Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

[OldMercsRule]

Political thread with a touch of history. Democrats over the last 80 years have gained political power during times of trouble for America.

The Great Depression gave them their greatest political victory in the history of their party: a nearly Socialist 4 term President with a heavy Democrat majority in the House that lasted until 1994 and the Senate that permanently changed the Country by severly damaging the Judicial Branch of Government when FDR packed the Supreme Court with activists judges that allowed BIG government to overcome the checks on government power the Founding Fathers had placed in the 20 page Founding document we call the Cornstatution.

The next watershed event to propel the party to a comparable height of political power was the defeat Democrats arranged in Vietnam in 1975. Again we had a Democrat President Carter and heavy majorities in both the House and Senate. Our allies were slaughtered (about 3 Million of them), when the Dems cut off all aid to South Vietnam and America's reputation fell to post WW2 lows. The Democrat policies gave us 20% interest rates, rapid inflation, our military was unable to fly the majority of their aircraft due to shortages in spare parts, and we cut off a critical ally, (Iran) from military spare parts that gave us a real formidable enemy from our former ally and the current War we are now engaged in.

This background is necessary to comprehend why Democrats now want the Defeat of our Country in Iraq so badly. They must know how badly our reputation will suffer, as they must have known in 1975, and they may be able to blame the Republicans with their close relationship with Hollyweird and the MSM.

Here are several current articles that show the Donkey's investment in our defeat, which they clearly want very badly (and may actually get their way). There are cornsequenses to this cornduct, as the media is changing as one of the articles highlights.

"Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1

"Reid labels military leader 'incompetent'"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4490.html

The cornsequences of treason in our Left wing media:

"New York Times May Ad Revenue Drops"

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070614/new_york_times_sales.html?.v=1

What to expect if and when the Democrats succeed:

"In Gaza's Shadow" by Ralph Peters

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly..._gazas_shadow_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Morning Murky.....
One quick question:
How is Carter to blame for the loss in Viet Nam when he didn't take office until Jan '77.......​

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

In other news, the phrase 'Under God' was officially added to the Pledge of Allegiance on this day in 1954......​

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Morning Murky.....
One quick question:
How is Carter to blame for the loss in Viet Nam when he didn't take office until Jan '77.......​

Mornin' Bro, I did not blame Carter for Vietnam, as he was the Donkey's spoils of the Vietnam defeat. I blamed Carter for loosing Iran to the Ayatollah, who was the first to tag us with the name GREAT SATAN!! Ya may have some fond memories of that period of time: Bro!! JR

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

I agree that he screwed the pooch with regard to Iran......
He was a servile, colorless leader then & should keep his trap shut with regards to current US foriegn policy......
& stick with building victim houses for Habitat for Humanity.......
Camp David notwithstanding.......​

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

I agree that he screwed the pooch with regard to Iran......
He was a servile, colorless leader then & should keep his trap shut with regards to current US foriegn policy......
& stick with building victim houses for Habitat for Humanity.......
Camp David notwithstanding.......​

He was the worst President in the history of our Republic, LBJ is a close second, IM not so HO. I cornsider the protection and preservation of the American Republic job #1 when it comes to judging Presidents. We are very lucky Ronald Reagan beat him in 1980 or the USSR would have taken us on, (according the the Soviet generals who were interviewed after the fall of the Berlin wall). I've met many people here in God's Country who revere the man which always brings to mind the question: Is Liberalism a mental disorder? JR

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

The Camp David accords always make Libs all warm 'n fuzzy......
Obviously, not so much for the Arabs.......
If'n I remember correctly, Sadat was pushin' up daisies not too long afterward......​

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

The Camp David accords always make Libs all warm 'n fuzzy......

Agreed, I don't think the Cornservatives minded that ackomplishment either, as it took Egypt out of the cornflict with Israel, and has held up over time. Not all that Carter did was bad.

Obviously, not so much for the Arabs.......
If'n I remember correctly, Sadat was pushin' up daisies not too long afterward......​

Yer right, that is part of what the Ayatollah brought to the world's table from Paris in 1979. I'm not sayin' the Ayatollah specifically directed the assasination of Sadat, what he did do: is highlight our profound weakness and the Sunni Arabs, (in fact all of our enemies were very clearly incouraged by our glaring weakness that Carter Presided over, and made much worse then it would have been without such a weak kneed President that embraced mediocracy). Ya know: keep the temp at 68 and wear a sweater!

