२४ मार्च, २००८
Is the Hillary-Obama fight wrecking the Democratic Party?
Here's another article delving into the crisis of our time, but check out the illustration, a strangely attractive morphing that we might call Hillack Clintama.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५४ टिप्पण्या:
Ann Althouse: Is the Hillary-Obama fight wrecking the Democratic Party?
I certainly hope so.
"Is the Hillary-Obama fight wrecking the Democratic Party?"
While agreeing with Bob wholeheartedly, I think the Party figures out a way to overcome the current Blue on Blue, as the power of government to expropriate and redistribute goodies is far too attractive for this gang of pirates to keep fighting over identity politics.
But if there ever were a collection of goons too stupid to figure that out, it would be the Democrats (e.g., witness the expert handling of Congress by those super-MENSA members Reed and Pelosi).
But I have confidence in them pulling it together, as even they can figure out they get more united than divided.
But it is too late for '08. Their best chances lie in the Senate and House.
PS: It's no crisis.
A sideshow of circus freaks to be sure, but no crisis. The mortgage securities market meltdown might be a crisis, but this sure ain't it.
There is no room in Hillary's heart for anyone but Hillary. There is no room in BHO's heart for anyone but angry blacks hellbent on maintaining their victimhood status at the expense of those who disagree with them.
So much for the rainbow coalition under their tent of solidarity and cumbaya politics.
Torn by their association with the radical left, they are slowly, spectacularly, and predictably imploding on their lack of morals and values.
To the victim goes the spoils.
Why not Barally Obamaton?
This isn't wrecking the Democratic Party. Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee this is probably even a plus for them.
The nastiness of the primary process means that he will be even more vetted before the general election than he would have been otherwise. Given his relatively short period of time on the national scene this will serve him well. Most of the really bad stuff about him (such as it is) will come out with plenty of time for him and his team to repair any damage done. By the time McCain and the Republicans get around to attacking him a lot of this stuff will already seem like old news to the electorate.
Hillary-Obama fight?
Let's not get into moral equivalency here. The only one fighting and waging scorched earth politics is Hillary. If this were any other candidate, the media would have been hounding her to drop out of the race because it is clear that she cannot win the nomination.
Any candidate trailing at the convention must employ divisive tactics, almost by definition…
Which is why the Clinton camp and her supporters have been employing divisive tactics since Obama’s campaign has gained steam and momentum. The Dems are scrambling to repair the damage of Florida and Michigan to avoid a convention revolt. It is campaigns like this and the candidacy of a popular maverick that the super delegates were created for. Now, they have two candidates who are in step with the party and they are flummoxed. Former Clinton supporters are abandoning them and either working for, endorsing, or supporting Obama.
It is about numbers. Who can get the most delegates? Team Obama already won that race. Who can win the popular vote? This is what the fight is about. Clinton claims she has a better chance. She has to convince the Party that, she, and she alone can beat McCain. This is where her divisiveness comes in. If there had not been so many defections from her and Bill, she made have been able to make a better case. Now she has to play dirty. As it stands now, she will be accused of being the thief in the night by stealing the election from Obama.
"Is the Hillary-Obama fight wrecking the Democratic Party?"
The Democratic Party has been ruined for quite some time. The Hillary-Obama fight has just taken it public. Sort of like the Paul McCartney-Heather Mills saga. It was wrecked long before they began the public war.
Bill would sooooo hit that.
In an only slightly more serious vein:
The current contest isn't wrecking the Democrat Party so much as it's revealing it for the Party that it really is.
What the process will produce is a weak candidate, attackable on numerous fronts. The Democrats don't really believe in anything except the power that comes with elected office.
They don't really want to use that power for anything more than accumulating even more power by controlling the lives of those they seek to govern.
If Hillary wins the nomination (and she will), it will demonstrate to all just how racist the party is; she can only win the nomination by it being stolen from the black guy who won more votes, more delegates, more caucuses, more primary's and the popular vote.
Such a candidate won't even carry a majority of Democrats in the general election.
If Obama wins the nomination, which he won't, he'll wilt in the general election primarily because he's black, but secondarily because he could call himself Barry (like he used to) but instead, chooses a Muslim name. Whether he's a Christian is beside the point. He has chosen to use his Muslim name - Barack Hussein Obama.
It won't really matter what his alleged principles are (he isn't really old enough to even have principles yet).
Neither of them can win, but both of them are guaranteed to reveal for all to see just how corrupt the party really is.
On the whole, not a bad outcome.
Icepick said...
"By the time McCain and the Republicans get around to attacking him a lot of this stuff will already seem like old news to the electorate."
If an issue being "old news to the electorate" vitiates its effect as a political weapon, surely that applies a fortiori to such even longer in the tooth issues as Katrina, Iraq, the TSP and so forth - all of which are drums we can expect to hear beaten by Democrats this fall?
I think a lot depends on what McCain does. The economy will be the biggest issue this fall (bar a terrorist attack). If McCain starts talking about it now, while the democrats fight over race, he will get a head start.
Remember, during the great depression Hoover 1) raised taxes, 2) restricted free trade, and 3) proposed more regulations. All these things made it worse. McCain needs to point out that the Democrats have the Hoover strategy.
surely that applies a fortiori to such even longer in the tooth issues as Katrina, Iraq, the TSP and so forth
Gee Simon, last time I checked, the war in Iraq was still going on. As for Katrina, come on down to New Orleans and I will show you that it, and Bush's empty promises and lies, still affects our lives every single day.
Hmmmmm,
Last time I checked, the Democrat Party controlled both the House and the Senate.
That allows them to appropriate money for New Orleans to clean up the place and rebuild all those houses the black folk used to live in.
Haven't gotten around to that yet, have they? I do see a lot of federal money being appropriated into Jack Murtha's hurricane-devastated district, however.
Where's the Democrat New Orleans Reconstruction Bill that's due to be sent to Bush to sign?
Hmmm ... why haven't Pelosi and Reid and the Democrat Party gotten around to fixing up black folk homes in New Orleans?
That's the blond version of the "I'm a Mac" guy.
Simon, I'm discussing personal faults and failings. (E.g., ties to Rezko, the Rev. Wright problem, etc.) While these problems may be revealing of someone's character, they are ultimately NOT issues that directly effect the body politic as a whole. Iraq DOES. The shaky finanacial system DOES. Post-Katrina problems along the Gulf Coast largely don't, except to those immediately concerned. But if that can be tied to a larger narrative of government incompetence then it WILL become part of the story.
If the Democratic Candidate can tie that millstone to McCain's neck, he's sunk. (The only reason I'm not conclusively assuming that the Dems will is because I don't think they're any more competent than the Reps.)
slim999, you can try and paint the Dems as the responsible party for the post-Katrina clean-up, but the fact remains that Bush is the face of the US Federal government. As President he will accrue both blame and credit even in cases where he deserves neither. Pelosi just isn't on the mind of most people, and Reid is a non-entity in the broader public consciousness.
In the particular case of the post-Katrina clean-up, Bush himself is the one who went down to the Gulf Coast and promised that Uncle Sam would make it all better. After that he had approximately 16 months of a Republican-controlled Congress to make policy as he saw fit. Whatever he did doesn't appear to have worked. That's impossible to pin on anyone else.
