Slammed With Hillary and Obama Commercials
January 16th, 2008 at 09:30am Mark Noonan
Like ever other minute - thankfully, I don’t watch the idiot box all that much, but you can’t turn it on these days without having Obama and Hillary offering a string of mindless platitudes. I’m not sure which is worse - hearing Hillary’s monotone about how she’ll bring our voice into the White House, or Obama’s mildewed “New Frontier” rhetoric. If you don’t live in an early primary/caucus State, thank your lucky stars.
The worst part about it, though, is the way it highlights the sharp divisions in our nation. Both Hillary and Obama strike the theme of how only they can make things better - the presumption being that America is in a disasterous condition and needs a liberal Democrat savior to cleanse the temple of American freedom. You see, they aren’t even remotely speaking to me - if they were speaking to me, they’d be insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that up is down and black is white. The America they refer to is mythical - an America flat on its back and in need of desperate remedies just to survive. But it is America as viewed by the kook-left base of the Democratic party.
And, so, the degeneration of the Democratic party is complete - it used to dance with the kook left, but now it is the kook left. Keep in mind that the most rational of the Democrats - Hillary - did make a bow towards 9/11 “truthers” once upon a time by asking what President Bush knew prior to 9/11; the implication being that he was grossly negligent, at best, or in on it, at worst. There is, on the left, a level of hatred coupled with ignorance never achieved before in human history - the oozing sore of rank dishonesty at the tail end of a century of leftist lies. It would be one thing if the left hated those who lied to them, but they actually hate those about whom laughably transparant lies have been told - its like being mad at the victim in a con game.
How this will all come out I cannot say - we really could be swearing in a President Obama or a President Clinton next January, and then we’ll get the really rather strange spectacle of a President trying to govern a rational people based on irrational leftwing ideology. I hope, of course, that the good sense of the American people will keep any of the Democrats far away from the White House, but these are strange times we live in.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left
84 Comments
1. Sunny | January 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am
these are strange times we live in. Mark
Mark, why do you make this statement? What makes these times so strange?
2. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Mark,
Do you see any McCain/Huck/Mitt commercials or have them crazy Dems bought all the airtime?
I can tell you that leading up to NH, I saw that Romney commercial every 15 minutes when he says that McCain is all about Amnesty.
3. LaMano | January 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Sunny, how about starting with Democrats voting to send troops to war and then undermining their efforts.
4. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
undermining their efforts???
How about deciding to send our troops to war but not doing it with a big enough force? How about sending our troops to war and not having an adequate plan? How about sending our troops to war with “the army you have, not the army you wish you had?”
5. Bigfoot | January 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
undermining their efforts???
Such as by comparing our troops to Nazis or communists (Durbin), or by pronouncing them guilty of war crimes before any court-martial is convened (Murtha). Or maybe by pronouning the “surge” a failure before even listening to Petraeus’s testimony (Schumer, etc.).
6. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Great, so both parties have issues. Is that your point? Or is your point that the Dems hurt your feelings with words while the Repubs have done so with lack of material support?
7. TiredofLibBullShit | January 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
There goes USEFUL IDIOT Joe with the weak Democratic talking points. (Psst…Joe the frontline troops had sufficient armor, the ones that were in the supply lines had armor that protected from shrapnel and low velocity bullets. Psst…..Joe, every war plan changes once contact with the enemy had been made.)
How about the libs using the funding bill for improved armor as an opportunity to attempt to overturn tax cuts?
You know…the infamous “I actually did vote for the 87 billion before I voted against it.”
Looks to me and millions of others that the libs were using the lives of the soldiers for political opportunity.
The libs at every turn undermine the successes in Iraq, claim the war lost, criticize the job the troops they are doing, and the usual Vietnam comparisons and accusations……
And USEFUL IDIOTS, such as yourself and other lib whack-jobs on this blog, eat it up as if it is the only meal you will get.
Pathetic.
8. SteaM | January 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Aren’t you guys proud of your beloved Republicans sending our honorable National Guard troops overseas for a resource war?
Those men and woman, I’d bet, would prefer to be in their home states with their families ready and willing to help with natural disasters and any other areas they may be needed. I thought the National Guard existed for Gaurding the Nation not policing a civil war in the middle east that was created.
9. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Talk about “pathetic”. Every post you make is that whoever it is speaking against you is simply spouting Dem talking points. Do you ever add anything of any value? Just saying that so and so is spouting Dem talking points is not a debate.
So…
Psst…..Joe, every war plan changes once contact with the enemy had been made
I agree completely…. Except this Administration didn’t make ANY changes. They went in with what they had, and didn’t waver one bit in their plan. If they wanted a damn surge, then they should have done it after a year or two. Not 6 years later.
Where was the planning for after Sadaam was gone?
You know…the infamous “I actually did vote for the 87 billion before I voted against it.” Why are you bringing this up?
Make sure you remember how much you hate flip-flops when you think about who to vote for in the Repub primary.
The libs at every turn undermine the successes in Iraq, claim the war lost, criticize the job the troops they are doing, and the usual Vietnam comparisons and accusations……
I don’t think ANYONE has ever criticized the job the troops are doing. That is just what Rush TELLS YOU to believe.
And the vietnam comparisons?? First, Bush himself made that comparison. Second, this is more Vietnam-like that WWII-like. Yet you and your party love to claim this is more like WWII.
Finally, please explain how words are more detrimental than actions?? It wasn’t the Dems that had no war or post-war plans.
10. sleepygene | January 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Mark-
Obama and Clinton aren’t talking to you, they are talking to the 68% of americans who think this country, headed by your man Bush, is headed in the wrong direction.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm
I know you will denegrate the poll and that is your perogative but to imply that what is going on in this country right now is fine and dandy is to be delusional. Millions of people are losing their homes or the value of their homes, we may be heading into a recession, millions do not have medical insurance, we are in an unpopular war, no real plan has been proffered by this administration to protect our environment while weening us off foreign energy, incompetents and loyalsits run government agencies while our country suffers because of it. So Mark if you think everything is fine and dandy that is great but the great majority of people see the problems and want someone to come and do things to fix them. This person may be a democrat or a republican but to imply we are in great shape is foolish.
11. Sunny | January 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
LaMano | January 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Sunny, how about starting with Democrats voting to send troops to war and then undermining their efforts.
Are you Mark? Didn’t think so.
12. Sunny | January 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Psst…Joe the frontline troops had sufficient armor, the ones that were in the supply lines had armor that protected from shrapnel and low velocity bullets. Psst…..Joe, every war plan changes once contact with the enemy had been made.)
TiredofLibBullShit |
First, I am pretty tired of your BS. But, psst - bser, no, not all had proper armor. Parents of soldiers were sending armor to their sons during the first couple of years of the war. I talked to some of them. And they certainly did not have the up-armor needed on the humvees. That is when the famous line by the incompetent Sec. of Defense, Rumsfeld, was made. All of your war mongers say you support the troops, but frankly, I don’t think you give a damn if the troops have what they need to protect themselves while at war, and do not care if they have proper medical treatment when they return home. You certainly don’t care if they get a decent break in-between deployments. Yes, I can see how much you care for our troops.
13. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Sunny,
Don’t you know that Democrats don’t know anything about the troops? If TiredofLibBS SAYS it is true, then it must be true!!! Geesh, when will you learn?
He SAYS the frontline had what they needed! So they must have. All the other reports are just media-bias.
14. plainjane | January 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Mark, as a Bushie how could you possibly comprehend what they are talking about? Relax, they are not talking to you. This is the primary. They are talking to the base. During the general election they will start talking to independents. I would suggest you turn on Limbaugh and Fox for 24/7 Clinton bashing. It will make you feel better. I would also suggest you sit down with your father to discuss the importance of the New Deal, New Frontier and Great Society and the positive impact these programs had on our country. I am not going to give you a history lesson. Your father can explain how these programs gave life to the human spirit after it was sucked cleaned by preceding Republican administrations.
15. Mark Noonan | January 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
gene,
We shall see, shan’t we? You should keep in mind that “right/wrong” direction is similar to “state/leave” Iraq…some people think we’re in the wrong direction because we don’t have universal health care…others think we’re in the wrong direction because we just expanded Medicare with the prescription drug benefit. Some think we’re in the wrong direction because we’re not “taxing the rich” enough…others think we’re in the wrong direction because we haven’t made Bush’s tax cuts permanent.
See how it works? Its not a simplistic as your polls make it.
16. Mark Noonan | January 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
plain,
Actually, New Deal, New Frontier and Great Society was the long path by which my grandfather cast his vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and my father switched his party registration in 2008. What you think of as great things were actually complete disasters.
17. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Mark,
just curious… are you ONLY seeing Obama and Hillary ads or are you getting hit with Mitt/Huck and McCain ads as well?
18. Mark Noonan | January 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Sunny,
Strange mostly in the sense of how many people believe laughable fabrications…as an example not related to current politics, think of how many people believe that aliens have visited earth, or that a conspiracy killed Kennedy…these are sad jokes, but people - tens of millions of them - belive both things.
Truth will win in the end, but there might be a temporary triumph of lies…
19. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Speaking of President Reagan, he appointed this guy to be a delegate to the United Nations in 1987:
Yes, Mark, you can’t trust any Democrats because they’re all liars, anti-American and whatever other insult you can come up with, unlike, for example, this former Republican congressman who apparently forgot that the Soviet Union isn’t in existence any more so we can stop sending money to the Taliban.
20. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Mark:
Strange mostly in the sense of how many people believe laughable fabrications…as an example not related to current politics, think of how many people believe that aliens have visited earth, or that a conspiracy killed Kennedy…these are sad jokes, but people - tens of millions of them - belive both things.
And yet people still believe that Obama is a Muslim and people still believe that he refuses to site the Pledge of Allegience, etc etc etc…
Strage indeed on what people want to believe.
21. InDaVa | January 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
This is why DVR is the greatest add on to the idiot box. Fast forward or skip the commercials completely….
22. JHL | January 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Enjoy!
http://quinnell.us/politics/wiki/index.php?n=Main.TheDifferenceBetweenConservativesAndLiberals
23. TiredofLibBullShit | January 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Joe….Joe….Joe…..
Talking points are talking points. You don’t like me commenting on them, then stop regurgitating them, ad nausem.
You don’t think anyone is criticizing the job the troops are doing??? Are you in touch with reality? Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, etc. etc.
From that comment alone, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge and give reason to why you only screech talking points.
If things were so bad as you and other USEFUL IDIOTS claim, then why did the libs only axacerbate(sp?) the problems and try to take political advantage ranther than proposing legislation to fix it?
Why hamper funding for improved armor?
Why hamper funding with ridiculous arbitrary time tables?
Oh, the first comparison to Vietnam was made by libs? Bush was responding to those accusations. Your demonstration of complete ignorance as to the constant unrelenting criticisms from the left shows you are indeed a USEFUL IDIOT. Don’t like it go to KOS where you can mingle with like minded individuals.
Truly pathetic.
Sunny, if you read my post you would have clearly read that I never claimed that all had the “super” armor that could stop rifle bullets. Only the front line troops had that armor. The support troops had armor, but this armor stopped shrapnel and not rifle bullets.
You don’t squat about me and my activities to support the troops. You don’t like how our troops are equipped, then stop putting libs into power that see the troops as lunch wagons and personal servants. Which party gutted the military, cut fighter wings, naval fleets, whole armies, in the 90s? - Well, STFU. Who left it ill equipped? And who complains when money is spent on the military, instead of their darling social programs? Again - STFU.
Another USEFUL IDIOT indeed.
24. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Nice BS,
You don’t think anyone is criticizing the job the troops are doing??? Are you in touch with reality? Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, etc. etc.
— Just naming names doesn’t tell me anything. Tell me where they criticized the troops. Please tell me.
If things were so bad as you and other USEFUL IDIOTS claim, then why did the libs only axacerbate(sp?) the problems and try to take political advantage ranther than proposing legislation to fix it?
— umm… because any legislation to do this is either blocked or vetoed.
Why hamper funding for improved armor?
— when did that happen?
Oh, the first comparison to Vietnam was made by libs? Bush was responding to those accusations.
— Did you read or hear the speech? Nobody asked him about the comparison, he brought it up in defending his policy.
Why do you always put USEFUL IDIOT in caps? Are you just copying that from somewhere? Did Rush tell you to do that?
25. Retired Spook | January 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
JHL, interesting site, but if you reverse the terms Conservative and Liberal, most of their comparisons would be much more accurate.
Just as an example:
Sorry, that is just 180 degrees out of phase. Remind me again what causes the ACLU champions. I’ll give you a clue — it ain’t Conservatives who are offended by a crucifix in a jar of urine or a painting of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung smeared all over it, or some public document with the word “God” in it.
Or this:
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, too funny!! This one may sell in the fever swamps, but that’s about it.
Or how about this one:
Come on, twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe that President Bush was either responsible for 9/11 or knew about it ahead of time. Conspiracy theories may not be a total monopoly of the Left, but they’ve certainly got a corner on the market.
I’d would say whoever created this list was guilty of projection in the first order.
26. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Spook, how about this one…
That couldn’t be any more dead-on. In fact they are all hilariously accurate after reading the comments on this site for a while.
27. Retired Spook | January 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Joe,
The one you cite is probably the closest to being accurate, particularly, as you note, “after reading comments on this site for a while”. I can’t recall ever accusing someone of being un-American because I disagreed with them. Ignorant or dense or stupid maybe, but not un-American.
28. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
LOL. I have no problem with you or others calling me ignorant, dense or stupid. But people like AAR that continually call everyone un-American is really pretty disgusting.
29. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
TiredofLibBullShit,
Well, no one did. I know you think that President Clinton did, because Rush and Sean and Ann and Bill and the Fox News Channel told you to believe it. Aside from the inconvenient fact that budgets are enacted by the Congress of the United States (which was controlled by Republicans from 1994-2006), the reality is that while there was a slight decrease in our military expenditures in the first Clinton term from the second term of President Reagan, military expenditures increased slightly during his second term. That doesn’t conform to the GOP Received Wisdom that Democrats Hate The Military that you apparently hold as an article of faith, but the reality is the reality.
I’d suggest a look at Figures 1 & 3 for a quick perspective on your assertion.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8844/12-13-LT-Defense.pdf
30. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Of course, it is a legitimate question that is never addressed by those who want to claim that Democrats hate the military and want to cut the defense budget, but how much is enough? The United States spends more on its military than all other nations in the world added together. The numbers are roughly $600 billion for us and $500 billion for the rest of the world.
So, how much is enough? Should we spend twice as much as the rest of the world? Three times as much? How much and how does all of this relate to President Eisenhower’s speaking in 1961:
31. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Mark,
I’m hurt. You answered everyone else’s posts, why do you not answer mine?
I’m interested in if you only see Obama and Hillary commercials or if you see a lot from the Republican candidates as well.
Just curious.
32. JHL | January 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
And Joe let me add that AAR continually equates being “liberal” with being an atheist. How sad it is to wittness the binary function of the reptilian brain stem when modern day men have more important things to worry about. Like the role subtlety and nuance play in the solving of problems.
UGGG!
Me AAR!
33. keefer | January 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
If you don’t live in an early primary/caucus State, thank your lucky stars.
I don’t, and I do, Mark. If one of these lefty pukes wins the WH, I don’t know how I’m gonna endure four, or eight, SOTU addresses. One screeches, and one preaches. I guess I’d prefer the preacher–GObama!
Sunny, if you want a private dialogue with Mark, then e-mail him. Otherwise, you’re open to responses from anyone on this blog whenever you post your stupid comments. Silly cow.
I would also suggest you sit down with your father to discuss the importance of the New Deal, New Frontier and Great Society and the positive impact these programs had on our country. I am not going to give you a history lesson.
That’s because you can’t give anyone a history lesson, cow. You don’t know any history, otherwise you wouldn’t have heralded these programs as great.
I’m hurt. You answered everyone else’s posts, why do you not answer mine?
Because, Josephine, Mark works his way from the least idiotic to the most idiotic posts. Your time will come, girlfriend.
And Diana, leave it to a true lefty phony to bring up that indicted ex-congressman. As soon as I heard this story on the radio, I thought, “Which troll will use this as a gotcha?”
I guess we should dig up Reagan and impeach him, huh? I mean, right after we impeach Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Halliburton, and Blackwater…
34. sleepygene | January 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Keefer-
If this DeliSiljander had been a democrat congressman you know someone like yourself would have mentioned it immediately and proclaimed “DemRats or Donkaroaches really do support Al Qaeda, they should all swing from the gallows!!!!!!!”
35. Tractatus | January 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I know you will denegrate the poll and that is your perogative but to imply that what is going on in this country right now is fine and dandy is to be delusional.
Correct, but that delusion is also the GOP party line. Hell, look what happened to Huckabee when he had the gall to point out that the poor and middle class aren’t exactly seeing these “great gains” wingnuts keep claiming the economy is providing: The hardcore GOPers slammed the hell out of him. The Official Wingnut Party Line is that the economy is great and it’s all due to glorious Bush’s glorious tax cuts. Anybody who deviates from that line and into that icky realm of “reality” must be assailed. So Huckabee got it with both barrels for being correct. You see that a lot with wingnuts–they attack people for being correct.
36. JHL | January 16th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Keefer equates puke with….well what?
I would like to meet Keefer. Or should I address him as a cross dressing female worshiping Hillary idolizer? I am confused!
If I were to meet The Keefer I would like to….and then I would….. and then Keefer would be crying like a….and reaching out and then…..
Oh never mind.
Google MC Escher.
His work offers more of a solution to the problems of the Keefers in the world than Keefers foul mouthed, stupifyingly ignorant ranting and raving.
As Mick Jagger sang and Keith Richards wrote in the last line of “Midnight Rambler”…………
Take the hint A.H. Keefer
37. dickdee | January 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
These libs have all turned in vegans and are lacking protein to make appropriate decisions. The great economic turmoil is about to turn on them, since those who blame their lenders instead of themselves…will have a very difficult next time they want a loan. I remember poor blacks and city governments, and radical organizations chasing bank officials around for loans. When they pooled loans for specific purpose and gave them, now the scurve have the balls to want a bailout and are crying racism besides. How pathetic. Only dems like the Hildebeast can condemn a business executive for ‘enticing’ her poverty minions to take loans….ha ha Joe, were you a candidate for that? Take ownership you dems…you are not getting any more of my money. Unemployment is less than half of Europe, so you could find a job if you want…and spare me the crying you can only work parttime…and that you’ll stay in poverty. Obama has them all upset, because he is not beholding to the old ‘hole em down’ crowd…Jesse and Al will soon be losing their schtick as the dems poverty pimps. Good luck dems…you’ll need it. I love marks comment about these rads trying to govern a sane people…ha ha Get ready at that time to watch the Hildebeast cry every day on tv…while her hubby is breaking out the cigars in the oval office with a dems daughter. Isn’t that a scene for Joe to preview!!
38. Mark Noonan | January 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Joe,
My apologies - but I am at work with limited time for commenting. The only commercials I’ve seen other than Obama and Hillary commercials are Paul commercials, which are annoying in an entirely different way. There is a large GOP presence on the radio, however - and that makes sense: Democrats watch more TV, Republicans listen to more talk radio…
39. keefer | January 16th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Tatertot, delusion abounds on both sides. We here don’t slam Chucklebee for being right; we slam him for being phony and liberal. He’s a populist, just like your dear John Edwards. Unlike Edwards, Chucklebee’s not a socialist. At least not yet.
Now, could any of you troll pukes tell me why you’re supporting any of the three stooges you call candidates? You know, the screecher, the preacher, and the ambulance chaser?
40. JHL | January 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
What’s a Hildebeast Dick? I mean dick DEE! Excuse me.
I guess you don’t have one and therefore are experiencing gender envy.
Am I right? Wrong?
You tell me since the Hildebeast is breathing in your ear….
Now move very slowly as not to disturb the beast.
41. keefer | January 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Gene, if the guy had been a Donkaroach, I probably would’ve “gloated” about it, but I wouldn’t have made the big deal that Diana did. I think I’ll wait until all the facts are out before I pass my meaningless judgement. Or I could say something stupid like, “Clinton helped form/strengthen Al-Qaeda by passing up Sudan’s offer of Bin Laden.” Or, “Jimmuh Cahtuh foundied the Islamic Republic of Iran because he deposed the Shah.” Or, “Ted Kennedrunk is the modern-day pioneer of water boarding.”
See what I’m getting at, genie?
42. JHL | January 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080116/D8U799IO0.html
43. keefer | January 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Thanks for the update, JHL–I’m sure we wouldn’t have heard about this without your gloat.
What’s your point, asshat?
44. keefer | January 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Oh, JHL, you’d like to meet me? Believe me, son– you’d regret it. Leave your number; I’ll get back to you.
Or should I address him as a cross dressing female worshiping Hillary idolizer?
Please, JHL, when you address me, wear your normal clothing…
45. TiredofLibBullShit | January 16th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Which party gutted the military?
Diane, another USEFUL IDIOT, says……..
“Well, no one did.”
Another one that is out of touch with reality. Budgeting had nothing to do with it. Under Clinton’s “leadership” the following occured: Army from 18 full-strength light and mechanized divisions to a vulnerable 12; the Navy from 546 to 380 ships, toward a targeted reduction of 300, the smallest naval force since the pre-WWII period; the Air Force from 76 flight Squadrons to 50, including numerous base closings.
Notice all the budgets and resources in that report you referenced: the lowest allocations occurred during the Clinton years. Clinton had the most military deployments (Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, etc. etc) during his reign and at the same time cutting their budgets, average $10 billion per year decease.
Wow, cutting budgets and increasing deployments. How can a military sustain itself with that kind of funding? The slight increase you mention was funding for all of the “peace keeping” that had our troops scattered all over the globe.
So your myth, “no one gutted the military” is a just that a myth. That alone reinforces your status as a USEFUL IDIOT.
Why don’t you research this and think for yourself, that way you won’t look so foolish next time.
46. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
keefer,
The “big deal” I was making of the indictment (he hasn’t been found guilty of anything) of this Republican former Congressman is that it is a matter of absolute routine by Mark and many commenters here to make sweeping statements about all Democrats based on the most substance-free or individualized instances. The post that started this thread is a merely ordinary example of that reality.
Assuming that Mark Deli Siljander is guilty of the crimes alleged in the indictment, to what extent would that behavior reflect on Republicans or conservatives? I’m sure that Mark’s answer and your answer would be “none at all”. Assuming that he’s guilty, do I think that all Republicans or all conservatives support sending money to the Taliban? Of course, I don’t. Mark Deli Siljander has to be responsible for what he did and, at least in this instance, he wasn’t acting as a Republican official or office holder. Now, did his ability to justify possibly illegal acts in his own mind have any roots in why he was a Republican member of Congress rather than a Democratic member of Congress? That’s a different question and the answer would be unquestionably speculative.
However, I feel utterly confident, based on the routine evidence found at this blog that if Siljander had been a former Democratic congressman appointed by President Clinton to be a UN representative that it would be immediately employed as “evidence” of Democratic corruption.
Now, tell me I’m wrong.
47. Dasein Libsbane | January 16th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
keefer,
HA!
48. TiredofLibBullShit | January 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Wow, Joe your ignorance is coming forth in mass quantities.
All of your, “when did that happen”, “who said that”, “when did they say that” is getting tiresome.
Here’s a hint. Look it up for yourself. You may learn something and figure out how to think for yourself rather than blather on with what is spoon fed to you and confirming your status as a USEFUL IDIOT.
Hint: look up that term for yourself and see why it so accurately applies.
49. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
TiredofLibBullShit,
As I suspected, you missed the point completely. The military wasn’t “gutted”. That’s merely a word that you use because, I strongly suspect, you were told that was the correct word by Rush, Sean, Ann, Bill and Fox News. What has happened to the United States as a result of any changes in the armed forces of the United States since Vietnam? Has the United States been invaded? Has any nation declared war against the United States and deployed their armed forces against us?
Now, I can see you squirming in your seat with arm stretched up as tall as you can make it saying, “I know! I know!” You’re going to say “9/11″ aren’t you? You’re right. The attacks of September 11, 2001 did happen. What were they? They were acts committed by non-state actors engaged in a type of asymmetrical force because no one can engage the most powerful military in the world head-to-head. If our military was “gutted” by the Republicans in Congress who controlled the defense budget from 1994-2001, then why didn’t Iran launch a war against Israel or Saudi Arabia or Iraq or the United States? They said we were the “Great Satan”. Why didn’t they look at our “gutted” military and see how pitifully weak we were and act accordingly?
P.S. If you hold the belief in your head that typing “USEFUL IDIOT” into your comments from time to time makes you look clever or knowledgeable, well…
50. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I also note with interest that you didn’t take on the question of just how large the defense budget should be. Is having a defense budget that is equal to that of the rest of the world (including our allies) enough? Should we double it? Triple it? Quadruple it? Convert the entire federal budget into the DoD budget? How much?
51. TiredofLibBullShit | January 16th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Diane stop deflecting.
you don’t like the word gutted for the massive reductions while increasing deployments? The cuts happened during Clinton’s watch with his budget proposals, his leadership. Using your logic, the Democrats are responsible for failures since they took power in ‘06.
You missed: 18 full-strength light and mechanized divisions to a vulnerable 12; the Navy from 546 to 380 ships, toward a targeted reduction of 300, the smallest naval force since the pre-WWII period; the Air Force from 76 flight Squadrons to 50, including numerous base closings. That’s at least 30% reduction in personnel and hardware, in some cases to that of pre-WWII levels - gutted is an applicable term.
Our enemies can see those cuts as weakness. And yes, just as in Somalia, OBL felt that if the carnage inflicted was bad enough we would pull out and run because of our projected weakness.
And you bitch about how our troops are ill equipped?
Again, the term USEFUL IDIOT accurately applies.
52. TiredofLibBullShit | January 16th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Diane,
we also spend more as a nation on practically everything else. Your question is just plain stupid.
Why is it when the libs want to save money the first thing they want to cut is the military?
Why not wasteful social programs (yes there are some that are a benefit, but others that are wasteful)? How much is enough for them?
Just keep digging yourself deeper.
53. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
TiredofLibBullShit,
Again you dodge the larger question. I gather it must be a bit more than you’re willing to take on as it would entail doing something other than claiming Evilness on the part of Democrats. Defense spending is, by far, the single largest discretionary item in the budget. Now, if you want to cut the larger items, Social Security payments and Medicare payments, feel free to shout from the rooftops that you want to do that. I’m sure that senior Americans will be very interested in your thoughts on the matter.
However, your use of the word “vulnerable” is just a characterization. Vulnerable to what? How many countries have invaded the United States since 1973? How many countries in South Asia went Communist after we left Vietnam? I know you see enemies lurking everywhere (have you checked under your bed today?), but let’s talk about those things that armed forces are for, not just the ideas of “weakness” and “vulnerability” that trouble you.
You’re so glib with the phrase “USEFUL IDIOT” (by the way, as typing that requires zero thought, do you have a hot key to run a macro - just curious) you surely can come up with some kind of response. I’m not even asking for a figure. Just tell me. Is spending more than the rest of the world combined on the military enough or does it need to be more and what is your justification?
54. Diana Powe | January 16th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
If you decide to take on the question, you might want to take into account that if you add the military budgets of all NATO members, Australia and Japan to our budget instead of combining them into the number we already exceed (roughly $600 billion to $500 billion) then that just causes the balance on our side to be just that much more lopsided.
55. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Look it up?? That is your response? You are the one that made the claims, prove it. Otherwise, you are just “reeking of Republican talking points”. Did you get all of them from Rush? He is also the one that told you to type USEFULL IDIOT in all caps, right?
So look at my post #24 and supply some proof of your claims. Otherwise, YOU are the one deflecting, dodging and spouting talking points.
Maybe if I type DUMBASS in all caps that will work to call you a name.
56. Joe | January 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Mark,
thanks for the response. I’m surprised the GOP isn’t advertising much there in Nevada. Are they making any appearances or did they skip over your state for South Carolina?
57. Mark Noonan | January 17th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Diana,
We mostly got a pass in the 1990’s because there was the afterglow of the Gulf War…but the perception of American weakness grew throughout the decade, and as that perception grew, so did the attacks on us on our allies.
The plain fact of the matter is that when 9/11 happened, we were nearly out of such basic weaponry as cruise missiles - because while Clinton was profligate in using them, he could never see room in the budget to replace used missiles. And the lack of cruise missiles was just emblemmatic of the larger issue of declining readiness. The troops were still good, but they were being crimped on materiel and training - and when you cut such things, you pay for it in blood.
58. Mark Noonan | January 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Joe,
GOPers don’t have as much money on hand as Obama, Clinton and Edwards do - and, also, it is becoming clearer by the day that the GOP race will be a long slog to the convention, while both Obama and Hillary still hope to land a knock out punch in the early going.
59. TiredofLibBullShit | January 17th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Joe,
You have gone from useful to USELESS IDIOT.
The media and the internet is just crawling with proof. Everyone here has given countless examples, quotes, etc.. I can’t help it if you are slow to keep up. Obviously you can’t think for yourself and that is a sad situation.
I grow bored dealing with mental midgets such as yourself.
60. TiredofLibBullShit | January 17th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Diane, which larger question are you talking about since you keep throwing more out there. It is like hitting a moving target.
As seen with other members on this blog, when you engage them you do the same, keep deflecting with other questions that have little or no bearing on what is being discussed.
You keep quoting budgets. The budgets were consistently cut as in the reference YOU provided. You have not addressed the massive personnel, training, and material reductions, at least 30% in all branches of service, that happened under Clinton’s watch. You know “it’s about the economy stupid” and “the cold war is over” slogans that were the answer to his cuts. You conveniently skip over those massive reductions, but to the libs it was a “minor” detail. As an example, during the Bosnian operation, an attack helicopter wing could not support a mission because of its not readiness because of these massive reductions or “gutting”.
You don’t like the word “gutting” because some talk show host might have used it. But the term accurately applies whether you like it or not. The plain simple fact of the matter is those cuts took place, they were massive and they were partly at fault for the lack of readiness and equipment experienced in the early WOT.
The plain simple fact of the matter is that historically, Carter and Clinton, have both reduced our forces during their administrations and “leadership”. Those cannot be argued with. Therefore, your deflections do not help your argument.
61. Diana Powe | January 17th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Mark,
You and Person-Who-Doesn’t-Know-How-To-Read-And-Spell-My-Name both engage in the same process of mind-reading that is directed at me and others here. Conservatives are obsessed with “weakness” and “strength” and theorize endlessly about how “enemies” act based on these “perceptions”. So, are you actually claiming here that al Qaeda sponsored the 9-11 plot because they thought our military was weak, for instance, low on cruise missiles? If we were perceived as so “weak” and our military so “gutted” then why didn’t real countries with real militaries, such as Iran, take advantage of the situation? From what both of you assert, courtesy of the budgets enacted by the Republican-controlled Congresses, that was their window of opportunity. So, you’re so adept at understanding our enemies’ motivations, why did they stay their hand?
I noticed you also dodged the point that the budget of the United States is debated and put into law by Congress. Yes, the President sends a budget proposal to Congress, but it is just that, a proposal. Congress routinely changes the budget (hence, the wish by conservatives for a line-item veto and current calls to use Congress’ “power of the purse” to pull our forces from Iraq). So, what was the story with the Republican majority in Congress from 1994-2000? You can’t say they were in awe of it being “President Clinton’s watch”. They tried and failed to remove him from office despite a lack of any significant popular support for the effort, so plainly they were more than willing to challenge a sitting President. So, where were the Republicans when debating defense appropriations for fiscal years 1995-2001? Were they quaking in abject terror of the awesome power of the Democratic minority in Congress?
Both of you have also continue to dodge the larger question of how much money we need to spend on our military. I know you can read and I know you see yourself as a student of military affairs. So, I can’t believe you don’t have any thoughts on the matter. Is the United States spending as much as the rest of the world (including our NATO allies, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and Japan) combined enough or do we need to spend even more?
62. Diana Powe | January 17th, 2008 at 8:17 am
TiredofLibBullShit,
Okay, I’ll make this simple for you. I won’t even refer you to the last paragraph of my comment prior to this one. Here’s the question:
The United States currently spends as much on defense as all other countries in the world (including our allies) added together. Is that enough or do we need to spend more?
Now, if (and only if) your answer is that we should spend even more on defense then here is a follow-on question:
If we need to spend more on defense, what multiplying factor would you use relative to the sum of all the rest of the world’s military spending (examples: 1.5, 2, 3, 4)? What is your rationale and would you include our allies (NATO, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and Japan) as part of the rest of the world in your calculation or would you add them to our military spending?
Easy enough, I’d think, since you’re plainly concerned with the topic of military spending.
63. TiredofLibBullShit | January 17th, 2008 at 9:13 am
DianA,
You still keep dodging the fact that our forces - personnel, material, training and bases were reduced at least 30% in the 8 years of the Clinton administration.
I am not talking about budgets. The reductions in budgets averaged roughly10 billion per year. The problems were the increases in deployments. The budgets may have been enough to sustain what we had without those increased deployments. But something had to be sacrificed, therefore new recruiting, existing bases, existing material, existing assets and training all had to be put aside.
Your what if scenarios are bogus. Why didn’t this country attack etc. etc?? I can’t tell you what goes through the minds of those countries. Certain individuals kept up the pressure OBL and Hussein kept up their defiance and the former still attacked our assets overseas.
To answer your question, what value do you put on your freedom? Many say that the Cold War was won by outspending our enemies. The best way to avoid war is to have another country think twice before attacking us. Don’t give him/her the possibility of being successful if they attack us. Our allies don’t spend as much as we do because we are likened to the big kid on the block and through teaty and relations, they know we will come to their aid. Less burden on them in military spending. Therefore, your multiplying factor would have to be higher since those countries would tentavely rely on us for aid. Compare their budgets to ours would not be accurate.
This country should maintain an active and eveready force, much to the detriment of liberals and their pet projects. This is specifically named in the Constitution, whereas their pet projects and programs are not. Leave the spending and budgets to the experts and not the politicians.
Now, when are you going to acknowledge the military reductions under the Clinton watch, which is relevant because he was Commander-in-Chief?
64. Diana Powe | January 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am
TiredofLibBullShit,
I addressed military spending in my first post, but since you keep insisting on distorting the facts, lets look at the Office of Management and Budget’s historical figures for actual outlays (money spent) on defense from the last two budgets signed by President George H. W. Bush through both of President Clinton’s terms. As I said, spending declined slightly in President Clinton’s first term (11% at its lowest in FY1996 - not 30% as you claim) before rising again in his second. Here are the actual numbers:
FY1991 - 273.3
FY1992 - 298.4
FY1993 - 291.1
FY1994 - 281.6
FY1995 - 272.1
FY1996 - 265.8
FY1997 - 270.5
FY1998 - 268.5
FY1999 - 274.9
FY2000 - 294.5
FY2001 - 305.5
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf
Your complaints about military bases also have to be viewed in the context of the legislation signed by President George H. W. Bush on November 5, 1990, creating an independent, five-year Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (DBCRC) with closure rounds set for 1991, 1993, and 1995.
So, after complaining repeatedly about how the military was “gutted”, while citing your inaccurate 30% reduction figure, the best you can come up with about how much we spend now is this?
“…what value do you put on your freedom?”
“This country should maintain an active and eveready force…”
“Leave the spending and budgets to the experts and not the politicians.”
So, you’re expert enough to throw out your 30% figure but you can’t even say “yes” or “no” to the question of whether what we’re spending now is enough or not? Please. As to leaving the question “to the experts and not the politicians”, have you forgotten the Constitution? Congress appropriates the funds, with the advice and testimony from experts, but they’re the ones the control the purse strings, just like the Republicans did during six of President Clinton’s eight years in office.
65. TiredofLibBullShit | January 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Diana,
You can’t read for shit.
I AM NOT TALKING BUDGETS as to the 30% reduction figure. I stated that in every post.
Looks like I have to really simplify it for your limited intelligence mind:
Army: From 18 full-strength light and mechanized divisions to a vulnerable 12 divisions (33% reduction in personnel and material, not counting aircraft).
Navy: from 546 to 380 ships, toward a targeted reduction of 300, the smallest naval force since the pre-WWII period (45% reduction in personnel and material) That’s not counting ballistic missile, attack submarines and aircraft.
Air Force: from 76 flight Squadrons to 50 flight squadrons (34% reduction in personnel and material).
There I have spelled it out for you. After FOUR TIMES requesting acknowledgement and answer. YOU ARE STUCK ON BUDGETS - MORE LIKE STUCK ON STUPID!
As to how much? I said to leave that to the experts with those ideas in mind. I can throw out my ACCURATE 30% (as shown above 33%-45%) figure because those are based on facts that I have found. Perhaps if I had the costs associated with military operations, research and development desired, maintenance, deployments and logistics, long term military strategies, etc etc, I could come up with a budget cost item. This blog is not the place to answer your DEFLECTING question.
As to determining budgets, the experts I cite are those that determine their operational costs, maintenance, research etc etc. and relay that information to the executive office, where the budget is determined. AGAIN, you keep deflecting to budgets that is not what I originally wrote about.
Sheesh, another USEFUL IDIOT who cannot write beyond what their handlers give them.
66. Dave | January 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Tired… oddly enough is what I am. Let me try and spell this out for you. The reduction of planes trains and automobiles that your going on about is directly impacted by budget. In order to maintain such things you need money, if you cut the money somethings got to give, and thats where your ‘30%’ comes from.
For example, if you purchase and car and a home but a year later can no longer afford both chances are you’ll default on the car before your home.
But hey what do I know, I’m no expert I just assumed this would be common sense. But I do welcome your personal attacks as a defense to your mindset. BS!
67. Diana Powe | January 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
TiredofLibBullShit,
What do you think these things are paid for with? Pixie dust and good wishes? If, as you obsessively repeat, there were these reductions in divisions, ships and squadrons, then where did the extra money go? It didn’t come out of outlays. What were the details of these reductions? How much of them were reductions and how much of them were force restructuring? Also, it seems like something happened in 1991 that might have had an impact on how Congress decided to fund the military. What was that? Oh, yes! Now I remember! The Soviet Union, our chief military concern for decades, collapsed!
So, in your opinion, since you decline the label of “expert”, are we spending enough on the military or do we need to spend more?
P.S. I’m still wondering. Do you use a macro to type “USEFUL IDIOT” for you given that it is a task that requires no thought?
68. Ricorun | January 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
ToLBS, you seem to be very certain about your numbers. Could you let us in on where you’re getting them?
A second question: why are sheer numbers so important to you? Is that all that counts? Should an F-16 count as much as an F-117 or F-22? Similar questions could be applied to all your statistics. But the first question is… where ARE you getting your statistics? And how have they changed in the seven years since Clinton left office?
69. Joe | January 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Don’t you people realize Tired actually has NO FACTS to back anything up? Look at post #48 & #59. He will just put it on YOU to look it up for him.
He is getting his numbers from just one place……. his ass.
70. Sunny | January 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Which party gutted the military, cut fighter wings, naval fleets, whole armies, in the 90s? - Well, STFU. Who left it ill equipped? And who complains when money is spent on the military, instead of their darling social programs? Again - STFU.
tiredofthebullshit
First off, you can cut out the gutter language with me. Not necessary. Second, which party had control of the pocket book during the 90s? If memory serves me right, both the Senate and House were controlled by the Repubicans through most of the Clinton years and through most of the Bush years. Further, exactly what have the Republicans done during the Bush administration to build up the military? Rumsfeld wanted a much smaller and leaner military. If anyone has destroyed our military, it has been the Republicans. They cut their benefits every chance the get. The Republicans only want money to fund the war, not those serving. BTW - clean up your language in the future.
71. TiredofLibBullShit | January 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Liberal ignorance is in full bloom.
Joe is hopeless. I do not want to post quotes and sources again for the thousandth time when it has been done on this blog before, ad nauseum. And others have responded to him about these same questions before. He refuses to see those responses and is in denial. His status has been upgraded to USELESS IDIOT.
Rico, Diana started this BS by claiming the military was not gutted. Therefore, I posted the force reduction numbers.
Diana continues to dodge. Diana “where did the extra money go?”. Since it is obvious you do not read or comprehend very well. Clinton cut the budgets (as provided by your data) and increased deployments. He had the most deployments since the Vietnam era. Increasing deployments while cutting the budget, the military had to sacrifice in order to finance the deployments. Hence the cuts in forces, material and training. These strains put on the military were in effect to the end of the Clinton Presidency and also during 9/11. I did mention that the budget cuts were a result of the end of the Cold War (”The Cold War is over” was Clinton’s excuse for the cuts) This is the third time I have repeated this. If you can’t get it by now, then you are in denial and refuse to see it. Your other questions are baseless, stupid and are a tactic libs love to use - deflection. I was snared and will not be again.
72. Sunny | January 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Sunny, if you want a private dialogue with Mark, then e-mail him. Otherwise, you’re open to responses from anyone on this blog whenever you post your stupid comments. Silly cow.
keefer
Mind you own business. Nobody yanked your chain buddy. DS
73. Diana Powe | January 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Sunny,
As demonstrated in Comment # 72, TiredofLibBullShit is quite uninterested in the way that the Federal Government actually works as dictated by the Constitution. The GOP’s control of both houses of Congress from 1994 through the end of President Clinton’s second term are what we might term inconvenient facts:
Article 1, Section 7:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
____
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Source: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The declaration has been made that the military was “gutted”, it was during President Clinton’s “watch”, therefore, the Constitutional roles of Congress in the matter of military funding are meaningless.
Let it be written. Let it be done.
74. Sunny | January 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The plain fact of the matter is that when 9/11 happened, we were nearly out of such basic weaponry as cruise missiles - because while Clinton was profligate in using them, he could never see room in the budget to replace used missiles. And the lack of cruise missiles was just emblemmatic of the larger issue of declining readiness. The troops were still good, but they were being crimped on materiel and training - and when you cut such things, you pay for it in blood.
Mark
Mark, where in the hell was congress all of this time? It was a Republican congress during the majority of this time. Also, what was the budget for the military during those years. I know I could go and look it up - but I am at work, so am not going to take the time right now. Makes one wonder at what kind of waste we still have in the military.
75. Ricorun | January 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Joe: on’t you people realize Tired actually has NO FACTS to back anything up?
Actually, I’m quite sure he can. What I don’t think he can answer is why it matters. It’s not like anyone (of any import) is complaining that the US Navy or Air Force is stretched too thin. There have been a lot of advances in technology that make the numerically smaller forces in those sectors more effective. The issue these days is ground forces. And that is primarily a result of large deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan — both of which occurred after Clinton left office.
While it is true that some started suggesting that the US ground forces would need to be expanded prior to Bush arriving in office (primarily due to deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo), the fact remains that despite the 7 years that have intervened since Clinton left office and Bush entered, the US Army STILL has only 12 divisions.
Although the “12 divisions” number might imply that ToLBS’s “stuck on stupid” label is grossly misapplied (especially considering all that has occurred since Bush’s inauguration), the fact is the number itself is close to meaningless: one of the changes Rumsfeld implemented was to transform the army from a “division-based” structure to a more flexible “brigade-based” structure. These days, individual brigades (or even individual battalions within a brigade), can serve in any division. And though number of troops within a typical brigade has been trimmed a bit, the number of brigades has increased by about 30% — from 30 to 42.
All that being said, the question remains: is that enough? As Army Chief of Staff George Casey said just today, “The surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system.” The issue has to be addressed. And to be perfectly honest, I find it astounding that it hasn’t been for so long. Whatever else can be said about it, blaming Clinton for the situation that exists now really does strike me as “stuck on stupid”.
76. Sunny | January 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
TiredofLibBullShit, - YOU LOSE! You cannot out debate Diana - but keep trying. Makes for interesting dialog.
What do you think these things are paid for with? Pixie dust and good wishes? If, as you obsessively repeat, there were these reductions in divisions, ships and squadrons, then where did the extra money go? It didn’t come out of outlays. What were the details of these reductions? How much of them were reductions and how much of them were force restructuring? Also, it seems like something happened in 1991 that might have had an impact on how Congress decided to fund the military. What was that? Oh, yes! Now I remember! The Soviet Union, our chief military concern for decades, collapsed!
So, in your opinion, since you decline the label of “expert”, are we spending enough on the military or do we need to spend more?
Diana
77. Sunny | January 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Where was the Republican majority in Congress from 1994-2000 while the military was being gutted? Easy to blame Clintion (as usual), but he did not control the purse strings.
78. Ricorun | January 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Mark, per your comment #57… as I recall, one excuse Bush offered for all the mayhem that occurred following the invasion was because the invasion itself was too successful. I believe the term he used was “catastrophic success”. Given that, how would more cruise missiles have done anything but make the success more of a “catastrophe”?
79. TiredofLibBullShit | January 17th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Libs still stuck on stupid I see.
Sunny, in your dreams. Obviously, you can’t read.
“Where was the Republican majority in Congress from 1994-2000 while the military was being gutted? Easy to blame Clintion (as usual), but he did not control the purse strings.”
Uh, Sunny, use Diana links to the Constitution and try to understand how our government works.
Clinton proposed his budgets. Progresses through both houses and finally signed or vetoed by Clinton. You do remember the concept of compromise? Bottom line was the resulting cuts. Coupled the the many deployments gave us the resulting forces up to 9/11.
As you libs love to point out, 9/11 occurred during Bush’s watch. No matter what Clinton did or did not do, IT STILL HAPPENED UNDER BUSH’S WATCH….HE IS RESPONSIBLE. Same is true for Clinton and his budgets. Why did Clinton send them on all those deployments with their limited budgets, material and manpower? Why did they have to sacrifice training (obviously Clinton failed to provide for the Common Defense). He is the chief executive and his responsibility. The same goes for corporations - remember ENRON.
Diana, I know how the government works. It is a shame all you can do is deflect, spin and cherry-pick. In other words, a good little USEFUL IDIOT (no macros here - whatever the hell that implies) Your guy(party) can do no wrong. While Republicans had control, they did not have veto and filibuster-proof majority. As evidenced by those items in the Contract with America items that did not make it to the President’s desk.
80. Joe | January 17th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Wait a second here… not to get off the topic of budgets and who gutted what, but Tired, you just claimed this…
While Republicans had control, they did not have veto and filibuster-proof majority.
Wow… so are you saying that the majority party can’t always do what they want? Then why do you and your party blame the Dems for not getting anything done now that they’ve taken control? They certainly don’t have a veto proof majority, so I guess all the bad things must be the Prez’s fault. After all, you are saying how the Repubs didn’t have a veto-proof majority and it was Clinton’s fault things happened.
See how that works? When you spin, you get dizzy.
81. keefer | January 18th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Joe, your party isn’t about compromise and deals with the minority; that’s why they can’t get anything done. Don’t be hypocritical–while we held the majority, all you pukes did was accuse us of not getting anything done. It works both ways…
82. TiredofLibBullShit | January 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Joe, you get dizzy just sitting in front of the computer.
Have you been living under a rock since 1992?
Way to go, USELESS……
83. Joe | January 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Are you still reading this string of comments??
All I was doing is pointing out your big, fat, hairy hypocracy in spinning.
The Repubs didn’t have a veto-proof majority in the 90’s, so all the bad things were because of Dems.
So that means since the Dems don’t have a veto-proof majority now, all the bad stuff should be due to the Repubs. But no……… you blame the Dems on this too.
Just pointing out that you people are so full of BS you’ve got to be tasting it.
84. TiredofLibBullShit | January 19th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Joe, your bong is full of bad (expletive deleted).
Based on your posts, you HAVE been living under a rock or wasted since 1992!
“Wow… so are you saying that the majority party can’t always do what they want? Then why do you and your party blame the Dems for not getting anything done now that they’ve taken control?”
Uh, are we drilling in ANWAR? Are the tax cuts permanent? Has Social Security been reformed into a viable option for retirement? - to name a few.
Good-bye USELESS IDIOT. I could have a more intelligent conversation with my six year old.