The journey from there to here
Published on November 13, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I read the latest tripe about Bush's alleged string pulling to get into (and out of) the National Guard during the Vietnam era. Read it, dismissed it, and walked away with a more solid resolve not to give my vote to the types of people who waste my time dragging red herrings like this out repeatedly in an order to embarass the party in power.

You see, they're sending a clear message: that their PARTY, not the country, is what's truly important, and that they will abandon all ethics in advancing the cause of their party.

The Democrats, it seems, feel they are OWED an impeachment. And there are some among them who've shown themselves willing to forge documents in order to attempt to obtain it (even though those documents, even if they were true, have absolutely ZERO to do with Bush's ability or inability to lead the nation more than 30 years after the fact...but I digress). An eye for an eye, an impeachment for an impeachment seems to be the rule of the day. Their attempt to subvert the Democratic process by winning in courts rather than in the polls is extending beyond the arena of legislation and into the arena of elected officials.

In 2004, John Kerry inherited a winnable race. Though George W. Bush held solid approval numbers, those numbers were by no means insurmountable (don't believe me? Look at Papa Bush's numbers a year before the '92 elections). But in John Kerry's campaign, what was clearly missing in most of the advertisements, was any sign of an agenda, a platform behind which we could rally. John Kerry's entire campaign could have been summed up with the slogan "I don't suck as bad as my opponent".

One year after the election, Bush's detractors haven't let up. They are trying to shape public opinion into casting Bush as an evil dictator because of some of his actions (which, even if true, could easily be chalked up as the actions of a spoiled youth who wanted to avoid war as badly as did millions of other young American males at the time). Because they've failed in their attempt to defeat him in the legislature, they're taking the war to the media, hoping the American public will chase this red herring all the way away from the Democrats' own ineptitude.

And many of the left, at least, are falling for it.

Me, I'm sick of it. The American left has demonstrated why I abandoned the left and have no intention of looking back FAR better than I EVER could.

I suppose, then, I owe them a thanks for that much.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Nov 14, 2005
>Actually, according to my newspaper this morning, 53% of people agreed with the following statement: "If President Bush
>did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable
>through impeachment."

OK then call your local news and have them rephrase the question.
You are just upset because people are waking up.

After all our Fuhrer said "you fool me once ... cant get fooled again"

Lets see them TRY and pull off another 911
on Nov 14, 2005
I once said that, if we excluded from running for office everyone who hooked or crooked their way out of Vietnam, we'd be denying ourselves the leadership of a lot of good, competent people. How many people back then did whatever they could to get out of serving?
What pissed me off about Kerry was how he never addressed his change from angry, disenfranchised, comrade-dissing, medals-burning vet to Proud, Patriotic Vietnam Veteran. It made me mad to see the films of him testifying before congress and hearing his words, then seeing him today, smiling and saluting like he'd never felt any other way.
I know age changes opinions, but come on.....
on Nov 14, 2005
>I know age changes opinions, but come on.....

Kerry was a hypocrite and a slave (mentally) to his "handlers". He does not deserve to be President anymore than the
current occupant of that seat.

Ralph Nader was and remains the best choice then. The hypocrites passing off as democrats tried to keep Nader off the
ballot

A POX ON BOTH HOUSES
on Nov 15, 2005
Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader is a naive fool who thinks that taxing everything over $100k a year at 100% is a good thing! Ralph Nader, who thinks that government intervention is the answer for every problem in life? Ralph Nader, who wrote "unsafe at any speed" about a car that has become a classic, and outlasted his credibility! ;~D

....but at least you're willing to stand up for who you believe in, and that is a good thing!
on Nov 15, 2005

It made me mad to see the films of him testifying before congress and hearing his words,

The only difference between John Kerry and Jimmy Massey are embedded journalists.

on Nov 15, 2005
Apologies, Gid, for going off-topic for a minute to address this. I will attempt to drag it back to your topic afterwards.

he's lying because you say he is and you're telling the truth because you say you are.


There is a difference between inflammatory remarks and truth. A person can be outraged over either truth or a misperception. I think COL Gene's accusations are not grounded in fact. They are the hyperbolic assertions of a flame-tard who loves to stir things up. He obviously wants to get his agenda across to others, regardless of the tactics used or accuracy of his cited "facts".

He's lying because the memos in question are not valid. They were typed up in Microsoft Word, for crying out loud! Blatant misrepresentations.

Now if you say that the memos themselves were fake but the sentiments behind them were valid, then I would say to you: PROVE IT. 'Cause those got thrown out of the court of public opinion long long ago.

(Now to tie it back into Gid's posting...)

"Memo-gate" is an example of the depths to which one will stoop to discredit a popular and powerful person. It is a well-known tactic of the losing side (whichever one that is) to continue to throw poo against the wall. Eventually some of it will stick.
All politicians are self-serving whores.
on Nov 15, 2005
It's a sad day when Bush is voted for over Kerry..The only reason he won was because the Dem's choice was a bigger joke!! Are these the only choices in our country? Well there's Nader, go figure!! I guess the bumper sticker I saw on an Navigator says it all."Who's sorry now"....
on Nov 15, 2005
There is a difference between inflammatory remarks and truth. A person can be outraged over either truth or a misperception. I think COL Gene's accusations are not grounded in fact. They are the hyperbolic assertions of a flame-tard who loves to stir things up. He obviously wants to get his agenda across to others, regardless of the tactics used or accuracy of his cited "facts".

He's lying because the memos in question are not valid. They were typed up in Microsoft Word, for crying out loud! Blatant misrepresentations.

Now if you say that the memos themselves were fake but the sentiments behind them were valid, then I would say to you: PROVE IT. 'Cause those got thrown out of the court of public opinion long long ago.


I'm not saying who is lying or who is telling the truth. I'm asking why I should believe one over the other. Both are convinced their version of the truth is the correct version. Ultimately, the only truth, from my perspective, is what *I* decide is truth, not what anyone else decides. And that includes "the court of public opinion".
on Nov 15, 2005
All politicians are self-serving whores.


This is very true. Has there aver been a completely and utterly altruistic politcian?
No, of course not, because the very nature, of acquiring the job itself, is self-serving; lie, cheat and steal to get in, lie, cheat and steal to stay there. Maybe, while you're there, do a little good. Or, you could lie, cheat and steal and enrich yourself. I'm sure not ALL politicans are or have been like this, but the majority of them? OHHHHYEAAAHHH.....
on Nov 15, 2005
>Actually, according to my newspaper this morning, 53% of people agreed with the following statement: "If President Bush
>did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable
>through impeachment."

OK then call your local news and have them rephrase the question.
You are just upset because people are waking up.

After all our Fuhrer said "you fool me once ... cant get fooled again"

Lets see them TRY and pull off another 911



Uhhhhh... what?

I'm sorry, this is just incoherent.

First of all, the poll was not conducted by my local newspaper, so asking them to rephrase the question is pointless. The poll was conducted by Zogby and reported nationally.

Second, I'm not the one who's upset, all the Bush-bashers are. Hence their cheap attempts to manufacture support for their cause by the use of slanted, leading questions. I'm just disturbed by the blatant bias in this poll and the fact that it's being trumpeted by extreme lefties as "proof that the country wants Bush impeached".

Third, we never had a Fuehrer. (No idea what you're trying to reference with the "won't get fooled again" thing, either.)

Fourth, let's see WHO "try and pull off another 911 [sic]"? Did you mean Al-Qaeda? I don't think we want them to try. Did you mean The U.S. Government? If so, this marks you as a whacked-out conspiracy theorist.
on Nov 15, 2005

Fourth, let's see WHO "try and pull off another 911 [sic]"? Did you mean Al-Qaeda? I don't think we want them to try. Did you mean The U.S. Government? If so, this marks you as a whacked-out conspiracy theorist.

Down boy!

{clap}{clap}{clap}

Very good,

on Nov 15, 2005
>Down boy!
>{clap}{clap}{clap}


You two are a riot ... I AM NOT the one dissappointed in my party dude ... (btw i am NOT a democrat). You are the ones
complaining about your emporer now.

WOAH IS ME ... hes a goof off
WOAH IS ME ... the republicans have lost their way
WOAH IS ME ... its clintons fault


Imagine my surprise to see a BYU physics professor on Tucker Calson's show disputing FEMAs assertions about how the towers
fell ...
I WAS BLOWN AWAY. I have known this from day one.

Laugh and poke fun all you want people ... call me a conspiracy whacko ... but I was there at the beginning screaming
the emporer has no clothes ... Ill be there saying the same thing at the end

OH and there will be an end ... you mark my words.
Nothing this big can be kept hidden for very long.

And if the poll numbers are anything to go by (I think they are worse for him than its let on) most are waking up. In my
circle of friends (which includes all political walks) I cant find ONE person in support of this fool.

But then again we are all
college graduates
engineers
family heads
so who knows?
on Nov 16, 2005
just when I think this administration couldnt lie anymore or things get any worse
www.guardian.co.uk_comment_story_0,3604,1642575,00.html
(replace underscores with slash)

**************************
Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.
************************************************

and here is the kicker:
Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.



Now I am NO fan of Clinton.
But if he was impeached for lying ... and the buck stops with the president.
Oh forget it ... doesnt matter ... its a different standard and a thousand ways to justify the fact that after all
this we are now

maiming
killing
raping
murdering
and
and ..
now it seems
GASSING them.

This is now official ammunition for anyone that says "saddam gassed his own people"
on Nov 16, 2005
Reply By: rombios


You don't have a frickin' clue about what white phosphorus is, do ya? It's nasty stuff, but hardly a chemical weapon. Incendiary, you know, like napalm? It can be used for illumination, or to produce a lot of smoke. A chemical weapon is one that seriously injures or kills a person by it's presence in the vicinity. When you're exposed to a chemical weapon, many different things can happen. Your skin blisters and/or burns off. Your eyes are eaten up in their sockets. Your blood congeals in your veins. Your lungs are severely damaged. Your nerves stop working. You die.

If you want symptoms of the mustard gas Saddam used, let's start with the main one, death. Then there's blindness, a burning sensation/severe blistering of the skin, or oh yeah, just destroying your lungs.

What does napalm do? It burns very hot and very bright, and nothing much puts it out. It justs burns 'til it's done. The smoke itself isn't much worse than say, smoke. They use it just like it said, either to hide your own movements, or to keep them to see what they're doing. If you consider any kind of smoke to be a chemical weapon, well then, okay. Try to get the UN to ban any form of fire. Nasty ole fire. Bad for the environment too, right?

The reason that WP is particularly nasty, is that if you get any large enough pieces under your skin, ( a lot bigger than smoke particles) it keeps burning until it burns out or is physically removed. Of course it's also true that shrapnel and bullets stay under your skin too. And let us not forget tracer rounds. You know, bullets illuminated w/ red phosphorus? Even your source calls it a psychological weapon, not chemical. Duh. If it was a chemical weapon, there wouldn't have been a need to hit them with H.E. afterwards, they'd have already been dead.

So in the end, when you say we're "gassing iraqis", you mean that we're using conventional (non-chemical) weaponry, very much within the laws of land warfare against a purely enemy target? Dear Lord, it almost sounds like a war.

As opposed to Saddam Hussein, whom you compare us to, the guy that used mustard gas on a large scale basis against an almost purely civilian populace. You know, when he wasn't doing the mass grave thing. To be fair though, he often didn't shoot them or use chemical weapons, he would just bury them alive to save on ammo. Nice, huh?

Try knowing what you're talking about next time. This might help. Link

Link

You might want to look specifically at this part on exposure to white phosphorus smoke.

The dilute phosphoric acid in the aerosol cloud may be mildly irritating to the eyes but with normal field concentrations and exposure it is not harmful
If you hang around in it for a long, long time, it can do some mild damage to the lungs, but then, so does any smoke.
on Nov 16, 2005

Reply By: Spc Nobody Special
Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Thanks for the information.  I was aware of white phosphorous, but did not really know how it was used.

4 Pages1 2 3 4