After that he had approximately 16 months of a Republican-controlled Congress to make policy as he saw fit. Whatever he did doesn't appear to have worked.
If so why did Louisiana just elect a 35 year old republican governor. Moreover, both Louisiana and Mississippi appear committed to the GOP column. Hmm, perhaps the people saying it is so bad - i.e., liberals and democrats are people that don't actually live there.
"Crisis of our time"?
No unless you are a Dem or a member of the MSM.
If so why did Louisiana just elect a 35 year old republican governor. . .Hmm, perhaps the people saying it is so bad - i.e., liberals and democrats are people that don't actually live there.
Well, I'm a liberal and a Democrat who lives in New Orleans and I am saying it is bad.
As for Jindal. He ran on a reform agenda and had no meaningful Democratic opposition. The leading "Democrats" who ran against him actually switched parties to run as Democrats. He also based his campaign on an anti-corruption theme. His main argument on the Katrina cleanup was that as a Republican, he could extract more money out of Washington, just like Mississippi did with its Republican Governor.
Icepick, what you're saying boils down to the proposition that the electorate doesn't worry about old hat issues with candidates, but does worry about old hat issues with policy. To the extent that selection of candidates is about implementation of policy, I just don't think that holds up. Critical character failings that bear directly on the President's duties - such as Obama's revealed problem with character judgment - are issues that would "directly effect the body politic as a whole," and would seem to be things that the electorate keeps in mind, even if they heard it some time ago. If it were otherwise, the Republican nominee would be Newt Gingrich, and to the extent that all the criticism of her is rooted in old hat concerns, the Democrats would have unanimously nominated Hillary months ago, it seems to me.
Lastly, McCain has been a vigorous critic of the aspects of the Bush administration that the public don't like. If the Dems's strategy is to seek to tie the administration around McCain's neck, they're not going to get very far.
Icepick said...
"[Harry] Reid is a non-entity in the broader public consciousness."
From what I hear, several members of his own caucus privately agree with the broader public consciousness.
He also based his campaign on an anti-corruption theme.
In Louisiana? How many people actually died laughing over that?
Lastly, McCain has been a vigorous critic of the aspects of the Bush administration that the public don't like.
Name one. Of course, in true John Kerry style, he was against Bush's tax cuts before he was for them. He has been an unabashed cheerleader for the war. McCain's main criticism of Bush is that he was unwilling to commit more troops. Of course he never quite explained where the extra troops were going to come from or how they would be paid for.
If it were otherwise, the Republican nominee would be Newt Gingrich
Aside from the fact that Newt is a mean-spirited philandering crook, he would be a lousy presidential candidate because his ideas are about as crackpot as Ron Paul's. They played well in the ultra-conservative suburban Atlanta district he represented, but to claim that he would make it as a national candidate is laughable.
How many people actually died laughing over that?
That's pretty funny Hoosier.
Good lord.
Is that Janeane Garofolo's stunt double?
About the picture:
Maybe this is off the wall or just me (or both), but when I looked at the morphing, I thought, "That sort of looks like Rachel Maddow, in some of her pictures, except without the sense of humor and life."
I think the character issue tends to be a bigger deal, and remembered more, depending on the--hate to say it--likeability factor. Even putting aside the far ends of the bell curve, many people didn't and don't like Gingrich's personality, just as many people didn't and don't like Clinton's personality. Obama isn't in the same category (or at least wasn't). I'm speaking here, with regard to all three, strictly in terms of my observations, not my personal reactions to those people.
If Icepick proves to be right, I think that will have been a factor.
Freder--
What do you make of this...
"The Gallup Poll last month found that 18 percent of the American people believe that we should withdraw the troops from Iraq on a timetable as rapidly as possible — without regard for conditions. That is less than 1/5 of the American people who say get them out now regardless of the consequences, regardless of the conditions.
That means the rest of the American population either want to stay, fight, and win, or withdraw on a schedule. In fact, two thirds of the people in the poll said American troops should not withdrawn until we can guarantee that stability can be preserved in Iraq." --Rove on Fox.
Seems like the Democrats best bet is to somehow blame McCain for the weakening economy.....and promise a better fix.
McCain's main criticism of Bush is that he was unwilling to commit more troops. Of course he never quite explained where the extra troops were going to come from or how they would be paid for.
According to
this article we have 507,000 active duty army and 180,000 active duty marines. So out of the 200K or so committed to Afghanistan and Iraq, that should leave us with almost another half a million soldiers who should be available?
I assume they would be paid in the same manner they are being paid now.
Also, I'm looking around at the economic landscape and thinking that, in the end, depending on how things play out, it really may well end up being a huge factor, whether it ought to be or not, come this fall.
I haven't been following the details of polls closely enough, especially recently, when I've been outright ignoring them, to really make a judgment. But I think it's fair to say that the economic issues aren't really McCain's strength, and I have seen plenty of evidence over the years that they're really not his particular interest.
In contrast, whether their policies are right or wrong, both Clinton and Obama appear quite interested in those areas and comfortable talking about them.
Put all that together, and Icepick's point of view is valid. Whether it proves out is a different issue, but it's valid, and founded.
vet66 said...
There is no room in Hillary's heart for anyone but Hillary
There is also no room in Hillary's heart for the Democratic or any other party that will inhibit her quest for power.
Who can win the popular vote? This is what the fight is about. Clinton claims she has a better chance. She has to convince the Party that, she, and she alone can beat McCain.
I think Hillary will run out of money before she can accomplish that.
Freder Frederson said...
Of course, in true John Kerry style, he was against Bush's tax cuts before he was for them.
Aside from the fact that Newt is a mean-spirited philandering crook…
You either do not pay attention to what people say or you suffer from selective hearing and reading. McCain was against the tax cuts if there were no spending cuts to go along with them. In effect he was FOR tax cuts AND spending cuts.
Of course, the sainted, pure and holy Democrats have no mean spirited philanderers and crooks. Maybe you should read up on that sainted holy man Harry Reid. A mean spirited out right crook. He is only one of many.
Fen said...
I think Hillary will run out of money before she can accomplish that.
We can only hope!
that should leave us with almost another half a million soldiers who should be available?
I assume they would be paid in the same manner they are being paid now.
I have addressed these issues numerous times on this site and have been told since I am just a dirty damn defeatist liberal my knowledge of military matters is suspect if not 100% completely wrong (even though I know a hell of a lot more about the military than most of you).
So you'll have to figure it out for yourself because you won't believe me.
I will tell you this, in a perfect world, a unit would spend two days in garrison for every day in the field. (e.g. to sustain a force of 200K in Iraq and Afghanistan, would ideally require 600K troops dedicated to the mission). Obviously, that means the entire active duty ground forces would be tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan if things were as they should be.
It also takes considerably more money to maintain an Army in the field than in garrison (combat pay is only a very small portion of it). The fuel expended and wear and tear on vehicles is just exponentially greater in a combat zone.
Of course, the sainted, pure and holy Democrats have no mean spirited philanderers and crooks.
Simon seems to think that Newt's only bar to the presidency is his treatment of his wives and his legal problems. My point was that even if he didn't have those strikes against him he is still an extremist kook--as far to the right as Dennis Kucinich is to the left.
McCain was against the tax cuts if there were no spending cuts to go along with them.
But I don't hear McCain calling for the spending cuts that would be necessary to maintain the tax cuts today.