 

[rogerwa]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

OMR I think you're just great. I think we could be friends. You eloquently state the true nature of my beliefs and frustrations.

Two questions I have been mulling are:

1) Lets just say that the dems are serious about pulling out. I am thinking that they have a very time sensitive agneda here. If they get the troops out too soon, the bloodbath will begin and this withdrawal will look to be a bad idea. Republicans win 08..

Or

the dems delay the pullout until 2nd qtr next year and the phase out begins. bloodbath has not started yet, the dems met their promise.. Dem win 08. After the 08 election the bloodbath begins and the press will blame it on the previous administration and the democrats in power will really begin their inquest into the previous administration to hold onto power for the '10 mid-terms.

I would not be surprised to see the push for schedules that are advantageous for their election agenda.

2) When the bloodbath begins, will the democrats be holding the bag as they should?? Or will the media just say that the war was a bad idea and blame it on Bush. I think the latter even though it is not accurate.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

OMR I think you're just great. I think we could be friends. You eloquently state the true nature of my beliefs and frustrations.

Two questions I have been mulling are:

1) Lets just say that the dems are serious about pulling out. I am thinking that they have a very time sensitive agneda here. If they get the troops out too soon, the bloodbath will begin and this withdrawal will look to be a bad idea. Republicans win 08..

Or

the dems delay the pullout until 2nd qtr next year and the phase out begins. bloodbath has not started yet, the dems met their promise.. Dem win 08. After the 08 election the bloodbath begins and the press will blame it on the previous administration and the democrats in power will really begin their inquest into the previous administration to hold onto power for the '10 mid-terms.

I would not be surprised to see the push for schedules that are advantageous for their election agenda.

2) When the bloodbath begins, will the democrats be holding the bag as they should?? Or will the media just say that the war was a bad idea and blame it on Bush. I think the latter even though it is not accurate.

There's your answer........

 

[ArtB]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

OldMercsRule sure has some interesting twists on history. Prior to FDR our country was at the complete mercy of "the haves" who didn't give a hoot about the "have nots". More social progress was made under his administration than any in history.

Carter made some mistakes and supporting the Shaw of Iran was probably his worst.. The Shaw was a tyrant and our support for him led to takeover of Iran by religeous extremists - something that inflames the region to this day.

Yes the Democrats bear a major responsibility for Viet Nam but not because we didn't win it. It was unwinable. The experience of Korea, and of the French in Indo-China should have told us that. And Johnson's fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident was disgraceful.

George H.W. Bush's (you didn't mention him did you) illicit activities in (using Oliver North) in the Iran-Contra affair also messed up things in the Middle East and South America.

But, by and large, I think that without a doubt George W. Bush is the worst president in history for all of the reasons that most people are aware of today.

All of this is to suggest that it isn't just Republicans or Democrats. It is electing the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

 

[KaGee]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Not when worn by Nancy Pelosi

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

OMR I think you're just great.

Thanks Rogerwa.

I think we could be friends.

Agreed, you live in a Liberal community (as do I), so we share similar challanges to our world views, and get very little local reinforcement. Believe it or not: I also have many Liberal friends and family (some quite close), who obviously don't share my views, but it is fun to practice on 'em, if they can keep it intellectual n' not get mad at ol' Murky.

You eloquently state the true nature of my beliefs and frustrations.

Thank You again. I think that is the key to both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News' success. Prior to then It was the WSJ editorial page or minor Right wing rags.

Two questions I have been mulling are:

1) Lets just say that the dems are serious about pulling out.

They actually are only serious about acquiring and retaining power. The most vocal parties and largest sources of funding of current Democrats comes from the anti war Left or they (the majority of the Dem pols), would actually be statesmen like the Democrats used to be.

I am thinking that they have a very time sensitive agneda here. If they get the troops out too soon, the bloodbath will begin and this withdrawal will look to be a bad idea. Republicans win 08..

