of those benefits! Granted, the MIC is doing ok, but this is an “after the fact” product of any war – it’s too much of a stretch to believe we went to war for the sole purpose of feeding the MIC. That would be the first part of the MICkey Mouse Club – the cartoon characters cited so often…
I won’t address the “support the Soldier” issue – Micky laid that out pretty well. However, you brought up “history 101”. “That is not what guards are supposed to be used for. Guards by definition are people who mind the home territory not the expeditionary. This is military history 101, for Patton’s sake!”. The mission of National Guardsmen and women is to protect US citizens from enemies, foreign and domestic. During WWII, the US Army regulars got their butts handed to them. The National Guard was called up and turned things around. Lots of dynamics there. Also, the USAR and ARNG are no longer part of the strategic reserve. They are now part of the Operational Reserve – which means they fall under the Army Force Generation Model (ARFORGEN) and are subject to call up about every five or six years. Given the dual coverage in Afghanistan and Iraq, additional security coverage on the homefront, coupled with a small Army, many Guard and Reservists have served more than the 1 in 5 or 6. We’ll see how this plays out later, but that’s another reason why the “anti War” noise hasn’t grabbed legs the way Vietnam did – it’s because we have significant ARNG representation from hometown America, and there are a great number of serving citizen Soldiers who come home, tell their neighbors we are doing what needs to be done, and volunteering to go back.
I think a veteran sneaked into the Dem debate….https://webmail.us.army.mil/attach/PRICELESS
Micky, I can say that those 600,000 guards did NOT sign up for THIS mission.
I know what you meant about the military, Al. But let’s at least agree that the military is a political functionary and history gives them an important role.
And you ca’t arguye my point about the Guard. We have never used them in such an irresponsible fashion. And if this war were truly just – and therefore popular – we wouldn’t have to use them anyway, And of course, you’re right abnout the “anti-war noise,” which is why we had the Rumsfeld Doctrine in the first place. War-on-the-cheap was designed to keep the war poltically palatable – at the expense of the Guard. For that alone, the Bush administration will be remembered as the sleaziest and most cowardly of all wartime administrations.
JMJ
Didn’t you guys just see the new Guard report???
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guard1feb01,1,7849729.story
Once again, Bush administration failure at it’s worst…
JMJ
Jersey, The link you provided is an excellent story and needs to be told. However, lest we blame the current war, “…Reserve units have been taxed by repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, but the commission said the inadequacies were not solely the result of the wars.” It must be brought to everyone’s attention that the ARNG has been begging for money for years, and they have been consistently underfunded in the equipment arena. Again, this is not news – this is “olds”.
The article tries to bring Hurricane Katrina in as support for a lacking ARNG, but the ARNG performed admirably and was not hindered by lack of equipment or manpower.
The article also focuses on nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities for the ARNG, which begs the question, if we aren’t in danger of terrorists’ attacks, why should we spend a lot of time and money training and equipping ourselves to guard against them? The ARNG has at least one team with CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radioactive, Nuclear, and Explosive) capabilities in each state. These guys do this full time. Most of the arguments for or against additional funding stem from decades-long bickering between states and the federal government. The Active Army, FORSCOM in particular, doesn’t support a significant funding increase for ARNG units because if citizens thought they could get more bang for the buck (i.e. hire more part-time Soldiers in lieu of full-time Soldiers), they might recommend reducing the size of the Active Army. Conversely, if we rely too heavily on the ARNG to handle OCONUS duties, we could reduce the home state capabilities.
On the one hand, I am making an argument for you because the ARNG doesn’t have all the equipment listed on its MTOE, and their primary focus should be on the home front, but on the other hand, I’m explaining the dynamics between the AC and RC forces, and both the federal and state governments will use statistics, fear, and any other tactic they can to pursue their own agenda.