Freder said, Of course he never quite explained where the extra troops were going to come from or how they would be paid for.
Freder, since what McCain advocated was eventually put in practice (the surge), you seem to be arguing a rather theoretical point.
Is it fair to address Obama's patriotism as Bill Clinton recently did
We questioned John Kerry's patriotism due to his anti-war rhetoric in the 1970s. However, his argument that he had volunteered and served in Vietnam was a very good fact in his favor.
With Obama we have a man sitting through 20 years of anti-american sermons and a wife who is not proud of her country. Are there any facts that Obama can point to help convince us that he loves his country more than anything but God and his family?
But I don't hear McCain calling for the spending cuts that would be necessary to maintain the tax cuts today.
It turns out that the tax cuts have actually increased the amount of taxes the wealthy pay in both share of government revenue and total revenue. Therefore, reversing the tax cuts, would bring us back to the way it was before. Why would McCain support that? That's plain stupid. Why would anyone support increasing taxes in the the face of a looming recession?
we have 507,000 active duty army and 180,000 active duty marines. So out of the 200K or so committed to Afghanistan and Iraq, that should leave us with almost another half a million soldiers who should be available?
How many of the army and marines have combat arms MOS? How many combat arms troops are currently resting and retraining for a further tour of duty in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Sloan, get a clue. It's not unpatriotic to oppose a war. Unless you equate America with warmaking, which many cons do. The whole premise of the American system of government is that citizens have the right -- and the duty -- to oppose bad governmental decisions.
That includes, especially, decisions to wage war on other countries.
As far as Obama-Clinton, the Dem PArty will survive. But Clinton can't win at this point and the media continue to keep her candidacy alive by not reporting that fact. She's toast.
Just to be clear where I took issue with Sloan, it was this comment:
"We questioned John Kerry's patriotism due to his anti-war rhetoric in the 1970s."
He makes the typical mistake of confusing "pro-war" with "patriotic". It is not and neither is "anti-war" unpatriotic.
Though I'd love to see one of you guys try and defend that thinking.
p.s. Sloan is also disingenuous here. Repubs questioned Kerry's patriotism because it helped them take an election.
get a clue. It's not unpatriotic to oppose a war. Unless you equate America with warmaking, which many cons do. The whole premise of the American system of government is that citizens have the right -- and the duty -- to oppose bad governmental decisions.
I am not talking about opposing a war. Opposing a war doesn't make you either an American hater nor a patriot. I am talking about Obama being a member of an anti-american church for 20 years. Where is the evidence that Obama loves his country?
Sloan, get a clue. It's not unpatriotic to oppose a war.
Back at you. Kery falsely accused his fellow vets of warcrimes, under oath, before Congress. He was not a war hero, he was a fraud.
p.s. Sloan is also disingenuous here. Repubs questioned Kerry's patriotism because it helped them take an election
Wrong again. Most the Swifties were Edwards supporters. Dems not Repubs.
"He makes the typical mistake of confusing "pro-war" with "patriotic". It is not and neither is "anti-war" unpatriotic."
Sorry, John Fffing Kerry was not anti-war he was rooting for the other side. just like a lot of lefties today 'cause Amerika needs to be taught a lesson.
Sloan:
"I am talking about Obama being a member of an anti-american church for 20 years. Where is the evidence that Obama loves his country?"
- It is not an anti-American church. You're basing that on 2-3 sound bites. Really, that's a foolish way to reach conclusions.
- To your question, see his 2004 keynote speech and the Dem convention. His eloquence in praising this diverse and beautiful country struck a chord with the American people.
- To your question, he says he loves this country. He praises this country, our Constitutional system, and our common values.
You guys are just running the same old "unpatriotic" rundown of Dem candidates you do all the time. And, now, you're dragging his wife through the mud. That's what you do.
Are there any facts that Obama can point to help convince us that he loves his country more than anything but God and his family?
The fact that he is running for president?
And they didn't question his patriotism, they questioned his tall tales.
[SEARED into my memory, hah]
Sloan is also disingenuous here. Repubs questioned Kerry's patriotism because it helped them take an election.
That is true. However, Kerry had a good response. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam to begin with. The question he put int he mind of critics was: why would someone volunteer to serve if they did not love their country?
So what has Obama done?
fen, trying to reason with you is a waste of time.
Back at you. Kery falsely accused his fellow vets of warcrimes, under oath, before Congress.
I don't know how long this particular lie will last. What Kerry did may have been very unwise double hearsay, but to say he knowingly "falsely accused" anyone of anything is simply untrue. He repeated what he had had heard from other Vets. He did not claim they were his personal experiences.
It is not an anti-American church. You're basing that on 2-3 sound bites.
Bullshit. Its a hell of lot more than 2-3 sound bites.
His eloquence in praising this diverse and beautiful country struck a chord with the American people.
Until we found out he's been drinking the poison of a hate-America-mongering "madrassa" for 20 years.
To your question, he says he loves this country. He praises this country, our Constitutional system, and our common values.
Yah, just like he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada. I don't really care what he says, I care what he does. Actions not words. And his history does not support his words.
Most the Swifties were Edwards supporters. Dems not Repubs.
Please supply a link that supports this assertion.
What Kerry did may have been very unwise double hearsay, but to say he knowingly "falsely accused" anyone of anything is simply untrue. He repeated what he had had heard from other Vets.
No. He coached them to make up stuff, to make his testimony more sensational. That was deliberate.
Freder, since what McCain advocated was eventually put in practice (the surge), you seem to be arguing a rather theoretical point.
Actually no. The surge is temporary. We are drawing down because we have to, not because we want to. Some of the Joint Chiefs (i.e., the Army) are pushing for further cuts because they don't think they can even sustain pre-surge troop levels much longer.
Yet another lie from Fen:
Yah, just like he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada
Wrong. He didn't do that. Simply false.
But I could show you a dozen links, facts, statements and you would reject them all. You're impervious to facts and logic.
Really, a poster child for the right wing.
No. He coached them to make up stuff, to make his testimony more sensational.
Again, provide the barest shred of evidence that this is true.
I think most candidates and most people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they love America. However, many doubts about Obama have been revealed. Therefore, he needs to give some evidence other than just a speech that he loves his country if he wants to be President of that country.
How many of the army and marines have combat arms MOS?
I think if you asked a Marine, they would say all of them.
Essentially if we need 600,000 to support the 200,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan, we probably need to go back to Korean War troop levels.
So what this pretty much tells me is that we really have not been in a position to fight a major conflict beyond a one year period since Korea.
"Yah, just like he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada"
Alpha: Wrong. He didn't do that. Simply false.
Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA."
http://www.slate.com/id/2185753
Just to elaborate on one of Fen's (and the GOP's) lies:
Yah, just like he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada
See this FactCheck.org post on the "NAFTAgate" dustup. Note the following:
1) Obama did not have discussions with the Canadian government.
2) The Canadian government disavowed the report.
The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night the Canadian television network, CTV, falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any Presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA.
After all that, (deeply) dishonest people like Fen continue to push false stories.
Look, you're just spreading lies. Beyond being immoral, that's dumb politics. A lie makes for a weak argument. Your own credibility will wind up in the trash can, like Bush's.
(And, Fen, please review the Ninth Commandment. It says, don't lie about your neighbor. You've got a lot of sinning to atone for!)