The blood is flowing now and the MSM puts it on our plates all the time. I think they actually are calculating that GW Bush knows the stakes are great and will do what he can to succeed by staying in Iraq. They, (the Democrat leaders) are counting on that. They also know that GWB would also disengage as much as possible if the Iraqis actually step up and things improve. As long as they have a record of hammering GWB that works for their political calculations. They could also take credit for putting presure on the Iraqi government if things turn so they can play politics to their hearts content and are in a win win situation at the expense of our Country. That is what makes you and I uncomfortable: playin' politics with such an important issue.

Or

the dems delay the pullout until 2nd qtr next year and the phase out begins. bloodbath has not started yet, the dems met their promise.. Dem win 08. After the 08 election the bloodbath begins and the press will blame it on the previous administration and the democrats in power will really begin their inquest into the previous administration to hold onto power for the '10 mid-terms.

Very plausible too. It is maddining when the media and one of our great political parties helps our enemies for their own political gain at home.

I would not be surprised to see the push for schedules that are advantageous for their election agenda.

They have already done that: Roger. It makes me sick. The Democrat and independent voters are the only ones who can put a stop to this dance. We are in a very bad spot.

2) When the bloodbath begins, will the democrats be holding the bag as they should?? Or will the media just say that the war was a bad idea and blame it on Bush. I think the latter even though it is not accurate.

Agreed. That is part of the broken system we got from the 1970s. The MSM is very biased Left and will echo Dem points and positives, and hammer Republicans and not report, (Willy's editors) positives that could be attributed to Republicans.

Could we have ever won against the Japanise and Germans with this type of dysfunction? JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

OldMercsRule sure has some interesting twists on history. Prior to FDR our country was at the complete mercy of "the haves" who didn't give a hoot about the "have nots".

Hmmmmmm Art, I gues ya never heard of the other Roosevelt. His name was Theodore (n' he was a Republican). He was one of our Great Presidents, (unlike his cousin: Franklin who was mediocre). Only mediocre 'cause he was a great war time leader, terrible without that aspect.

More social progress was made under his administration than any in history.

I disagree, but from yer perspective I can see why ya think that.

Carter made some mistakes and supporting the Shaw of Iran was probably his worst.. The Shah was a tyrant and our support for him led to takeover of Iran by religeous extremists - something that inflames the region to this day.

Ya think Carter "supported the Shah of Iran Art???????????????? Hmmmmmmm. I can see a reasonable Liberal Luvin' FDR's socialism. That said: Carter DID NOT SUPPORT THE SHAH IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. He cut the Shah off at the knees. That gave us the Aytollah: Art. Yer a bit cornfused here.

Yes the Democrats bear a major responsibility for Viet Nam but not because we didn't win it. It was unwinable.

Only because of the enemies within: ART.

The experience of Korea,

Hmmmmmmm, Do ya think South Korea is COMMUNIST Art? Last I heard they were a fairly productive place, musta been another planet that happened on eh?

and of the French in Indo-China should have told us that.

Hmmmmmmm, do the French impress ya ART?

And Johnson's fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident was disgraceful.

Agreed.

George H.W. Bush's (you didn't mention him did you) illicit activities in (using Oliver North) in the Iran-Contra affair also messed up things in the Middle East and South America.

Yah Art!! The Clintonistas really wanted Danial Ortega to have success real bad, Chris Dodd still worships ol' Fidel, (is he yer favorite Dem fer President)? Do ya like the idea of a Communist enemy near our southern borders Art? BTW that was prior to the wall commin' down, so the danger was much greater at that time. I never could understand why Libs luv Communist Tyrants n' hate the Tyrants that happen to be on our side. I guess Uncle Joe swung both ways, (we were allies against Hitler fer a bit), so the Libs luv of him seems easier fer me ta understand. After all Libs are into CENTRAL CONTROL, aren't they?

But, by and large, I think that without a doubt George W. Bush is the worst president in history for all of the reasons that most people are aware of today.

I guess we disagree, but a stanch defender of our Republic in it's present form would not rank very high with you, since ya luved ol' FDR so much. At least yer position makes sense ta me. Is Ronald Reagan the second worst President in history in yer opinion: Art?

All of this is to suggest that it isn't just Republicans or Democrats. It is electing the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

That is one thing that people as far apart as you and I could agree on. Thanks for the exchange; respectfully JR

 

[JB]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Gotta speak up for we old farts who aren't kool aid addicts.

