November 27, 2012

Lindsey Graham "more concerned than I was before" about Susan Rice.

And he "wouldn’t vote for anybody being nominated out of the Benghazi debacle until I had answers about what happened that I don’t have today."

Shouldn't Rice be better at conciliation if she's got what it takes to be Secretary of State?

CORRECTION: Originally, I'd attributed the quote in the headline to McCain, one of the 2 Senators at the meeting with Rice. (The other Senator was Ayotte.)

180 comments:

BDNYC said...

It was Graham who said that, not McCain.

Their statements – coming after Ms. Rice’s conciliatory remarks during a meeting designed to mend fences with her three critics and smooth the way for her nomination as secretary of state if President Obama decides on her as the successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton – attested to the bitterness of the feud between the White House and Republicans over Benghazi.

You see, it's the mean, nasty, obstructionist Republicans who will do anything to stop a black woman from being Secretary of State. She was being conciliatory.

ricpic said...

Lynching!!!

AJ Lynch said...

These Repubs like Mccain and Graham have to unlearn this bending over backwards crap.

Better yet how about pushing aside these old ineffective Repub Senate leaders and put the Rubios, Ayottes & Toomeys & Rand Pauls out front? They are smarter, have better ideas and don't give two shits about this so-called Senate decorum. Why shoudl Repubs do that? When is the last time Reid or Shumer or Boxer showed any Senate decorum?

The Drill SGT said...

I think this wil be ugly. Obama has gotten his back up that he can't get what he wants in appointments and has to answer questions like, What aid did you dispatch to Benghazi, when?

The GOP and some dems want answers.

Rice under oath at her confirmation would be a debacle...

Marshal said...

Why? This administration seems to view the primary job responsibility to be grandstanding so the media can spin the results into an Obama-friendly narrative. She's doing this because they want her to.

chickelit said...

Shouldn't Rice be better at conciliation if she's got what it takes to be Secretary of State?

Rice lacked a little consilience as well, but that was Intelligence's job.

garage mahal said...

Sweet, another Benghazi thread involving the butthurt feelings of John McCain.

Clue to McCain: There is no Mt Rushmore for sore losers.

Nonapod said...

I would say I don't believe she's got a chance in hell of becoming the next SoS but I honestly don't know anymore. I'm sure the media will convince everyone that all those mean old white guys opposing here are just a bunch of racist hate mongers who are afraid of her awesomeness. And I'm pretty sure a majority of people are moronic enough to believe that.

Lyssa said...

I honestly think that the Obama admin's attempt to nominate her is a straight-up "I won" move, designed entirely to push limits and rub their power in the faces of their opponents. The fact that they get to cry racism and sexism is an added bonus.

It's a twisted power grab, to make it clear that they are in charge.

n.n said...

BDNYC:

Too late! One already passed through the censor's gate.

As for Rice, and Obama's intervention: if she, or he, cannot be criticized, then they are ineligible to serve. Contrary to their opinion, it is they who serve at our pleasure.

stonetools said...

You can't conciliate someone who doesn't want to be conciliated.
You can't make someone understand something if their political success depends on them not understanding it.
You can't convince someone of truth of something if they are professionally and emotionally invested in the opposite of truth.

Rob said...

Ms. Rice went on national television and tried to sell a patently false story for political advantage. Who gives a damn how conciliatory she may be? It does not have to indicate bitterness toward anyone to say they should not hold an important government position. The press operates on a third grade level.

eddie willers said...

Of course these old white racists won't vote for a black woman named Rice to be Secretary of State....just ask Condoleezza.

elkh1 said...

She'll be confirmed without a single Republican after Reid got rid of filibuster in the Senate.

The voters who voted in 2012 didn't care as long as they are paid with someone else's money. And they're the majority.

Bob Ellison said...

What Lyssa said.

Michael K said...

" OpenID elkh1 said...

She'll be confirmed without a single Republican after Reid got rid of filibuster in the Senate.

The voters who voted in 2012 didn't care as long as they are paid with someone else's money. And they're the majority."

And garage, after the Muslims take over they will blow up Mt Rushmore as sacrilegious.

lgv said...

If you knew you weren't going to walk away in better shape (e.g. more plausible deniability), why would even have such a meeting?

Obama must believe Repubs will cave rather than being called racists. It's a gamble when he knows Kerry would be approved 100-0. If I were the Repubs, I would send a back-channel message, Kerry gets approved no questions, Rice starts a war. Part B, not only does Rice start a confirmation war, Kerry for SecDef starts another war.

Bob said...

Susan Rice would not have been considered a possible candidate for Secretary of State without Benghazi. Patraeus and her are merely used as deflection for the president's failure to provide Cross Border Authority, which would have saved American lives.

edutcher said...

Considering how eager Junior and Grahamnesty are to reach out across the aisle, this is about as damning an indictment of Ms Rice as one could ask.

lgv said...

If you knew you weren't going to walk away in better shape (e.g. more plausible deniability), why would even have such a meeting?

Obama must believe Repubs will cave rather than being called racists


It's always worked for him in the past. Must be horrifying to find out he might be wrong.

chickelit said...

Clue to McCain: There is no Mt Rushmore for sore losers.


Clue to Garage: There is always more Rush for sore winners.

Ann Althouse said...

"It was Graham who said that, not McCain."

You're right. I'm sorry. Corrected.

chickelit said...

Althouse, I think you just made garage look rather stupid by changing the headline as he unleashed some pent-up McDS upthread.

Hagar said...

Well, it could be a backhanded way of getting John Kerry confirmed without a big fuss.

But I do not know that having John Kerry as Secretary of State is good for the country; we might well be better off with Susan Rice, if that's the choice.

And Susan Rice went on those shows and did what she was told to do - I think after some others refused to go - and there is only one person tonedeaf and powerful enough to make her do that.
So that is a problem.

Should they let him get away with that?

David said...

The Secretary of State should be skeptical and persuasive. Rice has not shown either trait.

Forthrightness would help too.

Aridog said...

Susan Rice and David Petraeus are both tools. Difference is that Petraeus is being groomed for the pasture, while Rice is being primped up, as the next magic person of color, for run at POTUS in 2016. "The Party" needs glamorous tools and she fits just like Obama did/does. YMMV.

Kerry? For either SECDSEF or SECSTATE? A professional liar from Massachusetts, with that record dating to 1971, is an abomination. Then again, Massachusetts just elected Liz [Squatting Cow] Warren...so maybe it's the old/new thing...blatant liars for high office.