Sloanasaurus said...
Why would anyone support increasing taxes in the the face of a looming recession?
Because, according to Hillary Clinton, everyone must bear a burden for the right to live in this country. Also, with out a tax hike, they cannot fund more ridiculous entitlement programs that are always proven failures.
AlphaLiberal said...
That includes, especially, decisions to wage war on other countries.
Bosnia, Somalia, Bombing northern Iraq? All done under Clinton. I did not know they were not other countries.
Fen said...
Back at you. Kery falsely accused his fellow vets of warcrimes, under oath, before Congress. He was not a war hero, he was a fraud.
He was also a perjurer. His reward- a seat in the Senate.
It was not hearsay, it was outright perjury. the only reason he was even allowed to testify before the Senate was his family connections. Kerry came from a very wealthy and politcally influential family.
Some of you people should really do some reading and research beyond Wiki and agenda sites.
1) Obama did not have discussions with the Canadian government.
His senior advisor did, while representing Obama. Same diff
2) The Canadian government disavowed the report.
No. The Canadian government retracted the report, for reasons unrelated to veracity [ie. did not want to get into the middle of US election].
You've got a lot of sinning to atone for!)
I'm not a Christian.
- It is not an anti-American church. You're basing that on 2-3 sound bites. Really, that's a foolish way to reach conclusions.
That's funny. I bet if someone dropped the N-word in two or three soundbites, I'm certain Alpha wouldn't jump to the conclusion that person is a racist. I mean, that would be foolish.
we have 507,000 active duty army and 180,000 active duty marines. So out of the 200K or so committed to Afghanistan and Iraq, that should leave us with almost another half a million soldiers who should be available?
How many of the army and marines have combat arms MOS? How many combat arms troops are currently resting and retraining for a further tour of duty in Iraq/Afghanistan?
sloan, a guy stands up on national television and proclaims his love for this country in stirring and eloquent terms. He bears witness to his love for his country before the whole country.
If that's not enough for you, nothing he does will be. You're just pushing a line of attack from the Republican Party. The doubts you claim to harbor have no basis in reality.
He doesn't "need" to do anything except ignore Republican Party flacks.
fen:
I'm not a Christian.
So, lying is okay then, I guess. Lying is rejected by value religions and systems around the world. But not you. You embrace lying.
See in your latest response to me how you twist and spin your own words. The Canadian government says a news report by a Canadian media outlet is false but you insist it's still true and only you have The Truth.
You are profoundly dishonest.
a guy stands up on national television and proclaims his love for this country
So what. He's running for president, of course he's going to say those things.
Go back and look at how his actions don't reflect his lofty rhetoric. He intends to usher in a new spirit of bipartisanship, but has no record of that in state or US Senate. He claims to be post-racial, but attends a hate-whitey church. Why are you so easily swayed by mere words?
Freder: Again, provide the barest shred of evidence that this is true.
"Steven Pitkin, an Army combat veteran, told FOX News that Kerry coached him and others to say they had witnessed war crimes, even after Pitkin told Kerry that he had not.
"Before they started the camera, they told me, 'We need you to speak about the atrocities that happened over there.' The whole company line that I initially came out and said, I was coached to say that over and over again," Pitkin said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132405,00.html
"I'm not a Christian."
Alpha: So, lying is okay then, I guess.
No. You said: "You've got a lot of sinning to atone for". Hence the response that I'm not Christian.
You are profoundly dishonest.
Yawn. Yah, lets pretend you just didn't switch your ad hom attack from "sins" to "lies". And you call me dishonest...
Fen, all you have is a quote from Faux News? That's really not different from citing a Republican press release. Cite a real news outfit.
Like I said, you're very dishonest.
"Steven Pitkin, an Army combat veteran, told FOX News that Kerry coached him and others to say they had witnessed war crimes, even after Pitkin told Kerry that he had not."
I have to hand it to you Fen. I asked for the "barest shred" of evidence, and that's exactly what you supplied me.
Fen, I'm seeing a lot of hostility towards Obama in your comments, but correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm surprised I'm remembering this sort of comment box arcana), didn't you vote for him in the Democratic primary in your home state? If I remember correctly, you did so not just to spite Hillary, but because you actually respected and liked him.
Do you regret that vote now, in that in your own small way, you helped push someone whom you now apparently see as pretty awful to the forefront of American politics? And if you don't regret that vote, isn't this all just partisan posturing, then?
Fen, all you have is a quote from Faux News? That's really not different from citing a Republican press release. Cite a real news outfit.
No shit Fen, cite a real news outfit. You know, like the one Dan Rather worked for. Or Beauchamp. Or Jason Blair.
Fen:
What he really means is that you are committing thought crimes and when Alpha (Wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC) becomes Chief of Political Crimes...look out.
Fen:
"Yawn. Yah, lets pretend you just didn't switch your ad hom attack from "sins" to "lies". And you call me dishonest..."
It's really not ad hominem. I've backed it up time and time again. It's a factual matter that you spread lies, like the NAFTA lie, above.
"Sin" need not be a religious offense but also includes moral offenses. To quote the dictionary:
"any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."
So you failed to change the subject. You constantly spread falsehoods and that's wrong in any human value system, religious or not. Or is lying okay in your value system?
If I remember correctly, you did so not just to spite Hillary, but because you actually respected and liked him.
I won't speak for Fen but I respected and liked Obama too up to the point I heard his 'spiritual mentor' go off on a racist rant and rather than throw him under the bus, he chose grandma instead.
LarsPorsena, so you think calling someone on saying false things is tantamount to being "Thought Police?"
Wow. That says a lot about the conservative mind at work.
Sloanasaurus, if you think I'm a liberal Democrat then you're an idiot. (Well....) Regardless, the reason that Jindal got elected was because people in LA were sick and tired of the old crowd that had been in charge. Sound familiar?
Simon, Hillary's 'old' character problems, including HER questionable character judgement, hardly mattered this primary season. What hurt her more than anything else was her lack of charisma, and her somewhat grating over-all tone. Filegate didn't get featured at all, neither did Whitewater, nor most of the other scandals. (The 'Bimbo Eruptions' have come up occassionally, but that's because it's just impossible to ignore.) But all that was old hat - most of us already knew about it and had made up our minds on these matters ages ago.
However, the occupation of Iraq just hasn't gone away. The economic worries aren't old hat either. The financial and mortgage crises CERTAINLY aren't old hat. The Katrina aftermath is old hat, but again, if this can be tied to a larger theme of Republican incompetence, then it WILL stay in people's minds.
As for your argument that character does matter - well, it does. Except that when it comes down to voting it really doesn't. We knew Bill was a serial philanderer in 1992 and suspected that he would never stop - he got elected anyway. We knew that W would have never risen so far so fast without his family connections and that he probably wouldn't be up to the task in 2000 - we elected him anyway. The Dems knew in 2004 that Kerry was too nuanced [read: stupid] and arrogant to have any appeal to voters, but they nominated him anyway.
The voters have again and again decided that character doesn't matter that much, and usually for the same reason - because the OTHER candidates have had their own sets of character flaws. It'll be the same this time around.
McCain's main criticism of Bush is that he was unwilling to commit more troops.
Freder, this is just plain wrong. McCain's main criticism of Bush is that Bush beat him for the 2000 Republican nomination. Everything since has just been petulant posing.
