Miz Hillary hosts B'day party for Byrd

[Campy]

That's why folks like you, are huge fans of "Clinton War".

 

Go bomb some Balkan country, and give strict instructions to the Pentagon that no Americans will get hurt.

 

Aren't video games fun?

505298[/snapback]

And people who just want to throw bodies at the problem disgust me. But OK. What has it really solved? Instead of Hussein torturing people, the "Iraqi democracy" is doing it. Nice. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10049773/

 

Those bodies are sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms, and dads. I'm glad you're so cavalier about putting them in harm's way. It seems to work for you. It doesn't for me.

 

The "Clinton War," eh? You're right, I concede. It's soooo much better to send in a force that's too small and under equipped. Eh, the body-count goes up a bit, but it's OK, it's "Bush War."

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Please give the monkey back his username.  The monkey is smart enough to know that there's never been a war that hasn't killed people.

 

The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags. 

505296[/snapback]

 

Sorry...war's only bad if it kills our people.

 

And the key is to win. No decent military commander at any level in history has approached war from the perspective of "everyone must come home safely". The paradox of the only way to save lives in war being to fight it quickly, meaning you must be willing to accept the deaths of some of your soldiers to fight the war, I suspect is beyond your comprehension. It's beyond most peoples. It sure as hell was beyond Clinton's, as sure as it's NOT beyond al Zarqawi's.

[Ghost of BiB]

And people who are OK with just wanting to throw bodies at the problem disgust me.  But OK.  What has it really solved?  Instead of Hussein torturing people, the "Iraqi democracy" is doing it.  Nice. 

 

Those bodies are sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms, and dads.  I'm glad you're so cavalier about putting them in harm's way.  It seems to work for you.  It doesn't for me.

 

The "Clinton War," eh?  You're right, I concede.  It's soooo much better to send in a force that's too small and under equipped.  Eh, the body-count goes up a bit, but it's OK, it's "Bush War."

505308[/snapback]

 

I'm humbled. I had no idea those people had families.

 

You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?

[Campy]

Sorry...war's only bad if it kills our people. 

505323[/snapback]

NEWSFLASH: It is killing our people.

 

And the key is to win.

And that's generally accomplished by sending an undersized force ill-equipped for the mission? I think not.

 

No decent military commander at any level in history has approached war from the perspective of "everyone must come home safely". The paradox of the only way to save lives in war being to fight it quickly, meaning you must be willing to accept the deaths of some of your soldiers to fight the war, I suspect is beyond your comprehension.

No. it isn't. Sending an undersized and ill-equipped force to complete the mission of a larger and better-equipped force is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can share with us why doing so is a good idea since that's the position you (are failing to) defend.

 

It's beyond most peoples. It sure as hell was beyond Clinton's, as sure as it's NOT beyond al Zarqawi's.

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Either that's beyond your comprehension, or it's just easier to say "But the other guy...." In any event, it does not justify the cluster!@#$ that is "Bush War."

[Campy]

I'm humbled. I had no idea those people had families.

 

You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?

505326[/snapback]

And there we go again from the Bushites... But, but, your guy...

 

Too funny. Or sad. Maybe a little bit of both.

 

I do know we didn't lose 2000 Americans in the process.

 

You want to explain to me again why we invaded Iraq?

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm humbled. I had no idea those people had families.

 

You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?

505326[/snapback]

You're right. Bombing the Balkans and invading Iraq are virtually indistinguishable. They are precisely the same thing.

[Wacka]

Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.

 

He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.

[Campy]

Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.

A lot of people seem to believe that.

 

He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.

505348[/snapback]

A lot of people seem to believe that too.

 

Hypotheticals and what-ifs don't really change the reality we face today though, do they?

[finknottle]

Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.

 

He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.

505348[/snapback]

 

I'm confused. How would killing Osama in the mid-nineties have prevented the attack?

 

By all accounts he was never a 'hands-on' guy, just a man with some bucks. And not the only one. If he were taken out of the picture the cells would have cooked up the idea anyway, got it blessed, and gone ahead, much as AQ activity is going on now.

 

Or do you think he is instrumental in the recent AQ activity in England, Spain, Egypt, Iraq, and Indonesia?

