I love it when a poll says basically what I have been saying all along.

It will be interesting to see what happens to these poll numbers when Thompson actully enters the race and has to begin debating his opponents.

I predict that by December all of the present Republican candidates are in single digits, with "Please Dear God Don't Let Any Of These Guys Win The Nomination" polling about 78%.

Godalmighty. The Republicans are a major party, last I checked. And we're hoping for a TV actor to save us, so that we don't have to choose between a cross-dressing pro-choice pro-gay-marriage thrice-divorced Guiliani, and the Massachusetts Mormon? What if, God forbid, we find out there's not much to Thompson either? I mean, he's doing well in the polls because he hasn't had much to say yet.

Godalmighty. The Republicans are a major party, last I checked. And we're hoping for a TV actor to save us, so that we don't have to choose between a cross-dressing pro-choice pro-gay-marriage thrice-divorced Guiliani, and the Massachusetts Mormon?

Right, Sounds like you are one of those "David Duke Republicans"

Sounds more like he's paying attention to reality more than the shallow and blind ideology that you belch continuously.

Right, Sounds like you are one of those "David Duke Republicans"

Posted by Bowa
* * * *

Um, I'll ignore the non sequitur for now. What I actually am is a conservative who wants to win the White House in 2008. And I don't see at all how any of the clowns currently in the race can do that.

It's still early. Hopefully in a few months both the Dems and the Repubs turn to people not currently in the mix--maybe a Bob Riley or a Haley Barbour on the R side; Evan Bayh maybe for the Dems. Were I a Dem, I wouldn't be too thrilled with the roster of choices either.

Were I a Dem, I wouldn't be too thrilled with the roster of choices either.

Not thrilled but looking at the spendservatives and what they have to offer, just another dumb troglodyte of propaganda rhetoric for the corporate profit share.

And yet another homoerotic reference from Boyd.

Well, good news. We happen to have a Republican candidate for the presidency who is very accepting of your lifestyle choice.

Ron Paul is the only Republican I would ever consider voting for. Too bad a TV actor gets more attention - sort of a reflection on the sad state of our society.

What if, God forbid, we find out there's not much to Thompson either?

Newt comes in to save the republican party.

LOL!

OBI, OBI, OBI!!!!

Where's Rob?

Plus he is a white southerner. I guess he'd shore up what we already feel is our strongest geographic area.

And that makes you feel good about yourself. The South?

You must be so proud. Time for a Tractor Pull. Yee-Haa!!

I give Thompson an "A" on presentation, an "A" on political saavy, and a "C" on his record.

His ability to position himself as the one true conservative in the GOP race shows some real brilliance that cannot be ignored.

It's starting to look like a three horse race -- Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. I don't think McCain will be in contention from here on out. The GOP base might have been able to forgive him for McCain-Feingold, but there's no way they will forgive him for McCain-Kennedy also -- I think that was the final nail in his coffin.

Lokisfur while rightisright's politics is shitty unto Me DO NOT associate Him with David Duke. You dig THAT?? Thanks.

Larry

Too bad a TV actor gets more attention - sort of a reflection on the sad state of our society.

Posted by JOE at 2007-06-12 04:22 PM | Reply


Paris Hilton?

What if, God forbid, we find out there's not much to Thompson either?

There ain't.

Other than voting not to impeach Clinton and helping to punt Nixon, he's all stage and script. His Senatorial cut and run after 9-11 to get the big Hollywood bucks and a trophy wife ain't gonna polish his image either.

And that makes you feel good about yourself. The South?

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-06-12 04:49 PM | Reply

Funny how ignorance and bigotry go hand-in-hand. But not a surprise from someone who is proud of shitholes like Detroit, Philadelphia and other blue specks on the red map.

Let's have a tweaker shoot-out! Yee-Haa!

the democratic party is sunk if they nominate Hillary.. not only will she lose the general election, her being there will cause massive collateral damage for the rest of the party in the election. Any democratic senator or congressman up for re-election will have to battle off hordes of new voters that only see the (R) next to the names they're voting for.

Defending the South while making accusations of bigotry all in the same post.

You can't make that shit up. Great one Vernon!!!!

Irony, come on in and have a seat. You ain't gonna believe this!

"Newt comes in to save the republican party.

LOL!

I've gone to see Newt twice here in Manhattan. Once where he spoke alone (with Charlie Rose from PBS) and once where he debated Mario Cuomo. I hated Newt because of what he was doing during the Clinton years but Newt unlike most of the other Republicans makes a lot of sense these days. Also, your usual NY liberal seemed to warm up to Newt in a big way - could it be because what he says is finally something interesting and different and makes sense?

He's not speaking in the usual GOP bumper sticker slogan but actually sounding very cutting edge. Lots of good and innovative ideas.

We may finally get an election where a lot of the moral stuff is put in perspective which all means Guiliani is in play and so is Newt.

Thompson is a puppet of the amnesty bill mastermind Rove. Rove is pulling strings for Tompson and I am sure Thompson has promised to support his bill in return. Why else do you think Thompson is stalling. Of course we wont be able to ask Thompson for quite some time as he is too busy traveeling to Isreal and London to campaign over there instead of here, to Americans. Is Mexico next on his International campaign tour?


Just one more rope a dope for Karl Rove...the dopes being Thompson supporters.

I still haven't seen an answer to a prety basic question.

Why should a corporate lobyist who helped bring about the Savings & Loan debacle be rewarded with the Presidency?

He worked to screw over a lot of American's long term retirement investments to run a get-rich-quick scheme.
Where's the long term visionary thinking necessary in a President?

Or have the Bush years done away with that requirement?

Why should a corporate lobyist who helped bring about the Savings & Loan debacle be rewarded with the Presidency?

I seem to remember Democrats not caring about sending one of their guys from "Whitewater" to the "White House" - so why would Thompson being a lobbyist for Savings & Loans have any impact on his candidacy at all?

Rudy has zero chance. You read it here first.

It's 2007 Bowa. Do you have anything to say to someone who was 14 in 1992? I didn't vote for Clinton so the hypocrite card doesn't work.

I'm not letting Thompson off the hook because of Whitewater.

No Briwo.

You heard OBI Giulani here first months ago.

Out
Before
Iowa

Do you have anything to say to someone who was 14 in 1992?


Just because he was a "lobbyist" doesn't mean he was behind "screwing" people out of their retirement accounts

Do you have proof that that Thompson was involved in criminal activities related to the S&L scandals?

If it was Rudy versus Hillary who would win NYS?

Being a lifelong NYer, AND a Democrat, sorry to say but Rudy wins. Yes Hillary is a NY Senator but she ran against no one ergo a victory.

It might be close because NY loves Bill Clinton, but at the end of the day, I'd bet they'd buy Rudy over Hillary and that makes for a whole different strategy the GOP could use to retake the WH.

As an ex Mayor, Rudy can talk the talk of the US city and so I'm sure he would run fairly well in most big cities.

The Dems would have to have a different strategy to deal with it.

Rudy has zero chance. You read it here first.

get in line, I've read it here numerous times the pst few months.

I think you mean Ron Paul has zero chance.

Rudy on the other hand has been the frontrunner now for 6 months -- that doesn't happen by mistake.

He has a very good chance of winnning the nomination -- at least a 33% chance to win in fact -- if you believe as I do that it's a three horse race in the GOP -- Rudy, Romney, and Thompson.

As an ex Mayor, Rudy can talk the talk of the US city

Rudy in NY would have to run against the NYFD. They never bought his Mr. 9-11 Hero bullshit and they'll make sure the rest of the country doesn't.
Rudy only looks good on 9-11 cause the Commander-in-Chief went comatose. Then he ran to Cornhole Nebraska.
Rudy would also have to explain why shooting a guy 87 times while he's reaching for his wallet, or stuffing brooms up guys' asses is good big city crime fighting.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with a pro-gay, pro-abortion pro-gun control Republican President.

The Republicans, however, probably do.

If it was Rudy versus Hillary who would win NYS?

Being a lifelong NYer, AND a Democrat, sorry to say but Rudy wins. Yes Hillary is a NY Senator but she ran against no one ergo a victory.

It might be close because NY loves Bill Clinton, but at the end of the day, I'd bet they'd buy Rudy over Hillary and that makes for a whole different strategy the GOP could use to retake the WH.

As an ex Mayor, Rudy can talk the talk of the US city and so I'm sure he would run fairly well in most big cities.


The Dems would have to have a different strategy to deal with it.

Posted by GZlives at 2007-06-12 06:29 PM
Bullshit- if I'm still allowed to say that General Cadenhead- I work with a couple of people from NYC who hate Rudy.

I feel sorry for this country.

Rudy, Romney, and Thompson.

More like Moe, Larry and Curly.

How embarrassing.

I work with a couple of people from NYC who hate Rudy.

Rudy would win New York -- he would likely lose Manhattan, but he has a good chance winning all the other boroughs. Rudy, of course, would win upstate NY which is far more republican then the city is.

I also think Rudy could win in California.

I don't see how a democrat could win the Presidency losing NY and CA.

I also think Rudy could win in California.

You're stoned. He wouldn't win Orange County. I live here.

Feinstein and Boxer have a better chance to win the presidency than Giuliani, if all you do is count California.

You're stoned. He wouldn't win Orange County. I live here.

If arnold could win california, so could rudy.

It is a bastion of moderate republicans and right leaning independents

"I work with a couple of people from NYC who hate Rudy."

And so your scientific polling data reveals Rudy can't win in NY ITSME?

And I work with a couple of people who love him ... and so I guess my people cancel out your people.

Jeeesh how dumb does it get in here?

Rudy suffers from a horrible showing in the Black community. In NYC probably at least 75% have a negative view of him. Why? Thank Al Sharpton. There was a whole lot of race baiting that went on when Rudy ran against and beat our first Black Mayor
David Dinkins. Try and imagine what Sharpton and gang were doing on the streets to try and help Dinkins get another term. Things had gotten so bad here in NYC, that the voters rejected Dinkins but he did get the vast majority of the Black and minority vote and they never really gave Rudy a break although things did lighten up in Rudy's final term. Understand that Rudy banned Sharpton from the Mayors office - something Sharpton used to almost abuse under Dinkins.

With a bit of work, Guiliani could easily improve his standing with that community.

And Bowa is right in that Rudy would run better upstate but certainly also strong in many of the outer NYC Boroughs like Queens, Staten Island, perhaps even Brooklyn. I think he wins in NY against Hillary and if the GOP scores NY, the dems are over.

Let's say it one more time:

Rudy Giuliani will never, ever, be President of the United States of America.


This from someone who truly believed in 1999 that George W Bush would never be President of the United States of America.

But now I am more sure that I'm right, partly because George W Bush did become President.

There will be no Republican president elected in 2008. George W Bush has put republicans in the garbage for 4 years at least, 8 or 12 probably. That is the one thing we can thank him for.

Plus he is a white southerner. I guess he'd shore up what we already feel is our strongest geographic area.

And that makes you feel good about yourself. The South?

You must be so proud. Time for a Tractor Pull. Yee-Haa!!

Posted by Manypaths at 2007-06-12 04:49 PM


ahhhh...the hypocracies of those that claim to be accepting and tolerant. cant even accept someone that merely lives in a different area of the country?! how sad. tell me Many, where do you live? Cali?...fruits and nuts-bitchboy. nebraska?...corn-fed dumbass. washington...coffee addicted yuppie bitch. georgia?...deliverance m'fcker. maine?...transplanted canadian. texas?...well, you might as well be mexican.

its so easy to say that your not a self righteous biggot and so much harder to actually do as you preach isn't it? maybe you're from NY and every other word out of your mouth is the "F" word. stereotypes are easy to play on but rarely true, you uppity fuck. i hope one of these southern boys around here has the opportunity to cause you great pain, and youre still insulting him when he chops your balls off and feeds them to your mother.

By middle of August, Fred Thompson will be the front runner in the polls...

Mike-
Why?

Fred Thompson will run office like he runs a campaign. From his couch with as little work as possible.

Yawn....

By middle of August, Fred Thompson will be the front runner in the polls...

Posted by MikeWarrior

True, if not sooner. As his poll numbers rise, Rudy's will sink. The fight will be between Mitt and Fred.

As his poll numbers rise, Rudy's will sink. The fight will be between Mitt and Fred.

Thompson will draw most of his strength from McCain and Romney who are trying to position themselves as the true conservative candidate, Rudy's numbers will drop a little but not much -- the fight will be between Thompson and Rudy, with Romney nipping at their heels in third with a dangerously large war chest.

We'll see Bowa. But not matter what, this is going to be fun to watch.

Sitdown, Camille Paglia would disagree:

That's usually good news to me.

I like Camille. "Vamps and Tramps" was a good read.

Which multiple-marriage, chickenhawk should the GOP pick? The pro-choice, anti-gun one or the Washington Lobbyist?

and so it goes......just as I and others have said...........once he commits and according to the comments last night on leno, it wont be long but I think that he is playing it pretty coy....letting all of the others seperate themselves and sorting out themselves, and then get in and take it over.........
and if you dont know what he is about then you havent been listening or you havent had occasion to listen to him but I have and for all of you who have been so happy that bush wasnt a conservative in certain areas are in for a tough time because this will show what I have said all along.,,,,....this is a conservative country no matter what the media does or does not do.

Why didn't this "battleship" fight the communist menace in Vietnam back when he was young?

Why didn't this "battleship" fight the communist menace in Vietnam back when he was young?

Posted by Smirk1

I see you joined today. Welcome aboard, idiot.

Seriously though, this Washington lobbyist/actor has people believing he's some kind of down home tough guy. You'd figure he'd have volunteered as a young man to go off and fight that communist menace that threatened the civilized world. Somehow, he missed out on that and I want to know why. Was he busy fighting terrorists or something?

well lets see....he was a lawyer during watergate and I believe he said just last night that he was 30 at that time.....so I guess maybe he had a deferment and then maybe his lottery numbe was too high to be drafted.....you know......ALL THOSE THINGS THAT KEPT BLOW JOB BILLY OUT OF NAM............but his service is never questioned by the left, now is it?

Leave it to the Republicans to run an IQ test campaign with the nomination going to whoever proves to have the lowest.
Somehow REpublican voters trust less intelligent, less educated folks more than do Democrats. Fred Thompson is perfect for their nomination because he hasn't had an original thought in his entire life.

and if you think that he is coming across as a tough guy then you are mistaking his role for him personnaly.....this is the first time that I have read him called that........I have to respectfully disagree.

""but his service is never questioned by the left, now is it?""

But then he doesn't go around pretending to be a tough guy like Thompson, Giuliani, Romney (he is the most disgusting).

FRED THOMPSON'S "RIDE IS STARTING TO GET A BIT BUMPY": Fred Thompson has had a relatively easy ride as he has flirted
with a bid for the Republican presidential nomination. His strategists have found traction promoting him as the heir to
Ronald Reagan -- and a conservative alternative to the top tier of the GOP field. But the ride is starting to get a bit
bumpy. Opponents and their researchers have begun working -- mostly behind the scenes -- to highlight perceived soft
spots in his conservative bona fides. And Thompson will have to neutralize questions on the campaign trail and in the
media about his centrist votes in the Senate, his stances on litmus test conservative issues including abortion and --
perhaps most significantly -- his work as a lawyer and lobbyist. The Politico: Rivals try to deflate F. Thompson
campaign

Some of Thompson's clients could prove tricky to explain, from a British reinsurance company facing billions of dollars in asbestos claims to deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

-- Trial lawyer: Before Thompson won his Senate seat, published reports said his private law practice handled personal injury cases and defended people accused of white-collar crimes. And in the Senate, he opposed some legislation intended to rein in escalating jury verdicts and attorneys' fees.

Trial lawyers are bogeymen for some conservative groups, which consider them Exhibit A for a legal system that rewards greed over industriousness.

He easily could have volunteered to fight. Isn't that how people are fighting now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why didn't he volunteer to fight the Communist menace?

danni........come on. can you name me any candidate who would pass your test and then when you give me a name, lets look at HIS numbers...........yuk yuk....

and please keep it up.....anytime you can question the IQ of the right, its another stop closer to it being SIXTEEN years since a dem was in the white house....

well lets see....he was a lawyer during watergate and I believe he said just last night that he was 30 at that time.
Posted by bushlovertwo

Thompson was admitted to the State Bar of Tennessee in 1967 and worked as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1969 to 1972.

Just last night he referred to his old body as a "battleship". Now, that's meant to convey toughness. His whole persona in Hollywood is that of old tough guy. It's obvious that he would have no chance in hell without this persona. So, I'm wondering where in his life he's lived up to that image.

Just last night he referred to his old body as a "battleship". Now, that's meant to convey toughness. His whole persona in Hollywood is that of old tough guy. It's obvious that he would have no chance in hell without this persona. So, I'm wondering where in his life he's lived up to that image.

Posted by Smirk1

If you aren't in favor of a tough guy and would prefer a pussy, may I suggest you vote for Hillary Rodham?

Bill Clinton along with Bush Jr. are both draft dodgers to be sure.

Bush actually admitted to that fact more than Clinton did.

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment," Bush told the Dallas Morning News in 1990. "Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

yav...there is no question that he will be looked at from all sides and points especailly since he is a republican and even more because the dems are scared of him. and he should be looked at closely just like all of them, there is nothing wrong with that, but whats wrong is when the light is stronger on them and not even on with others.......and isnt hillary getting some of those lights, isnt there like about 4 or 5 books out right now about her and not all flattering....
so shine that light and lets see what we see, but there also has to be some degree of intellectuall honesty and fairness in those investigations.

and in answeering you smirk.....my first question would be....how old are you and what did you do in the war, daddy?
and if you are too young to get that, then are you old enough to be a young man at that time?

Hawks for Thompson

Thompson puts together a foreign policy team.


FRED THOMPSON IS adding more big-name policy talent as his testing-the-waters committee continues to grow into a real presidential campaign. Among the new additions: Mark Esper, national security adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist; Joel Shin, a top policy staffer on Bush-Cheney 2000; and Elizabeth Cheney, a former top official in the State Department's Near East and South Asia department.

"Liz Cheney, the older of Vice President Dick Cheney's two daughters, served most recently as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs and coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives. That title--no doubt one of the longest in the federal government--means that Cheney was on the leading edge of President Bush's effort to bring democratic and market-based reform to the region. A longtime democracy advocate, Cheney was a strong proponent of women's rights in the region. Her previous experience includes time at the World Bank, two prior stints at the State Department, and service as a US AID officer in Poland and Hungary."

GREAT!

Bill Frist's Security Advisor and Lynn "Darth Jr." Cheney??

Funky Freddy is now Officially the More of the Same NeoCon Candidate.

Of course he's not a tough guy. Anyone with sense can see through that. Please tell me why he didn't volunteer to fight the Communist menace back in the 60s. McCain found the time.

I'm 42. I'm against war unless someone actually militarily attacks our country. So, I can't be a chickenhawk. But, Fred Thompson can be. He supports the Iraq war and I haven't heard him ever say he was against the Vietnam war. Why didn't he fight in it? No one here wants to say the obvious. He didn't want to.

We'll see Bowa. But not matter what, this is going to be fun to watch.

Yeah. That's something we can agree on. Actually, the races in both parties are fun to watch-- it's the most interesting field I can remember in a long long time.

Smirk1 makes a good point about Thompson, what has he done to live up to the tough guy persona that he is know for on "Law and Order" and movies like "hunt for the Red October"?

He's going to have a tough time living up to expectations.

Why are you hypocritical queefs bagging on Thompsons hollywood carreer? It's not like Dennis Kucinich didn't reprise his role as Sweetchuck at least 6 times in those Police Academy movies.
And didn't Hillary Clinton play "Large Marge"?

and what I mean by that is that in 1968 there was a draft and if you were in college you got a deferment and so lots of people took advantage of the deferment and that doesnt mean that they are any less a patriot or have less right to speak out about ANYTHING they WANT.It was also a time where I was a member of the party of my youth.....the JKF democrats, the party of the TAX CUTS and then lbj came along and before you know it....the party of my youth left me......oh yeah and I grew up and started PAYING TAXES.....which changes everything.....

and I still dont believe he is coming across as a tough guy but if thats what you truely get from him, thats okay but isnt it interesting that the only real conservative in the race is considered a 'tough guy'........makes me want to vote for him even more.......

There's no draft now and we're fighting a war. People joined the military back then too. Not everyone had to be drafted. Why didn't Thompson join. You know he supported the Vietnam War and he knew about the Communist menace. So why didn't this "battleship" join up and fight to defend the Homeland?

Smirk,
Repeating your questions as if they are stinging or even the least bit interesting doesn't work for Boy-duh, and it isn't working for you either.
Wow, Fred Thompson didn't volunteer to go to Vietnam...You should probably call the press with that breaking news.

FOURTY TWO???????

shit man.....I have clothes older than that..

THAT I STILL WEAR...........hee hee......

so lets see....he is about 30 in about 1970 so that means that he had already been working on his career and had children and so as I said.....those things will change you as I AM SURE YOU UNDERSTAND........and I also understand the charge.......and there will be more coming but I think its silly to go after someone because of using a deferment in 1970 and the only reason I even mention blowjob is because the left forgets all about him when these things come up.....

but again........its a part of the process....open up that thompson book and lets read whats in it........

shit, I am full of metaphors this morning.......is that a metaphor???????

Hillary Clinton play "Large Marge"?

Posted by 101Chairborne


Equally deceased.

You can say it. Fred Thompson is a chickenhawk. I know the GOP doesn't care, but it would actually be breaking news for most people. Most people think he's a tough guy. But, he's another talk the talk but run away from the walk Republican politician. McCain is your only real-deal.

Please tell me why he didn't volunteer to fight the Communist menace back in the 60s.

I believe he was too old to be drafted. When the draft started in 1969, I believe the cut-off age was 26. Thompson was 27.

As for voluntary military service -- that is a personal decision. Thompson certainly didn't do anything wrong by choosing a different career path then John McCain. You seem to be suggestng that anyone who didn't serve in the milatry during the Vietnam war should be ineligible to be President.

"McCain is your only real-deal."

McCain is finished.

Here's why:

McCain-Feingold

McCain-Kennedy

So, if he was born in 1942, he was 30 in 1962. He easily could have gone over at some point in the 60s. He could have dropped out of college to defend the homeland, right? After all, he supported the war, right? And remember, there was the domino theory. It would follow us home. As a supporter he surely believed that idea. So, why didn't he go to defend the homeland?

True, but there's only one Republican running right now that can really walk the walk of a warrior and he isn't going to win with the "support the troops" party.

I'm not suggesting that. But, if he supported the Vietnam war and believed in the Communist menace, why didn't he volunteer to go fight it? I really don't care that he didn't go. I just want to know why he didn't think defending the homeland was a priority when it was his turn.

Smirk: What is you fascination with his lack of Military service? You aren't voting for him, and I don't think anyone on the right is going to hold that single issue against him. Quit beating a dead horse.

smirk....bowas post was right on......if he was past the age to be drafted......well I guess you just had to be there........and bowa is right on too when he says that doesnt mean you cant be commander in chief.......do I really have to type that name that would normally come next?

the left tells us that if we didnt volunteer that we have no right to even talk about war and yet they are all about abortion and I dont know that even leftists men are able to get knocked up.....so if one holds true then the other should........

and yesterday the left came up with yet another name for us on the right....

S malloby calls us anti illegal immigrant people........GLOBO- PHOBICS........ah yes another labortory name for american values..........

hey look..there go a whole bunch of globo-phobics...........

My fascination is this: I've heard several people I work with talk about this guy as a tough guy. And, he supports the Iraq war and supported Vietnam. So, if he's so tough, how did he possibly let himself miss Vietnam? Do you believe that the Vietnam war was about fighting Communism? If so, why wouldn't someone who believed that avoid defending their country? It's a fair question that only he can answer and he won't be asked by Republicans. It'll take an independent or a Democrat to force him to avoid answering that question.

It's a fair question that only he can answer

call 1-800-ASK-FRED

Republicans and these are the guys sending our people to war:

* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee" The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve.


Oh, and Fred Thompson.

If he didn't support the Vietnam war, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just don't understand how someone can say that a war is a necessary to protect our country and then avoid fighting it when they can. Please explain it to me.

Smirk,
Maybe if you asked the question again things will change and somebody may actually give a flying fuck? Boyd-Lite is lamer than Boy-duh.

Are you pro-environment shit heap? If so why aren't you an active member of the Sierra Club?
Are you for curing cancer? Why aren't you a doctor?

And remember, there was the domino theory. It would follow us home.

That is incorrect. There was never anyone taking the position that the Viet Cong would attack us here at home if we didn't fight them in Vietnam.

The backdrop for the Vietnam War, the "Cold war" and the "Domino theory" you allude to, was about fighting the spread of communism which, it was feared, if left unchecked could lead to another conventional war (like WW2) or a nuclear war.

Of course, we found out soon enough that the two major communist nations - Russia and China - hated each other more then they hated the US so any fear of a Russo-Sino alliance was unfounded.

We also realized that the concept of MAD (Mutually Insured Destruction) was an accepted reality by both Russia and the West, so fear of a nuclear war started by one of the world powers was probably not going to happen.

We also realized that communism as an economic force was doomed to failure and unsustainable. That has proven so true over the years with the USSR falling apart, and China (and Vietnam) moving towards a partial free market economy

So we got stuck in Vietnam. But there was a lot of dissent almost from the beginning which had greatly increased by the time the lottery for the draft began in 1969.

Thanks for the monkey dust Chair.

Really, if I thought a war was necessary to protect my family and my country, I'd fight.

But, evidently, when Fred Thompson thinks a war is necessary to protect our country, he doesn't.

I guess I'll never understand that. I was just hoping someone here could help me to understand that.

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk)

is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age.

The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present.

Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.

You compare being a doctor and being a member of an Environmental PAC to risking life and limb in a war to defend your country? I don't even want to understand that.

I have to chuckle at the amount of venom (and the nature of the criticisms) flying toward Fred Thompson.


Be honest, there's not a Republican alive (except maybe for Ron Paul) that you guys don't hate with every fiber of your being.

Smirk,

Your point is specious.


You seem to be saying that ONLY those who have actually served in combat for any given armed conflict can be supportive of said conflict.

You compare being a doctor and being a member of an Environmental PAC to risking life and limb in a war to defend your country? I don't even want to understand that.

Posted by Smirk1 at 2007-06-13 10:25 AM | Reply


It's called holding yourself to the same standards as you are holding somebody else to.
According to you if you believe in something and don't actively support it you are flawed.
Apparently you don't hold yourself to the same standard.

If you could have joined to fight a war that you supported but didn't, you are most definitely a chickenhawk. I can't imagine supporting a war that I could physically fight and not doing it. That would seem...so chickenshit to me.

I can't imagine supporting a war that I could physically fight and not doing it. That would seem...so chickenshit to me.

Posted by Smirk1 at 2007-06-13 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:


I take it you were against our military intervention is Kosovo?

Are you against crime in your neighborhood? Why aren't you a cop? Why aren't you in the Reserves or NG?

Jeffy

Just pointing out the reality of Fred as opposed to the current Repube wet dream of what they wish he were.

Bursting bubbles, as it were.

All the top tier Repubs are More of the Same Bush Republicans, especially on the war, whether they care to admit it or not.

What will be interesting is how they manage to accomplish an about face on Iraq when the troops start coming home.

I read some of the posts where y'all express support for Thompson but I just wonder what qualifies him to be president in your minds. Has he ever shown great knowledge about foreign affairs, economics...anything??
He is a mediocre actor who was once a one term senator.
He apparently, to some, looks like a president but what else qualifies him??

That would seem...so chickenshit to me.


Well good for you.


You can use that as your reason not to vote for the guy, not that you'd vote for him anyway.

I do when it comes to war and killing. If I support the Sierra Club and don't join it or support medicine and don't become a doctor, who dies in my place because I made that decision?

Cork,

I love the fact that Thompson scares the shit out of so many Democrats.


He is fully capable of winning, and you guys know it.

All the top tier Repubs are More of the Same Bush Republicans, especially on the war, whether they care to admit it or not.

Rudy isn't -- unless Bush became pro-choice and pro-gun control overnight.

Amen JeffJ!

Are you pro-environment shit heap? If so why aren't you an active member of the Sierra Club?
Are you for curing cancer? Why aren't you a doctor?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-06-13 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



smirk......this doesnt do anything of the sort......what he is saying is the same thing I did.....

how can you have any view on abortion if you are not a woman
or any of the points above....

abe is called one of our greatest even by the left......and he did the habeus corpus thing and what war did he fight in before or during the civil war?
so he had no right to save the republic because he didnt serve?
and there are so many other examples but it is a good question as long as you are willing to take the answer and move on but I think that horse of yours is about to fall over..........you know.....from beating the dead horse......get it get it.....

and one more time.........we welcome the investigation and questions......bring it on baby

Smirk,

I assume you are deploying to Afghanistan later this month.

It's the war that liberals profess to support.

Good luck and stay safe.

Bob,


Nice handle.

Very original.

I love the fact that Thompson scares the shit out of so many Democrats.

Not sure why he does though.

I don't think Thompson has nearly the chance o win in the general that conservatives think he has.

He is a mediocre actor who was once a one term senator.
He apparently, to some, looks like a president but what else qualifies him??

Posted by danni at 2007-06-13 10:33 AM | Reply


This isn't an Edwards thread.


Boyd Jr,
So you supported Kosovo or not? What about Darfur? What other qualifications do you hide behind in regards to what standards you hold yourself to?

I want Thompson. He's an empty suit. The U.S. will be looking for someone a little more nerdy this time to somehow lead us out of the calamity Bush led us into. Folksy was a disaster.

Fred Thompson is the knight in shining armour that every girl (republican) waits for.

Then he turns out to be Hillbillyjihad.

I'm just talking about war and war is the only place I'd put this standard. I'd never want people to die in my place defending my country in a cause I believed in. But, Fred Thompson evidently had no problem with that. And, if he did, we won't be hearing about it.

Smirk,
I must have missed your answer about Kosovo, can you repeat it?
Also, JeffJ asked you about Afghanistan, but I'll go right ahead and assume you're the one guy in america that doesn't support that...

"He apparently, to some, looks like a president but what else qualifies him??"

I don't know, DANNI, but can't you say the same about Obama, Edwards...even Hillary? Your extreme double-standard is showing again.

danni.....we are in his corner because he is a real conservative by all accounts and by that I mean by what he says. I have heard him on two main occasions and he is a conservative just like we had hoped bush was and of course I am speaking of all the money spent and the collaberations with ted kennedy are a signpost.
the speach writer for reagan who wrote the wall speach said yesterday that after spending some time with thompson that he seemed like the real deal and of course this guy was asked about the wall speach and then was asked about meeting with thompson....thus the comparison with reagan and that may be what scares the shit out of the left more than anything.....and I dont mean because of bad shit about reagan but I am talking of the two elections that republicans made dems look like they werent even there.....

one thing is does do is make something interesting that might turn out to be TWO YEARs of the same ole shit over and over..........

"Then he turns out to be Hillbillyjihad."

We're not "hillbilly" anymore, CORKY. Under the new PC standards we're to be known as Appalachian-Americans. Thank you very much...bigot.

He is fully capable of winning, and you guys know it.

Posted by JeffJ

Can you give any other qualifications, or is that enough for you?

He is fully capable of winning, and you guys know it.

Posted by JeffJ

That was pretty much the only argument for Geo. Bush back in 2000. Look where that got us.

That was pretty much the only argument for Geo. Bush back in 2000. Look where that got us.

Posted by TFDNihilist

2 Terms in office?

Bob,
That was equally unimpressive.
So far you've managed to copy somebody's name and post the same thing twice. Just like a good liberal sheep.

Smirk,
Are you in the middle of a name change or are you trying to find a new standard to hold yourself to?

"From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means."

True, A-HOLE, but so is THIS from the same article: BOWA was correct in his statement. You must be a selective reader...no?

"A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C."

If they are able to fight a war they support they should or they are less than honorable.
But, that's really old-school thinking. If it were 1942, you'd all agree with me.

Sorry Jest.

Hill William, then.

Or perhaps Incestually Challenged would be more PC?

You get a funny, Cork.

2 Terms in office?

Posted by wisgod

No, that's where it got him. Where did it get us, the American people?

"Don't think they had that font in 1969. Who are you, Dan Rather?"

Oh...then it's YOUR position he never wrote a letter?

What double-standard? Clinton was a draft dodger to be sure. But, he wasn't a chickenhawk. He was against the Vietnam war.

If they are able to fight a war they support they should or they are less than honorable.


I see you are still posting, yet ignoring very simple questions directed at you.

If they are able to fight a war they support they should or they are less than honorable.
But, that's really old-school thinking. If it were 1942, you'd all agree with me.

Posted by Smirk1 at 2007-06-13 10:55 AM | Reply


Hypocrite...

Afghanistan and Kosovo veteran I take it?

I didn't support either war. Neither country had attacked us. We could have stopped 9-11. Did you know that the 9-11 terrorists actually spent weeks and months in the United States? We were harboring those guys. Why didn't we attack ourselves?
We told them to hand over Bin Laden or we'd attack. Now that we "took" Afghanistan, why didn't we hand Bin Laden over to ourselves?
If we were going to attack a country based on a close association with the 9-11 terrorists, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia which also would have resulted in a quagmire.

So you didn't support either Kosovo or Afghanistan...Riiiiiight. What a pathetic little shit you are.

""danni.....we are in his corner because he is a real conservative by all accounts""

What is his position on the immigration bill??
I know he is a war monger like Bush and probably wants to get us into another war with Iran but is there something good about him I am unaware of???
Don't you think it is time for a president who has a real, in depth understanding of the ME instead of an amateur as commander in chief???

I didn't support either war. Neither country had attacked us.


Classic!


The Taliban harbored the terror organization that carried out the 9-11 attacks. These attacks resulted in roughly 3000 deaths on our soil, not to mention the enormous monetary costs.


You are one of those 'everything is America's fault' kinda guy, aren't you?

It's probably the US's fault that Hitler slow-cooked 6 million Jews.

It wouldn't have made a difference if Clinton would have gone to Nam, won the Congressional Medal of Honor, lost an arm, and landed on the moon. The republicans hate him because he stands for freedom. They will always hate those who stand for freedom, and will always support the rich--always support big business---always support high taxes for the poor and no taxes for the rich---will always promote wars for the poor while their own children get passes and Ferraris.

Nope--Clintons war record is meaningless---Clinton supported Freedom, and that's enough for the right to hate him no matter what he did or didn't do in the military. Bush was a war hero, and Kerry shot himself in the foot--ask any loyal republican.

You are one of those 'everything is America's fault' kinda guy, aren't you?


AKA Liberal.

11:11am and you're just starting to post? Must have been a late night at the Bingo Hall gramps.

Thanks, all I've gotten was essentially a who cares or a you're stupid for caring kind of response instead a response to the point.
The best way I can ask is this: If you support a war and believe it's essential for your country's survival and you can physically fight it, why would you let others fight and die for that cause and avoid fighting it yourself? The only reason I can see is the desire to stay out of danger.

Actually, Bush believes it'll be the American public's fault for losing the Iraq war. After all, a withdrawal is surrender and Americans support withdrawal.

"Nope--Clintons war record is meaningless---Clinton supported Freedom, and that's enough for the right to hate him no matter what he did or didn't do in the military. Bush was a war hero, and Kerry shot himself in the foot--ask any loyal republican."

Bush's and Kerry's war records are meaningless too. So is Thompson's. You missed the whole point, BUFFY. You should follow the twenty post rule before you blurt. You have to read back at least twenty posts before jumping in.

Smirk shirked his duty and now wants to ask why others have not enlisted. That's liberal logic for you.

It's good that you know this if you're a Republican. Many think Saddam attacked us.
But, Afghanistan didn't either. Al-qaeda did. They have bases all over, not just in Afghanistan. And, the 9-11 attackers base of operation was in America. We trained them how to fly planes.

I don't support the war and I definitely have a desire to avoid danger. But, I know you couldn't sleep at night knowing people are on their 3rd and 4th tours in Iraq if in fact you possibly supported this war and decided not to fight in it. You seem honorable.

Say what you want about Clinton. All I know is my 401k quadrupled when he was president.

We trained them how to fly planes.

They paid for it. If it had been denied, they would've sued and won.

"Say what you want about Clinton. All I know is my 401k quadrupled when he was president."

I wasn't knocking Clinton. If you go back in the thread, you'll see where someone (Danni, I think) doubted Thompson's qualification for being president because he wasn't ever drafted or hadn't served in the military. However, she admires Clinton. I was merely pointing out her double standard. My only real objection to Clinton is that he wasn't MORE aggressive in combatting Islamo-fascism.

Maybe Thompson could have been their lawyer.

"We trained them how to fly planes."

Posted by Smirk1

Yup
Atta used to rent my Cessna 172.
I once commented back in the 90's, "Looks like we're training our own hijackers."

Of course even the FBI agents who figured this out were ignored.

"Of course even the FBI agents who figured this out were ignored."

That's because it wouldn't have been politically correct to investigate. Hell, it STILL isn't.

Interesting...I saw a 60 Minutes episode sometime back where they interviewed the Chief of Security at the airport in Tel Aviv. He was asked the question, "To what do you attribute the fact that no Israeli aircraft has been hijacked?" His one word answer was, "Profiling."

Good thing this isn't a thread about Republican poll results....

"His one word answer was, "Profiling.""

Posted by jestgettinalong


These guys were pretty easy to spot.
Surly, arrogant holier-than-thou types.
On a mission from allah.

"These guys were pretty easy to spot.
Surly, arrogant holier-than-thou types.
On a mission from allah."

Not ALL of them. One individual turned away from boarding an El Al aircraft in israel was Richard Reed, the "shoe bomber."

What is your source for this claim at the time of our attack?


Are you kidding?

It's common knowledge at this point.


No---but we could have started sooner, and we probably would have if not for Henry Fords support for the Nazis---Charles Lindburghs support for the Nazis---and Prescott Bushs support for the Nazis, and it would have been nice of the US to have offered refuge to these people rather than send them back to Germany where most died in the camps.


Those guys weren't the president of the United States at the time. Also, the mood of the country was very isolationist at the time. Germany wasn't attacking the US, so the US wasn't playing. Kinda like what's going on with Darfur now.


We didn't kill those people, but the United States has top bear some of the responsibility for not starting sooner.


So now you are advocating pre-emptive military strikes?

Saddam was brutally murdering people too, but I don't see you supportive of his removal vis a vis a pre-emptive strike.

I never met Reed, Atta was pretty obvious.
Now he's just air pollution.

You are one of those "My counrty right or wrong" guys aren't you.


Not at all.


This country has been wrong about a lot of things.

Sarcasm is obviously a difficult concept for some. Stupidity can be the only explanation.

Posted by Bob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-13 12:00 PM | Reply


Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect when dealing with so many leftwing kooks on this site.
Do you want to know what's real easy to detect Bob the A Hole? Unoriginal tools.

One of those "blame America second, but never first" kind of people.


Um, no.

"No---but we could have started sooner, and we probably would have if not for Henry Fords support for the Nazis---Charles Lindburghs support for the Nazis---and Prescott Bushs support for the Nazis,...."

You forgot Joseph Kennedy in that group.

"We didn't kill those people, but the United States has top bear some of the responsibility for not starting sooner."

You might be right, Britain, France and the other European countries were MOSTLY responsible, however. Like today, the population of the U.S. back then said it wasn't our business, let Europe handle its own problems. It took the attack by Japan and Germany's declaring war on us to get us involved.

"We did kill the Indians though---at least as many as we could get our hands on at the time, and let's not even get into how many black people died on the ships and in slavery."

Yeah, not a good thing. Spain had its Inquisition, Britain didn't do so well in India, France brought slaves to Haiti...I could go on, but its safe to say just about EVERY nation has its ghosts. Incidently, most of the slaves were brought here by ships of OTHER nations, especially the Dutch.

Most modern nations have progressed beyond these things, but many places in the Middle East and Africa have not. I hope you're not harboring some hatred of the U.S. for the past while giving the barbarians of today a pass.

"Sarcasm is obviously a difficult concept for some. Stupidity can be the only explanation."

It can be difficult to present also, probably due to stupidity as well. Forgive me A-Hole, I guess we're equally stupid.

When the draft started in 1969, I believe the cut-off age was 26. _Bowa

Your ignorance is showing yet again, Bowa.
The draft was there for eons before 1969. The Lottery started in 1969.

"Sarcasm is obviously a difficult concept for some. Stupidity can be the only explanation."


In the communicative process, approximately 93% of our interpretation is drawn from body language and vocal tones. The remaining 7% is interpreting what was actually said.


Sarcasm can be difficult to detect in text form and this difficulty has little, if anything to do with intellect.

I hope you're not harboring some hatred of the U.S. for the past while giving the barbarians of today a pass.


The only barbarians of today are Republicans..and Conservatives...and anyone believing in religion.


Sincerely,

BuffaloBob

"The only barbarians of today are Republicans..and Conservatives...and anyone believing in religion."

OK, Buffy, I got it. You're stupid. Biased, a bigot and terminally stupid. If "stupid" was a snowflake, you'd be a walking blizzard. You need to get back to your hole now and play with Howdy Doody and Clara Belle.

He's a lawyer and lobbyist.. Its bad when Edwards is one.."HE'S a DEMOOOONNCCRAT" but not bad when your prime candidate embodies everything you hate? Talk about toting the party line.

Jeff J

"Are you kidding?

It's common knowledge at this point."

Not kidding at all---where did this "common knowledge" come from? I wasn't talking about "this point" I was talking about the time of the Afghan attack. However, the same pretty much holds true for NOW also. What proof is there that would send Osama to prison if he were in court in the US right now.



"Those guys weren't the president of the United States at the time. Also, the mood of the country was very isolationist at the time. Germany wasn't attacking the US, so the US wasn't playing. Kinda like what's going on with Darfur now."

They were leaders of public opinion and public opinion has a great deal to do with what the country thinks and does. People are sheep---they brag about being sheep and fill the churches every week. Being President has less to do with power than public opinion. You are correct about Darfur. Public opinion like yours is the deciding factor. If there were millions in the streets of Washington now there would be action in Darfur tomorrow. The United States has to bear some of the reponsibility for Darfur also---it is like standing by and watching while a woman gets raped when you could have helped. But they are black with no oil and a different religion so....




We didn't kill those people, but the United States has top bear some of the responsibility for not starting sooner.


"So now you are advocating pre-emptive military strikes?"

Ah yes, those republican leaps of logic---always long and shallow. No--starting earlier doesn't necessarily mean a pre-emptive strike. Starting earlier means recognizing a threat through intel, proper preparedness, and a plan for defense and offense. The US at the time knew there had been a war going on in Europe since 1939--they had seen Germany invade other countries and it was clear they weren't going to stop. Everyone knew at the time what each side stood for. The reports of atrocities against Jews was not a secret in the US. Ford, Lindburgh, Bush

Germany was not a bottled up nation surrounded by a superior militery force. Germany was not full of a people who live with a world perspective of the 1400's. Germany had an army, and the war had front lines. You knew when you got Hitler, the war would be over.

Germany was nothing like Iraq. But if you are for pre-emptive strikes, should we have attacked Russia back in the sixties? They definitely had WMD's and definitely seemed to be a threat. Opinion?


"Saddam was brutally murdering people too, but I don't see you supportive of his removal vis a vis a pre-emptive strike."

Saddam was murdering his own people with WMD's Reagan and Bush sold him. The fact that the war is responsible for twice the deaths caused by Saddam would make some question the righteousness of the cause.

Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to detect when dealing with so many leftwing kooks on this site.
Do you want to know what's real easy to detect Bob the A Hole? Unoriginal tools.

Posted by 101Chairborne

well..don't let the door hit ya.. where the Flying Spaghetti Monster Split ya..

jestgettinalong


"The only barbarians of today are Republicans..and Conservatives...and anyone believing in religion."

OK, Buffy, I got it. You're stupid. Biased, a bigot and terminally stupid. If "stupid" was a snowflake, you'd be a walking blizzard. You need to get back to your hole now and play with Howdy Doody and Clara Belle.


Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-06-13 12:40 PM


JeffJ said that--not me.

Some of you people think I'm wishy washy. But I'm not. Why, I sing in the shower every day...

I'm going to wash you libs right out of my hair...
I'm going to wash you libs right out of my hair...
I'm going to wash you libs right out of my hair...
And send you on your way...

--Jeff J.

If you aren't in favor of a tough guy and would prefer a pussy, may I suggest you vote for Hillary Rodham?

Posted by wisgod

in a fight I think she could take him..

in a fight I think she could take him..

Posted by Legio


You are probably right.

Here temper is legendary and she's prone to throwing heavy objects when she's pissed off.

JeffJ said that--not me.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob


He's correct, Jest.


I actually posted that for BBob's benefit - I thought Bob would get a chuckle out of it.

If you aren't in favor of a tough guy and would prefer a pussy, may I suggest you vote for Hillary Rodham?

Posted by wisgod

in a fight I think she could take him..

Posted by Legio

Can't argue with you there....Bubba still has a knot on his head.

Republicans are conservatives. There is no separation---no difference.

BBob,


The United States has to bear some of the reponsibility for Darfur also---it is like standing by and watching while a woman gets raped when you could have helped.


Agreed.


Ah yes, those republican leaps of logic---always long and shallow. No--starting earlier doesn't necessarily mean a pre-emptive strike. Starting earlier means recognizing a threat through intel, proper preparedness, and a plan for defense and offense. The US at the time knew there had been a war going on in Europe since 1939--they had seen Germany invade other countries and it was clear they weren't going to stop. Everyone knew at the time what each side stood for. The reports of atrocities against Jews was not a secret in the US.


That IS what the US did in regards to Saddam.

Question for the Conservatives on this site:

It seems like Thompson is in bed with Bush and a bunch of his cronies??? Didn't Bush talk-the-talk of Conservatism pre '00 election as well (as I recall)?

Seems like Republicans are being offered the same bait-n-switch type of candidate they got with Bush, on MANY issues. Why would you want another President like Bush?

That's how I'm seeing it.

---

All that being said, I don't like any of the Democratic candidates either. In general I'm really not liking either party right now!

That IS what the US did in regards to Saddam.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-06-13 01:00 PM

WTF are you talking about. Not one thing in that statement relatees to what happened with Saddam.

1. There was no threat to recognize through intel. Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out--Bush pulled them. The intel was clear from all sources--nothing found. The only WMDs were in the lies the WH told the Congress and the American people.

2. PROPER PREPAREDNESS????---are you saying the troops went in properly prepared? Is that what you are trying to say now? No body armor and expecting chocolate and flowers--is that how they were PROPERLY PREPARED? wow--Talk about revisionist history.

3. A plan for defense and offense.
Again---tell me that plan,I must have missed it---then tell the troops.

4. No war going on in Iraq until we got there.

5. Iraq wasn't taking over other countries.

Now explain your points--wtf were you talking about?

BBob,


Saddam was considered to be a risk.

This assessment was attained via the very same avenues that you are talking about regarding Nazi Germany.


Beyond that, I don't disagree with your contrasts of the threat posed by Nazi Germany vs' Saddam's Iraq.

Basically, I was reacting to your point that the US government should have acted sooner in regards to Germany.

I pointed out that the government DID react sooner this time around to a perceived threat.


I didn't intend to equate the SEVERITY of the threat-level between the 2.

"JeffJ said that--not me." Posted by BUFFALO_BOB

Mea culpa, Buffy (while beating my chest.) Please accept my humble apology.

Mea culpa, Buffy (while beating my chest.) Please accept my humble apology.



Posted by jestgettinalong

That's pretty big of you jestgettinalong...I would have made made an eyesight comment.

Iraq Body count.org regularly underreports the deaths in Iraq because of its methodology which depends on "western media reported" deaths only.
It is in no way an accurate measure of the deaths in Iraq but it is a handy talking point tool for war supporters.

Thus, basically the statement is probably true.

"The fact that the war is responsible for twice the deaths caused by Saddam would make some question the righteousness of the cause."

"Thus, basically the statement is probably true.

"The fact that the war is responsible for twice the deaths caused by Saddam would make some question the righteousness of the cause."

Seeing as how it was pulled out of someone's ass, I'm SURE YOU DO assume it to be true without ANY data or supporting numbers, all the while poo pooing the data, numbers and research which refute the WAG (wild ass guess) statements.

"Iraq Body count.org regularly underreports the deaths in Iraq because of its methodology which depends on "western media reported" deaths only.
It is in no way an accurate measure of the deaths in Iraq but it is a handy talking point tool for war supporters." Posted by DANNI

Danni, Danni, Danni...I foolishly KEEP trying to bring you into the world of reality...to no avail. I think it's probably due to your lobotomy. Anyway, here's a list of the sources that you try to hold out as "western media" only. You'll see Al Jazeera, Hindustan Times, Jordan Times, Middle East Newsline, Singapore News, Times of India etc. etc. I know it's difficult for you to accept, but YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN, sweetie. How do you expect to gain any credibility if you don't get your head out of your butt and look around in the bright light? NOW...do you STILL wanna accept Buffalo Bob's assinine statement as fact over researched data?

"Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).

ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access."

JUSTGETTING if it makes you and the neocons feel less guilty about the 650,000 civillian deaths in Iraq to pretend another number is correct go ahead but the rest of the world thinks your number is bull shit.
As I was reading about the methods used by the group you cite, the fact that journalists can't venture out of the green zone, etc. makes it impossible to only depend on reports filed by journalists, etc. Other methods, such as the ones used to estimate the catastrophic numbers of deaths due to the tsunamai are recognized by most experts to be more reliable.

Please nominate Thompson! Please, oh please!

His alcoholism (current, not in the past), along with his hoochie-mamma wife and cut-and-run after 911 will make for some delicious mud to throw about.

Go fred!

Go fred!

p.s. If his debate skills are anything like his retort to Michael Moore, he's got quite an uphill battle....careful fred, don't trip on the steps as you stagger along in your drunken stupor.

Absolutely - I want a big fight between Thompson and Giuliani, after which maybe Romney might even be the nominee. They really need a good looking loser.

And there was this, too, from Camille Paglia:

For many Democrats like me, however, Hillary's history of prevarication, rigidity and quasi-divine sense of election is profoundly unsettling. And who exactly would be running the government -- that indefatigable buttinski, Bill Clinton? Spare us!

"Spare us!"

Camille is so hot.
Wait a minute, that's the chick who lives with the three bikers.

I wonder how the Repubs would view a lawyer/special interest lobbyist running on the Dem side. I bet they'd have a problem with the background. I bet the fact that someone was a lobbyist/lawyer would suddenly matter.

It wouldn't have made a difference if Clinton would have gone to Nam, won the Congressional Medal of Honor, lost an arm, and landed on the moon. The republicans hate him because he stands for freedom. They will always hate those who stand for freedom, and will always support the rich--always support big business---always support high taxes for the poor and no taxes for the rich---will always promote wars for the poor while their own children get passes and Ferraris.

Nope--Clintons war record is meaningless---Clinton supported Freedom, and that's enough for the right to hate him no matter what he did or didn't do in the military. Bush was a war hero, and Kerry shot himself in the foot--ask any loyal republican.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-06-13 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

this should be placed in every newspaper in the country...what a great example of leftists attacks and defense that has made thier party......well....out of the white house for 8 years......

in this one piece we see every thing just this side of republicans grabbing food out of little kids mouth and taking the checks right out of old peoples hands.....

thanks for the reminder bob of how silly the left can be..
and also the reminder that we used to just read this kind of bull and say....oh no....thats bad......now we tell you that its crap.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Hope you guys don't mind me coming into your world, but I have been reading your comments for months and I have something to say.......

First lesson. Stop thinking politics and elections have anything to do with ability or competence (on the part of the politicians or the public). Thus, Lipzoid rule #1 - the best LOOKING candidate always wins, regardless of political persuasion or policy history.

Jeff J

"Saddam was considered to be a risk.

This assessment was attained via the very same avenues that you are talking about regarding Nazi Germany."

Saddam was absolutley NO RISK. He couldn't even keep inspectors out of his country. He couldn't fly planes in his own country. Hiw own borders were not uner his contro;l. The imports and exports to his country were controlled by the UN and the US. He was SURROUNDED. Now where did this THREAT come from you were talking about? There was no acscertatining of any threat---there was only LIES about a threat. The intel was not obtained "via the very same avenues that you are talking about regarding Nazi Germany." What rubbish.

Don't give me that crap about Clinton said he was a danger BS either. Clintons intel was OLD. YEARS OLD. Don't go blaming years old intel for the lies Bushs told when confronted with intel that said Saddam had nothing.

"this should be placed in every newspaper in the country...what a great example of leftists attacks and defense that has made thier party......well....out of the white house for 8 years......"


What has kept the Liberals out of the Whitehouse for 8 years was---STOLEN ELECTIONS. Your boy is not a real President---never will be. He's just a murderous bisexual moron that had a family rich enough and powerful enough to steal elections. America shows the damage.





"in this one piece we see every thing just this side of republicans grabbing food out of little kids mouth and taking the checks right out of old peoples hands....."

Which they would do if the Liberals let them. They would cancel welfare and Social Security. Just ask them.





"thanks for the reminder bob of how silly the left can be..
and also the reminder that we used to just read this kind of bull and say....oh no....thats bad......now we tell you that its crap."

Thanks for the reminder of how cold hearted the right can be. Maybe you can get Charles Manson to run for Pres next year. He fits your profile for Presidents---bisexual murderers.

"What has kept the Liberals out of the Whitehouse for 8 years was---STOLEN ELECTIONS."

BUFFYBOB...go back to the studio and put your head together with Howdy Doody and Clara Belle The COW and consider THIS. Since 1976 the democrats have elected ONE president. THAT democrat needed Perot to get elected at all. That means the republicans have stolen MANY elections and kept the White House for twenty of the last twenty-eight years and almost would have had it for the COMPLETE twenty-eight years. Thank Perot for saving their eight years. If the liberals are as smart as they like to project, how in hell did this happen to them. OR...is there maybe ANOTHER reason democrats keep losing the White House.

"BUFFYBOB...go back to the studio and put your head together with Howdy Doody and Clara Belle The COW and consider THIS. Since 1976 the democrats have elected ONE president. THAT democrat needed Perot to get elected at all. That means the republicans have stolen MANY elections and kept the White House for twenty of the last twenty-eight years and almost would have had it for the COMPLETE twenty-eight years. Thank Perot for saving their eight years. If the liberals are as smart as they like to project, how in hell did this happen to them. OR...is there maybe ANOTHER reason democrats keep losing the White House.

Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-06-14 12:09 PM"



First you were talking about the last 8 years---then you switch to the last 28 years----can you see yourself??????????

Perot may have saved America. Another 4 years of HW Bushs pedophile leadership followed by his sons bisexual leadership, would certainly have led to even more disasterous consequenes for America.

Reagan/Bush--suppiers of WMDs to Saddam so he could kill his own people, and suppliers of arms to terrorists in Central America so they can kill their own citizens. Tha's what Alzheimers leadership backed up with pedophile leadership gets you. Vote republican---the party of perverts.

Since 1976 the democrats have elected ONE president. THAT democrat needed Perot to get elected at all.

Bush needed Ralph Nader to win in 2000