Alpha:
To steal a quote "You can't handle the truth."
You wouldn't recognize it if it sat in your face.
Alpha: Fen, all you have is a quote from Faux News? Cite a real news outfit.
FOX is the first I came across. And since you're going to move the goalpost everytime I corner you, you can do your own research from here on out.
Like I said, you're very dishonest.
Coming from you that means less than nothing. You call me a liar because I linked Steven Pitkin's testimony from a media source you're biased against. Such integrity.
somefeller: If I remember correctly, you did so not just to spite Hillary, but because you actually respected and liked him.
Correct. I respected and liked Obama before I discovered he was neck deep in the poisonous rhetoric of the Nation of Islam.
You call me a liar because I linked Steven Pitkin's testimony from a media source you're biased against.
Sorry Fen, its not testimony, its an interview. Testimony is given under oath with consequences for giving false statements. Pitkin's statement was given to Fox News more than thirty years after the fact. Fox published it without any verification at all and with vehement denials of its truth by others.
If he was lying, or merely mistaken, there were no consequence for his misstatements. Kerry couldn't even have sued him.
a guy stands up on national television and proclaims his love for this country in stirring and eloquent terms. He bears witness to his love for his country before the whole country.
I can accept it. But, will white guys in southern Ohio accept it.
Icepick,
Simon, I'm discussing personal faults and failings. (E.g., ties to Rezko, the Rev. Wright problem, etc.) While these problems may be revealing of someone's character, they are ultimately NOT issues that directly effect the body politic as a whole. Iraq DOES. The shaky finanacial system DOES.
Normally you'd be right, but that's because normally both Presidential candidates are people with definite public records. Obama is a nobody. He's got no public record worth speaking of. All he has is who he is as a person. That's what he's selling himself on, too -- his personal worth and values. Because of that, his personal faults and failings will end up being a huge factor in the race. People know what things McCain does and doesn't stand for, because he's been in the public eye for decades. With Obama they have to guess what they think he'll be like -- and his associations with crooks and racists don't bode well in that regard, however charming his personality.
You call me a liar because I linked Steven Pitkin's testimony from a media source you're biased against.
I think the point is that a responsible news source would not print such an assertion without some kind of authentication. E.g., maybe a couple other veterans claiming they were asked to fabricate stories.
Alpha: I've backed it up time and time again.
No you have not.
It's a factual matter that you spread lies, like the NAFTA lie, above.
Its not a lie. Your best defense is that Goolsbee was misunderstood:
“Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign.”
It went on: “He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”
[...]
We both agree that Canada retracted the memo, we just disagree on WHY it was retracted.
Fen, you're lying about what I said on this very page!! I never even mentioned Goolsbee!
Wow!
Please clarify if you think lying is morally wrong. You have dodged this question.
fen, you originally said:
"Yah, just like he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada."
I provided a link to a nonpartisan fact-checking service that debunked this claim. The Canadian government rejected the very claim you make. But you continue to make it!!
Again, do you have anything problems with dishonesty?
Freder: Sorry Fen, its not testimony, its an interview. Testimony is given under oath with consequences for giving false statements.
"Now, in a sworn affidavit recently executed in Palm Beach County, Fla., he has set the record straight:
"... During my service in Vietnam, I neither witnessed nor participated in any American war crimes or atrocities against civilians, nor was I ever aware of any such actions. I did witness the results of Vietcong atrocities against Vietnamese civilians, including the murder of tribal leaders. ...
"I joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), at Catonsville Community College in Baltimore in 1970.
"In January of 1971, I rode in a van with John Kerry, a national leader of the VVAW, and others from Washington D.C. to Detroit to attend the Winter Soldier Investigation, a conference intended to publicize alleged American war crimes in Vietnam. Having no knowledge of such war crimes, I did not intend to speak at the event.
"During the Winter Soldier Investigation, John Kerry and other leaders of that event pressured me to testify about American war crimes, despite my repeated statements that I could not honestly do so. One event leader strongly implied that I would not be provided transportation back to my home in Baltimore, Maryland, if I failed to comply. Kerry and other leaders of the event instructed me to publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue."
Now, in a sworn affidavit recently executed in Palm Beach County, Fla., he has set the record straight:
And again, a sworn affidavit might be a nice embossed piece of paper, but so what? It has about the same legal relavence as crossing your heart and hoping to die.
Alpha: Fen, you're lying about what I said on this very page!! I never even mentioned Goolsbee! Wow!
Damn you are an idiot. I said "Your best defense is that Goolsbee was misunderstood", ie. if you are going to make the case that Canada got it wrong, the best evidence you could present is Goolsbee's assertion that he was misquoted.
The Canadian government rejected the very claim you make.
Yes, thats the official position of the Canadian government. Again, I don't believe they retracted the memo because it was false, they retracted it because they did not want to get involved in the US election. But I'm sure your world is less complex than that.
Funny how you dispute statements from your own government, but blindly embrace those of another, without a hint of skepticism. Even funnier when you accuse me of lacking integrity. But then, I shouldn't expect much from someone who accepts Obama's words at face value, even when they contradict his actions.
Correct. I respected and liked Obama before I discovered he was neck deep in the poisonous rhetoric of the Nation of Islam.
Okay, but that doesn't totally answer my question. It's one thing to say you respected and liked someone once but not anymore. It's another to say you once voted for that person to be the leader of the free world (or at least the candidate for that post for one of the only two parties with a shot of winning the election) only a few weeks ago and now say he is awful and dangerous. Looking back, do you regret voting for him as opposed to voting for Hillary or just sitting that primary out?
I'm not trying to be contentious here, and maybe I'm taking an overly serious view of the importance of the statement made by a Presidential vote, but this really seems like a giant switch of emotions and analysis, and one which should trigger a little soul-searching as to past actions.
"Upon hearing of these statements by Pitkin, another participant named Scott Camil filed his own affidavit refuting Pitkin's statements. Pitkin has subsequently admitted his recollections were flawed, and has re-issued a second affidavit now reflecting a different date of discharge from the Army, different people traveling with him to the Winter Soldier event, and different circumstances under which he joined the VVAW"
Link
"John Kerry is seen briefly toward the beginning of the movie, and his participation in the Winter Soldier investigation became a conservative lightning rod last year, particularly when Steve Pitkin – another participant, who comes across as the most camera-ready and TV-eager – launched accusations [via an affidavit] that Kerry and others had bullied him into saying he'd witnessed atrocities when he hadn't. Pitkin doesn't refer to any specific crimes in Winter Soldier, and it's worth noting that, oddly, none of the other 108 military participants have come forward with similar claims. In addition Pitkin was recently forced to recant some of his affidavit when Camil filed one of his own noting that every statement Pitkin's affidavit made pertaining to Camil was false."
Link
So your guy filed false statements in the affidavit you cite and had to go back and change it.
Freder: And again, a sworn affidavit might be a nice embossed piece of paper, but so what? It has about the same legal relavence as crossing your heart and hoping to die.
"If, after signing such a declaration, the information is found to be deliberately untrue with the intent to deceive, the applicant may face perjury charges."