[finknottle]

Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.

 

He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.

505348[/snapback]

 

And anyway, if you want to push the Chamberlain example you ought to push it back to Reagan. One truck bomb at a marine barracks and we pulled out of Lebanon. That sent an unfortunate message, a blueprint, to those in the region who wanted us out.

[PastaJoe]

Ole' Hill and other Dem female senators fete Sen. "KKK Wizard" Byrd on his birthday.

 

Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?

 

Naaa...there is no liberal bias.

 

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021

505044[/snapback]

 

Back to the original topic, as you know but don't want to point out because it diffuses your topic, the issue wasn't that Lott celebrated Thurmond's birthday. It was the toast he made in which he said he would have supported Thurmond's run for president, when at the time he ran Thurmond was advocating segregation. I don't believe Hillary said she would have supported Byrd when he was associated with the KKK. I don't believe Lott meant it as support for segregation, but that was the issue that garnered the press coverage.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

NEWSFLASH:  It is killing our people.

 

And that's why it's bad. If it wasn't, it would be good. Just like Somalia: that was a good war while only Somalis were dying. Then Americans died. Then it was bad.

 

And that's generally accomplished by sending an undersized force ill-equipped for the mission?  I think not.

 

No. it isn't.  Sending an undersized and ill-equipped force to complete the mission of a larger and better-equipped force is beyond my comprehension.  Perhaps you can share with us why doing so is a good idea since that's the position you (are failing to) defend.

 

Perhaps you can share with us, instead, what the proper OB is for a force occupying Iraq. Since you're the one making the assumption, not myself, I think it's only natural the burden of proof should fall to you first.

 

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Either that's beyond your comprehension, or it's just easier to say "But the other guy...."  In any event, it does not justify the cluster!@#$ that is "Bush War."

505331[/snapback]

 

Ah...so when is a war not a war?

 

1) When Americans don't die, and

2) When there's no invasion.

 

So what was Clinton doing when he bombed Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Serbia? And Sudan? For that matter, what was Nixon doing when he bombed the sh-- out of North Vietnam and Cambodia...last I checked, we didn't invade them, either. Ditto Reagan and Libya (with whom we fought four battles in the '80s) and Iran (who we also fought battles with in the '80s - USS Vincennes ring a bell?) Panama and Grenada, on the other hand, were wars...but they were "good" wars, since Americans didn't die, I imagine...as opposed to Beirut and Mogadishu, which were "bad" wars...

 

"But the other guy..." is never a reasonable argument...but this isn't about "the other guy", it's about the BS attitude that "war" is something that's only fought from the ground. This country has been at war pretty constantly since 1979 (which, conicidentally, is when US soil - for that's what an embassy legally is - was invaded by radical Islamists in Iran and Pakistan). Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq...see a pattern yet? Hell, bombing Libya in the '80s isn't even manifestly different from invading Iraq today...they only seem different because people can't relate the video-game nature of dropping a GBU to the sheer terror of patrolling some back alley in Nasiriyah or Mazar-i-Sharif.

[Kelly the Dog]

And that's why it's bad.  If it wasn't, it would be good.  Just like Somalia: that was a good war while only Somalis were dying.  Then Americans died.  Then it was bad. 

Perhaps you can share with us, instead, what the proper OB is for a force occupying Iraq.  Since you're the one making the assumption, not myself, I think it's only natural the burden of proof should fall to you first.

Ah...so when is a war not a war? 

 

1) When Americans don't die, and

2) When there's no invasion. 

 

So what was Clinton doing when he bombed Iraq?  And Afghanistan?  And Serbia?  And Sudan?    For that matter, what was Nixon doing when he bombed the sh-- out of North Vietnam and Cambodia...last I checked, we didn't invade them, either.  Ditto Reagan and Libya (with whom we fought four battles in the '80s) and Iran (who we also fought battles with in the '80s - USS Vincennes ring a bell?)  Panama and Grenada, on the other hand, were wars...but they were "good" wars, since Americans didn't die, I imagine...as opposed to Beirut and Mogadishu, which were "bad" wars...

