God help us if they take control of the GA this fall...

| | Comments (61) | TrackBacks (0)

H/T: Cuccinelli Compass below the fold.

ken%20banner.bmp

September 6, 2007

Dear Fellow Republican:

Well, since Janet refused multiple offers for our own one-on-one debates, I am freed up from the rigors of ‘debate prep.’ Thus, I thought I’d revisit the hypothetical notion of a Democratic majority. Today, boys and girls, we’ll take a closer look at the Majority Leader Wannabe, Senator Dick Saslaw (with some other silliness from Brian Moran).

Let me first say that while Dick Saslaw is blunt and abrasive, that’s what I like about him. He is, how shall I say…, more “frank” than most others in the General Assembly. Dick says what he thinks and he often forgets the usual political ‘sugarcoating.’ It makes for some serious fun.

I remember when there was a bill to opt kids out of dissecting frogs, Dick said we’re going to raise a generation of wimps. When we had a bill to allow parents with high school diplomas to home school their kids, he implied that in the other parts of Virginia (i.e., not NoVa) this bill would be a big deal because “they” aren’t very smart there…

Bill Mims brought him a bumper sticker the next day that said “We’re Rural, Not Stupid”. Oh yeah, he made the rest of us representing NoVa cringe that day…

As an interesting side note, Wikipedia says that “Tourette's was once considered a rare and bizarre syndrome, most often associated with the exclamation of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks (coprolalia). However, this symptom is present in only a small minority of people with Tourette's.”

How about ‘politically inappropriate and derogatory remarks?’

The Basics

Let’s take a look at some of Dick Saslaw’s comments on some basic issues.

Remember the 2004 tax increase? The biggest tax increase in Virginia history? Yes, the same tax increase that was passed three days before the announcement by then-Gov. Warner that he had happily discovered a surplus of a size that was almost exactly the same size as the tax increase.

That was a knock down, drag out battle.

Here are some of Dick’s choice comments during that debate. Click and enjoy (or cry in light of the outcome…):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAD4ZPdvFPY

Yes! This is the video clip from one of the most famous quotes in the history of The Compass: “You can’t give me enough money to satisfy me!”

Grade for honesty: A.

Grade for policy: F-

Okay, so Dick admits that he literally has an insatiable appetite for more taxes, is that so surprising? Well, the surprise is that he so candidly admits it! Gosh, that speech sounds as if it were a tax discussion inside one the Democrats’ closed caucus meetings!

Scary.

But Wait, It Gets “Better”!

You’re not too attached to that old ratty copy of the Constitution of yours, are you? C’mon, the guys that wrote that are so… old fashioned.

You aren’t still seriously attached to the outdated notion of ‘individual rights’ are you? What a neanderthal!

Dick says we don’t need those pesky rights in the constitution… Bill of Rights? It just gets in the way of good-hearted government! Tyranny? That could never happen here, right? So what do we want to be putting individual rights back into the Virginia Constitution where they’ll just muck up the liberals’ utopian schemes to run our lives better than we run them ourselves?

Too sarcastic? Decide for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqjaWVPKFMo

George Mason wouldn’t support the U.S. Constitution because it did not include a Bill of Rights that, among other things, protected property rights. George Mason was the primary drafter of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in June 1776. Thomas Jefferson used the Virginia Declaration of Rights as a resource when drafting the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson did not even think that government should be able to take property for public uses. In other words, TJ didn’t think government should ever be able to take your property. This is probably why most people think that the listing of unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence was intended by Thomas Jefferson to inherently include property rights as part of the right to the pursuit of happiness.

So, is Virginia going to let a guy who doesn’t even think that property rights belong in the Constitution run the Virginia Senate? We’ll see what the voters decide!

Remember the scorecard of Democratic Committee Chairmen if the Dems get control? Remember how different their caucus is from the last time they had control? Here’s the round-up of Chairmen from a previous Compass:

Scorecard (1994): 0 liberal Dems, 7 moderate Dems, and 4 conservative Dem chairmen.

Scorecard (2008?): 9 liberal Dems, 2 moderate Dems, and 0 conservative Dem chairmen.

Not if I can help it!

And Over In the Other Chamber

Del. Brian Moran has been providing some entertainment lately.