ArtB says, "Prior to FDR our country was at the complete mercy of "the haves" who didn't give a hoot about the "have nots". More social progress was made under his administration than any in history." Karl Marx couldn't have said it better. Progress toward socialISM. FDR had the benefit of the great boogeyman. . .the depression. . .from which to rescue the downtrodden masses.

FDR was a great leader with solutions that fit the times. Unfortunately, we have to live with them 60 years after they became obsolete.

After WWI the middle east was carved up and reassembled by the British and Americans. Therein lie the roots of resentment. The ShaH was a bad guy installed because of his friendliness to "the west". Other governments created to suit us are still in power, but the replacements of failed attempts at 2nd tier imperialism all resent us and the Brits. Jimmy Carter didn't cause that, he just did a bad job of dealing with it.

Jimmy Carter was/is a kind, gentle and lovable human being. He was a terrible President.

Nam? Was it winnable? Sure it was, but we didn't have what we needed to win it. . .patience and determination. Ho had patience and was willing to lie to get us out. He agreed to desist trying to conquer SVN (he called it "unify"), we pulled combat troops out, he conquered.

We are in a similar fix in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. American sheeple, with the encouragement of the media, have run out of patience and determination. They are not at war. They were never at war. They have this naive notion that pulling out will end the war. Our President and our military are at war and a minority of Americans are backing them.

Then ArtB says, "George W. Bush is the worst president in history for all of the reasons that most people are aware of today." Except that a lot of people now have decided that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea and that is all GWB's fault as well as our failure to shut down the insurgency promptly and prevent the Al Qaeda from starting what some see as a civil war, what "all the reasons" are you referring to, Art? By your reasoning (I don't really think it is your reasoning, I think it is Lib scripting.) Harry Truman should be the worst President in history for getting us into Korea (More Americans died there in 1 month than in 4 years in Iraq), or Eisenhower should be the worst President in history for getting us into Viet Nam. How many thousands died there? Oh, and FDR got us into WWII by aiding the Brits and demanding that Japan get out of China. How bad was that?

I am really sick of the "hate Bush and blame him for everything" movement, Art. I agree that he is no Ron Reagan but neither is he Jimmy Carter.

 

[rogerwa]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Agreed on all points.

The interesting thing about Rush Limbaugh is that you never see critiques about substance. all you see is comments about his divisivness and also the attmpts at marginalization (make a joke of him). It should also tell you something that the Democrats will not attend the debate hosted by Foxnews. They like their home field, why bother with a neutral one.

I do live in a liberal area, but actually a conservative suburb. The state legislature this yeat touted property tax cuts that in reality raised mid to high income property owner rates and lowered low income rates. they also wanted to raise the burden on the 250K+ crowd. they also wanted to raise the gas tax claiming it hasn't been raised in 20 years, yet they don't seem to realize that as prices go up so does the amount taken in by the same percentage. Being 4th on the highest tax burden list apparently wasn't good enough. It was a regular tax orgy. Thank God for our Republican Governor.

I live in an area where you cannot inquire the imigration status of a person breaking the law.. There was a recent prostitution ring busted up that was enssentially a human traffiking ring using illegals for prostitution. Our local cops would not support the bust and just stood on the sidelines because it was an immigration bust.

It is simply unbelievable.

As a final note, we would not have won WW2 with this environment because the democrats and the press would think the cost too high and that the concentration camps were simply a reaction to our imperialistic tendencies.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

What JB said. What Roger said.

Nuff said.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

This looks like a good spot to let a fArtB.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Gotta speak up for we old farts who aren't kool aid addicts.

Great post JB, I enjoy it when you engage.

ArtB says, "Prior to FDR our country was at the complete mercy of "the haves" who didn't give a hoot about the "have nots". More social progress was made under his administration than any in history." Karl Marx couldn't have said it better. Progress toward socialISM. FDR had the benefit of the great boogeyman. . .the depression. . .from which to rescue the downtrodden masses.

Absolutely: JB!!

FDR was a great leader with solutions that fit the times.

