October 18, 2006
A hat tip of thanks to my friend Jeremiah at Jeremayakovka for forwarding me an email from Wesley Clark’s WESPAC-Securing America.
In an article titled Fight Back Against Swift boating, we read Wes Clark’s opening salvo of
“I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect.”Neither I nor any Red Blooded American can argue with these words. However, since it appears Wes Clark has taken a page right out of John ‘F’in Kerry’s campaign strategy book, reading either of them saying these words is absurd.
To begin with, simply having worn the uniform of our Brave Military does not automatically qualify one for Public Office. If Military Service is to be considered a prerequisite for being elected we have to wonder why World War Two Veterans, George H.W. Bush and Robert Dole were so heavily opposed in 1992 and 1996 by the Democratic Party in favor of Viet Nam era Draft Dodger, B.J. Clinton.
If Military Service and being Veterans were actually all that important to Democrats we also have to ask why the Gore campaign, in the 2000 debacle of the Florida recounts, worked so diligently to deny Military Absentee ballots over mere technicalities, when it was Al Gore stating, “Every single vote must be counted.” Maybe to them, that doesn’t apply to our Brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines serving overseas?
Clark goes on to say,
“That's why I am so outraged that the Republican party has systematically attacked the wartime service and patriotism of veterans who are running for office as Democrats. It is despicable -- the sign of a party more concerned about hanging onto power by any means possible than with giving veterans the respect they have earned.”
If Mr. Clark really finds attacking Veterans as so “despicable,” how does he, Kerry and the rest of the Democrat Party justify their derogatory usage of the term, “Swift Boating?” The Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, that openly opposed John Kerry’s 2004 campaign for President, have been under constant assault ever since they were noticed. They have been called “hacks,” “a Republican Front Group,” and "dishonest and dishonorable" by RINO Arizona Senator and long time friend of John Kerry, John McCain. In reality they are a group of some 250 highly decorated Viet Nam Combat Veterans, many of whom served with Kerry and felt he was unfit for the highest office in the land.
The Republican Party did not fund them nor direct them; they were a true grassroots movement, solely to oppose the election of Kerry. While it is true that a wealthy Republican from Texas made a generous initial donation to get them started, once the public started taking notice of the group, who else would we expect to make donations to them? Surely George Soros or Michael Moore wouldn’t be expected to donate money to an anti-Kerry group.
After the initial donation, they were funded by hundreds of people, maybe even more, like me. Those of us that were active on their discussion board answered the call and gave what we could.
I ask you, Mr. Clark, where is the respect you claim all Veterans are due for this group of highly decorated and honorable Veterans? Why is it that Veterans who oppose yours and Kerry’s small band of Veterans are attacked, denigrated and ridiculed for voicing their “freedom of speech?” Did we not also earn the right to support or oppose those we see fit?
Since the candidates Clark is supporting in this email are not from my state, I see no need to address their suitability for Public office that is best left to the voters in their states. I do not see a need to identify just who Wesley Clark is and what he has stood for before anyone donates money to him under what could possibly be a false pretense.
Wesley Clark, failed hopeful candidate for the Presidency in 2004, is a retired four star General, having served in the United States Army. Under the Clinton administration, he was NATO Commander when President Clinton intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo. A long time friend of fellow Little Rock, Arkansas resident, B.J. Clinton, Clark has been referred to as “a horse’s ass” by an unidentified pentagon official.
While serving as the Supreme Allied Commander in the Kosovo Bombings, Mr. Clark is reported to have attempted bombing the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, leading to the reply of, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." During this time the Chinese embassy was bombed, accidentally of course. It is possible that this could have contributed to his being fired from his Command by the Clinton administration.
Retired General Hugh Shelton, when asked about the firing of Clark, replied in part,
“I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . ."
Returning to Clark’s emailing,
“If there is one lesson we learned from the 2004 presidential race, it is that when the Republicans question your patriotism, you have to hit back -- hard.”
“That's why I'm asking you to support four candidates who have become the latest victims of the Republican "Swift Boat" tactics.”
Clark, like Kerry and other Democrats, think stating “Swift Boating” as a despicable act might exonerate their own lack of integrity or Service, even if once in uniform. In reality, “Swift Boating” refers to “revealing a truth a politician would prefer remain hidden.” What they also try to hide in claiming the Swifties are a “Republican Front Group,” is that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spokesman during the campaign, John O’Neill, is a lifelong Democrat!
Receiving this email and several others from the likes of Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and more, it is clearly apparent to me that the Democrats have no regard for Veterans, other than the small handful running for Democrat seats. “Hitting back hard” at Veterans while crying that your “Veterans” are being “attacked,” and stating, ”If you wore the uniform … then you have earned the right to be treated with respect,” is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Americans, especially us Veterans, have every right to "question any candidates Patriotism," Mr. Clark. Redefining the word to fit the leftist agenda of "surrender at all costs," does not make one Patriotic.
Former Military have equal rights in running for office as we all do, but running based on the wearing of a uniform is not what the majority of America wants. We want to hear and see what you stand for, not how you can exaggerate Military Service.
I am left with a final question for Mr. Clark. What it is like to be the only General officer in the history of our country to be fired by the only Draft Dodger to be elected in the history of our country?
Lew
Posts
18 comments:
What it is like to be the only General officer in the history of our country to be fired by the only Draft Dodger to be elected in the history of our country?
Ouch! That'll leave a mark.
I keep hearing about these Democrat veterans being "swiftboated" but I have yet to read of any whose service and post-service activity contained documented elements of fraud, sedition and/or treason.
We can't allow them to get away with making "Swift Boating" a derogatory term nor can we allow them to make opposing their candidates as "attacks."
They have nothing to offer except attacks and mud, yet they call honest opposition "attacks."
Just like "anonymous", your concluding question was a whopper! Glad this was useful. I always appreciate your perspective, Lew.
Wow!
So many good points. I was always disturbed by the way the Democrats quickly disregarded military absentee ballots. Your last paragraph is a classic. Great essay.
Opposing vets based on "facts" is one thing....Being payed (book sales, Abramoff deals) to lie about someone's service is disgusting. If you think John O'Neil didn't have an axe to grind against Kerry and didn't care about making money then you sir are a moron. Clark is a good man who is sick of chicken hawk repubs claiming to have a monopoly on security. Oh yeah and another thing: You say Clark wanted to start WWIII (he told a british general to park on the airport runway so unwelcome russians couldn't land) then you basically call him 'captain surrender'...you make no sense.
Anonymous: Opposing vets based on "facts" is one thing....Being payed (book sales, Abramoff deals) to lie about someone's service is disgusting.
Ah yes, the pitifully misled left chimes in with the obligatory apologist rhetoric. Allow me to educate you a little, one who is so ashamed to leave their name:
100% of the proceeds from “Unfit for Command” were donated to Navy charity. Of course there were expenses, but whatever profit occurred was donated.
The Swift Vets received no pay and are still being denigrated and slandered.
No one has lied about Kerry. If there are misconceptions about his scant 4 months in country, he has only himself to blame for not opening his FULL and UNSANTITIZED Military Jacket to the public for scrutiny, as did both John O’Neil and George W. Bush.
There are still several unanswered questions about his abbreviated tour that could be cleared up immediately by a FULL Public disclosure of his records, not just to 3 friendly reporters.
If you think John O'Neil didn't have an axe to grind against Kerry and didn't care about making money then you sir are a moron.
If you think that the vast majority of us who served full tours and more in Viet Nam and remember John Kerry’s treasonous actions against us don’t also have an axe to grind with him, as well as others, then you are a pusillanimous dullard. If only O’Neil and the rest of the Swifties had made money off of their revelations and opposition of Kerry, but they did not.
Clark is a good man who is sick of chicken hawk repubs claiming to have a monopoly on security.
Clark is a left-winged Clintonite “horse’s ass,” as the unnamed source in the Pentagon said he was. He is a “pretty boy,” or as some who served with him say, the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince,” that has excused Saddam Hussein’s actions due to a self declared "Statute of Limitations for Genocidal Thugs." He views the American intervention in Kosovo as a “good idea,” even though there wasn’t even a slightly remote threat to us from them, but views Iraq as a “bad idea,” even though virtually every intelligence agency in existence thought and reported there were WMD’s there that could fall into the hands of terrorists. Even the 911 Commission stated there were links between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda, although not in relation to the 9/11 attacks.
He was caught lying about being called by the White House immediately after the 9/11 attacks urging him to go on CNN and blame Saddam Hussein for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. After repeatedly being pressed about the claim, he eventually admitted the White House never called him and instead, he had received the call from "a man from a--of a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium." It turned out to be Thomas Hecht, who heads the one-man Montreal office for the Israel-based Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies. That’s a far cry from the “White House.”
He claims success in his war in Yugoslavia, but the ethnic cleansing has not stopped nor have our troops sent there under his Command by Clinton, made it home “by Christmas.” Yet, you lefty moonbats see no problem with supporting those that wish to murder us there. He defended that war as "coercive diplomacy."
As a former, if not disgraced, General Officer, he should know all too well how this talk undermines the morale and spirit of our troops. Playing politics with the lives of our Military people while they are in harm’s way is what is truly disgusting.
Oh yeah and another thing: You say Clark wanted to start WWIII (he told a british general to park on the airport runway so unwelcome russians couldn't land) then you basically call him 'captain surrender'
No, I did not say that. British General Sir Mike Jackson said, "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," to Mr. Clark. An August 3, 1999 article in the British publication, the Guardian, printed, “No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war.” Their description is a far cry from, “park on the airport runway so unwelcome russians couldn't land.”
Since Mr. Clark has decided to fall in step with the leftist moonbats, he apparently has decided adopting the typical “cut and run” agenda favored by others. Odd how political favor changes a person, isn’t it?
...you make no sense.
Of course not. You would need at least a double digit I.Q. to see Clark for the charlatan he is. It must be a real feather in the cap of the left to support the only general in history to be fired by the only Draft Dodger elected in our history.
Lew
Hey Lew,
How would you like it if I questioned your short tenure in Vietnam fixing planes while Clark was being shot. Nobody saw you. Did you even show up? Prove it!
The fact that Saddam was not a big threat to us (look how fast we got him without him using a single WMD on us) and Iraq was secular and not fundamentalist (like it is now) somehow alludes your high IQ. The fact is our troops are doing all the work to correct a huge mistake that was made in Washington.
As far as Clark calling for 'cut and run' that is very far from the truth. He is on record not wanting a time table...rather he would like Bush and Rummy to get their heads out of their arses and figure out what the hell we are doing in Iraq and what we are supposed to do to achieve a 'victory'. It was a big mistake to go into Iraq...now what are we going to do to "win"? I am afraid Bush doesn't have an answer to that and more afraid that it doesn't really matter to him or his supporters.
Anonymous: How would you like it if I questioned your short tenure in Vietnam fixing planes while Clark was being shot. Nobody saw you. Did you even show up? Prove it!
LOL, no one saw me? Hate to tell you, but plenty saw me and I am in contact with several still.
My “short tenure” consisted of 18 months, twice that spent by both Kerry and Gore, combined. And, it is documented in Army Records and my DD-214s which would be opened to the public if I were a public official, unlike your hero, sKerry.
It was helicopters, not planes. I may not have been shot (something I’m really not all that sorry for), but apparently you didn’t spend much time in An Khe. Sappers, mortars and rockets took up the slack.
The fact that Saddam was not a big threat to us (look how fast we got him without him using a single WMD on us) and Iraq was secular and not fundamentalist (like it is now) somehow alludes your high IQ. The fact is our troops are doing all the work to correct a huge mistake that was made in Washington.
Iraq wasn’t exactly “secular” under Saddam nor is it “fundamentalist” now as you claim. As for WMD’s, in the six month long “rush to war,” where did they go? Don’t tell me you feel all the Democrats speaking of the dangers of them years before Bush was even a candidate were lies?
Our troops are doing their jobs, as they were trained for and doing very well, in spite of all the opposition from the left. Just like you all did during Viet Nam, you support our enemy and undermine the troops efforts and then blame it all on someone else.
As far as Clark calling for 'cut and run' that is very far from the truth. He is on record not wanting a time table...rather he would like Bush and Rummy to get their heads out of their arses and figure out what the hell we are doing in Iraq and what we are supposed to do to achieve a 'victory'. It was a big mistake to go into Iraq...now what are we going to do to "win"? I am afraid Bush doesn't have an answer to that and more afraid that it doesn't really matter to him or his supporters.
I will accept your correction on the call to withdraw. I apparently have him confused with Murtha on that point. Still, like the rest of the Democrats, he offers no solution to what they see as a problem, just condemnation.
The rest of your rhetoric is typical of the left. I disagree Iraq was a mistake. Clark’s condemnation of Iraq and calling Kosovo a “good war” shows whose head is up whose ass.
It doesn’t enter the feeble minds of the leftists that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups receive feeds of our media, much like North Viet Nam did. All the rhetoric against Bush and the battles in Iraq just embolden them all the more and if they learned anything from the North Vietnamese, it was to inflict casualties and just hang on until the left hands them another country on a silver platter.
OK...I get it....you think our news media should only air propaganda for the Bush adminstration. Don't talk bad about Bush because Al Qaeda likes it and makes them think they are winning.
Are you kidding? Bin Laden loves Bush. They love that he didn't stop 9/11 and invaded Iraq. You know what really makes them think they are winning...george w bush. They love the constant terror alerts...they love when Bush quotes that Al Qaeda said that 'Iraq is the central front of the war on terror'. The GOP is putting out ads to make people afraid of terror attacks at home so they will vote for idiot republican leaders who don't know shit about how to stop them.
Why make americans afraid if we are winning the war on terror? Terrorists want to make us scared. So what does the GOP do? Embolden them by releasing constant terror alerts right before elections. Bush should just do his job and stop these nut jobs before they hit us again instead of making us afraid all the time so he can cover his ass. Republican embolden the terrorists more than anyone.
Why was it in our terror fighting interest to largely ignore Afghanistan and leave it behind to the Taliban and instead invade one of the only places in the middle east where woman had rights and Christians didn't get their heads chopped off for being Christian...Bagdad.
Here is a quote for Bush Senior's Book:
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition turning the whole Arab world against us...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt ….and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war...It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to reestablish"
So Lew...tell me...who was right W or Bush #1?
Teddy: OK...I get it....you think our news media should only air propaganda for the Bush adminstration.
Nice try, Teddy, but I don’t fall for leftist tripe. Does it ever occur to you that maybe both sides should be broadcast? Doesn’t it make you wonder why all you hear is bad news from Iraq?
Coming home from Viet Nam, I, like many of returning troops today, wonder what they are talking about. What we read in the news and saw in person were entirely different.
Reporting the good and the bad isn’t propaganda; it’s called presenting both sides.
Are you kidding? Bin Laden loves Bush.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Hate to tell you, but ol Usama doesn’t “love” any American, you lefties included.
They love that he didn't stop 9/11 and invaded Iraq.
Oh yes, Bush, the bumbling idiot with no I.Q. that deftly misled the entire Democrat Party and craftily paid no attention to his crystal ball to stop what had been coming over the past 8 years when little heed was paid.
The GOP is putting out ads to make people afraid of terror attacks at home so they will vote for idiot republican leaders who don't know shit about how to stop them.
Pray tell, what plan to stop any of it has the Democrat put forth? Singing Kumbaya doesn’t work well as it doesn’t translate into the language of those who will behead you, your wife, your mother, your daughters, sons, aunts, uncles and entire family just for not converting. That isn’t fearmongering, my friend, that is trying to let you know there is a real threat and it has been growing through Democrat and Republican administrations over the past 27 years.
Why make americans afraid if we are winning the war on terror?
Why bury your heads in the sand and pretend it will all go away if we just get rid of Bush and abandon Iraq?
I’m not afraid, are you? I prefer to be aware of threats that will cost me my life. I prefer someone leading who finally stands up to this menace of Islamofascism. If you don’t want to fight them now, you will be fighting them in our own streets one day, maybe not that far in the future.
Terrorists want to make us scared. So what does the GOP do? Embolden them by releasing constant terror alerts right before elections.
Warning of possible impending attacks emboldens the enemy? Stopping them before they happen emboldens the enemy? That’s a logic only the left could master.
Bush should just do his job and stop these nut jobs before they hit us again
Uh, in case you haven’t noticed, we haven’t been hit again since 2001, not once. How many times was US interests attacked during the previous 8 years?
Why was it in our terror fighting interest to largely ignore Afghanistan and leave it behind to the Taliban and instead invade one of the only places in the middle east where woman had rights and Christians didn't get their heads chopped off for being Christian...Bagdad.
You really have no clue, do you? Mass graves, reports of opposers to Saddam being fed into shredders feet first, to listen to the left, Iraq was idealyc under a wonderful compassionate Saddam Hussein before the mean evil George W. Bush stole an election just so he could start a war, after deftly hypnotizing the entire world to think innocent Al Qaeda members high-jacked and flew airliners into buildings on September 11, 2001.
Hate to tell you, but Afghanistan isn’t being ignored. Then again, why worry? If, as you left say, Bush has cut and run from there, why worry? Isn’t that exactly what you want him to do for Iraq?
You lefty’s always think you can have it both ways.
So Lew...tell me...who was right W or Bush #1?
So, Bush Sr. said it was a bad idea? So what? He isn’t President and didn’t have the responsibility of mounting a national defense after 9/11, his son did.
Funnier still is the words of one of your heroes from 1997:
“Even after the overwhelming defeat that the coalition forces visited
upon Iraq in and near Kuwait in the Desert Storm conflict, Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein's truculence has continued unabated. In the
final days of that conflict, a fateful decision was made not to utterly
vanquish the Iraqi Government and armed forces, on the grounds that to
do so would leave a risky vacuum, as some then referred to it, in the
Middle East which Iran or Syria or other destabilizing elements might
move to fill.”
This was after opposing the first Gulf War, incidentally.
“Saddam Hussein, who unquestionably has
demonstrated a kind of perverse personal resiliency, may be looking at
the international landscape and concluding that, just perhaps, support
may be waning for the United States's determination to keep him on a
short leash via multilateral sanctions and weapons inspections.”
“We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has
any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous
consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot
ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and
unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of
weapons of mass destruction. .. “
“In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N.
military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy,
as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and
manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military
command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in
a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable
behavior.
This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise
missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.
But how long this military action might continue and how it may
escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be
its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for
Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.”
“Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an
acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted--which I hope will
not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to
have even begun--the United States must not lose its resolve to take
action.”
You tell me who was right, John Kerry today, or back in 1997 when he spoke the above words before the Senate in a speech titled, “We must be firm with Saddam Hussein?
Hey Lew, In case you haven't figured it out I am not fan of John Kerry. I am a Clark supporter.
Talking bad Kerry doesn't bother me at all unless you are talking about the Swift Boat Vets for 'truth' GOP propaganda operation. How can you support those guys when you did not know Kerry when you were in Vietnam? They have the right to speak but not to level numerous charges without proof hoping something will stick. I guess it is what Kerry said when he got back that makes you support them, right? I can understand that.
Anyways, I wish they would report good news out of Iraq...too bad there is not much good going on. If there was then why doesn't bush speak up about it anymore?
BTW I am not for pulling out of Iraq (and certainly not Afghanistan) at this point. I just think it was a huge mistake to try occupy the country in the first place. We should have got out when Bush gave his speech under "Mission Accomplished". We got Saddam, we got the non-existant WMD. We won! By staying there we got into trouble and now we can't leave because we have allowed such a huge mess to unfold. So what are we going to do to "win" now - nobody knows...not you...not me...and not Bush.
Don't you ever hold republicans responsible for anything? Ah never mind...I guess it really doesn't matter anyways since they have all the power.
Hey Lew, In case you haven't figured it out I am not fan of John Kerry. I am a Clark supporter.
Hard to tell, they all start sounding alike after a while.
Talking bad Kerry doesn't bother me at all unless you are talking about the Swift Boat Vets for 'truth' GOP propaganda operation. How can you support those guys when you did not know Kerry when you were in Vietnam?
Sorry, no go, Ted. The Swifties are not a GOP Propaganda operation. You can repeat it as much as you wish, it won’t make it true.
As for knowing Kerry, why should I have to know him? His actions speak loudly as well as his acquiring 3 Purple Hearts in 3 months without spending a single night in the hospital. I saw medal seekers when there and they too were opportunists.
They have the right to speak but not to level numerous charges without proof hoping something will stick. I guess it is what Kerry said when he got back that makes you support them, right? I can understand that.
His words and actions speak for themselves. His post Viet Nam conduct and so many unanswered questions as well as so many eyewitness accounts are what make me support them.
Anyways, I wish they would report good news out of Iraq...too bad there is not much good going on. If there was then why doesn't bush speak up about it anymore?
There is plenty of good news as well as many heroes the lamestream media never reports on. I read accounts in DAV magazine, VFW magazine and even Vietnam magazine, as well visiting Centcom.com and MNFI.com. All one has to do it look and talk to many returning Vets.
So what are we going to do to "win" now - nobody knows...not you...not me...and not Bush.
Guess what? We aren’t supposed to know. If we know, then Al Qaeda knows. You don’t fight a war by broadcasting your intentions to the world.
Don't you ever hold republicans responsible for anything? Ah never mind...I guess it really doesn't matter anyways since they have all the power.
Don’t you ever hold Democrats responsible for anything?
We conservatives are free to agree with or disagree with Congress or the Senate and even Bush. We often do. The left, on the other hand, much march lockstep against everything the right stands for out of fear of alienation from the group. Ask Lieberman about that.
As for who has all the power, seems to me the minority party exercised quite a bit filibustering in the past years. Seems to me also that the left has infiltrated several lower levels of government that actually control localities and set up a leftist agenda we have to follow, or else.
Hey Lew,
I was thinking about your numerous Kerry quotes about WMD and Saddam. The thing is you believe Kerry is soft...you and I know he wouldn't have occupied Iraq. He would have put meaningless sanctions on Saddam like Clinton was doing.
Can you please explain to me why Bush and Cheney made our guys occupy Iraq when bubba clinton's sanction/missle strike/isolation policy on Iraq was a proven winner (Evidence No WMD Found. No WMD used by Saddam or Iraqi forces)? or was it that he just had no plan for what to do after we got Saddam? Ultimately leaving our troops in harms way when the original mission to destroy WMD and take out Saddam was technically already accomplished?
Can you please explain to me why Bush and Cheney made our guys occupy Iraq when bubba clinton's sanction/missle strike/isolation policy on Iraq was a proven winner (Evidence No WMD Found. No WMD used by Saddam or Iraqi forces)?
Nice try, Ted. As I said earlier, in the six months long rush to war, WMDs could have been spirited out and some have come forward stating such happened, only to be ignored or ridiculed by the left.
Your “proven winner” scenario falls apart when you look at the Oil for Food program and how it was misused to pay off officials at the UN. He was not contained and there is evidence he was supporting terror and possibly even training them in Iraq.
or was it that he just had no plan for what to do after we got Saddam?
I know that is what the left likes to say, but unless you are in his head, you can only speculate. Any ways, war never goes as planned, just the nature of things. As Winston Churchill once said, “War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.” Most all plans fall apart as soon as you are facing an enemy.
Ultimately leaving our troops in harms way when the original mission to destroy WMD and take out Saddam was technically already accomplished?
To have just walked out and leave Iraq in a vacuum would be the biggest blunder of all. Syria, Iran and who knows who else would have stepped in and created an even worse situation.
Why does the left expect and demand instant success and formation of a new government in Iraq, but can’t see that Germany and Japan as well as our own government, took many years longer?
You all need to learn this isn’t a video game. Had others that initially said they were with us actually joined in and helped things might possibly have gone better. In fact, if Europe had stood with us against him, had they stood behind the 17 UN resolutions in the 12 years in between, I feel there is a strong possibility that Saddam would have capitulated and the war might have been averted.
We’ll never know now.
Well good talking to you Lew. Time to get some sleep here. I guess we can agree to disagree for now. Just do me a favor and don't allow Rush Limgbaugh and the gang warp you into thinking liberals want to take away your rights. We are the new conservatives when it comes to keeping the government out our bedrooms. Sleep tight.
I guess we can agree to disagree for now.
Nothing wrong with disagreeing agreeably
Just do me a favor and don't allow Rush Limgbaugh and the gang warp you into thinking liberals want to take away your rights.
At my age, I know full well who has been slowly stripping me of liberties and rights. Maybe I’ll rewrite a post I did long ago about Freedom Lost, showing how the left has gradually taken freedoms and liberties away from us.
We are the new conservatives when it comes to keeping the government out our bedrooms.
A bit of a misconception there, Ted. We real conservatives don’t want in your bedroom, or even your living room. I am perfectly content with you living life as you see fit, as long as you don’t push whatever your lifestyle is off on me.
Not all conservatives are far right radical Christians, any more than all liberals are far left loony moonbats.
But, since you mention it, maybe you can explain how we have the first amendment’s Freedom of Speech and at the same time, the left gave us “hate speech” regulations. I’m having a difficult time grasping that one.
Well I do see your point on hate speech/crime. I personally don't like how it can be considered a worse offense when someone just happens to be a minority or gay. However, if race, religion or sexual orientation is the only reason for the hate and the 'victim' did nothing personally against the aggressor it is probably a good idea in order to deter people from rounding up all the X's and shooting them.
The main problem I have with the GOP is that they seem to want to force everyone to conform to christian values when they do not practice them themselves. Whatever happend to helping those with the least and understanding and acceptance of those who are different. Jesus was very big on those things.
Ted: The main problem I have with the GOP is that they seem to want to force everyone to conform to christian values when they do not practice them themselves. Whatever happend to helping those with the least and understanding and acceptance of those who are different. Jesus was very big on those things.
Ted, please refer back to where I said, "Not all conservatives are far right radical Christians, any more than all liberals are far left loony moonbats.
Many preach and teach their personal bias and use the Bible to back up their view. This happens from all sides and if scripture is chosen carefully, it fits well.
By the same token, misuse of the Bible has been used several times over the centuries to support what we today reject. Slavery, wife beating, suppression of the Blacks, and more, for just a few examples.
By the same token, I could ask the pro-choice crowd how they can justify abortion by your question. Who amongst us besides the unborn could be considered the most vulnerable and in need of help? (no, I’m not trying to move the discussion to abortion, just using that as an example).
I also see the left often times forcing their lifestyle upon us and not being accepting of those whose values differ with them.
Conservatives aren’t anti-poor; we would like to see all bettering themselves and bettering society. Paltry hand-outs and keeping someone living in a ghetto environment isn’t helping them, it’s holding them back. As the old saying goes, “give a man a fish and you’ll feed him today. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for the rest of his life.”
Even in Biblical times, when God commanded the Israelites to leave 10% of their crops for the poor, the poor had to come and glean (harvest) them themselves, it wasn’t handed to them. (Leviticus 19:9-10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-20)
Post a Comment