Let’s look at two of your statements: “And you can’t argue my point about the Guard. We have never used them in such an irresponsible fashion.” It is your opinion that they are being used in an irresponsible fasion. You might get conflicting views from a majority of the 45,000 ARNG Soldiers my Training Support Battalion trained for combat in the past two years at Camp Shelby, MS and Fort Bragg, NC. Second, “And if this war were truly just – and therefore popular – we wouldn’t have to use them anyway, ” We are not using the ARNG because the war isn’t just or popular, and especially because President Bush is sleazy and wanted to do it on the cheap. We are using the ARNG and tens of thousands of USAR Soldiers because President Bush’s predecessor slashed the Active Component to its current size, albeit our current president has gained authorization to increase it by 30,000 and is looking for an even larger full-time force.
JMJ;
“Micky, I can say that those 600,000 guards did NOT sign up for THIS mission.”
So what ? That doesnt really change your hypocrisy.
Whether you believe they signed up for this or not is irrelevant.
The guys in the field and otherwise have voted 75% in favor of their commander in chief.
That is a much larger statement that anything you believe.
It looks like Al pretty much addressed the Gaurds rediness and performance issues
Well, Al, you’re right about some of the chronic problems with the Guard. I’ve been reading about it for years. Just the same, that would make their overuse for expeditionary purposes all the more irresponsible, no?
Bush can look for a larger force all he wants. People are not going to sign up if they think they’ll be used irresponsibly.
Micky, I really don’t care who they vote for. It changes, adds to, or effects no part of this debate.
JMJ
JMJ;
“Micky, I really don’t care who they vote for. It changes, adds to, or effects no part of this debate.
B.S ! Jersey.
It has to do with everything. And you just cant B.S. your way out of it.
When the facts support your arguement , you use them. When they defeat your arguement you say it doesnt matter.
You have not answerd my question.
JMJ;
“Micky, I can say that those 600,000 guards did NOT sign up for THIS mission.”
You can say anything you want. Your beliefs and opinions are what truly does not matter in this debate.
What matters is what the soldiers have said via their vote. And the vote points to “FACTS”
The fact here is that these guys “DID” volunteer for this mission. Because when they signed up they were aware of the fact that they do not get to choose and pick their missions. And quite frankly the ones who have enlisted in the last 5 years would have to be brain dead to think that they werent going to Iraq or Afghanistan. Not to mention the thousands who have returned for 2 nd and 3rd tours.
The bottom line is not what you “think or care about”
The bottom line is what points to the truth. And the truth is that you are hypocritical when you say you support the troops but not the mission. The mission is their purpose. You must support the purpose of an action in order to honestly support it.
You are telling them that they are stupid for following orders from a man you hate when you bash his mission and his purpose.
These guys are out there because they want the same thing Bush wants. 75% of them said so. NOT YOU !
So do us all a favor and stop playing us for idiots. Because we are not. We are adult men who have been around and we know a line of self conflicting crap when we hear it.
Greg supports his son in the hope that he doesnt get killed or injured. But he plainly addmitted to the hypocrisy that he does not support his sons mission. And he said so regretfully.
At least he was man enough to do that
You cant win.
What you’re doing is wrong.
You are not all that educated.
You are doing this only for a paycheck.
You are fighting for the wrong reasons.
You are taking orders from a stupid evil man.
You and your leader have separate missions.
You are not fighting for what you believe you are fighting for.
You are doing this because you cant see through the smoke screen as well as I can.
When you say what you are saying it is as if you are holding a bunch of retards by the hand because they know not what they are doing and you only support them out of sympathy.
They do not need your sympathy. They need you to say that you hope they will succeed in the goal they want to accomplish. They are intelligent enough to know what that is
What you think is or is not important is the farthest thing from they’re mind.
JMJ;
“Something??? He vetoed the S-Chip bill! ‘
So what ? He should of wiped his rump with it also.
There was enough sinister and deceving add ons in that bill for a public restroom on Times square.
As for S-Chip, I suggest you read Eric’s post, and then you’d get what I was saying there.
As for the military, it doesn’t matter how they vote (or why). And it doesn’t matter waht people say about them (they always have).
JMJ
Yea it matters. you’re just dodging.
It matters because they support their mission by a show of hands. And the majority come back saying they believe in what they are doing.
You DO NOT believe in what they are doing and yet you say you support them ?
That is just STUPID Plain and simple stupid as the day is long.
All your positions point to the fact that you only support our guys coming back in one piece.
You have to, you must support their mission or else you are not supporting them at all.
Because the reason they are there is one you do not agree with is why you are a hypocrite to say you support them.
Support them ? My behind !
If you and your lot had it your way you would drag them all home right now and every man and woman that has died so far will of died for nothing !
If you truly supported them you would be cheering them on and not always questioning the validity of the mission. You would proudly scream from the roof tops ” I believe in your cause and your mission.”
They believe in it and that is all that matters because it is their life on the line, not yours !
How many people do you think would really lay their life on the line and risk it for something they do not believe in ? Huh Jersey?
Or are you gonna try to tell us that they’re too stupid to know any better ?
A couple of things to point out here. First, how soldiers voted in 2004 doesn’t mean they feel that way now, and I do recall recent news articles that show significant decreases in support by soldiers and even more so by the families of soldiers, and I also know from several sources that soldiers are pressured into saying things publicly that they would never say privately.
As to admitting it was hypocritical to support the soldiers but not the mission, I don’t recall doing that at all. I suspect I just got tired of responding to another one of micky’s tirades and just didn’t respond, but if I did admit it, I retract it because I don’t think it is hypocritical at all to support the troops and be against the war.
The fact is that neither I nor my son nor any soldier below the rank of general has any real measure of control over what the president decides to do. I think going to war in Iraq was a bad idea but even more so, the way it was implemented has been tragic and the aftermath is only just beginning. But, volunteer soldiers or not, I do think we as a country have an obligation to support those we have put in harm’s way regardless of the reasons they have been put there.
We have all heard stories about families having to buy their sons and daughters armor protection because the military couldn’t supply it. I have personally witnessed soldiers forced to live in absolute squalor at a military base in the US while they were waiting weeks for health care after being wounded in action. We have seen the conditions at Walter Reed and are witnessing the inability of the military and the VA to handle the injured. I could go on but is a legacy we will live with for many years to come.
Well greg, I’m not one to lie at all. I remember distinctivly you saying that your feelings were unfortunate but true.
here it is my friend. I was not talking out of my ass.
Greg;
“As to admitting it was hypocritical to support the soldiers but not the mission, I don’t recall doing that at all.
I asked you on November 14 , 2007
“Hey son, I dont believe in what you’re doing, you shouldnt be doing that, but you’re doing a great job ? You are saying that he is risking his life for nothing ?”
Greg said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:32 am
“Yeah, unfortunately that’s pretty much the situation. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not totally for nothing but the gains are so outweighed by the losses in Iraq that it sometimes seem like it’s for nothing. And I am just talking about Iraq here. There, of course, is a place for the military and a strong national defense.”
You were saying he was risking his life for nothing. Its right there. I have a good memory. You may not of used the word hypocritical and I’m sorry if I implied that you did.
Greg said on Nov 14th , 2007
That doesn’t mean their mission is a worthy one. I support the troops but not the war.
This statement is just as hypocritical as Jeresy. As a matter of fact its exactly the same thing. Hypocrisy.
If you believe in what you are doing it will turn out better. If there are two of you with the same mission and one does not believe in it , you both stand a good chance of failing.
Real support for these men comes in all forms. Not just the ones you pick and choose.
And as far as the rest of your post goes it really doesnt cut through yours and Jerseys hypocrisy
Greg ;
“any soldier below the rank of general has any real measure of control over what the president decides to do.”
Any soldier enlisting in the last 5 years was not ordered or asked to do so by anyone.
Its a volunteer force if I remember correctly.
A Medal of Honor recipient, and subsequent 4 star General, tried to tell a President what to do…”let’s take out Korea while we’re here”… he was relieved. Greg is right about Soldiers’ not necessarily influencing Presidents! McArthur was a hero, but he overstepped his bounds!