"The Party" rules.

McTriumph said...

Does it really matter who is Sec of State with this fucked up foreign policy?

Pogo said...

Who could possibly deny our Lord and Savior Obama?

AprilApple said...

Susan Rice is the perfect lapdog liar for this regime.

chickelit said...

Hagar said...
Well, it could be a backhanded way of getting John Kerry confirmed without a big fuss.

I can think of worse jobs for Kerry, like Secretary of Defense. He is ultimate preening diplomat and he speaks fluent French.



Bruce Hayden said...

They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel right now. Rice lied to the American people about Benghazi, and Kerry lied to Congress about Vietnam, and apparently needed to get Teddy Kennedy to intervene to get his honorable discharge and his medals back. Think of that - someone becoming SecDef after getting an officer's equivalent of a dishonorable discharge.

Aridog said...

Chickelit ... Should they let him get away with that?

Hello. He already has gotten away with it.

I have no use for Susan Rice, an empty skirt, however, compared to John MF'ing Kerry, she's the equivalent of the Madonna come down to earth by comparison. Given a choice, give me Rice.

If Kerry gets either position I will be stricken with projectile vomiting at every mention of his lying perjuring ass name. I am unanimous in this.

McTriumph said...

I don't know why Kerry would want to be Sec of State, he's always done just fine injecting himself into US foreign policy from the Paris Peace Talks to Nicaragua and more. He's always excelled at blowing our enemies.

Alex said...

Where is the Scott Walker indictment?

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add that I would much prefer Kerry as Sec of State to Sec of Defense. Not all of his instincts are wrong, which is something that I can's say about Rice and Clinton. The problem I see is that he probably doesn't have the mental horsepower for the job. His incoherency was sold by the MSM as nuance, but I think that it is more likely the result of an elite education for someone who didn't have the brains to really benefit from it. Still, he is pretty good at saying nothing as he sounds so erudite.

The problem with him at Defense is that he would likely be loathed by many of those reporting to him. He exhibits and stands for much of what the military despises.

Bob Ellison said...

I kinda liked Susan Rice before the Benghazi fiasco. She seemed tough. Maybe I was swayed by the fact that she's pretty.

So yeah, Hagar, I could see that Rice might still be better than Kerry. He seems not to have a lot of...stuff...in him.

Anyway, the last consequential SecState we had was George Schulz. The rest have been mostly parrots.

Alex said...

Can garage explain what Susan Rice's qualification are to be Secretary of State? Other then being another Obama shill?

Alex said...

I kinda liked Susan Rice before the Benghazi fiasco. She seemed tough

Cite one example.

garage mahal said...

The Benghazi psuedo-scandal needs a medical ailment named after it.

Benghazi Fever? Benghazorrhea? Benghazi Bedwetting?

deborah said...

Whenever I've seen Rice on the news she looked like a harried second grade teacher, so I thought I'd look at her on youtube. What do we think of her manner in this vid?

http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=-i6i6ogI_s8&feature=related

Dante said...

Shouldn't Rice be better at conciliation if she's got what it takes to be Secretary of State?

Let's see. Bill Clinton, alleged Groper by Kathleen Willy, alleged exhibitionist by Paula Jones, alleged Rapist by Juanita Broderick. Thomas Clarence, accused of saying "Is that a pube in my coke" to Anita Hill, and the entire country is up in arms.

Meanwhile, Dems get advantage out of the word "Vagina", and no one in the press points out the irony of Bill Clinton campaigning.

Benghazi, incompetence, it really doesn't matter. What can't a Democrat get away with? And more importantly, what can't a female Democrat get away with, alla Barbara Boxer, who said she supports a Woman's right to an abortion up until the moment of birth. Now, here you have a Black Female Democrat.

Are you kidding me? She walks, she can say "What" and "Where's the tea"; who cares if she has a brain or not?

Bob Ellison said...

Alex, do some reading here.

Pogo said...

All disagreement is racist.

AprilApple said...

It was the video. It was all due to a shadowy character. Free speech sparked outrage and so we must stomp on free speech. We must jail free speech. We must write speeches for the UN general assembly that apologize for our shadowy character and our free speech.

Susan Rice: On second thought, there was no protest before the Benghazi attack

McTriumph said...

garage mahal said...
The Benghazi psuedo-scandal needs a medical ailment named after it.

Or a protest song sung to the tune of "Ohio"

Al Qaeda and Obama's not coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear them mortars
Gotta get down to it
Al Qaeda is gunning us down

Four dead in Ben gha zi
Four dead in Ben gha zi

Inga said...

Benghazitis.

Inga said...

Benghaziheimers.

Inga said...

Benghaziroids.

Alex said...

So Rice pushing for a no-fly zone in Libya = toughness? You have a very low bar.

Inga said...

Benghazinoma.

Inga said...

Benghazienza.

Inga said...

Benghaziosis.

garage mahal said...

McCain wonders why we had details about the bin Laden raid more quickly than the Benghazi attack.

Hmmm, I wonder what's different about those two. One was a raid led by us, and one was an attack on us?

Nathan Alexander said...

Benghazi-Democrats-don't-give-a-shit-about-American-deaths-as-long-as-Democrats-retain-political-power.

chickelit said...

Rice-a-wrongi

chickelit said...

Rice-a-wronghi

(orthographically corrected for Italian)

Bob Ellison said...

Alex, do you have a point? If you comb your hair just right, maybe people won't notice.

Also, your mother wears combat boots.

Also, I like your name. It's a good one. Better on a girl than a boy, though. Are you a girl?

McTriumph said...

I don't know what's a Latin medical term for "Four left to die" or "fuck em" for short?

Inga said...

Nathan Alexanderphrenia.

chickelit said...

Inga-gotta-divide-us

mccullough said...

Susan Rice is pretty cute. That might go a long way in diplomatic relations.

McTriumph said...

chickelit

Shit, I wore two of those 8-tracks out.

Inga said...

Divide who? I think that liberals and conservatives were pretty well divided before I ever set foot in this blog.

We liberals here have Macroorchidism. Even the females. Especially the females actually;)

Aridog said...

Garage...The Benghazi psuedo-scandal...

I know you are smarter than that. Several of us, with experience in similar situations, have tried to explain it. It may not be a dib deal, even if four men died, but it absolutely been a pack of lies from 9/11 onward. Classic example of first liar doesn't stand a chance meme.