Of course, we already know your side thinks perjury is no big deal, MoveOn...
somefeller: Okay, but that doesn't totally answer my question... It's another to say you once voted for that person to be the leader of the free world
True. I chose to vote in the Dem primary because I'm no longer GOP and I live in a blue-state. Of the choices, I found Hillary to be the most dangerous to the Republic. I liked and respected Obama, but my vote for him was more of a vote against Hillary.
Looking back, do you regret voting for him as opposed to voting for Hillary or just sitting that primary out?
Yes. I should have skipped the primary.
seems like a giant switch of emotions and analysis, and one which should trigger a little soul-searching as to past actions.
Rev Wright was the catalyst that triggered my opposition to Obama. I had given him the benefit of the doubt until then. I was open to Obama's political message until I discovered Obama attended/supported and was influenced by what amounts to nothing more than a hate-whitey and hate-america madrassa.
Fen again:
Damn you are an idiot. I said "Your best defense is that Goolsbee was misunderstood", ie. if you are going to make the case that Canada got it wrong, the best evidence you could present is Goolsbee's assertion that he was misquoted.
You're putting words in my mouth. Or out of my keyboard, as the case may be. You falsely attribute that argument to me. That's dishonest, but you have yet to disavow dishonesty so I guess it's not a problem for you.
You take this episode to mean Obama was saying one thing and doing another. Even if we accept for the sake of arguemnt that the Canadian memo faithfully reported Goolsbee's comments, it does not mean Obama said one thing and did another.
See the fact check link. It says that Goolsbee said Obama would want to amend NAFTA to have labor and environmental safeguards, which is what Obama has been saying. The memo does not support your false assertion that Obama lied.
It's a lie onion. Layers and layers of stinking lies.
Freder Frederson said...
Sorry Fen, its not testimony, its an interview. Testimony is given under oath with consequences for giving false statements.
So, why wasn’t John Kerry indicted for perjury? What were his consequences for giving patently false testimony.
Ya know, you and Alpha are why your Democratic Party is so screwed up. You seethe and rage tih hate, you expect people to provide sources, as if this was a high school term paper, and yet you lie with such ease.
In case you did not know it, FOX is a legitimate news source. It's opinion makers are just that and nothing more. They are just as legitimate as CBS, ABC, NBC, and that oh so glorious NYT.
All you want to do is fight over who is right like little kids on the play ground. If you guys are the future, we are in serious trouble.
You take this episode to mean Obama was saying one thing and doing another.
It fits the pattern:
"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
Fen, thanks for your response. Two last questions: First, using the "most dangerous to the Republic" test, knowing what you know now, which of the Democratic candidates do you think is more dangerous to the Republic, Obama or Clinton? Second, do you think you are you going to vote for John McCain in November?
Normally you'd be right, but that's because normally both Presidential candidates are people with definite public records. Obama is a nobody. He's got no public record worth speaking of. All he has is who he is as a person. That's what he's selling himself on, too -- his personal worth and values. Because of that, his personal faults and failings will end up being a huge factor in the race.
And that's why I wrote - waaaaaaay up in the seventh comment to this post - that the extended primary fight will be good for Obama in the end. People will feel like he's been around forever, and that they know what his problems are, by the time September rolls around. If he had closed things out back on (the first) Super Tuesday then a lot of this stuff would still be waiting to hit the fan.
Also, I wouldn't be so certain that McCain is as publically vetted as you think. There's still a lot of lobbiest stuff that hasn't really made it to the big time yet. McCain's no choirboy on that front. (Don't expect that any Senator that's survived a re-election campaign is innocent on that front.)
Alpha: The memo does not support your false assertion that Obama lied.
No. My assertion was "he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada", not that Obama lied.
Alpha: The memo does not support -
“He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”
Care to summarize that for us Alpha?
What were his consequences for giving patently false testimony.
I still don't understand where this notion of "patently false testimony" comes from. He was relaying what he heard at the Winter Soldier Conference. It was most certainly hearsay, but not false. Other than Pitkin, none of the other veterans has refuted their statements and nobody has been able to disprove them either.
somefeller: First, using the "most dangerous to the Republic" test, knowing what you know now, which of the Democratic candidates do you think is more dangerous to the Republic, Obama or Clinton?
Obama. I find it very difficult to believe that, over 20 years, he was untouched by Wright's hate-mongering.
Second, do you think you are you going to vote for John McCain in November?
Yes. I disagree with him about alot of things, but his foreign policy re AQ and Iraq trump all that.
There seem to be some pretty basic litmus (litmi?) tests of rational thinking: John Kerry as war hero; Barry Obama as politician (saying different things to different audiences); Hillary Clinton as darting across the tarmac in Bosnia to avoid sniper fire--hell: when that girl hauls ass she has to make three trips). Only the democrats can rationalize those things and accuse the republicans of lying. Any of you chickenhawk dems want John Kerry watching YOUR back? Yeah--I didnt think so. Any of you Dems want to give HRC access to YOUR personal files?
What we are watching is the gotterdammerung (an umlach, an umlach--my kingdom for an umlach)of Identity
politics.
Pop some popcorn, and watch the donks go down. Whose going to be the last politically correct idiot standing?
Alpha: You falsely attribute that argument to me. That's dishonest, but you have yet to disavow dishonesty so I guess it's not a problem for you.
I didn't attribute that argument to you. I gave it to you, as in: "if you want to defend Obama, this is the best argument to use."
You're too caught up in playing partisan gotcha games to understand me.
People will feel like he's been around forever, and that they know what his problems are, by the time September rolls around. If he had closed things out back on (the first) Super Tuesday then a lot of this stuff would still be waiting to hit the fan.
But that's the problem, Icepick. They'll know him, and they'll know his problems. They'll know he's just another politician, with all the corruption and bad associations that implies.
He'll be in the worst of all possible situations for him: he'll have to run on the issues. He'll have to actually come up with plans. He'll have to compare his record (oops he hasn't got one) to McCain rather than simply criticizing McCain's record while holding himself up as a political messiah who will right all wrongs through sheer force of personality.
Fen:
"Care to summarize that for us Alpha?"
Sure. Fen cherrypicks disputed memo (just like Clinton camp). Thinks "political positioning" by a Presidential candidate is an outrage. Fails to make case that Obama said one thing in public and a contradictory thing in private.
I didn't disagree with an assertion that there was "political positioning." That's what candidates do. I disagreed with this statement by you:
""Yah, just like he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada."
This statement is wrong:
A) Obama didn't have private talks with the Canadian government over this.
B) The message from Goolsbee to the Canadian government was the same as Obama's NAFTA message; we need labor and environmental safeguards.
You're trying to shift your arguments without disavowing those you're backing away from.
So what this pretty much tells me is that we really have not been in a position to fight a major conflict beyond a one year period since Korea.
Actually, this is exactly the rotation schedules (2 years in garrison for every one on a combat rotation) we used in Vietnam.
"Is the Hillary-Obama fight wrecking the Democratic Party?"
Hope springs eternal, or so says Alex Pope.
Humankind is ever given to such hope.
If only both parties could likewise be undone
It is Spring, after all, Pray a party-less future come.
"Is the Hillary-Obama fight wrecking the Democratic Party?"
No. This is March. We'll be united before June. Look, the Republicans [even the far right ones] now support McCain. Three months ago they didn't. Times change.
In the candidate spousal sweepstakes, Mrs. Obama looks pretty good:
Michelle Obama: wasn't always "really proud" of her country, wife and mother of two.
Bill Clinton: serial philanderer who gets clients face time with world leaders in exchange for Presidential library donations; Pardongate.
Cindy McCain: Ex-drug addict who stole drugs from medical charity she established.
Freder said...
"Actually, this is exactly the rotation schedules (2 years in garrison for every one on a combat rotation) we used in Vietnam."
That's a lie. Have you ever been in the Armed Forces? Were you in Viet Nam? No, you were not. You are a liar and a fraud.
"Yah, just like he bashed NAFTA in public but supported it in private with Canada."
A) Obama didn't have private talks with the Canadian government over this.
His chief economic advisor did. While representing Obama. You're being disingenuous.
The message from Goolsbee to the Canadian government was the same as Obama's NAFTA message; we need labor and environmental safeguards.
No. The message the Canadian government got was to ignore Obama's comments re NAFTA, that its about political positioning and should not be taken seriously as Obama's trade policy.
That's a lie.
What do you mean its a lie? No, I wasn't in Vietnam and I have not served in the military. Were you career military during the Vietnam era? Do you know differently? Did soldiers involuntarily serve tours space less than two years apart?
Is it soup yet?
FerChrist'ssake it's been steeping long enough!
I'm gonna go solve a crossword puzzle and Photoshop some kittens saying funny things. Seeya. Wouldn'twannbeya.
Freder Frederson said...
I still don't understand where this notion of "patently false testimony" comes from. He was relaying what he heard at the Winter Soldier Conference.
Equine Excrement!
AllenS said...
Freder said...
"Actually, this is exactly the rotation schedules (2 years in garrison for every one on a combat rotation) we used in Vietnam."
That's a lie. Have you ever been in the Armed Forces? Were you in Viet Nam? No, you were not. You are a liar and a fraud.
Finally, someone who knows WTF he is talking about.
Freder Frederson said...
That's a lie.
What do you mean its a lie? No, I wasn't in Vietnam and I have not served in the military. Were you career military during the Vietnam era? Do you know differently? Did soldiers involuntarily serve tours space less than two years apart?
Then you absolutely do not know WTF you are talking about. What else is new?
Frederson,
For your information, though I do not know why I am botherin, as you think everyone is a liar except you:
There is no such thing as a set in stone tour of duty. In the military you go where they send you, you show up when they want you to be there, and you do what you are told to do when you get there. They move people where they are needed.
If they cannot do it through normal channels, they have something called temporary duty. Temporary duty can run from 24hrs. to indefinitely. Tour of duty is an innaccurate term as it means nothing.
Guys, could we give it a rest with the lying liars crap? It's boring and useless--what's the point of talking to someone if you don't believe what they say?
Besides, it's distracting attention from the true subject of this post, which is not the crisis of our time (the sarcasm should be obvious) but rather the illustration, a strangely attractive morphing that we might call Hillack Clintama.
On that subject, I'd just like to say there's no accounting for taste--it makes me think of Brundlefly.
fen, you're tedious. You said Obama spoke to the Canucks. Obama didn't. When busted on lying about Obama's statements, you said:
"His chief economic advisor did. While representing Obama."
Here's what the factcheck.org post said about Goolsbee:
"Goolsbee was not representing the campaign during the visit and was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign."
Then you go on to lie some more:
"No. The message the Canadian government got was to ignore Obama's comments re NAFTA, that its about political positioning and should not be taken seriously as Obama's trade policy."
From the FactCheck.org post:
"Goolsbee also said, according to the AP, that the sentence in the memo referring to Obama as favoring strengthening or clarifying NAFTA's terms on labor and environment are true as well as consistent with Obama's position"
Only in an ill mind can criticizing the shortcomings of NAFTA be the same as saying Obama's comments should not be taken seriously.
I'd also ask what the hell the Canadian government was doing approaching a Presidential campaign, anyway. Meddling in our elections, that's what.
3 Midgets are in a bar arguing. "I have the smallest hands in the world!" says the first. "I have the smallest feet in the world!" says the second. "I have the smallest penis in the world!" bragged the third. The bartender eventually gets annoyed and says, "Enough is enough! Tomorrow you all go down to the Guinness Book of World Records and find out where each of you stands!" They all do. The first midget returns to the bar with a trophy "smallest hands in the World" and a check for $5,000. The second returns to the bar with a trophy "smallest feet in the World" and a check for $5,000. The third returns in a terrible mood, stomps into the bar and hollers, "Who in the hell is Al Gore????"
"Who in the hell is Al Gore????"
Priceless Trooper, priceless!
Trooper:
Do you remember the bar fight joke whose punchline is "that was a hammer from Sears and Roebuck"?
AlphaLiberal said...
I'd also ask what the hell the Canadian government was doing approaching a Presidential campaign, anyway. Meddling in our elections, that's what.
The Canadians are part of the Domino conspiracy to take over the USA. They are in league with Huckabee and the International Domino Comission. Huckabee was told by the Domino's to drop out of the campaign in order to work with the Canucks to meddle in and undermine the presidential election. He will soon be the Chairman of the Dominos.
That's my second favortie AJ after one that ends:
Well I can't believe that you thought I was a leprechaun.
Good evening fellow republicans and lovers of the Bush Doctrine.
How is everyone tonight?
I am fine thanks for asking.
I am not horny tonight and have gone an entire week not getting any.
Sure I jerk off daily but I haven't been with someone else for the entire week which is an accomplishment.
How often to the rest of you jerk off?
Well I can't believe that you thought I was a leprechaun.
Well my favorite ends with:
"Well the one in the middle with the beard and bad breath has to be Willie Nelson."
Freder,
To the best of my knowledge (I didn't serve but have many friends who did and do), there has never been a standard tour of duty in the military.
Depending on the conflict, branch of service, MOS, and other factors, a tour of duty during war could have been as short as 12 months, as long as the duration of the conflict, or somewhere in between if a point system was involved.
Trooper - tell that one sometime.
This guy is sitting at a bar having a few pops and suddenly gets this feeling that he has an urgent need to take a piss. So he goes into the bathroom and sees this really really short guy taking a leak. He's all dressed in green with a bowler hat and standing on a box so he can reach the urinal. He takes the stall next to this guy, and while taking a piss the guy happens to look over at the little man and by accident sees his dick. He just can't help saying to the guy "Man that is a big dick! That's the biggest dick I ever saw. It must go about 12 inches. Holy shit. I wish that I had a dick that big!" "Well" says the diminutive cock miester," I'm leprechaun and I can grant you one wish, and all you have to do is suck on me wang! And you will get a giant dick and me pot of gold" In horror of the thought the man exclaims, "I don't think so you little faggot, even for a dick that size! Not for all the money in the world. I'm not a senator after all." "Fine then" says the leprechaun. But he had really been slamming down the cocktails and he really needed the money and he convinced himself after a few minutes of thinking about it the man says "Alright I'll do it." So the man starts to suck the leprechaun's dick and when he is finished he says "I can't believe that I am going to be rich and I am going to have a 12inch dick!" And the little guy says, "I can't believe you thought I was a leprechaun!"
I heard Governor McGreevey tell that at a press conferance once. It was pretty funny. Who knew?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
To the best of my knowledge (I didn't serve but have many friends who did and do), there has never been a standard tour of duty in the military.