 

"But the other guy..." is never a reasonable argument...but this isn't about "the other guy", it's about the BS attitude that "war" is something that's only fought from the ground.  This country has been at war pretty constantly since 1979 (which, conicidentally, is when US soil - for that's what an embassy legally is - was invaded by radical Islamists in Iran and Pakistan).  Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq...see a pattern yet?  Hell, bombing Libya in the '80s isn't even manifestly different from invading Iraq today...they only seem different because people can't relate the video-game nature of dropping a GBU to the sheer terror of patrolling some back alley in Nasiriyah or Mazar-i-Sharif.

505421[/snapback]

I guess, apparently, that 9/11 wasn't really bad because it killed Americans, it would have been just as bad if Al Qaeda happened to run planes into France and blew up the Eiffel Tower or Arc de Triumph. We would have been just as outraged. Because it doesnt really matter if a couple thousand Americans are killed, we are really worried about all the world's citizens. If Osama had blew up New Zealand, we surely would have invaded Afghanistan anyway because we're so concerned about every citizen of the world, and not so much about ourselves.

 

And besides, twenty or so American soldiers dying is pretty much the same as a couple thousand. Not much difference, it's just, what, one or two zeroes? And bombing some military operations and losing a few soldiers is really pretty much the exact same thing as invading a country, deposing its leader, installing a new government, spending hundreds of billions, losing 2000 soldiers, 10,000 injured badly, causing more terrorism that we could ever imagine, getting the rest of the world to hate us way more than they ever did in our history even though they hated us before. I can't tell the difference between those wars at all. I mean, seriously, they're still wars.

[Wacka]

All I can say is you libs still don't get it.

 

And to get back to the original topic, Hillary et al are honoring the only member of the Congress that was a member of the KKK. But since he's a democrat, that's OK. Filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, thats OK too. Robert Byrd (D-KKK). the biggest racist in the Senate.

[Chilly]

Ole' Hill and other Dem female senators fete Sen. "KKK Wizard" Byrd on his birthday.

 

Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?

 

Naaa...there is no liberal bias.

 

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021

505044[/snapback]

 

How bout that new definition of science or the oppression of gays.

 

(Yes CTM that was another setup )

[Ghost of BiB]

And there we go again from the Bushites...  But, but, your guy...

 

Too funny. Or sad.  Maybe a little bit of both. 

 

I do know we didn't lose 2000 Americans in the process.

 

You want to explain to me again why we invaded Iraq?

505332[/snapback]

 

For the 600th time? Sure. Why not?

[30dive]

I'm pretty certain the media would have reported this if 'ol Hillary had said: ".....things would be a whole lot better today had the Mr. bird of old (read KKK) had his way back then."

 

I'm quite certain they would have pounced on that!

 

The fact is that the Lott media uproar was not about a party for a 100 year old senator, it was not, it was about the coments he made.

[OnTheRocks]

QUOTE

Of course, that the murderer Sadaam is out is of no consequence. Better he still be there?

 

Murderer?  He was Reagan and Rummy's best friend in the 80's.  I wonder what happened?

505107[/snapback]

 

Like George Washington said, use em and lose em.

[Bill from NYC]

I guess Americans must just be more concerned about a president who lied us into a war, money-laundering indictments, and White House staff indictments to get too worked up over a birthday party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111300857.html

505079[/snapback]

 

>>>>The "yeah, but the other guys are worse" angle doesn't cut it in this debate.<<<<

 

Campy, this is a quote, from YOU in a post to me in another thread.

Am I to assume that is does "cut it" in this debate?

[Campy]

>>>>The "yeah, but the other guys are worse" angle doesn't cut it in this debate.<<<<

 

Campy, this is a quote, from YOU in a post to me in another thread.

Am I to assume that is does "cut it" in this debate?     

505629[/snapback]

Those might be valid reasons why this non-story fell to the back burner, don't you think?

 

Or would you prefer we ignore real news and blast Hillary for attending a birthday party because you don't like her politics?

 

Good God, our foreign policy has been a complete failure, Americans are being killed and maimed in a war to set up a puppet government that, just like its master, seems to consider torture and abuse as acceptable, and you think a fuggin' birthday party is news?

 

Amazing.