Inga ... go fuck yourself hypocrite who worries about a daughter in harms way but gives less of a shit about others who die there. Your kid survived the attack at Camp Bastion/Camp Leatherneck integrated compound...but some US Marines died there. Sometimes you just out do yourself.

Noted is that I can't recall your query about how 15 rag heads managed to penetrate the perimeter at Camp Bastion to split up and engage US Marines in a fire fight.

Portia said...

I say leave Hillary in. Our 'furrin relations' are so screwed up now it couldn't get any worse and Hillary is a big part of that. Rice or Kerry wouldn't have a clue.

Sort of tells you the Dems don't have much bench strength in only having these two in play.

Michael said...

We are never going to get a straight answer on Benghazi because we are not supposed to know what was going on over there. Forget the killing of the four Americans. Forget that, that was nothing compared to what was happening. We were running guns out of there to Syria. Hushfuckinghush. And back there in the "Annex" where they fought like tigers for hours and where the help when it finally arrived headed straight for: back there they were asking prisoners questions.

I am, by the way, cool with all of that and cool with the idea that we should not know some things. Absolutely should not.

But when shit happens you would hope that our leadership would have in mind better cover stories, more air tight cover stories. That is the great disappointment of Benghazi and it is also why the "investigation" will end on the very day of the indictment of Walker.

McTriumph said...

Macroorchidism is a genetic disorder found in males where a subject has abnormally large testes. The condition is commonly inherited in connection with fragile X syndrome, which is also the second most common genetic cause of mental disabilities.

MENTAL DISABILITIES, check!

Inga said...

Aridog, that's pretty damn low of you. My outrage was for those who were put in harms way, I said that many many times and I specified that I wasn't just my daughter I was worried about.

bagoh20 said...

Democrats who lie directly to the American people on TV are a very successful breed, and thoroughly loved as champions and role models by the left.

It was a video.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Health care debate will be on Cspan.
I will accept public campaign funding limits.
I will close Gitmo.
"Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk"
You can keep your insurance and your doctor.
And on and on......

Why would they ever stop lying right to you face when it works out so well for them when they do?

Suckers.

Inga said...

And Aridog, I know DAMN WELL that Marines died there, that day. I said so myself here on this blog the day after it happened. Truly that was an uncalled for statement by you, I thought you were better than that.

McTriumph said...

Inga, if they don't give a shit about a US Ambassador, where do you think your daughter is in the food chain?

Aridog said...

Inga...We liberals here have Macroorchidism. Even the females.


Are you drunk today? Gotta agree with you on this one, where it pertains to your "we liberals", but not all liberals here by a long shot...you DO suffer from genetic mental disabilities caused by Macroorchidism. Like a broken watch, your right about twice a day. Bingo!

chickelit said...

@McTriumph: Bottom line: Inga really only cares about Obama protecting her daughter's abortion rights.

bagoh20 said...

Benghaziphobia
Benghazifabulation
Pseudologia Benghzitastica
Benghazi pathologica
Benghazi mythomania

Aridog said...

Inga...yeah, you mentioned two Marines died, but no posed no query about how and why. Call it avoiding Bastionitis, right? I don't need a lot of guts to call you when you parrot bullshit repeatedly and pollute an otherwise decent discussion. When you mock circumstances that took lives, you are an asshole. Period. Who else here, literally does that?

Inga said...

McTriumph, I have asked man times in these Benghazi discussions, why were we still in Bengahzi after the Brits left? Why didn't they have enough security?

BUT those questions aren't being focused on by McCain and his buddy Lindsey, they are focusing on what Susan Rice's talking points were on that given Sunday? Shouldn't more people here be outraged by THAT?

At least on Leatherneck they HAD weapons.

Paul said...

Well Ms. Rice said they didn't MEAN to LIE!

Note she didn't say "WE DID NOT LIE".

Big difference.

Meanwhile Obama won't meet with Republicans over the budget (but then when did Obama ever try to get both sides to agree?, never right?)

Same old Obama and staff. Nothing has changed.

Inga said...

Aridog, what I am mocking is the FAKE outrage over fucking TALKING POINTS by Susan Rice by McCain and Lindsey and some of you dupes who have fallen for that.

That Is funny as hell. Why the hell don't you folks ask why we were still in that god forsaken country?

McTriumph said...

Inga, when an administration is stonewalling you go with what you got. You work it backwards.

deborah said...

The problem with not letting go of Benghazi is that Obama and co. will never go down because of it. And the general public couldn't care less about it. In the meantime they get to laugh and laugh at the GOP chasing its tail. There's probably an Alinsky rule about it.

Aridog said...

At least on Leatherneck they HAD weapons.

Sho' nuff...except when ordered to unload and stack them for the SECDEF visit. Where were the perimeter patrols and their weapons on 14 September 2012?

You don't know because I doubt you've ever been in any similar circumstances. Never let ignorance hinder you defense of Obamessiah.

Inga said...

Chickelit, what is wrong with you?

chickelit said...

deborah said...
The problem with not letting go of Benghazi is that Obama and co. will never go down because of it. And the general public couldn't care less about it. In the meantime they get to laugh and laugh at the GOP chasing its tail.

I dunno deborah--it's like the people forget all the lies told about Palin as it never happened. How "respectable" bloggers and columnists who sunk to the lowest depths are given a pass. It just doesn't seem right.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

John Kerry is dangerous. He thinks he is a great man, but he is not.

Inga said...

Aridog, I didn't vote for Obama. If Obama's administration was negligent in keeping the Embassy staff in Libya aft the Brits left, then THAT should be investigated and if there is fallout from that, so be it. I've said this numerous times on this blog also.

I truly think you folks are deranged, or have selective amnesia.

Aridog said...

That Is funny as hell.

A stooge lying to the public certainly is hilarious.

Why the hell don't you folks ask why we were still in that god forsaken country?

Strawman argument, eh...pose a hypothetical circumstance ... see because we WERE in that country on your Obamessiah's watch, so why don't YOU ask he or his minions why? They will lie to you, of course, but you'd at least be stepping up to what you demand of "you folks."

By the way, that is dog whistle every bit as much as "those people."

chickelit said...

Inga asks: Why the hell don't you folks ask why we were still in that god forsaken country?

I gave POTUS the benefit of the doubt that he was up to something. See here. But the timing before the election and the deliberate obfuscation for political reasons done on the graves of servicemen was beyond the pale.

Inga said...

Good God Chickelit, perhaps you should get out of Palin's underpants, after all these years. You have a Palin/ Sullivan fixation.

Aridog said...

Inga...THAT should be investigated and if there is fallout from that, so be it. I've said this numerous times on this blog

Really? You got a link for that?

Whether you voted or not for Obama is not the point...you defend his policy and procedure regularly. You own it.

McTriumph said...

In more fun news naked people protest in The Speaker of house's office. Couple of those chicks I might do.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/naked-lib-protesters-storm-john-boehners-office/

Inga said...

Aridog, I HAVE asked, many times, here on this blog, same as where you all have been blathering over Susan Rice and taliking points.

Aridog said...

...perhaps you should get out of Palin's underpants,...

Stay classy. Ya' Heah?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Inga feigns outrage after several posts mocking and demeaning what happened in Benghazi.

If your military daughter was not a figment of your fevered leftist brain, some might have sympathy.

You mooing about someone acting "low" on this board is an absolute joke.

Oink on.

Inga said...

Except for Nathan Alexander, he did ask some great questions, when he asks for answers to the legitimate questions, I don't want a stupid talking point bogus controversy from clouding the answers of the REAL questions.

chickelit said...

Inga said...
Good God Chickelit, perhaps you should get out of Palin's underpants, after all these years. You have a Palin/ Sullivan fixation.

It's just that people like you never called him on it. Hell, your buddy Ritmo defended Sullivan over it.

Need links?

Aridog said...

Inga...who the fuck is "you all?" That'd be anyone who no longer appreciates your dropping in periodically like a pigeon shits on window ledges, repeatedly?

Here is a clue...this blog and the threads thereon are not about YOU.

Normally I ignore you...I will endeaver to do so again.

Rusty said...

Quit picking on the slow girl!

LarsPorsena said...

If I had to choose between Kerry and Rice, I'd pick Rice. At least she's a vertebrate.

Lydia said...

So, Inga, you have no problem with Susan Rice going on TV and laying the blame for the murders at Benghazi on a video when she knew it wasn't so.

That means you also have no problem with that feeding into the general perception fostered by the Obama administration that it had nothing to do with a resurgent Al Qaeda.

Or anything to do with the lack of security at the consulate before the attack.

Or the lack of any effort to rescue our people during the attack.

It's all connected. Not just "blathering over Susan Rice and taliking points".

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Aridog, this blog has 90% conservatives, maybe 10% liberal. Have you noticed that less and less liberals are commenting lately? I wonder why?

If you conservatives here really want an echo chamber, well it doesn't speak well for you. You want no one to disagree with you? Is that how you live your life? Demonize your opposing voices?

Pathetic.

Pogo said...

"Have you noticed that less and less liberals are commenting lately? I wonder why? "

Because they are unable to produce substantive arguments, or defend them against scrutiny.

Oh, sorry, I mean RACISM!

chickelit said...

Inga said...
Aridog, this blog has 90% conservatives, maybe 10% liberal. Have you noticed that less and less liberals are commenting lately? I wonder why?

Plenty of conservative voices are gone too--blake, darcy, seven machos, ruth anne, victoria (before her father's death), traditional guy, Pete, etc. I think there's been a coarsening of everything and a general acceptance of "dirty" Chicago style politics. That's worsened the discourse.


deborah said...

Chick, whoever said politics was fair? Republicans are in reaction mode. Time to get smart.

re Rice, if I have it correctly, only a simple Senate majority is needed to confirm her. It first has to get out of the Foreign Relations Committee, of which Kerry is the Chair. He must be outraged if this is the real plan. He really wanted it. Will he comply?

McTriumph said...

Good point Deb. Why would Kerry want Sec of Defense where he would actually have to work. Safe in the Senate or Sec of State are more fun and the toys his wife has provided still available.

edutcher said...

Portia said...

I say leave Hillary in. Our 'furrin relations' are so screwed up now it couldn't get any worse and Hillary is a big part of that. Rice or Kerry wouldn't have a clue.

I thought the Hildabeast needed to leave so she could be designated the Demo nominee.

Again.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Aridog, this blog has 90% conservatives, maybe 10% liberal. Have you noticed that less and less liberals are commenting lately? I wonder why?


Who cares. Really.

If you conservatives here really want an echo chamber, well it doesn't speak well for you. You want no one to disagree with you? Is that how you live your life? Demonize your opposing voices?

Pathetic.


Tell that to the state of California where it's solely Democrat Party rule now. Republicans there are nothing but place holders at this point. As far as demonizing your opposing voices, maybe you should look inward into yourself and your party. Your president spent the better part of his life and the last four years demonizing everyone who opposed and he's going to continue to do that until he leaves office. Stop deluding yourself.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
If you conservatives here really want an echo chamber, well it doesn't speak well for you. You want no one to disagree with you? Is that how you live your life? Demonize your opposing voices?

Pathetic.


Pathetic is thinking incoherent hectoring adds anything to the conversation. As if her intent here isn't thread spiking and increasing the price - in wasted time - of everyone else's participation.

Methadras said...

Well, Inga, if this is a non-story to you, then I suspect that from now on, you will no longer be commenting on it anymore. I guess the investigation you so richly waiting for has yielded either nothing for you or the results you desired. So long now.

garage mahal said...

The right has called Obama - literally - a terrorist, for four years. And then accuse him of demonizing conservatives.

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
The right has called Obama - literally - a terrorist, for four years. And then accuse him of demonizing conservatives.


Ah, the reality based community raises it's head again. Where's phx to rant about how off putting the nuts are?

Bob Ellison said...

I want to explore new uses of the word "literally". Shakespeare was literally the finest English writer of the 16th century. Richard Nixon was literally boring. Barrack Obama is literally self-centered.

Jack Sparks said...

Aridog, that's pretty damn low of you. My outrage was for those who were put in harms way, I said that many many times and I specified that I wasn't just my daughter I was worried about.

Not this horseshit again. Let me guess, Bug Eyes, that new avatar of yours is a pic of your daughter?

Quit fucking lying. It's pathetic.

Drago said...

garage: "The right has called Obama - literally - a terrorist, for four years."

Would you be so kind as to provide some links to any republicans or conservatives of note who have done this?

Drago said...

Bob Ellison said...
I want to explore new uses of the word "literally". Shakespeare was literally the finest English writer of the 16th century. Richard Nixon was literally boring. Barrack Obama is literally self-centered.


Garage literally uses the term "literally" too often and inappropriately.

Drago said...

Allegedly.

Literally, allegedly....

PETER V. BELLA said...

Rice does not have to be better at anything. She has the blessing of the president and a brainless Democratic rubber stamp in the Senate. Any clown can be a cabinet member.

AprilApple said...

Like - literally and stuff.

The Drill SGT said...

garage mahal said...
McCain wonders why we had details about the bin Laden raid more quickly than the Benghazi attack.

Hmmm, I wonder what's different about those two. One was a raid led by us, and one was an attack on us?


correct, however, The WH clearly knows who was in the meetings, what orders were given, what help we sent, at what time etc, etc. We're not talking about what happened in Libya. What happened inside the WH isn't much different in complexity in the two cases, only the outcome. One was PR, the other must wait for a final report...

All of which, with photos, they supplied within hours of the Osama raid, but the attendee list of the meeting at 1700 hours on Sep 11? Nobody seems to know who was at a mtg in the WH with the POTUS 2 months later...

machine said...

"...I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

...getting played again...

Aridog said...

One last time....

Inga ...You want no one to disagree with you? Is that how you live your life? Demonize your opposing voices?

Do you really think your 6 one word post blast between 3:23 and 3:31, 6 in 8 frigging minutes, is serious commentary that anyone could debate, agree or not?

No? You think it was humor? Wonder who you are mocking? If not mocking, what was that staccato post series?

Lady, you do it frequently, drop in on a thread and pollute it like a pigeon with diarrhea. When challenged you cry outrage and fire off ad hominem spikes. You take initial issue with a commenter at times who has not addressed you on a thread then whine they've been mean to you previously and you're "not gonna take it!"

"Piece of work" is the best I can define you. You want respect and to be taken seriously, give some respect and act like a grown up. You know, skip the vague vagina humor, etc. It'd be a start.



dcm said...

do the republicans prefer a john kerry appointment over a rice appointment? scott brown would probably win the special election. there are a lot of conspiracy theories here. Does this one hold water? It is a long play.

Inga said...

Aridog, I do not need your respect, I do not want your respect, i have the respect i want and need from my loved ones, my feiends and myself. You are a commenter on a political forum, I don't know you and vice versa. It's beyond strange that you some of you here do not ever trace back the beginning of an insult exchange.

This is the same kind of out of touch mentality I've seen since day one by many conservatives here. It's why you lost the election and were so surprised, so outraged that you and your spokespersons like Limbaugh, Fox and others conjure up these " scandals", while ignoring the REAL questions. Out of touch with reality.

This place has been fascinating to me in a car wreck sort of way, it's been amazing to hear what you folks think, how you automatically jump to the wrong conclusions, it's uncanny. Some here seem to have an insightful thought that veers away from the group think, that's also amazing and a nice surprise.

You are your worst enemies in the political realm, you continue to march right, continue to think your candidates haven't been conservative enough, continue to be used as pawns by the real leaders of the Republican Party, Limbaugh, Hannity, O Reilly, Grover Norquist.

Good luck winning any Presidential elections unless enough of you come to your senses and see what has been happenin to you. I hate calling you dupes, but yes, you are dupes.

Marshal said...

Good luck winning any Presidential elections unless enough of you come to your senses and see what has been happenin to you. I hate calling you dupes, but yes, you are dupes.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: the left cares about winning elections, and the right cares about developing the best policies for the country. It's revealing those focused only on winning conside others the dupes. Sadly it's their children and grandchildren that will pay the price for their foolishness, but obviously they don't care about them.

Joe Schmoe said...

Time to lead, Dems. If she can't clearly explain why she lied on TV then she's unfit for office, period.

reformed trucker said...

"by the real leaders of the Republican party..."

Which would mean that Bill Maher and Chris Mathews are the real leaders of the Democratic party?

That was just silly.

Hagar said...

But I believe the Swift-boaters are saying that if Kerry is nominated for either position, they are waiting and ready.

It is going to be an interesting year!

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

chickelit said...
It's beyond strange that you some of you here do not ever trace back the beginning of an insult exchange.

This was always strange about Inga--that she seemed oblivious to the sorts of vile commenters she befriended.

enderud said...

A note to Ann:

I like to read the comments on this blog because of the several witty people who post, but I stop reading at the point where the usual crew of bores begin to insult one another. I am sure most readers do likewise.

Saint Croix said...

Aridog, I didn't vote for Obama.

I thought you were an Obama fan? No?

Did you vote for Romney?

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

The right has called Obama - literally - a terrorist, for four years. And then accuse him of demonizing conservatives


No, you human fungus, you are confusing the right with Robert Cook. He's called Obama a terrorist.

Rusty said...

Inga said...
Aridog, I do not need your respect, I do not want your respect, i have the respect i want and need from my loved ones, my feiends and myself. You are a commenter on a political forum, I don't know you and vice versa. It's beyond strange that you some of you here do not ever trace back the beginning of an insult exchange.

This is the same kind of out of touch mentality I've seen since day one by many conservatives here. It's why you lost the election and were so surprised, so outraged that you and your spokespersons like Limbaugh, Fox and others conjure up these " scandals", while ignoring the REAL questions. Out of touch with reality.

This place has been fascinating to me in a car wreck sort of way, it's been amazing to hear what you folks think, how you automatically jump to the wrong conclusions, it's uncanny. Some here seem to have an insightful thought that veers away from the group think, that's also amazing and a nice surprise.

You are your worst enemies in the political realm, you continue to march right, continue to think your candidates haven't been conservative enough, continue to be used as pawns by the real leaders of the Republican Party, Limbaugh, Hannity, O Reilly, Grover Norquist.

Good luck winning any Presidential elections unless enough of you come to your senses and see what has been happenin to you. I hate calling you dupes, but yes, you are dupes.

Can you sew that into a sampler?
That would be awesome!

Methadras said...

PETER V. BELLA said...

Rice does not have to be better at anything. She has the blessing of the president and a brainless Democratic rubber stamp in the Senate. Any clown can be a cabinet member.


Peter, you know her position is a cabinet level position. So she would basically be moving deck chairs.

Methadras said...

I will say this for Rice. She is very cute and easy on the eyes. However, when I realize the kind of ideological boat anchor she is, I just end up seeing Hillary Clinton and go running screaming into the night.

AReasonableMan said...

dcm said...
do the republicans prefer a john kerry appointment over a rice appointment? scott brown would probably win the special election.


This conspiracy theory crosses a basic threshold, at least the conspiracists would benefit from their actions, an essential element that has been notably lacking for most of the nutty theories in play on this site.

Methadras said...

How much does anyone want to bet here that Bill Clinton gets the nod for SoC as payback for helping Urkel win? Any takers? The vig isn't that high.

AprilApple said...

Can any of you democrats explain why Susan Rice insisted it was "the video"?

dcm said...

A reasonable man.
I agree.

Drago said...

The only thing that is really important is that the future not belong to those that insult islam.

The Drill SGT said...

Hagar said...
But I believe the Swift-boaters are saying that if Kerry is nominated for either position, they are waiting and ready.


I suspect many of them consider most State, Ivy educated, limp wristed, tea sipping, lying cookie pushers to be John's kind of people :)

The sort who decided that we wanted a low footprint in Benghazi...

Now SECDEF? That would set the Swift Boaters to battlestations...

Bob Ellison said...

And that's that!

McTriumph said...

Methadras

Bill Clinton doesn't want to get tied down in DC unless it's in the White House. Why would he? Since 1990 he's got to fly around the world on his Wall Street friends' corporate jets chasing ass. His dilemma now is how to get Hillary busy working on her campaign so as not to be in the way and cramp his debauchery.

McTriumph said...

2000 not 1990, sorry I was thinking of another sociopath

Darrell said...

As I said a couple of years ago, the Obama Era is the Human Centipede made flesh. The MSM is connected to his anus directly. The Lefties at Althouse and across the Web are next. The people that swallowed what was fed into their mouths by voting for the clowns the second time around, complete the Beast. Rice was The Beet of the Week as her Party needed. Maybe she'll be the last SOS as the Party of Incompetence puts what's left of the past civilization into the ground sideways.

Steve Koch said...

Rice is a loyal dem soldier who has been a pawn in this whole charade since she was trotted out to the Sunday political talk shows. As a sec of state nominee she is just a sacrificial lamb. This will provide cover to the GOP senators who can act tough by rejecting her nomination. This will also provide a stage for the GOP to display their displeasure about the Benghazi debacle and coverup. All those histrionics will clear the path for a relatively smooth confirmation of their fellow senator, Kerry, as the next sec of state. Kerry was Obama's 1st choice all along for sec def.

chickelit said...

Darrell said...
As I said a couple of years ago, the Obama Era is the Human Centipede made flesh.

I never saw it but I heard that that experiment didn't end well.

Saint Croix said...

The other day some Hamas assholes dragged a man through the streets of Gaza from the back of a motorcycle. This is after they tortured the guy in prison.

People who say that Benghazi is no big deal, or it's over, what the fuck is the matter with you?

They murder our ambassador, and you say it's nothing?

Imagine an administration that overlooks horrible crimes, torture and mutilation. Instead they voice outrage about a "disgusting anti-Islamic video."

What do you say to people who are more outraged by speech than callous and brutal murder?

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Who wrote that shit? And what kind of moron would say it?

Obama's response to Benghazi is vile appeasement. It's appalling. Anybody who participated in it should be denied promotion and advancement. We need people who will stand up to Obama and check his uglier impulses.

Saint Croix said...

I guess it's dreaming to hope that somebody like Elliott Abrams would be appointed to head up state.

I swear, what liberals call "right wing" is normal, common sense stuff. Encourage democracy, support liberal values, free speech. Is that so fucking hard?

Rusty said...

Saint Croix said...
The other day some Hamas assholes dragged a man through the streets of Gaza from the back of a motorcycle. This is after they tortured the guy in prison.

People who say that Benghazi is no big deal, or it's over, what the fuck is the matter with you?

They murder our ambassador, and you say it's nothing?

Your outrage is misplaced.

Mr Boehner! Don't touch entitlements!

AllenS said...

Quite funny, isn't it, Inga.

Inga said...
Benghazinoma.
Benghazienza.
Benghaziosis.


Four Americans are dead, and you're making fun of the fact that some of us want answers as to why they died.

How about this, let's say that four more Americans are killed, and one of them is your daughter. How funny would that be? I would imagine that you'd want some answers as to why she died, and if the Administration kept feeding the puplic bullshit stories, you'd be outraged.

Would it be ok for us to make fun of you?

Inganoma.
Ingaenza.
Ingaosis.


You're a small person.

Inga said...

No Allen, I'm making fun of small minds, like yours. I'm making fun of those fools like you, who focus on talking points by Rice instead of questions that got those four killed. I'm making fun of those whose outrage is fake and ignore 4000+ Americans that were killed in Iraq for nothing.

I'm laughing at what fools you republicans have turned into. It would be even funnier if it weren't so sad and sick that sour grapes is now driving your party, with disregard for the good of America.



Rusty said...

I'm making fun of those whose outrage is fake and ignore 4000+ Americans that were killed in Iraq for nothing.

Please explain.

Saint Croix said...

Rice is a loyal dem soldier who has been a pawn in this whole charade since she was trotted out to the Sunday political talk shows.

That's exactly right. But do we want a pawn to head up state? I would like people in the administration who can stand up to their boss when he is wrong.

As a sec of state nominee she is just a sacrificial lamb.

No, this is wrong. Obviously Obama wants her for state. He got fairly emotional about it at his press conference.

This will provide cover to the GOP senators who can act tough by rejecting her nomination.

You think Obama wants to "provide cover" to the GOP? Scoff.

This will also provide a stage for the GOP to display their displeasure about the Benghazi debacle and coverup.

"Hey guys, I'll pretend to appoint Rice and you pretend to be mad."

Sorry, that's just silly. This is now a public showdown, and Obama will lose face over it. Where is the upside in an embarrassing defeat, right after his election?

In the process of this embarrassing defeat, he (or the media) will portray the GOP as racist. The Washington Post has already sunk to that level. Why would the GOP secretly plan, with Obama, for a charade where the GOP is called racist in the media?

The Republicans are drawing a stand on Benghazi in the face of this vile slander against their character. It is, I think, a brave and principled thing to do. Give them credit where credit is due.

All those histrionics will clear the path for a relatively smooth confirmation of their fellow senator, Kerry, as the next sec of state.

Would have been smooth anyway. The Democrats own the Senate. It's doubtful anybody would have fillibustered Kerry.

The conspiracy theory that has some merit is the charge that the Republicans want a run at Kerry's seat.

Kerry was Obama's 1st choice all along for sec def.

Then he should have nominated Kerry and avoided this fight. Why float Rice's name at all? She fronted his lie for Benghazi.

The Republicans were dispirited about their election loss. Obama has united them, by nominating the woman who told a very public lie--Obama's lie--about the Benghazi scandal.

Aridog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

Question: Can anyone explain how it is that US deaths in Afghanistan for all of Operation Enduring Freedom, 10 years, stand at 2161, but 1214 of those deaths occurred in the last 3 years, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

How do 56% of total deaths occur in 30% of the conflict period, the latter 30% in fact? Who has been in charge during these three loss regressive years, both civil executively and appointed to command militarily?

I don't want to be small minded and jump to any conclusions here. Data Link Here.

Help me out, eh?

chickelit said...

Help me out, eh?

Inga should know, having a daughter over there.

I suspect it has to do with rules of engagement.

Hagar said...

@DrillSgt,
The Swift-boaters' beef with John Kerry in Viet Nam was that he was a stupid reckless glory-hunter likely to get himself and them killed for no good reeason, not that he was a "limp-wristed fop."

As Secretary of State or Defense he would be in a position to cause real damage, but not for lack of "macho."

Marshal said...

I'm making fun of those fools like you, who focus on talking points by Rice instead of questions that got those four killed.

It's funny what people can convince themselves to maintain their sense of superiority. We have to pierce the cover story in order the get to the facts below, commonly referred to as drilling down. If some people pretend one thing interferes with the other rather than recognizing it as a first step that's just bizarre. But when such an outlandish claim is taken as proof others are fools rather than they... well there just isn't anything else to say is there?

Aridog said...

chickelit said...

I suspect it has to do with rules of engagement.

You mean the ROE policies of Generals McChrystal and Petraeus and subsequent leadership under this administration with hold overs from the previous one?

Is it small minded pot stirring if I am angry about this? Is this a bona fide outrage?

It is all so confusing. Or something.

Aridog said...

On rules of Engagement for the ISAF today...here is an interesting video interview embedded in an article, featuring one of the US premier light infantry units, "The Herd" ... AllenS will be pleased I think.

Marshal said...

Hagar said...
The Swift-boaters' beef with John Kerry in Viet Nam was that he was a stupid reckless glory-hunter likely to get himself and them killed for no good reeason, not that he was a "limp-wristed fop."


I don't think this is true. Their objection seemed based on the combination of three actions. First Kerry did his best to protect himself - seeking offshore duty, and when that failed using the technicality of three purple hearts (some of which were dubious to them since there were no witnesses) to attain discharge.

Then when he returned to the US he slandered the men he spent virtually no time with (3 months) as reminiscent of Genghis Khan. But since Kerry was only there 3 months and spent his spent his entire service trying to get out he could not possibly have been speaking from experience or knowledge. He was grandstanding, not whistleblowing.

And last he decided after 30 years to use those same servicemen he slandered as his election pawns.

People forgave him the first, even though it meant to them he was unreliable in a combat zone and therfore a danger to everyone. Many people hated him for the second. And the swift boaters refused to be used by the third.

Hagar said...

You are absolutely wrong.

It was a some of the Swift-boaters who got him the third Purple Heart and recommended that the "Three and out" rule be invoked to get him out of Viet Nam.

And my theory about his infamous actions with the anti-war movement when he got back, is that he was working undercover for naval intelligence, or possibly, free-lancing. That would be consistent with his behavior before and after.

See "stupid" and "reckless."

Rusty said...

Inga.
Care to respond?

parliament said...

Before worrying about how conciliatory she may be, we should consider what good—to us, not to other countries—having a patsy as our top diplomat would be.

AllenS said...

Inga, never once have I ever claimed to be a Republican. You have also never heard me say that I thought going into Iraq was a good idea. As a twice wounded combat veteran I have never ignored or forgotten about our KIAs and WIAs. Never. Wanting answers from those in charge of this clusterfuck in Libya is not sour grapes. In short, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Aridog, the rules of engagement have irked my ass since it's inception. If we had ROE back in WWII, we would still be fighting Germany and Japan. Nice to see the men of The Herd have that take it to them attitude. Thanks.

Aridog said...

Hagar...you have an interesting take on John Kerry.

How does anyone explain Kerry's statement of "deep distrust" of the government that he claims he first experienced while in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, when he heard President Nixon deny the US had anyone in Cambodia.

Nixon became President 20 January 1969.

As a stretch...if he was *deep undercover* in 1968 the presumption is that it was highly classified, yet he runs off at the mouth about it?

The fact is that John Kerry testified to events he never participated in, witnessed or otherwise had any first hand knowledge of in any way, pertaining to infantry operations in Vietnam. John Kerry was never even for one day in the infantry or operating in an infantry capacity.

At the very least he relayed hearsay unsubstantiated *war stories* third and fourth hand.

McTriumph said...

Aridog said...
Question: Can anyone explain how it is that US deaths in Afghanistan for all of Operation Enduring Freedom, 10 years, stand at 2161, but 1214 of those deaths occurred in the last 3 years, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

That's easy, Obama's Afghan Surge. After the initial invasion and end of the war, Bush's small footprint occupation plan was basically to protect the capitol. Bush and Cheney knew what the British and Russians learned in Afghanistan, they would have never committed to a surge. Afghan's only value is a base of operations and being on Iran's east flank. But, remember Obama's and the Democrats' constant campaigning on Afghanistan being the "real war" in criticising Bush. Well Obama got his war.

Aridog said...

McTriumph ... you mean the Obama-Petraeus-McCrystal surge when Obama determined the number of troops required from his vast combat experience. One of his stooge generals wrote ROE's to die by then went out of control and had to be replaced by another stooge general, who essentially left the ROE's stand.

Saving more Afghan lives while killing more Americans by double. McChrystal started that and Petraeus institutionalized it.

deborah said...

@AprilApple

"Can any of you democrats explain why Susan Rice insisted it was "the video"?"

Last night on Fox news it was noted that Rice said that the al-Qaeda reference was removed for security purposes, not political. Then they showed two clips from two of the Sunday shows she went on saying that the Obama administration had decreased/eliminated(?) the al-Qaeda threat.

Also, all three panelists, Krauthammer, Liasson, and Hayes predicted a Rice confirmation.

Hagar said...

@Aridog,

John Kerry has never "run off at the mouth" about it. If this is what happened, and it came to light, it would absolutely kill him with the Democrats.

But, his behavior in Viet Nam (and he volunteered for it) was consistent with a young officer/budding politician gong there to "have his ticket punched," including collecting photos and 8 mm. movies of himself, rakishly attired John Wayne style. And he collected a Bronze Star and a Siver Star in addition to those Purple Hearts.
See also the Swiftboaters' desriptions of him and his actions there then.

Then he comes back to the U.S., joins the anti-war movement, though still on active duty, and engages in all those infamous activities.

Next he is discharged, goes to law school, and re-surfaces back home in Boston as an Assistant District Attorney with all his medals and service ribbons intact and proudly displayed on his office wall.
Then runs for Lt. Gov. with Dukakis, and the rest is history.

Hagar said...

I hit Publish when I meant Preview.

Anyway, I claim that John Kerry's joining the anti-war movement is clear out of sync with his other history, before and after, as a rising young politician of the Massachusetts elite.

The other supposition is that the episode was genuine, but then it needs explaining why he was never prosecuted by the Navy.

Rusty said...

I thought not.

Aridog said...

Hagar ...

I can understand trying to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, even if I totally disagree. However, your description of "consistency" boggles my mind:

But, his behavior in Viet Nam (and he volunteered for it) was consistent with a young officer/budding politician gong there to "have his ticket punched," including collecting photos and 8 mm. movies of himself, rakishly attired John Wayne style.

My God, where did you get that romantic notion? Did you ever serve in harms way and ever see anyone do this?

What that list is "consistent" with is a fraud. The system demanded officers get "tickets punched" and that determination to put inexperienced officers in the field cost a lot of lives. But you suggest that Kerry wasn't seeking a navy career.

As for the rest of the stuff about collecting photos and making movies (please)...THAT is contrary to anything I ever saw in two different theaters in Asia including Vietnam. But he DID do it, establishing the fact he was building an image, in relative safety, rather than serving anyone, least of all the men under him.

I say "relative safety" considering, for example, the circumstance of the death of Dicky Chapelle in combat, with US Marines, in 1965, while she was photographing and reporting on Operation Black Ferret near Chu Lai. Taking pictures and notes in direct combat is dangerous business. Chapelle began her career with Marines at Iwo Jima. Her hallmark, as that of many other brave reporters of the day, was to travel and move with the soldiers or marines who were under fire.

To suggest Kerry's antics were normal is irritating to say the least. Periodically officers like that disappeared in a flash, so to speak. I don't blame him for wanting out in 90 days.

Another interesting special feature of Kerry's career...he managed to suck up and get a 180 early out separation from active service, from a stateside posting, when the policy was that such "early outs" were awarded only if a returning Asian theater (OCONUS) individual had LESS than 151 days remaining on their active duty commitment.

I'm sorry, but my experience in those times, in Vietnam and on the Korean DMZ, do not reflect any of the behavior you seem to find normal in Kerry. I can't even get my head around any of it.

Aridog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

Hagar ...

John Kerry has never "run off at the mouth" about it.

Really? His own words suggest otherwise. If he was in Cambodia, at any time, it was classified ...we weren't there officially. His recalling Christmas 1968, in Cambodia, and President Nixon's words as "searing in to his mind" mistrust of the government...well that pretty much means he was never in Cambodia, let alone December 1968...when Lyndon Johnson was still President.

But that created image does fit the career building effort, even if horse pucky.

AllenS said...

This will be my last comment on this thread. I want to point out the difference between myself and John Kerry. When I received my first purple heart, it put in a military hospital in Japan for three months. After I was physically able to return to duty, I returned to Viet Nam to my unit.

Hagar said...

@Aridog,
Last entry.
I am sorry, I should have noticed the date in your post. I thought you referred to his role in the anti-war movement in the early -70's, which is when I suggest that he might have been working "undercover."

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
No Allen, I'm making fun of small minds, like yours. I'm making fun of those fools like you, who focus on talking points by Rice instead of questions that got those four killed. I'm making fun of those whose outrage is fake and ignore 4000+ Americans that were killed in Iraq for nothing.

you keep bringing up Iraq. I posited four long posts about Iraq And Clintons involvement and asked if his involvement was a lie and you have yet to respond. Why not? you can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk? Hypocrite.
Now as to asking the questions about what got those four people killed. You seem to be suggesting that there IS something there, only the repubs are asking the wrong questions. So why aren't YOU holding the president to account for what you say got those four people killed? again, hypocrite!

Aridog said...

Hagar ... I understand. However, nothing excuses his comments and testimony in the "Winter Solider Investigation." He fabricated stories, unrelated to any personal experience, and has never recanted them or explained them...because he can't. They were fabrications based upon infrequent aberrations grown mystic large in the minds of the protest community. I think you had to be there in those days. I was.

Even if he was "under cover" which I do not believer for a minute, his primary testimony was about Marines and Army infantry, not something Navy Intelligence would have been focused upon....even under Admiral Zumwalt.

You should note AllenS's comment about his disposition following a bullet wound requiring hospitalization for 90 odd days. That is not a scratch that lets you pass through the dispensary in a few minutes. Many infantry soldiers never even left the line for worse abrasions. In AllenS's case, in Japan, IIRC, upon recovery he would have been offered an "ITT"...e.g., "Intra-Theater Transfer" to Korea, Thailand, Guam, et al. Some took them...we called their injuries "victory wounds." I had one ITT guy in my squad in Korea who had been literally shot to pieces pulling drag for his platoon, with a M60 machine gun. I understood his desire to ITT. AllenS did not elect to do that, however.

I also understood and admired those who survived grievous wounds and still returned to their original units and their comrades under arms...which a great many soldiers and marines did in those days. Infantry tends to build a brotherhood. A family, no less.

I know it is hard to understand mentally or emotionally. Another friend of mine had his first purple heart from a serious shrapnel wound, but stayed in country and returned to duty in a month or so. He was a squad leader, a sergeant like me, who was "short" with 10 days left in country when he took his squad out on patrol....and a bouncing betty mine blew off one leg, shredded the other, and one arm. He has stayed active with veterans organizations and became a successful businessman. He says he only uses his artificial leg when he feels like walking. I seriously doubt I could have done what he did and carried on like he has...I just doubt my courage to do so.

What is hard to grasp is that so many men did return to their units, did overcome great handicaps,and moved on. If you were not there in those days I know it must seem like fantasy. It is not.

You might better see now why many veterans have no use for Kerry. It is an espirit de corps thing. He had none, then or now.