Well you don't have very good knowledge. Of course there is a standard tour of duty. Of course, "military necessity" can always trump the regs. But the branches set what the standard tour is (the Army raised tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months for the surge and recently dropped them back down to 12, I believe the Marines are on 6 month tours). As I stated above, official Army doctrine is that a unit to be fully capable should only be in a combat zone one year out of three (one year in theater, one year refitting, one year training and mobilizing). If I am wrong, please provide what the doctrine actually is. Perhaps the DRILL SGT needs to weigh in on this.
This is bullshit. I am called a liar, but nobody steps up to the plate with why I am wrong--just that I am a stupid liberal who doesn't know anything about the military. Which is entirely untrue. I know a lot more about it than you think.
Freder,
I have never called you or anyone else a liar on this forum. My comment was simply pointing out that throughout the history of the U.S. military, tours of duty during war have varied a great deal.
No two conflicts are ever the same and the size and structure of the military changes throughout time, so a typical tour of duty is time and conflict specific, but even then they do and can change.
Seriously, everyone on this forum needs to chill and try to have adult conversations without the ad homs.
Wowza.
If you follow the polls it looks like Obama has started to take down Hillary as well.
Wright now the numbers are in free fall. It may take several weeks to a month to see where all this bottoms out at.
If D support goes below 30% I think the party is kaput.
I have never called you or anyone else a liar on this forum. My comment was simply pointing out that throughout the history of the U.S. military, tours of duty during war have varied a great deal.
Actually, since the end of the Korean conflict, the doctrine has been pretty much established. It is still doctrine which is why the military is so concerned that it is being stretched to the breaking point.
I am sick and tired of being dismissed as knowing absolutely nothing about the military simply because I am a liberal, think this president is a complete incompetent, and think this war is completely unjustified and wrong.
Oh, and btw, my father-in-law spent 23 years in the Marines (1954--1978), which includes the entire Vietnam era for those of you who don't know your history. He did two tours in Vietnam three years apart (1965 and 1968). He was no slouch and received a battlefield commission in his second tour (E-1--E-9 and O-1--O-3). So I do know what the hell I am talking about.
The head Swiftie O'Neal is a hard core Dem. I forget who he is supporting this year. IIRC it is either the Big O or the Small Hill.
He repeated what he had had heard from other Vets. He did not claim they were his personal experiences.
Actually he heard it from people pretending to be vets.
Al Hubbard ring a bell?
Winter Soldier II has been a total flop.
As I stated above, official Army doctrine is that a unit to be fully capable should only be in a combat zone one year out of three (one year in theater, one year refitting, one year training and mobilizing). If I am wrong, please provide what the doctrine actually is. Perhaps the DRILL SGT needs to weigh in on this.
Freder
I'm not questioning what the Army doctrine is. I think what you said is quite reasonable. You stated that:(e.g. to sustain a force of 200K in Iraq and Afghanistan, would ideally require 600K troops dedicated to the mission). Obviously, that means the entire active duty ground forces would be tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan if things were as they should be.
Well then what you're saying is that we essentially need another 600K soldiers strictly for Iraq/Afghan because we evidently can't use any of the remaining 500K we have in Europe, US, Japan or Korea as that would tie up all our ground forces.
Considering that there are active units on thier 3rd tour, the math then tells me there are active units in garrison somewhere which clearly have never been deployed.
Some of the Joint Chiefs (i.e., the Army) are pushing for further cuts because they don't think they can even sustain pre-surge troop levels much longer.
Reenlistment rates are running 110% to 140% of requirements.
And in what units are the rates highest? Front line units.
The equipment may be crumbling. The Army is not.
Oh, and btw, my father-in-law spent 23 years in the Marines (1954--1978), He did two tours in Vietnam three years apart (1965 and 1968). He was no slouch and received a battlefield commission in his second tour (E-1--E-9 and O-1--O-3). So I do know what the hell I am talking about.
Well that is impressive but with all due respect, my Dad was in the Navy for 4 years and then a cop for 25 years and he was no slouch either. But that doesn't mean I know dick about navy destroyers, what it was like at the Bay of Pigs or criminal law enforcement.
Google - Steven Pitkin - it is not just Fox.
You might want to look up Al Hubbard while you are at it.
Guys like these appear in every war Jesse MacBeth ring a bell? Rudh L. got $2 for charity out of these fake soldiers.
Surprisingly they all seem to appear on the left. I wonder why that is? Not enough real soldiers?
Jeeze what a mangle:
Guys like these appear in every war Jesse MacBeth ring a bell? Rush L. got $2 million for charity out of these fake soldiers.
Considering that there are active units on thier 3rd tour, the math then tells me there are active units in garrison somewhere which clearly have never been deployed.
You've got to remember that out of the 150,000 or so troops we have in Iraq, at best one in five are "trigger pullers", in the military as a whole, the proportion is even lower--probably approaching one in ten.
Frederson...
This is bullshit. I am called a liar, but nobody steps up to the plate with why I am wrong--just that I am a stupid liberal who doesn't know anything about the military. Which is entirely untrue. I know a lot more about it than you think.
You are a liar because you do not know WTF you are talking about and pretend you do. You only know about the military what you may read or someone has told you. Which means you know nothing. Tours are meaningless. There is no contractual obligation. They could say a tour is six months and that is doctrine. The ycould change it to ten years if they want. It is up to them. There is no law. Doctrine is a guideline, not a hard fast rule or law.
But, why argue with an idiot.
Let me clear this up for your Freder--YOU have no military experience--we can agree on that; I applaud and celebrate your relatives experience--But that, of course, means you have no idea of service. So: for your information, there is no official policy about rotation in combat areas. The only thing the Army looks at is ones military occupational speciality (MOS)--and that is what determines if a soldier goes or doesnt go.
Of coure, you could argue with me. no problemo buddy. I enlisted in 1961, went to the Military Academy in 1963, graduated four years later, and served for some 20 years thereafter. Surprisingly enough, my real name is on my profile, so feel free to google me. When you are are ready to compare bone fides, let me know.
You've got to remember that out of the 150,000 or so troops we have in Iraq, at best one in five are "trigger pullers", in the military as a whole, the proportion is even lower--probably approaching one in ten.
Ok so again, are all our trigger pullers in Iraq/Afghan and the rest in the rear with the gear? 1 in 10 means we have 15,000 with a combat MOS and the rest non-combat? There are 25,000 in Afghan which would make around 2500 slated for combat.
Thus it would seem we'd have to go back to nearly a 2.5 million man armed force just to maintain a 200K troop level deployment in what is essentially a low intensity conflict beyond 1-2 years while at the same time keeping the hordes at bay in Korea, Germany, Italy and Japan.
So: for your information, there is no official policy about rotation in combat areas.
I don't know what your MOS was, but it obviously wasn't on the personnel management side of the house. I just don't pull these things out of my ass you know.
What on earth makes you think, with your twenty years experience in the military, that there wouldn't be an official policy (subject to constant modification) on every aspect of troop and unit rotation, when every other aspect of military life is governed by some reg, policy, or order?
You of course know better. You just want to make me look like an idiot.
And although I never served in the military I worked for the Army as a civilian at the Pentagon and in Germany.
Oh and Roger, by my math you graduate the Academy in 1967. How many tours did you do in Vietnam? Unless you volunteered for additional tours, I bet it was no more than two.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा