Why?
 

Given all of their puff chested, he man bluster and their constant fawning over "the troops"...............

Why don't Republicans seem to care when you point out that people like GW Bush, Cheney and Romney are all chiken-shit draft dodgers who only ACT tough when they can send someone else to do the dirty work?

Why do these pampered pansies and spoiled brat rich kids think they're too good to do their duty in the field of battle?

Oh, I know. "Democrats do it too." But, do you gloss it over and give them a pass when they're found out? No. So, fuck that. I think evertime a Republican is found out to be chickenhawk he should be forced to have the title "PUNK ASS BITCH" tattooed across his forehead.

A wait your thoughts on this topic, Jay.

Dave

Works for me?

This tough, make-my-day, rugged individualist talk appeals to the insecure who somehow feel victimized by all the $hit they don't understand (city folk, foreigners, and the simple fact that these "elitists" don't view the world myopically like they do). Overcompensating, I suppose.

I don't know why the Right's candidates don't have to account for their privileged exemption from military service. Could be the fear of being bullied from the Right. (do they really do anything else?). Dan Rather lost his job over reporting the truth that George W. was a deserter.

The Right can even seem to conjure up enough half-truths and lies about a veteran's service to knock him out of a Presidential race. Image if The Shrub had the military credentials of John Kerry, the same people who Swift-boated Kerry would have dropped to their knees to pleasure George W. The hypocrisy is maddening.

But it's really the S.O.P. for the Right now; to win at any cost, by any means--it's not even important WHAT is to be won--they just have to win. What is the scary part is all the nails they hammer into the nation's coffin every time they lie and bully to get their way.

The whole "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" b.s. reminds me of ficticuos organization Jon Stewart countered with during the George W. Bush desertion reports: the "Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability" --I always liked that one.

OK, next time terrorosts fly planes into the Pentagon and the WTC replacement, we'll wait for a he-man leftist to occupy the White House before we react.

At least a "he-man leftist" may take a few moments to figure out who was actually responsible before launching an all-out invasion of an uninvolved country.

You mean like the one that is responsible of putting a bullet in BinLaden's eye? Sounds good to me.

Don't forget, it was the Middle East policies of the Regan administration that set the foundation for the 9/11 attacks; nothing like that happens without political cause and effect.

And if you're paying attention, there's very little difference in foreign policies between George W and Obama; they are more similar than different (except for the fact that President Obama seems to be actually making progress cleaning up Rumsfeld's mess)

I would think after all these centuries of war; of trying to kill enemies faster than we create them, we might try actually being a decent citizen of this world. No hope for that as long as there are NeoCons around. (or maybe we're into a Post-NeoCon Tea Party nightmare now)

Now, Brett, your forgetting that the killing of bin-Laden had nothing to do with Obama. The Seals just took it upon themselves to go do what the president was too timid to do.....:rolleyes:

I suppose the crew of the Enola Gay built their own bomb and dropped it on Hiroshima, because those "lefty" scientists and Truman were too pussy-fied to do it themselves?

The BS that passes for "truth", I tell ya.

Reminds me of what Colbert said about "truthiness";

"It may not quite BE true, but it kinda-sorta sounds like it SHOULD be true, therefore it is.":rolleyes:

Dave

"A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on" - W.S. Churchill

The worst modern invasion, in the history, of the US happened under a "he-man" Republican administration, that was forewarned that it was going to happen, and did nothing.

The response was to invade two countries that had little or nothing to do with the invasion.

The hijackers were almost all Saudi's. We should have attacked Saudi Arabia. Instead we let bin Laden escape in Tora Bora because our "he-man" president would not send in enough military power to capture or kill him, because the troops were already committed to the ever so important invasion of Iraq.

He made this decision after he came out of hiding after the 9/11 attacks. Bush was a chicken shit coward.

It took a pansy assed Liberal nig*er President to order a very risky invasion of bin Laden's compound to tap that murderous asshole twice in the head and gather loads of intelligence. If we had only had that 'boy' in office in 2001.

So, in answer to you question whell: yes we should wait for a "he-man leftist to occupy the Whitehouse before we do anything because rightist have proven themselves to be a bunch of pussy's.

It is indeed ironic to have an acolyte of the party who gave us Dubya (and his disastrous foreign policy) to criticize Obama. It's kinda like an arsonist criticizing the firefighters who didn't save his house that he just torched.

This is, quite possibly, the most inanely ridiculous statement witnessed on this site. :rolleyes:

We're all dumber for having read it.

I hear you Zeke. What's the harm in giving it just a few minutes of reflection and a little spellcheck before hitting the "submit reply" button? All it does is to show a lack of respect towards the other members of this fine forum. Try the "Preview Post" button first Whell and save yourself some grief.:p

Of course. And the original post in this thread was a hallmark of dispassionate logic and keen insight.

Dispassionate logic. You bet. I don't have the same crushing need to believe the GOPs lies and BS that you do.

Keen insight? Painfully so.

It was decidedly linear, contained at least a modicum of logic and incorporated analysis requiring not a Limbaugh-esque alternative reality for validation.

In sum, it was the opposite of your original, inane, missive of which we are all -- still -- dumber for having read.

I'm sure no help was needed from me to reach that outcome.

That is about par for the course as you have been bloody littlle help at any time in this forum.

I didn't know I was here to be helpful. I'll start typing slower so y'all can keep up. :p;):D

Afghanistan, although horrible, was an appropriate response to 9/11. Iraq was about as dumb-headed a move as a President could make. I would assert that had we focused our attention where it belonged, on the country that facilitated the 9/11 attacks, we would not be dealing with all of the crap, domestically and internationally, that we're dealing with now. How much has the invasion of Iraq cost our nation in terms of U.S. loss of life and indebtedness?

The notion that somehow Obama has been soft on terror or in any military situation is simply dead-ass wrong.

Slowly typed idiocy is still idiocy. I've seen you post some intelligent stuff but, this time, you're way off. So knowingly off, in fact, as to be defensive about it.

When I am that way, I find it is my subconscious mind trying to fight through personal ego about something I desire not to admit: that my argument doesn't hold water.

Let me help? Your argument is tired, old, failed bullshit.

Get a better one.

Yes, all us armchair warriors know exactly what we should've done to reshape the world after 9-11.

The worst invasion was Pearl Harbor. The Japs practically phoned Roosevelt (the anti-war guy :rolleyes: ) and told him they were coming...

Pete

Not being defensive about anything, Zeke ol' buddy, nor was I making an "argument". In fact, I was being sarcastic in my first post in this thread to match what I thought to be a rather lame initial post. So thanks for the help, and good luck with your subconscious. :p

Boy you just seem to sink your teeth into any sort of casual mistruths you come across. You really need to objectively read some history. I do not buy the back door theory that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen in order to get us into World War II just as I do not believe Michael Moore's similar theory about Bush II allowing 9-11 to happen.
FDR was not posing as anti-war either...google lend-lease when you get a chance.

I never said I believed FDR 'allowed' it to happen. I personally think that's crazy :)

That said the base was not even close to being on war footing, and he was the CinC.

He ran on an antiwar platform...

Pete

And the Pacific Fleet Commander was relieved for cause because Pearl Harbor was not better prepared.

Sarcasm is often the veiled truth of those without courage to speak plainly.

Its no conspiracy theory. Its not a secret that Ambassador Grew alerted the State Department in January 1941 that he had picked up intelligence that Pearl Harbor was at risk of an attack from Japan. Problem is no one took him seriously.

In December 1941, after US cryptographers had broken Japanese code, we knew a Japanese attack might be coming, but the cryptographers were unable to discern where the attack would be. No one put the pieces together. No one put the US pacific fleet on alert.

And of course, that morning, radar operators on Oahu picking up the inbound Japanese aircraft. No one believed them either.

It wasn't a conspiracy. It was a human failure of communication, poor preparation and poor reaction of epic proportion.

And I'm no armchair warrior, I can assure you of that. Bush's stated reason for going in was the WMD which morphed into Iraqi Freedom.

Is the world better off without Sadam? Absolutely. Did we need to go in when we did the way we did? I don't think so and neither do a lot of other professional soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and diplomats infinitely more learned than I.

Yawn....

I don't think it's cut and dry that the world is better off without Saddam (though he was indeed an unsavory character). He was an effective counterbalance to Iran's primacy in the region. Now Iran has more influence with Iraq's Shia majority than we do. By a long shot, in fact. The Iraq War will go down as one of the biggest foreign policy failures in the history of our nation.

To wit... :rolleyes:

For all his manifest sins, Saddam's Iraq was a functioning state and, thanks to UN surveillance, Iraq was no longer a threat to its neighbors. Now, thanks to Bush et al, Iraq is anything but a functioning state and the instability within can and has spread to its neighbors. (AQI is fighting in Syria.)

John

Fine, as it is I have to put my brain in 1st gear to follow your stuff.:rolleyes:

I did a search on Bush Legacy. Too funny, almost as good as the old Bushisms. Oops, no WMD, well then we will nation build. Big ol tax cuts for the Leets, passed through reconcilation. I guess that means that they don't need funding then. :p


Carl

pete was implying that FDR knew before hand there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor itself.....your points may be correct.

No, but that he should've taken steps out of prudence from 'known knowns'. It may be one of the biggest Presidential failures ever.

Btw, the ww2 era is one of my favorites. I don't hate FDR but he's no angel, and he did tell Washington to go screw himself re: 2 terms.

Pete

Looks like an implication to me Pete. You are guilty of reading history from luxury of hindsight ergo that since B happened after A everyone should have known that B was coming. A common fallacy and to be honest most of us think of history in this rather false way.
No one knew what was coming on 6 December just as no knew what was going to happen on the day after 10 September in New York. A true history buff (i.e. someone as erudite as myself, as demonstrated by ability to cause Whelly to write long rejoinding posts:)) knows this and is always swift to pounce on even the inkling of the FDR-Devil conspiracy view of WWII!;)

Kinda like most Dems think about the Iraq war.

If the fleet commander was scapegoated it must've been bad. Everything I've read, and most of it was a bit pro-FDR or at least studiously 'neutral', points out the 8 million warning signs.

Pete