I come at this as a former Investment Professional and must beg to differ here: JB. FDR was a master politician nearly as skillfull as Mr Clinton, (maybe more skilled, who knows?) He was certianly one of the greatest pols in American History, so if that is what you mean with yer above comment, then I do agree we needed a leader that we liked to follow. Lord Keynes had a great theory that did not work very well when applied in the real world, (with the noted back drop you mentioned of: Karl Marx). The actual application of this theory shifted a great deal of the production to the public sector which is the least efficient sector of the economy. It is now known to be much more important in the macro management format to stimulate the private sector , which can be done much better with monetary policies as are generally associated with M. Freidman. FDR's policies actually prolonged a Depression that would have been similar to the panic of 1907 or other sharp previous economic dislocations that came back hard with a private sector surge. The huge public works projects not only prolonged the Depression, it made it a "Great" one, with a false start from 1932 to 1937 driven by the public sector spending, and a horrible resumption in 1937. WW2 actually ended it, and without that BIG external event, we may have had an experience similar to the USSR. The public sector is the least efficient way to shift economic production. I hope that is self evident to most of us, (maybe not to Art).

Unfortunately, we have to live with them 60 years after they became obsolete.

They were obsolete then JB, but as you point out we were desparate for action. That almost always leads to problems when we expect the government to do something. Hind sight bein' 20-20 n' all.

After WWI the middle east was carved up and reassembled by the British and Americans.

I actually think the French had more input then we did JB, but we did have some influence as you state.

Therein lie the roots of resentment. The ShaH was a bad guy installed because of his friendliness to "the west". Other governments created to suit us are still in power, but the replacements of failed attempts at 2nd tier imperialism all resent us and the Brits. Jimmy Carter didn't cause that, he just did a bad job of dealing with it.

Agreed to a point: JB. Cutting off the Shahs' high tech American military facing a heavily armed and very nasty and agressive Soviet armed Sadam brought the Shah down JB. That is not in dispute: to my knowledge. If his military could function he could have retained power, (it would not have been pretty).

Jimmy Carter was/is a kind, gentle and lovable human being.

People who worked directly with Mr Carter do not share that assesment: JB. He did not trust anyone to follow his instructions so he would not delegate authority. They thought him mean and nasty and an unsupportive authority figure. His post Presidential cornduct is disgracefull and very anti American, and anti Sementic; and would tend to bolster those who disagree with your assessment here.

He was a terrible President.

The worst we have ever had.

Nam? Was it winnable? Sure it was, but we didn't have what we needed to win it. . .patience and determination.

Due specifically to the enemy within: Walter Cronkite et. al. Cronkite's unvarnished hard Left positions are known better now that he has opened his mouth and spouted off without CBS sitting on his head. JF KERRY has a place in the Vietnam museum due to his Soviet Sponsered help he gave our enemies. That is the way the victors see it: JB.

Ho had patience and was willing to lie to get us out. He agreed to desist trying to conquer SVN (he called it "unify"), we pulled combat troops out, he conquered.

We are in a similar fix in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. American sheeple, with the encouragement of the media, have run out of patience and determination. They are not at war. They were never at war. They have this naive notion that pulling out will end the war. Our President and our military are at war and a minority of Americans are backing them.

Very well said: JB

Then ArtB says, "George W. Bush is the worst president in history for all of the reasons that most people are aware of today." Except that a lot of people now have decided that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea and that is all GWB's fault as well as our failure to shut down the insurgency promptly and prevent the Al Qaeda from starting what some see as a civil war, what "all the reasons" are you referring to, Art? By your reasoning (I don't really think it is your reasoning, I think it is Lib scripting.) Harry Truman should be the worst President in history for getting us into Korea (More Americans died there in 1 month than in 4 years in Iraq), or Eisenhower should be the worst President in history for getting us into Viet Nam. How many thousands died there? Oh, and FDR got us into WWII by aiding the Brits and demanding that Japan get out of China.

N' cuttin' off oil and scrap metal to the Japanise.

How bad was that?

I am really sick of the "hate Bush and blame him for everything" movement, Art. I agree that he is no Ron Reagan but neither is he Jimmy Carter.

All and all a great post JB, I had to pick on ya about the financial aspects of the Depression and the Jimmy Carter's personality from my own readin' of the facts as I see 'em. Hope ya did not mind. Thanks for the input from a very sharp Senior observer. Respectfully JR

 

[ArtB]

Re: Does Lipstick change the nature of the Donkey?

Gotta speak up for we old farts who aren't kool aid addicts.

ArtB says, "Prior to FDR our country was at the complete mercy of "the haves" who didn't give a hoot about the "have nots". More social progress was made under his administration than any in history." Karl Marx couldn't have said it better. Progress toward socialISM. FDR had the benefit of the great boogeyman. . .the depression. . .from which to rescue the downtrodden masses.

FDR was a great leader with solutions that fit the times. Unfortunately, we have to live with them 60 years after they became obsolete.

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US GIVE UP THAT CAME ABOUT UNDER FDR? SOCIAL SECURITY? BANKING SECURITY?

fter WWI the middle east was carved up and reassembled by the British and Americans. Therein lie the roots of resentment. The ShaH was a bad guy installed because of his friendliness to "the west". Other governments created to suit us are still in power, but the replacements of failed attempts at 2nd tier imperialism all resent us and the Brits. Jimmy Carter didn't cause that, he just did a bad job of dealing with it.

SORRY FOR THE MISSPELLING OF SHAH. OUR GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED THE SHAH OVER DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED MOHAMMED MOSADDEQ BECAUSE HE WANTED TO GET A FAIR SHARE OF OIL REVENUE FROM THE BRITISH FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAN. HAD WE SUPPORTED MOSADDEQ, THE RELIGEOUS EXTREMISTS MIGHT NEVER HAVE GAINED POWER.

Jimmy Carter was/is a kind, gentle and lovable human being. He was a terrible President.

HAD WE FOLLOWED HIS ADMONITION TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FORIEGN OIL, WE WOULDN"T HAVE HAD TO GO TO WAR TO PROTECT OUR SOURCES OF OIL SUPPLY. (WE DIDN"T NEED TO, ANYWAY>)

Nam? Was it winnable? Sure it was, but we didn't have what we needed to win it. . .patience and determination. Ho had patience and was willing to lie to get us out. He agreed to desist trying to conquer SVN (he called it "unify"), we pulled combat troops out, he conquered.

CONSIDERING THAT CHINA COULD AND CAN SUPPLY TROOPS FASTER THAN WE CAN KILL THEM, HOW COULD WE WIN IT SHORT OF GOING NUCLEAR? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? WOULD YOU OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS? AND DO YOU HAVE NO COMPASSION FOR THE MILLIONS OF VIETNAMESE DEATHS?

We are in a similar fix in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. American sheeple, with the encouragement of the media, have run out of patience and determination. They are not at war. They were never at war. They have this naive notion that pulling out will end the war. Our President and our military are at war and a minority of Americans are backing them.

THIS ADMINISTRATION CLEARLY HAD NO IDEA OF WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO INTO IN IRAQ. SCHOLARS KNEW BUT BUSH/CHENEY WOULDN"T LISTEN!

Then ArtB says, "George W. Bush is the worst president in history for all of the reasons that most people are aware of today." Except that a lot of people now have decided that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea and that is all GWB's fault as well as our failure to shut down the insurgency promptly and prevent the Al Qaeda from starting what some see as a civil war, what "all the reasons" are you referring to, Art? By your reasoning (I don't really think it is your reasoning, I think it is Lib scripting.) Harry Truman should be the worst President in history for getting us into Korea (More Americans died there in 1 month than in 4 years in Iraq), or Eisenhower should be the worst President in history for getting us into Viet Nam.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. JFK SENT "ADVISORS" AND JOHNSON SENT TROOPS. (AND EISENHOWER GOT US OUT OF KOREA. REMEMBER?)

How many thousands died there? Oh, and FDR got us into WWII by aiding the Brits and demanding that Japan get out of China. How bad was that?

WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH IRAQ OR VIET NAM FOR THAT MATTER?

I am really sick of the "hate Bush and blame him for everything" movement, Art. I agree that he is no Ron Reagan but neither is he Jimmy Carter.

I CAN UNDERSTAND WANTING TO SUPPORT THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT. BUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING ERROR WHEN IT OCCURS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE EITHER, NOR IS IT PATRIOTIC!