At a recent community picnic he called on the crowd to elect all of the Democrats’ candidates to the House of Delegates so that he could be the next Speaker of the House. He actually said this twice. I’m sure the current minority leader, Del. Ward Armstrong, enjoyed that little morsel.

And here’s an item on Brian’s “vision for Democratic leadership” that I pulled off of a blog yesterday. I will quote it here without editing:

“The Dems have been screaming about their chances to take over not just the State Senate, but also the House of Delegates in VA. For What purpose? That is a simple question that your Democratic leadership cannot answer. I know that is a questionable statement, but check this out and tell me I am wrong:

Del. Brian Moran, House Democrats Caucus Leader, couldn’t even defend his own party on WVEC’s On the Record with Joel Rubin (Tidewater Channel).

On the Democrats hottest issue, transportation, Moran was asked if the Democrats could do any better than Republicans?

Rubin “If the Democrats were in charge, would that change?…”

Moran “Well that’ll remain to be seen.”

That’s a ringing endorsement, eh? Elect Democrats, and well…..the rest remains to be seen. What an agenda! If the Democratic Caucus leader can’t say things would be different under Democrats, I guess we can quit the elections right now so the Dems can run the table right? It is inevitable right? Just a matter of time, right? To you good sir, I say, "NUTS"

Posted by: Gladiator | September 05, 2007 at 11:56 AM”

I understand that Brian’s “leadership classes” are undersubscribed…

Don’t Give Dick a Promotion!
We are putting up signs in yards this week – hundreds of them. Know anyone in the district that would put up a Cuccinelli for Senate sign? Put a bumper sticker on their car? Please let us know who! Email Mike@Cuccinelli.com. He lives for signs. Loves it.

Also, please consider making a donation today (please)! Just click here to help us get our message out by donating today! If you send me back to Richmond , I’ll keep pushing to get property rights back into the Virginia Constitution, just as our founding fathers intended!

As always, we’re door knocking and phone calling every day, along with other activities too, so please email Mike@Cuccinelli.com or call us at 703-293-9001 to join in. I’ll see you on the campaign trail!

I you enjoy The Compass, please share it with others!

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Cuccinelli

Virginia 37th District

Please donate to Senator Cuccinelli’s Re-Election Campaign on-line at:

http://www.cuccinelli.com/donate.shtml

This e-mail message is not spam. You have signed up to receive The Cuccinelli Compass. If you do not wish to receive future editions of The Cuccinelli Compass, please send a message to cuccinellicompass-unsubscribe@cuccinelli.com. Nothing is required in the Subject or Message lines.

Authorized and Paid for by Cuccinelli for Senate

Please do NOT “Reply” to this e-mail. Please direct your replies to ken4sen@cuccinelli.com.

© All rights reserved, Cuccinelli for Senate 2007

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: God help us if they take control of the GA this fall....

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1338

61 Comments

ACTivist said:

I guess the Dems haven't learned anything from the Republicans. Being stupid and callous doesn't get you votes; it gets you out! This is going to be one sorry season for Virginians if they don't wise up and spread the word about these "elitest morons".

The Shadow said:

ACTivist,

The ELITIST MORONS who are willing to forsake property rights for the expediency of \\\'what is good for everybody\\\' (whatever the hell that is and however you can possibly define that) are everywhere in both parties and the Independent candidates too. \\\"Slow growthers\\\" are anti-property rights. In Loudoun one need only look at the slate of candidates endorsed by the Voters for Loudouns Future to see quite the list of ELITIST MORONS. Then follow the money at VPAP to see the real ELITIST MORONS who fund them!

Jack said:

We call those elitist morons "socialists."

Ray said:

If being stupid and callous don’t get you votes then how the heck did George W become president for not one but two terms??

Jack said:

The Dems put up someone even dumber and more callous.

ACTivist said:

Same way Billy J. did before him.

Jack said:

We just call him "BJ".

Ray said:

NO ONE is dumber than Mr. Bush,,,,No one...I’m not even GOING to make fun of the mistakes he made in Australia, but on the this mornings news he did it again (just like Britney) he said and I quote, "we must protect our peoples"

Can’t we just make him nod and wave for now on, it’s less damaging to his and our reputation as Americans?

Sanity said:

What's the matter, Ray? Didn't you know it's his "folksy charm"? :-)

Me, I'd rather be known as competent than folksy. No one that's met Bush(except, of course, his patsies) thinks he's ever been up to the job. He's just in way over his head.

In the first seven months after he was first elected, if you remember, he took about six months vacation, which was great!

Then Bin Laden screwed it up and forced him to actually try and DO something. Bad move all around. It would have been MUCH better if Bush had been able to take six or seven years vacation.

Jack said:

You are mistaking a speech impediment for lack of intellect. He DID get better grades in college then either of the losers the Democrats put up against him.

Just imagine -- Bush is SOOOOOO stupid, and you guys STILL couldn't beat him.

ACTivist said:

I'm not so sure that they can beat Bush this next time around! Slim pickins' in the Dem gene pool.
If I remember, the last Democratic clown in the White House could talk up a storm but all carnies' can. And if you remember, Sanity?, BJ had the job to rid the world of Bin Laden. Osama wasn't willing to give BJ a cut of his inhereted virgins so the deal fell thru.

Sanity said:

It's more of a brain impediment. And that just goes to show that Republicans don't give a damn about competence, just ideology.

Just look at Bush's #1 requirement for a supreme court justice, that they won't ever learn on the job! "If you're going to get smarter over the years and maybe mature, then I don't want you on the court." Not exactly word-for-word but pretty close. He told Bob Woodward this to his face!

Fortunately, a lot of folks (even some Repub's) have realized that putting a dope in office isn't the best thing.

Jacob said:

Insanity,
Bush's grades were higher than Gore or Kerry. So how does that make him incompetent? You, being a lib should understand, "its all relative!" The American people had a choice and the better man won. Stop crying in your soup already.

Sanity said:

Right. He won 5-4. That doesn't show his competence, just the ideology of the supreme court.

C'mon, no one can say the guy's "bright".

I know you have to say he's "the better man" 'cuz you're "with the program", but in your heart of hearts, don't you look at the guy and say "Holy Christ, couldn't we have picked someone less embarrassing?" I hate being laughed at by ~6 billion people.

John L said:

GRADES? Look at some of the professional athletes grades from honorable schools as well, how did they and Mr. GW get them??? Oh, let me think…….hmmmmmmmm….fixed??? no never, HA HA HA…Bush is the laughing stock of the USA and the rest of the world, if you want to support him, and think he’s smart, fine, it just says a lot about you, which is also fine. If he’s SO smart how come he can’t speak without screwing up???

Bush is a total imbecile, that’s why we went from having one of the greatest surpluses in US history to the largest deficits, oh he’s is good student all right…HA HA HA HA HA

Jack said:

So George H.W. Bush had influence, Al Gore, Sr., did not? Go back to your fantasy world.

The fact is, if Al Gore had been able to carry his won state, he would have won. Bush also won Florida in every recount ever taken, even that done by the Washington Post. In 2004, had John Edwards been able to carry HIS state, Kerry would have won. Democrats put up losers that lose even their own states.

Lastly, John, absolute debt is unimportant. If a man makes $50,000 a year, and has a $100,000 debt, that's a problem. If he makes $500,000 per year, such a debt is not unmanageable.

Our debt is somewhere around 65% of GDP. Essentially where Canada's debt was a few years ago. They have since reduced that to about 30%. How did they accomplish this miracle?

Tax cuts.

Isophorone said:

Let's just say that anyone who pretends to be concerned about President Bush's intelligence has no business voting for Barack Obama, or any member of the Kennedy family, for that matter!

As far as the deficit goes, it was going up mainly due to increased domestic spending. Once Bush's tax cuts were passed in 2003, the deficit started going down, and it would be completely eliminated if Congress (and yes, I do fault the previous Republican Congress, too) got spending under control. Of course, the Democrats who run Congress now are rapidly proving themselves a lot worse!

Now BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC: It gave me some inspiration . . .

http://isophorone.blogspot.com/2007/09/oleszek-proposes-state-senate-rules.html

Sanity said:

You guys are morons if you think that tax cuts make the deficit go down.

Sanity said:

Sure the deficit started going down in 2003. The went down to "absurd" levels after being at "astonishingly high" levels after the tax cuts.

"Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, put us deeper in hock to the Chinese."

That's the Republican way.

Sanity said:

Hey! I got an idea! Let's cut taxes to zero! That ought to give us a huge surplus!!

Jack, BTW: What does this sentence say? "The fact is, if Al Gore had been able to carry his won state, he would have won." Your Google spell checker didn't find that, did it?

Isophorone said:

"Sure the deficit started going down in 2003. The went down to "absurd" levels after being at "astonishingly high" levels after the tax cuts."

Sanity, BTW: What did that sentence say? You need more than a spell checker, that's for sure!

But thanks for proving my point, at least in a backhanded way.

John L said:

Deficits are bad because they drain away resources from the productive sector of the economy into government - the parasitic wasteful sector. They raise interest rates and thereby hinder growth.
However, the worst part of the budget aren't the deficits, but the great increase in government spending.

Jacob said:

Insanity,
The economy like everything else in the real world is dynamic not static. Rate of increase on receipts of taxes have gone up since the tax cuts. As they did under JFK in the 60's, and Reagan in the 80's. This is called 'feedback'.

The trouble is our collective appetite for more pork. When the criminals in congress hear there is more money in the till, they all want a slice. (another bit of "feedback", think of Pavlov's dogs and the bell). The trouble is the pie is not growing fast enough for congress. The budget has increased at 8% or better since the mid 90'. Both parties are responsible for this current deficit.

I would still contend that the deficit would be worse w/o the cuts. Go look up the Laffer curve. Actually, here is a link ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Jacob said:

Insanity,
BTW, we are well past the hump in the curve. A typical middle class family is working 4 months for the guv'mint.

laughable said:

You republicans are really delusional…really it's LAUGHABLE!!!! HA HA HA, you got EXACTLY what you asked for, your kids will be forever grateful for your ignorance and stupidity!!!

Jacob said:

laughably,
aside from throwing insults, can you point to an example of ignorance and stupidity? Or when it comes to stupidity and ignorance are you projecting?

laughable said:

Easy, if you believe Bush is a great president and doing a fine job, then you’re either ignorant or stupid, take your pick…Just you asking me to elaborate on that is laughable.

Anonymous said:

I can elaborate- the nomination of Harriett Meiers to the Supreme Court, and putting up Gonzales as AG. Both stand as very stupid decisions that call into question this man's ability to make decisions for the country. I won't even go into Iraq.

Jacob said:

Laughingboy,
I thought we were talking about taxes and the laffer curve.

As for Bush, he ran against Kerry and Gore. Would you care to tell me that either of those clowns were a better choice? Bush, as dumb as he is still got better grades. That does not make him smart, just Kerry and Gore dumber. He was the better option.

Are you denying that, or are you going to change subjects again?

I guess you don't want to return to taxes. Okey dokey. Lets talk about the future losers who want to reside in the public housing at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Well, looking at the current crop of candidates, the Democrat party is going to field something that looks more socialist than Democrat. Tax hikes and mandatory check ups along with an open borders policy. Truman would drown this bunch in the nearest lake. Ah the power of the nutroots, it almost makes we want to send money over to moveOn et al.

Who would you pick anyway?

Jacob said:

Anonymous,
I will agree that Meiers was a disaster. Thank you for a direct response. As for AG and Iraq. Let us disagree , by all means go into it. That is why we are here.

Jack said:

Laughable, have you looked at the results Canada has had with their tax cuts? They have taken their debt from 60% of their GDP to less than 30%.

Jacob said:

Jack,
Don't confuse laughingboy with the facts. It gets in the way of his Marxist mo-jo. Have you know respect for art? Don't you realize that laughingboy is an artist?

laughable said:

As for Bush, he ran against Kerry and Gore. Would you care to tell me that either of those clowns were a better choice?

YES - we would have more than 3000 more American service men/women still alive, are you really that dumb?

Oh and please, don’t give me that terrorist crap, your group terrorizes enough people in this country and get away with it each and every day!

That is NOT laughable, it’s pathetic!

Jack said:

Would they, laughable? Do you know that Iraq would not have started something. We clearly established that he had WMD, having used it on both his own people and on Iranians. And we know that he was trying to get uranium. We also know he successfully launched a satellite into orbit, and so had the capability for long-range missiles.

3000 soldiers? We lost 19,000 at the Battle of the Bulge (81k casualties). We lost 6800 on Iwo Jima (26,000 casualties). War is Hell, laughingstock. As wars go, this one's pretty damned good.

ACTivist said:

Laughable, if you believe that YOUR pick of candidates would have kept us out of the war in Iraq, would you then say that your bunch are isolationists? Do you truly believe that if you put your head in the sand (or anywhere else) that those that just don't like what you stand for will do you no harm? Do you have any concept of reality? Do you not understand that we are trying to stamp out lib/lefty stupidity in YOUR lifetime?

Sanity said:

Jack, Activist, I can't stay silent.

Hear this: There was NO uranium, NO WMD's, NO contact with terrorists. Back in '98, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al wanted Clinton to invade Irag and he told them to go pound salt. As soon as Bush got in office, they started making plans. 9/11 gave them the excuse they were looking for.

Invading Irag had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist activity.

Saddam was an imperialist and wanted to espand Irag (if he could), but that's WAY, WAY different than saying he was a threat to the U.S. or that he was a terrorist.

There is NO chance any "non-Cheney-ified" president would have went into Irag because, as is now very clear, it's been great for Al Qaida.

The war in Iraq is clearly the dumbest idea that any American president has had in the last 50 years.

2,190 days and the idiots in the White House STILL haven't caught the guy responsible. Why??? Because we've been in Iraq!

If you guys can't see this, you've obviously been fast asleep for the last five years. Our country is going to be paying for this idiocy for a long, long time.

Anonymous said:

inSanity:

You are wrong, as are most liberals. There was WMD. He used it. Convoys of trucks were seen going to Syria in the days before the war. Iraq did the same thing before the first Gulf War, except that he sent things to Iran.

He also did make attempts to get uranium.

Finally, there was a terrorist training ground in Iraq, with a jet fuselage.

"The war in Iraq is clearly the dumbest idea that any American president has had in the last 50 years."

Would that include Kennedy's and Johnson's getting us into Vietnam? How many did they get killed? This war is not even the same order of magnitude.

Sanity said:

You can believe what you want to believe with your head in the sand. Fine by me.

Eisenhower got us into Vietnam. Yes, Kennedy and Johnson escalated, and yes, that was dumb, but with Iraq we were so wrong about everything, and we ignored the lessons of Vietnam that were clear as a bell.

I find it funny that early on Bush said that there was no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Now he says there just alike. "Hello" "Earth to Bush".

By 2001, there were no more WMD's in Iraq. Our own guys knew it and tried to tell Bush et. al. They just didn't listen.

There's no documented evidence that Saddam made any serious attempt to get Uranium. The yellow-cake stuff was all bogus. If you read much, you would have known that almost a year BEFORE we went into Iraq.

There was no plane. here's a quote from the congressional report from 2006:

"Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the source of reports on al-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW training in iraq, recanted the information he provided...The DIA assessed that 'there has been no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq...No al-Qa'ida associates detained since 11 September have said they trained at Salman Pak...Postwar site exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida lined individuals took place there."

I can't believe you buy in to this crap? The entire justification for going into Iraq were lies.

ACTivist said:

Sanity? Are you a bigot/racist? It is IRAQ...not Irag!

I wonder what killed all them Kurds? You must remember, a grenade can be a weapon of mass destruction. There definitly was gas projectiles.

Saddam was a dictator and wanted to rule whatever he could conquer. He was also an enemy of the Jewish state and would not have hesitated to send a missle into its midsts.

Can you show me anything that says invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorism? Do you remember what happened when we did invade Iraq? Most of the military disappeared. They went out of uniform to guerrilla style. Their acts inflict casualties on ANY and ALL peoples, not just Americans. The rants and deeds of Saddam WERE terroristic in nature. Would you not agree?

I imagine that the 2,190 days of which you speak is since the 9-11 strike. And you are right. We haven't caught the guy responsible yet. Then again, the "idiot in the White House" before blew his chance which made it harder for the next guy. Come to think of it, if the "other idiot" had taken care of the business at hand, we would have been spared almost 3,000 innocent lives from 9-11. That is using your own style logic, Insanity?

Sanity said:

So, our job is to go around the world blasting anyone that treats his own people poorly?

Well, there's about 10 wars in Africa that I don't hear you saying much about, but that, no doubt, you think we should invade all those countries too?

No one is saying that Saddam was a "good guy". Just that we invaded for complete other reasons than 9/11. Like I say, they wanted to invade in '98.

Yes, if I were part of the Iraq army, I would have done the same thing. But since when is defending your country from invaders the same as blowing up buildings in someone else's country?

If we are going to invade everyone who's "an enemy of the Jewish state", we better start drafting now.

Also, are you saying that Clinton had justification for invading Afghanistan before 9/11? If so, why aren't we invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden?

John L said:

JACK WROTE
3000 soldiers? We lost 19,000 at the Battle of the Bulge (81k casualties). We lost 6800 on Iwo Jima (26,000 casualties). War is Hell, laughingstock. As wars go, this one's pretty damned good.

Nice to see that Jack has so much compassion for our military personnel, he actually considers 3000 dead soldiers not bad. I feel really felt sick after reading his post…sick!

Jacob said:

Insanity,
We had military technical advisers in every non communist country on the planet back in the 50's. Eisenhower did not get us 'into' Vietnam. That is akin to calling the Marine detachment at every embassy a 'military presence'.

It was Kennedy's decision to send in combat troops. Live with that.

It was Johnson's decision to escalate that commitment up to 500K in country. Live with that.

Guess what, I agree with the purpose of those decisions. Why? Just because the guy in the oval office is not from my party it does not mean he is wrong on every move he makes. So pull your head out of the kool-aide bowl and get out of your simplistic Democrat=ALL THAT IS GOOD in the world viewpoint, you dolt.

Going to Iraq after 9/11 made sense because Saddam Hussein threatened us with WMD's, had used WMD's on the Kurds and Iranians and claimed he had MORE WMD's. The whole intelligence world thought he had WMD's, not just the CIA. Mossad, MI5 the KGB etc all thought he had them. LIVE WITH THAT.

The world has changed, those AC flying into buildings looking to kill upwards of 20K people. This meant that the radicals from the Arab World were looking to kill lots of Americans and it was not just rhetoric. Anyone saying otherwise is deluded. I am waiting for the Iranians to give a nuke to some nut, and watch DC, or NY, or LA go up in smoke.

I am sure you will give me a pile of a reason why this would not happen if we had a Kerry in office. "We'll will talk them to death" does not work with people like this. Remember Hitler? Talking did not work all that well with him, try to remember why.

They won't hit Israel. The Israelis don't have idiots like you in mass quantities who will ask "what did we do to deserve this?" We won't strike back because we are quickly becoming a nation of self-deluded wimps.

We have been digging up Mig's in the dessert in Iraq. Since the country is the size of CA, you think having years to hide his stash ol' Saddam could NOT find a rabbit hole in which to put the stuff?

There are some who think he sent them to Syria. There is some proof in this. Nothing perfectly knowable. But the nature of intelligence is that it is not like your bank statement.

As for the biggest blunder in the past 50 years? Dream on, by YOUR OWN yardstick Vietnam was a far bigger blunder one that was initiated by one of the Chief of the Gods in the liberal Pantheon, his holiness John F. Kennedy.

The biggest blunder in the past century was committed by James Earl Carter when he just wept and said, "can I please have my embassy back?" and gave Imaheadjob, and all the Islamo nuts the idea that we are a country of pushovers and wimps.

Jack said:

You ARE sick, John L, but we'll get to that later.

Jacob said:

Jack,
do not impugn John L's mental state!! As a socialist he has no mentality. He gets his slogans form the NYT's or moveOn and is ready to call us Fascists. Though if Bush and Cheney were Fascists he'd be in a work camp, or shot. But don't confuse the little dear with facts, they make his head hurt.

Sanity said:

Cheney is the fascist. Bush is the lapdog.

If they had their way, John L would be in a work camp or shot.

Fortunately, we still have a few checks and balances to prevent mass imprisonment of liberals.

BTW Jacob: I disagreed with going into Vietnam even though they were Dems.

At least Johnson (and Nixon, whom I don't pillory just because he left Vietnam) realized the bind that they were in and agonized over how to get out.

Johnson knew that there would be issues when we left so that's why he escalated. Nixon knew the same thing but (rightly) realized that there would be the same problem no matter WHEN we left, so sooner was better.

It's just too bad that our current leadership learned absolutely nothing from that experience. Bush STILL thinks it was a good idea to go into Iraq. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans have realized differently.

John L said:

Jack are you 12?

ACTivist said:

Jacob, I could see the fire in your eyes. Don't hemmorage over liberal viewpoints. John L. don't count for nothin.

Sanity? You smokin' sum of dat crack agin? The vast majority of "hippies" as well as Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark (that the right one?), the Black Panthers, the Weathermen and all their ilk are what got us out of Vietnam. They were disgracing and destroying the country from within. The only thing that makes war a folley is when your rules-of-engagement are too restrictive (Jimmie C. had no gonads, Iranians took advantage. Reagan had big ones, Iranians backed off). A little more latitude produces alot more results! That is the art of war. There is no room for compassion. Otherwise there would be no wars!

Sorry, Joe. I hope I didn't affect your rating.

Sanity said:

Rating is still "G"!

ACT, maybe I wasn't clear. I applaud Nixon for getting us out of Vietnam and wish Johnson had done it earlier. We had no chance to "win", winning being defined as either (a) whipping the North Vietnamese or (b) keeping the country in two pieces.

We couldn't do (a) because the North Vietnamese had too much Communist support and if we really started invading the North, the Chinese would have had a cow and about 100,000,000 of them would have come pouring down.

We couldn't do (b) because the South Viet govt. was incompetent and not much loved by the people.

All this, even though we were clearly militarily superior and killed plenty more of them than they did of us.

The "surge" in Iraq is a mini-version of the Johnson escalation that will have a temporary positive impact but won't last any longer than we will.

We can't "win" in Iraq because (a) the govt. is incompetent and doesn't have much support from the people, and (b) it's not at all clear who the enemy is.

The irony is that we keep killing Sunnis (friends of our oil-rich neighbors, pissing them off) and befriending Shiites, the friends of Iran.

Like Vietnam, there's simply no good outcome that has any chance of occurring. I say, declare victory, as we did get Saddam killed off, and get the hell out.

Will that be bad? Will a lot of people get killed? Sure. But the same will happen next year or five years from now. Won't matter. Same as in Vietnam.

Nixon was smart to realize that so he got out. Was it bad in the short term? Sure. Did it bring peace and vitality to Vietnam? Yes. We hated the fact that they were communist, but they've been doing ok.

Jack said:

No, John L., but at last count, YOU'RE twenty-two!

ACTivist said:

Sanity?
"Nixon was smart to realize that so he got out. Was it bad in the short term? Sure. Did it bring peace and vitality to Vietnam? Yes. We hated the fact that they were communist, but they've been doing ok."

The Soviets wanted a warm water port and got one. They supplied the Vietnamese with arms and not much else. The Soviets went broke. The Vietnamese had no trade and were crying for help. Clinton decided to "bury the ax" and resumed normalization with Vietnam. Does that pretty much sum it up?

As Patton wanted to do at the end of WWII, we should have taken on the Soviet Union-we didn't. That has been tallying up for years.

The Chinese were are pain in Korea. We should have taken them then. We didn't and that has been tallying up for years.

The Soviets and Chinese meet us in Vietnam and that was a very "touchy" time. The odds were againest us and the costs high.

Since then, the Chinese and Soviet Union have been supplying all those third world nations with arms and technologies that they should never have had a chance to get. Even the French (money whores) jumped into the act. Either we try to obtain allies wherever we can find them or the deck will be stacked sooooo high it just won't matter anymore. We need to be in the middle east. I just wish we had let Saddam take out Iran first before we stepped in and stopped him. Water under the bridge. We are there and we need to try as many things as possible to achieve a stable victory for that region. Not cut and run.
Foreign policy is tricky and I don't think I'm anywhere near smart enough to try and direct it. Too many "unknowns" that I'm not privy to.
"A man has got to know his limitations!"
Harry Callahan


Nina said:

Did the government of the United States lie to the American people, more to the point, did President Bush and his Neocon associates lie to Congress, to initiate a war of conquest in Iraq?

This question has been given currency by a memo leaked from inside the British Government which clearly indicates a decision to go to war followed by the "fixing" of information around that policy. This is, as they say, a smoking gun.

Sanity said:

ACT,

I think you would find out that trying to be a global emperor is much harder than you think. There is absolutely no way we could have beaten the Soviet Union after WWII or the Chinese during the Korean War. The U.S.S.R was simply too big and the Chinese are too many. Look how hard we have it in Iraq and it's trivial compared with either of the other countries.

Name all the countries that have been successfully taken over in the last 106 years. Compare that to the number of countries that conquerors have given up. It's hard to conquer, and much more difficult to hold.

Many of our problems (Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba) indirectly came from our meddling in countries where we shouldn't have. Just trace the history of Iran, for example, and you'll see what I mean. We tried coup after coup, etc., etc. and ended up with enemies running the government.


Nina,

This is not only true, but has been known since before the war even started. Colin Powell knew it too, but thought he would get in good with "the Bushies" if he "got with the program". Now he looks like a lier and his strategy didn't work. Bush still didn't use him.

For example, the uranium "yellow cake" was known to be a fraud even before Bush used it in his State of the Union speech.

Also, the Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection was known to be bogus. Actually, if you look back, Cheney is about the only one who actually promoted the idea.

Also, all of the WMD "authorities" were known Iraqi liers.

As I said in a different post, in 1998 Cheney, et. al. tried to get Clinton to invade Iraq and he said no. They started laying plans in January 2001 and 9/11 gave them the excuse to do it. So they said anything they could to get Congress to go along.

If they had just went into Afghanistan "like men" they would have taken Bin Laden, killed most of the Taliban and Al Quaida and been pretty much done with this whole mess.

Instead they went into Iraq for oil (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Halliburton) and revenge (attack on Bush's father), and look where we are.

Al Quaeda is stronger than ever, we've spent about 1/2 a trillion dollars, still don't have much oil, and the whole world hates us.

Thanks George and Dick! At least you've made history books easy to write.

Jack said:

"Did the government of the United States lie to the American people, more to the point, did President Bush and his Neocon associates lie to Congress, to initiate a war of conquest in Iraq?"

No, Nina, Congress had the same intelligence reports that the White House had. Hillary could not be bothered to actually read those reports before she voted to send our soldiers to war.

Sanity said:

Jack,

If you remember, the White House was sharing information with the "gang of 8" congressmen (which is required by law) and prohibiting them from taking notes or talking with anyone else.

The White House had all the facts. They doctored all the stuff they sent to the hill. This is all now known.

Hillary was certainly not the only one that voted for war. I believe every repub did. (Maybe there was an exception or two.)

Jack said:

ALL of the congresscritters had access to ALL the reports. Don't cry about the war when YOUR presidential front-runner could not be bothered to read the reports before voting.

Nina said:

There is nothing new in a government lying to their people to start a war. Indeed because most people prefer living in peace to bloody and horrific death in war, any government that desires to initiate a war usually lies to their people to create the illusion that support for the war is the only possible choice they can make. I only ask that you please stop pointing at the Democrats when this lie was clearly created by the Bush administration.

Jack said:

This was created by the Hussein administration. Congress had access to ALL the information the Bush administration had. Hillary would not read it.

Nina said:

Jack I have a straightforward question for you; do you ever acknowledge that the Bush administration has done anything to screw-up this country?

Anonymous said:

The Bush Administration undoubtedly breathed a sigh of relief, but not for the reasons most might expect. Saddam is dead, and ostensibly someone else did the dirty deed.

Like most successful Mafias, the extended criminal network surrounding the Bush Administration does its job best when people don't talk much. Especially people who, "know too much." Everyone's seen the Godfather movies where people get "rubbed out" before they can "talk."

Jack said:

Oh, yes, Nina. Bush's immigration policy is damn near treasonous, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (and all other parts of Medicare and Medicaid) is unconstitutional, and so is his No Child Get Ahead fiasco.

Jack said:

You want mafia, Anonymous? How about Paula Jones and Vince Foster? How about Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian Gonzalez?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM