Kicking the Left Again
Sometimes, we feel like poking our resident leftists again just to see what kind of rise we can get out of them. This is one of those times. Remember how the left was crowing two weeks ago after Rep. John Murtha (democratic "hawk") said the war was unwinnable and we should bring the troops home now?
- From the Washington Post - "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said in a Capitol news conference that left him in tears. Islamic insurgents "are united against forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. ". . . It's time to bring them home."
- From Yahoo.com - Most troops will leave within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Since Murtha is a veteran with a chest full of medals (2 Purple Hearts, Bronze Star with Combat V among them), he is supposedly immune to criticism of his opinions and his words must be taken as gospel. Well, how about this blog entry written by an Illinois National Guardsman who says Murtha is full of garbage. Go read it. Excellent essay.
And how about the non-coverage of Sen. Joe Lieberman last week when he came out in support of staying the course and his AMAZING op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Highlights:
And how about the non-coverage of Sen. Joe Lieberman last week when he came out in support of staying the course and his AMAZING op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Highlights:
- I have just returned from my fourth trip to in the past 17 months and can report real progress there.
- We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America
- ...polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today.
Go read it. You'll be astounded. Doesn't Lieberman deserve the press coverage that Murtha got? He was the Vice Presidential nominee 5 years ago. He ought to have some standing in the national party. And then this NewsMax.com article three days later is even more amazing. Again, highlights:
- Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003. "The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday. [emphasis added - SCC]
Can anyone explain where this coverage is? Or is the media once again in bed with the defeatists in the democratic party? Mark Steyn puts it all together in the Sunday Sun-Times.
posted by SCC at 9:00 PM
30 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
knock off the BS please
I'm not astounded at all. I read the piece about Leiberman and as I predicted to my wife, there would be and has been any coverage about what he had to say. I think he may be the ONLY honorable Democrap left.
Him and Zell Miller. Thats about all of left.
YES SIR! SORRY SIR!!
-----
War in Iraq
Rumsfeld: Stop harping on deaths
December 6, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Monday that the insurgency in Iraq has been stronger than anticipated. But he also said the news media have focused on the war's growing body count rather than progress that has been achieved.
''To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks,'' Rumsfeld said. He added, ''It's appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed -- and may God bless them and their families -- but what they died for or, more accurately, what they lived for.''
In Iraq, a soldier was killed when a patrol hit a roadside bomb, and U.S. and Iraqi troops began an operation in Ramadi.
AP
-----
...And was it that they are dying for again?
Please check anyone you want:
( ) Fight the good fight
( ) Arrest Saddam
( ) Freedom for all Iraqis
( ) Lots of oil
( ) Cheaper gasoline
( ) Big $$$ for defence contractors
( ) Keeping the terrorists in Terrorland
( ) Because "they" attacked us
Let's see, M. you place the same emphasis on the word of a single Illinois National Guard member rather than a veteran who has faithfully served his country, unlike YOUR president the draft dodger.
Also, where is the link to comments from Hillary Clinton, who wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq. Why not be fair to the phony liberal she is and show those comments?
How many service persons in Iraq have served more then two tours? Alot, and that is very unusually in war.
Finally, Tom DeLay, wasn't able to beat all the charges was he? If I am not mistaken dear M, a few weeks back you stated all charges would be dropped.
To above poster.....President Bush was a fighter pilot in the Guard. The position of fighter pilot is not one where the military cares who your father is and has no clout touting capabilities. It is a multi-million dollar aircraft and millions in training time that is invested in that individual. That being said....you must be talking about Clinton....because he was the true draft dodger....and even your liberal friends at CBS couldn't lie and say that President Bush dodged because CBS had forged his documents!!!!!
To 11:16 poster:
You must be new here. I've said it several times, now get it straight. President Clinton was a draft EVADER, he fled to Russia. YOUR President (like alot of rich people) was a draft DODGER. He had a good chance of being drafted so daddy, like alot of rich daddies, got him into the Guard. Finally, like of rich kids he didn't report for monthly duty but was logged in like he was there.
Do you think you or I, (and even our dear M) were we old enough back for 'Nam, get the same consideration as YOUR president?
Bellyache all you want, he is your President too. I know you fancy yourself as an intellectual so you should already have a grasp on the whole representative democracy thing.
To leftisbest.....thanks for putting the liberal spin on this as usual. President Bush was still in the Guard and still could have potentially have been called for service as thousands of guardsmen have been in this war....Clinton could not....so call it what ever you want its still dodging!!! Get that straight!!! Now lets get to your next "hero"....Sen. Kerry tried everything he could in his power to get out of his service and finally gave in and joined the Navy( his choice). And the rest is in the Swiftboat Vets book which I'm sure you haven't read....Democrats are real heroes that I want leading me in time of war....NOT!!!!
Man, we LOVE to rile up Lefty, because he completely stops making sense when he goes into vapor lock.
FYI LEFTY: The Illinois National Guardsman in question served in Afghanistan if you bothered to read the article or his bio. We think he just MIGHT have a little better handle on the current military than Murtha who has been out of the service for 30 years or so. Why don't his words have the equivalence of Murtha? As for the "draft dodging," haven't you people learned anything? Like how to read maybe? That charge never stuck. It was BS. As your side told us in 1992 and 1996, get over Vietnam already. We did, but you seem to be a hypocrite of the highest order.
Hillary is a windsock, shifting her message for her audience. She is no more a reliable indicator of the left than Bill ever was. Remember when she went to New York? She was a Yankees fan all the way. Now in Chicago, she says she hopes the Cubs win? Same with her politics - she stakes out positions on abortion being "safe, legal and rare" then votes a reliable pro abortion stance or on immigration, she moves to the center and then votes as liberally as Kennedy or Kerry.
Serving two tours is not unusual if the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines BELIEVE in the mission, TRUST their leaders, and KNOW that the mission is winnable and within sight. In fact, there are entire swaths of society that remain in the military for 20 years or more. That's more than a tour. We can name a few on the job now who are eligible to collect military pensions after serving 20 years and are now serving the city.
And as for Delay, how about what the media DIDN'T report? The judge did not rule on the counter charge of prosecutorial miscounduct by Ronnie Earle regarding grand jury shopping (when 2 grand juries refused to indict, Earle convened a third secret grand jury that returned an indictment within 4 hours!) The judge dismissed the meat of the indictment and left Earle holding an empty bag. Don't count your chickens - if this makes it past preliminaries, we'll be surprised.
Next illusion to be disspelled?
Dear M.,
Why the name-calling? You lower yourself when resorting to such means.
I am a hypocrite? Prove it. where have I defended the invasion of Viet Nam? Never. The cover-up of YOUR president's failure to report for all his monthly service requirements are documented.
Talk to a "true" liberal. They do like Hillary and shall not support her for the presidency.
Finally, I speak of individuals who did their time and were forced to do another tour. Yes, I know there are all kinds of people who make a career of the military. I speak of those who are told they have to return to iraq, and of them there are many.
Leftisbest.....it is an all volunteer armed forces meaning they own you. That is what happens when you put your name on the dotted line. Doing their time is the amount they enlisted for or the amount they stop-loss you for. Your particular branch of service owns you otherwise and can send you wherever they want whenever they want. Thats always been the way it is regardless of democrat or republican....it just happens that republicans are the only people with stones enough to attack/defend America instead of sitting there and taking shit from the world.
Then "document it." Trouble is you can't because it's all democratic BS and spin. Let's try this - We'll document it for you; you read it and research it; you prove us wrong and we'll send you a McDonald's gift certificate.
George Bush joined the TexANG in May 1968. He immediately began training - 6 weeks of basic, fifty-three weeks of flight school, twenty-one weeks of of interceptor training, 80 weeks to start. NOT 80 weekends, 80 weeks.
Guardsmen were required to accumulate 50 points PER YEAR to maintain standing. For May 68-69 (year 1), he accumulated 253 points; from May 69-70 (year 2), he had 304 points (as his anniversary date was May, all years are measured May to May). May 70-71 (year 3) 137 points. May 71-72 (year 4) 112 points.
May of 72, the so called "desertion period," Bush asked to go to Alabama to work on a senatorial campaign. In 1972, the National Guard had a glut of pilots and was releasing them from obligations left and right. Bush stopped flying and earned a paltry 56 points for May 72-73 (year 5). In 1973, Bush made plans to go to Harvard Business School. For June and July 1973, Bush earned 56 more points, enough to fulfill his yearly committment for May 73-74 (year 6).
Bush requested an early dismissal, received an honorable discharge after serving 5 years, 4 months and 5 days of a six year hitch, and went to business school. All of the above is DOCUMENTED FACT.
And since you love to split hairs, we never called you a hypocrite; we said (AND WE'll QUOTE IT HERE) "you seem to be a hypocrite of the highest order." We love how when leftists are cornered, they toss out the arguement that they'd like to defend, not the one presented.
How about answering the questions posed in the original post - where is the coverage of Lieberman? Why is an active Illinois Guardsman given less weight than a long ago retired war horse?
And as to the "forced" to return, we have an ALL VOLUNTEER force. And they voluntarily signed a contract that SPECIFICALLY spelled out the conditions by which they might be required to extend their tours by a "stop-loss" order. It's in their contract. Try reading it instead of swallowing the dems spin.
I shall get the documention on YOUR president not reporting for training. In answer to your other comments:
Splitting hairs? You state "you seem to be...." Come on, that's an old journalism trick, kind of like saying the criminal "allegedly" did the action. Am I a hypocrite because I refuse to follow the edicts of a president (Democrat or GOP) and a government which cares not about the working man? I refuse to blindly follow a president that cares not for the middle class? Where is that right to disagree and to did it respectfully? I thought you better than name-calling.
I saw the coverage of Liberman in wire stories in Tribune, Sun-Times and Washington Times. I know your boy Hannity also covered it. I know not of the blowbag Rush as I cannot listen to him. You already mentioned the op piece in the Journal so there was no news blackout. I thought you would welcome crossover support from a Democrat. Incidentally, he has angered many liberals, but that is another story.
Finally, if forces have to return to Iraq for a third (or more) tour it proves we have not the troops necessary.
(Hey Sorry Lefty- I gotta sleep sometime! Didn't know they were PILING ON you here in this cyber-blanket party...)
SCC- HOLY COW...! Do we gotta start callin' you
GUNGA DIN ? ? ?
THe LENGTHS you will CRAWL to CARRY water for the POOR LITTLE RICH BOY Georgie Junior... a man who HYPOCRITICALLY DESERTED his T.A.N.G. Unit... they SCRUBBED HIS RECORDS A FEW YEARS BACK down in Texas... just a "Rip and Tear", trash ANYTHING potentially DAMAGING to the SHRUB'S fragile image...
FOR SHAME...!
Comparing CLINTON and BUSH"S VIETNAM RECORD is POINTLESS... they BOTH did essentially the SAME thing- they DUCKED COMBAT- one way or another.
You want to know why we dont have enough troops?
After 8 years of Clinton, his Administration cut our troop strength almost in half. I got to spread the blame a little bit. GWBs old man started cutting the military, but Clinton took it too far.
I read years back, that Gore took credit for reducing the Federal government by 400,000 employees. This was when he was running for president in 2000. The problem was over 390,000 was from the department of defense. Clinton recklessly cut our active military. Now we have to deal with it.
And Yes, Clinton has to be held accountable yet again for another bad decision. It was never about Monica. I swear he is probably the worst president since Jimmy Carter. And Carter was positively horrible.
Again, Shady? Prove it. You can't prove a negative.
We can claim all day long that Clinton killed 6 hobos during the 80's as Attorney General in Arkansas and John Kerry sodomozed Vietnamese water buffalo plowing rice paddies in Southeast Asia, but we could never prove it and we'd just look like fools repeating the stories over and over.
We've stated the facts. If you can counter the facts, do so. Otherwise, you're just looking like a water carrier for the tin foil hat brigade - Gunga Shady we guess.
Lefty Lefty Lefty
Again, we still haven't called you names. Stop with the BS or we might be tempted. Journalistic tricks? Truth is now a trick? Using the English language is now a trick? Reading comprehension lesson - we never said you defended the invasion of Vietnam (again, the arguement you WANT to defend). What we said was (stated another way) that the left told repubs to get over the Vietnam thing when repubs tried (unwisely in our opinion) to use it against Clinton in 92 and 96. Repubs lost both elections. So in 2000, we ran Bush and lo and behold, Vietnam was "in play" again because of Kerry reminding everyone 27 times a day that he served in Vietnam. The democrats then, are correctly defined as hypocrites.
We have yet to attack you, only your arguments. And we eagerly await your documentation as cBS's Mary Mapes spent 6 YEARS looking for it and never found a thing. Just make sure it isn't faxed to you from a Kinko's in Texas. Be sure to get us Dan Rather's autograph, too.
Which of the below three served in battle?
( ) George W. Bush
( ) Dick Cheney
( ) Donald Rumsfeld
Hillary is a windsock, shifting her message for her audience. She is no more a reliable indicator of the left than Bill ever was. Remember when she went to New York? She was a Yankees fan all the way. Now in Chicago, she says she hopes the Cubs win? Same with her politics - she stakes out positions on abortion being "safe, legal and rare" then votes a reliable pro abortion stance or on immigration, she moves to the center and then votes as liberally as Kennedy or Kerry.
-----
Or moves Conservatively as in her support for the war.
By her actions I think we can all stop calling her a liberal. She's more of a doppelganger.....
Anonymous said...
I'm not astounded at all. I read the piece about Leiberman and as I predicted to my wife, there would be and has been any coverage about what he had to say. I think he may be the ONLY honorable Democrap left.
12/06/2005 05:56:40 AM
Leiberman my ass. He's a Zionist. He could careless about the US. His master is the state of Israel. Same with your guy Wolfowitz.
Both SCC and Lefty are tools. You guys quibble over the dumbest things. You can tell SCC is blind because he really that Bush 2 got his jet fighter fair and square. And Lefty's dumb for falling into that trap. Both of you guys wake up.
Unless you are independently wealthy and don't really have to push that beat car around, then you both matter shit to both of your heros. You two are basically arguing over which day is better Wednesday or Thursday. Who cares?? They both suck. We are all just working class slobs paying taxes and getting nothing back.
SCC, if you love Bush 2 so much take a leave of absence, grap an M4 and go fight!
Lefty, if you hate Bush 2 so much grap an AK, grow a beard and snipe some GI's.
WE better come together and figure out how WE are going to improve OUR lives fast! Cause no one's going to do it for us.
Maybe 1% of CPD can relate to these guys:
Republicrat vs. Democan
MSNBC | October 1 2004
Get past the bluster and bile, and the two products of privilege who each want to be the next President aren't all that different. How sad.
Last night was Debate Night USA. Perhaps you tuned in. But what did America really see after months of endless campaigning, hundreds of millions of dollars lavished on attack ads, and enough cheap talk [as my mama used to say] to drive any sane citizen off the nearest bridge?
Answer: Two flawed candidates -- George Walker Bush and John Forbes Kerry -- both of the same generation and privileged class, but who differ largely in style. Two representatives of the major-party duopoly that controls the debates, the political process, and the country.
You don't agree? Let's look at the Tale of the Presidential Tape.
Bush is 58. Kerry is 61.
Both went to New England prep schools [Bush to Andover, from which both his father and Kerry's father graduated. Kerry to St. Paul's].
Both went to the same college [Yale].
Both joined the same secret society [Skull & Bones].
Both served in the military. Bush was an officer in the Air National Guard [a good way to avoid Vietnam combat]. Kerry was an officer in the U.S. Navy [usually a safer alternative than the Army in those days].
Kerry saw combat and became an antiwar activist after his discharge. Bush never served overseas, disengaged from the Guard after being trained as a pilot, and worked on the political campaign of a Bush family friend.
Bush went to grad school [Harvard MBA]. Kerry went to law school [Boston College].
Bush, bankrolled with family money, pursued a largely unsuccessful career as an independent oilman. Then, again through family connections, he became a part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Kerry became a prosecutor.
Both ran for Congress and were defeated. Bush was eventually elected governor of Texas, then President. Kerry was eventually elected Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, then U.S. senator.
Both married and had two daughters. Kerry later had his marriage annulled and remarried.
Bush was an Episcopalian, then a Presbyterian, and finally a Methodist [talk about flip-floppers]. Kerry is a Roman Catholic. Bush wears his religion on his sleeve. Kerry is more circumspect about his beliefs.
Both are connected to political dynasties [Bush to the Bush Dynasty of his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, and his father, former President George H.W. Bush; Kerry to the Kennedy Dynasty, although his own ancestors include John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts, and a great-great-grandfather who was a U.S. senator].
Bush runs, bikes, and clears brush. Kerry skis, bikes, and windsurfs. Both hunt [at least for the cameras].
Both are multimillionaires.
Both are Washington insiders [Bush settled scores for his father from the White House; Kerry has been in the Senate for almost 20 years].
Both are the highly marketed and focus-group-targeted products of two competing political brands owned by Dems Inc. and GOP Inc. Corporate America has enormous equity stakes in both outfits.
Neither, despite all the spin, is a regular guy.
Think really hard......
----
Barbara Bush Calls Bill Clinton 'Son'
Drudge Report | June 17, 2005
Former President Bill Clinton discussed his relationship with President Bush's father last night on CBS LATE SHOW.
Clinton: "I think we're good friends. I like him very much. I've always liked him. When he was vice president, I was still a governor. We worked together on a number of things. He hosted the governors, in 1983...at Kennebunkport."
When they made an announcement about raising funds for Tsunami relief in Houston former First Lady Barbara Bush "announced us. And she said she has started to call me son. I told the Republicans there, I said don't worry, every family has one, you know, the black sheep. I told them, this just shows you the lengths the Bushes would go to get another president in the family. I wish I could get them to adopt Hillary."
Bush picks brains of Clinton, father
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE -- President Bush solicited foreign policy advice from former President Bill Clinton at CIA briefings this week and even told Mr. Clinton that he liked his approach to reforming Social Security.
'It was really a lot of fun, Mr. Bush told reporters yesterday after spending three days with Mr. Clinton and former President George Bush in Rome.
'These CIA briefings a lot of time prompt policy discussions,' he added. 'It's interesting to get their points of view about their experiences in particular countries.'
...
Comparing himself favorably to Mr. Clinton is the latest in a series of recent moves by Mr. Bush to strengthen relations with the man who vanquished his father in 1992. The thaw comes after years in which Mr. Bush talked of the need to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House' in the post-Clinton era.
Earlier this year, the president dispatched Mr. Clinton to help his father orchestrate relief efforts for tsunami victims in Asia. This week, Mr. Bush brought his two predecessors to Rome on Air Force One for Pope John Paul II's funeral.
....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
POST LINKS, not FULL ARTICLES. There are copyright issues involved.
First of all, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
Second of all, post a link or we'll keep deleting it.
Sorry, bro, just figure people are too lazy to look up the link, esp. if it's some thing they don't like.
Dont' want no trouble...
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
Check this sight out!
<< Home