Greg’s comment, “…significant decreases in support by soldiers and even more so by the families of soldiers, and I also know from several sources that soldiers are pressured into saying things publicly that they would never say privately.” is worthy of discussion. Of course family members want their fathers/mothers/sons/daughters/ et al home! I can’t speak for all Soldiers, and I certainly am not a mind-reader. I do know that many Captains and senior Lieutenants (that’s almost a misnomer…) are getting out of the service, but it’s not so much that they don’t support what we are doing over there, it’s the fact that in their 4 – 6 years of service, they have been deployed at least twice at 15 months a pop, and often more. This doesn’t make for conditions to raise a family! Besides, they’ve served their time. My point is, Greg is right about increasing numbers of Soldiers who are tired of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is likely that some don’t support the war, and just as likely that some support the war but are flat tired and want to be home. I’m sure that Joe Tentpeg has been muzzeled at times, but just as often, when things want or need to be said, you can count on him to be heard! Soldiers have always been issued body armor – the complaints were that the “new and improved” armor wasn’t ready for distribution. Same argument about armor for vehicles…improvements are continuously being made…really not a part of the discussion.
I just know that when we stopped in Maine on the way home from Iraq, and people stood up and cheered, I literally dropped some tears. And when people approach me in the airport and thank me for my service, I feel blessed. And here’s where I have failed miserably in articulating my argument against any elected official who publicly criticizes our Commander in Chief – the American public may not feel we are at war – but Soldiers KNOW they are, so when Senators and Congressmen/women attack the Commander in Chief publicly, they are playing into the hands of the enemy and discouraging the morale of junior enlisted Soldiers. They are like so many cowardly people who lack moral courage – if they truly have convictions, they need to face the President one on one, veto funding, or do something behind closed doors – without a cheering section – that they can be held accountable for doing – but don’t take it public because they don’t have the spine or convictions to deal with the consequences…. which begs the question, since they have had access to the same information I have, and quite probably more, are they not posturing publicly because they know that we went in for the right reasons, and even though we mucked it up for a couple years, we are recovering nicely and establishing a much-needed balance of power in the Middle East. It’s simply easier to mince words and act stupid – you saw Hillary squirming the other night –
Anyone read Jonah Goldberg’s new book “Liberal Fascism”? If you haven’t you should pick up National Review – the one with the smiley face with a Hitler mustache…its a nice primer. I especially like it because the pictures roll in logical (chronological fascist) procession from Mussolini to Hitler to Hillary Clinton.
Micky, there’s a difference between supporting someone in general, and supporting everything they do. This difference is especially demarked when the person you’re supporting is ordered to do something that is beyond their capacity to deny. Anyone who doesn’t get this needs a serious lesson in rational thought.
“Liberal Fascism”
Stupidest. Oxymoron. Ever.
JMJ
Rational thought?
Ration this.
I dont like what you are doing. nor do I believe what you are doing is right.
What you are doing is only making things worse an has cost the lives of thousands of people uneccessarily.
You are following a moraly defunct leader who is stupid and evil and a complete and utter failure. You believe in the same cause as him.
But I support you.
I understand the CMA mentallity very well Jersey.
You have to believe in the reason for what these guys are doing to truly support them.
Anything else is just fake gratuitous patriotism so you dont get your butt reamed by real patriots.
In a nutshell, its all Bullspit
JMJ;
“is ordered to do something that is beyond their capacity to deny.”
Oh, and for the hundreth millionth time you can keep saying this irrational line all you want. But the majority of these guys know what the deal is before they enlisted.
So when you try to make it sound as if they are somehow being dupped into something they dont want to do its disengenuous.
If they did not want to be a part of Iraq, afghanistan or the GWOT then they more than likely would not of volunteered.
The statistics show this to be true. The military will always be more pro-military and pro-war than the civilians. That’s why they are in this line of work.
Micky, it has nothing to do with being duped or when they volunteered. The point is that you can’t blame the soldiers for their mission any more than you can blame a kid for being in a bad school play. They are simply doing what they are told.
I’m getting p.o.’d now, so I done with this sleaziness.
JMJ
Look dude ! Let’s restudy this , and stop obfuscating and switching claims.
The kids do not have to be in the play. Its a volunteer force.
They knew what the play was about before they volunteered.
They volunteered knowing that their role would be to support the Cause of the Commander in chief.
They knew damn well what they were going to be told to do when they enlisted.
That is why they enlisted.
So stop it already. It wont work. I’m accusing you of being a hypocrite. And you are trying to defend a position that says the soldiers had no choice in their destiny. THAT IS STUPID !
I support the troops, but I don’t support the war. ?
Jeez, it would be nice if you believed in what they were doing.
That is REAL support !
And there you go again attacking another mans manly hood.
IMO. If you were a real man and stood 100% behind your convictions you would go to a military base and ramble off all the crap you expect me to swallow. You would tell those Marines and Guardsmen that you don’t think what they are doing is right or helping. This is true , because I have you on record saying it countless times. And you know I will dig it up and quote you.
And those guys being “real men ” would probably want to rearrange your face, but instead would tell you that you’re allowed to say that kind of crap because of their predecessors and them. And/or would just at you as if you were some idiot code pink loon and chalk it all up to mental instability, and grant you the benefit of the doubt that you were just frustrated due to lack of insight.
Keep up the good work Micky
As I know I can trust you to do the same my friend. :-)
Well, Micky, hypocrisy may be your interpretation of what I said, and that’s fine. We just disagree. I don’t think what I said was hypocritical at all.
AL, you may be right about things changing in the Middle East. I think it’s way too early to tell and I also think there is a big difference in our mission in Iraq and that in Afghanistan. The problem for pro-war people is that the Bush Administration has created a situation where the president and his people have so little credibility that even if there truly was good news coming out of Iraq, it hard to take it seriously.
And the ironic point is (and I’m quite sure Micky will think I’m nuts) that if you believe the notion that the initial mission into Iraq was correct and then it got mucked up for several years and now we are finding our way and have to somehow finish what we started, that’s periously close to what Hilary has been saying all along. She voted to authorize the war, has criticized the conduct of the war and now is looking for ways to complete the job rather than just cut and run.
Greg, I don’t think you are intentionally playing with words – I believe your analysis is straight forward. Before I agree, though, I must qualify that IF “…the initial mission into Iraq was correct and then it got mucked up for several years and now we are finding our way and have to somehow finish what we started,” then I basically agree. However, this is not what I’m hearing from her or other anti-war proponents – what I’m hearing from them is that we shouldn’t have gone in the first place, and that President Bush and his “cohorts” are pro Big Oil, pro MIC, lying, thieving individuals. We screwed the pooch by doing or failing to do several things, and I could outline them here, but most of the obvious ones have been covered. It’s still tenuous at best in Iraq, and Afghanistan, as you mentioned, is an entirely different situation – they don’t have oil – they have opium…and the kids are hungry…
p.s. In the first Gulf War, President Bush I got hammered (and maybe rightfully so) because he sold a chevy with black walls (i.e. get Saddam out of Kuwait). The public wanted a cadillac with white walls (finish the job by removing Saddam). He delivered to the public what he sold them. I have said this a number of times: President Bush II hasn’t done a good job in salesmanship – his best effort yet was the State of the Union, but it was too late for most. His information operations campaign has been terrible, so I understand the distrust and disgruntled populace. That’s the frustrating part for me, personally, because I sincerely believe in what we are doing in both places, but we haven’t “packaged” it properly.
I have always thought — even back at the time — that Bush I lost in 1992 because he failed to articulate the reason why we didn’t continue on and take out Saddam, so I wholeheartedly agree with you there. As far as Clinton is concerned I think I was being a bit facetious there, but I would separate her from the Obama crowd and other anti-war people who thought we should never have been there at all. Instead of trying to weasel her way out of the “did she/didn’t she” argument, it may have been better for her to go as I stated above — I authorized the war, it has been totally mishandled and we need me to fix it. Like it or not, and people on both sides of the spectrum have sometimes liked it and sometimes not, but both Clintons have always been centrists.
Charly, I take it you don’t care for argument or dissent. How big of you. Why not try to debate more than just once in a blue moon? Are you any good at it?
JMJ
Dont get all puffed up Jersey. You can hardly handle me. What makes you think you can handle Charly.
Hardly? LOL!
I think I know him already. There was a Charles Amrtel that used to post with those wimps over at Hannity.
JMJ
Greg, its not what you ” think you said”.
It’s what you don’t say that makes your statement ” I support the troops, but not the war” insincere and only marginally supportive.
” I want you to succeed in yours and your commanders goal ” , ” What you are doing is a right and noble cause, and you are succeeding” ,” I respect and stand behind the reasons for your service “.
I don’t ever hear you and Jersey saying these things.
I support our troops on more of the key subjects in this war than you or jersey.
For that reason you could not offer support on as many key subjects as I do.
When someone is trying to produce something that they think is of great value. The last freaking thing they need to hear is that they are part of a “squandered effort”, or that it will never work.
Now I’m sure you and Jersey are not totally without emotional sensitivity, which means you would probably like to be able to say to the soldiers some of the supportive things I say.
But you cant bring yourself to it !
Cuz you wouldn’t mean it !
We are all in this together ! Part of the fight is the civilian support for the troops. Without that support they are that much weaker.
Jersey.
Yes “hardly”
Actually ” softly” would be more appropriate. If you think terrorists are just “unruly children” And ” 911 happened because of Bush”.
Then you are delusional enough to think you could handle anything.
Micky, how dare you put words in my mouth? I never said either one of those things. There are only two reasons you could say that I did – 1) You can’t figure out what I was talking about or 2) you are lying. So, which is it?
And ya’ know, if you want to be a great debator, if you want people to take you seriously, then you shouldn’t stoop to that sort of sleazy disingenuousness. Otherwise, it looks like you really don’t have a valid point and just have to squirm around in the mud when you are proven completely wrong.
JMJ
Read the post with just a little clarity this time.
I was talking about all the things you and greg ” dont ” say.
Show me where I accused you of saying anything you havnt said, please !
And then theres this statement I made which is the only accusation against you, AND I STAND BEHIND IT;
” You would tell those Marines and Guardsmen that you don’t think what they are doing is right or helping. This is true , because I have you on record saying it countless times. And you know I will dig it up and quote you. ”
You have said these things so many times it would be a piece of cake to go back and digg up quotes of you discrediting Bush , the effort and reason for the war ,and the progress of the mission.
Do you mean to tell me that you are denying saying these things ?
I dont know what squirming or what mud you are talking about.
It seems more likely here that you are the one pulling things from your rump and making things up.
Jeez, go drink some coffee.
Hillary did everything she could BUT say that the Iraq invasion was justified… she even said something to the effect of, “We knew he had been developing WMD in 1998 and stopped him then, so it was credible he was doing it again…”. Obama says nice things but is naive – we’ll find a way to pay for it – just don’t expect me to articulate a plan. At least Hillary knows that somebody has to pay – so when the $200K plus crowd start paying higher taxes, where do they start cutting?
Show me my quotes, Micky. Go ahead. Show me that you are not either misquoting me or spinning.
Garret,
Given the administration’s budget proposal, they’re betting on more defense and less everything else, including all the “everything else” this administration created in the first place. This is a lame duck going out with a bang – a bang right up our collective bowels. I wish any of you could come up with a smiley face to stick on top of this debacle, because this may be the worst since 1929.
JMJ
It would help if you could show me where I misquoted you , since you are accusing me it would seem only appropriate if you do some work on your own.
JMJ;
“Show me my quotes, Micky. Go ahead. Show me that you are not either misquoting me or spinning.”
Jersey McJones said,January 21, 2008 at 7:02 am
“I think the war is a complete failure and disaster overall.”
I”LL BET THE TROOPS JUST LOVE HEARING THAT ONE.
January 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM
” We are way, way, way, way over-reacting to the threat of terrorism.
I’ve read, the administration intentionally and malicisiously lied about Iraqi WMD,”
YOU READ IT SOMEWHERE ! BATHROOM WALL ?
THIS PROBABLY MAKES THEM FEEL REAL GOOD ABOUT WHAT THEY’RE DOING
Jersey McJones said,
January 24, 2008 at 6:37 am
” a convenient post-9/11 excuse to rape the taxpayors and consumers for the profit of the administrations well-known-to-be close friends in the Military Sector and Big Oil.”
OUR SLODIERS ARE FIGHTING FOR OIL.
Jersey McJones said,
January 24, 2008 at 9:13 am ” Given the extent of contracting and the effect this has had on Big Oil, if firmly believe this war was initiated to raid the public coffers for the profit of MIC and Big Oil.”
THE WHOLE WAR IS A SMOKE SCREEN
“I am deeply and profoundly ashamed of what my nation has been up to these days.”
SO WHATS NEW> WE’RE NOT TOO PROUD OF YOU EITHER
” George Bush is a failure. his supporters just can’t find it in themselves to be man enough to admit it.’
THE SOLDIERS THAT SUPPORT BUSH ARE LESSER MEN DUE TO THEIR CONVICTIONS?
” I never said the war was for “cheap oil,” Micky. If anything, it was for more expensive oil. ”
YOU’RE STILL SAYING ITS FOR OIL! THINK THE SOLDIERS LIKE HEARING THAT ?
” I have not and I think I will never understand the popular rationale for this stupid war. ”
TELL A SOLDIER ALL OF THESE QUOTES AND I’LL BET HE EXPLAINS IT TO YOU
Jersey McJones said,
January 24, 2008 at 7:49 pm
” Sorry Micky, I don’t buy it. Iraq wasn’t worth it.”
THE SOLDIERS DIED FOR NOTHING !
Jersey McJones said,
January 18, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“We” don’t fight anybody. Instead we take advantage of reserves and guards, destroy them and their families,
THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW HORRIBLE IT WAS IN THE MILITARY, AND THEY SCREWED UP THEIR FAMILIES BY JOINING THE SERVICE.
” If you support the Bush administration, then not only do you not “support the troops,” you use them, abuse them, and throw them away.”
SO MYSELF AND THE SOLDIERS THAT SUPPORT BUSH ARE ABUSING THEM AND THROWING THEM AWAY ?
” This war was a mistake and anyone who thinks otherwise is imply unable to admit they were wrong.
THE 75% THAT SUPPORT THE WAR ARE WRONG, because jersey said so.
that should do it. And that was just the last couple days too. I didnt even have to go that far.
JMJ said;
“Micky, how dare you put words in my mouth? I never said either one of those things. There are only two reasons you could say that I did – 1) You can’t figure out what I was talking about or 2) you are lying. So, which is it? ”
Would these be the two things you never said ?
Jersey McJones said,
December 31, 2007 at 8:25 am
Personally, Micky, I am quite convinced that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 BECAUSE Bush and the GOP became the one party ruling majority.
Jersey McJones said,
October 26, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“Eric, please listen. Terrorism works in two ways, when it works at all. It frightens the hell out of people and it makes them mad as all hell. Either one of those products contains a good dose of hell. You should neither be frightened of terorists nor enraged at them. You should calmly and with calculation figure out a way to keep them from angering and frightening you. Sometimes parents have to deal with unruly children. Good parents do not beat the tar out of their kids. They figure out a more subtle way to get them to behave. Don’t fear terrorism, just find a way to stop it without making more of it.”
That last statement will always stick in my mind as the temple to ignorance and naivity.
Where are you Jersey ?
I ‘ll gladly retrieve some more of your elooquently well educated statements if you like.
Well?
[…] On Sunday we play the Superbowl. On Tuesday we have Super Tuesday. For democrats, yesterday was both. While the republicans are much better on policy, the democrats have proven better at getting their clowns off of the stage. How can the republicans eliminate Al Queda when they cannot even eliminate Ron Paul from the debates? The democrats may be useless, but at least they can stand up to Dennis Kucinich. Before getting to the democrats, Sean Hannity announced his support for Mitt Romney, Wh source: Obama vs HillaryMano a (Wo)Mano […]