Instead of triggering the mother of all court battles, as many predicted, President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court has thus far resulted mostly in peace and quiet. In fact, the war room that the White House created to help push the nomination is so silent that they are holding meetings just to give them something to do, The New York Times reported. That’s good news for the country, which doesn’t need another nasty slugfest. But it’s bad news for the special interest groups on the left and right that depend on controversy to fire up their bases and raise money.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
123 Comments
And the Republicans were found dead of starvation, hunkered down in the trenches waiting for the enemy who never came.
The Democrat Party: More French-like every day.
And it’s bad for Karl Rove since it means he wasn’t able to defelct his illegal activites with this nomination.
Anon ?
Is that your real name ? Can’t you tell us who you really are ?
Seems like the Carl Rove story has kind of fizzled. You Bush haters really thought you smelled blood in the water on this one. But once again, you’re all bark and no bite.
You came Hammer.
Oh Nathan! You’re so cunning! (for a little girl).
Hey Hammer,
Is that your real name? Or are you hunkered down in the trenches hiding behind a nom-de-plume?
Hank
Hey Anon,
Did you ever wonder what source Judith Miller is ‘protecting’?
Karl released her from protecting him two years ago!
Hank
Nice try, James.
The Rove story hasn’t gone away, and won’t. Rove is a traitor and the White House knows it. What’s more important, the national media finally have a narrative frame they can use, which ties the story into Bush’s lies and deception leading up to the Iraq invasion.
Do I smell blood in the water? Hell yes. Does Bush? Hell yes. Why do you think he pulled the nomination of Gonzalez for SCOTUS in favor of Ken–sorry, John Roberts? Could it have something to do with not wanting to have someone like Gonzalez, who has intimate knowledge of Rovegate, giving sworn testimony before a Senate committee? What a fishing expedition THAT would turn into!
So Bush jettisoned Gonzalez as the SCOTUS pick, inserted Roberts, and made the announcement early in order to knock the Rove story off the front pages. Didn’t work.
Your guy Rove is shark bait, James. I can’t wait to see where this thing goes. And goes. And goes.
Oh, and this one’s for Jimmy, who robotically repeats the RepubliSpin orders to call the Democratic Party the ‘democrat’ party:
The GOP, more Stalinist every day.
Hey CF,
Did you ever wonder what source Judith Miller is ‘protecting’?
Karl released her from protecting him two years ago!
Hank
Your creativity must have hit an all time low if all you can do is call me a girl Hammer.
Dear Mr. Brownlee,
Couple of things, first of all, the fight will be in the senate judiciary committee, not in the courts. Second, there will be a fight. Well, maybe not a fight per se. The extreme left-wing nitwits on the judiciary committee will do everything they can to villify John Ropberts.
And last but not least, why should we care about anything in the New York Times? It is interesting to learn where you get your editorial marching oders though!
Hank
Nathan, you have to consider who I have to work with. You aren’t much.
Didn’t you just criticize me in another blog for that same come back?
You are one confused guy Hammer.
I have an idea: Lets see you discuss the issues instead of trying to be the most prominent member of my fan club?
I don’t know Nathan. There seem to be so many things to criticize you for. I loose track, LOL.
CFWhat’s that stand for ?ConFused … CornFlake
In your mind, in the tin foil hat universe, the Rove story goes on and on. But it’s done. Y’all are beating a dead donkey.
Not much use in trying to discuss anything with you, Nathan. When cornered, you just fade away.
Hammer,
It must be a nice little reality you live in.
One where you can just make up whatever you want to about someone to make yourself feel better.
You will fit in my fan club nicely! There are a couple of others who you associate well with.
CF many thanks for letting me know that the use of “Democrat party” bugs you. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
Wow, I feel like a preschool teacher again, except now the kids have exceptionally large vocabularies.
James,Judging from your bleating, it’s a live Elephant that I’m beating (Whee! A rhyme!). So predictable how you ignore all the evidence and go on mindlessly repeating ‘nothing to see here! move on!’ What a phony you are. It’s the GOP Ostrich approach to argument: if I pretend not to see it, it doesn’t exist. I repeat my question: if Rove is innocent of revealing classified information and betraying the country, why is the White House visibly running scared and off their game? Oh, and if you’re just referring to me, don’t use ‘y’all;’ it’s the third person plural pronoun.
Hank,I don’t know who Judy Miller is protecting, and I don’t know why you think this counts against me. She’s no ally of mine. I DO know that there’s talk she may be charged with criminal versus civil obstruction, which is fine by me. I think she acted as a whore for the administration in pushing the various panic stories that preceded the Iraq War, and I’ll be happy to see her go up the river. Ditto for the NYT: the fact that they’re finally pursuing the story that Rove betrayed the country doesn’t excuse their betrayal in uncritically acting as mouthpiece for the Administration’s lies and deceptions.
Jimmy,
It doesn’t bug me at all how you embarrass yourself. It just shows how mindlessly you repeat the talking points disseminated by the GOP Think-Tank Speech Police.
And judging by the fact that I know the lineage of your spin while you don’t, you’re the dullard.
Dear CF,
Didn’t say it counted against you. But since you seem to have poor ol’ Karl already tried and convicted of no percievable crime on the basis of no credible evidence other than the hopefull stories of left-wing nitwits like Judith Miller I can’t understand your lack of curiosity.
White House visibly running scared and off their game? Do you mind giving me an example of that little statement?
Hank
Hank,
Judith Miller is a nitwit: agreed. But her willingness to be a shill and a whore for Bushco disqualifies her from membership in the Left. If you don’t believe me, check out Atrios: she’s roundly hated. As for ‘credible evidence of wrongdoing,’ Fitzgerald obviously thinks there’s something there. And Rove has been playing coy: saw a picture of him wearing a button that said “I am not the subject of any investigation.” Hmmm.
Well, after telegraphing the desire to put someone Hispanic on the SCOTUS, the nomination of John Roberts instead of Alberto Gonzales shows that Bushco is off its game. One could also cite the fact that they moved the nomination up ahead of schedule. Another sign could be their unwillingness to give Bolton a recess appointment, and the fact that Bush’s domestic agenda is stalled. I grant that these are all arguable cases. But Bushco distinctly lack its earlier air of invincibility.
Nathan, you’d have to have friends to have a fan club.
On what planet is Judith Miller left-wing? Oh, right, anything that makes the wingnuts look bad must be a liberal. Hate to break it to you, but Judith Miller is all yours.
Dear CF,
Actually no one really seems to know where Fitzgerald is heading in his investigation. The senate democrats don’t seem to have any faith in his ability railroad Rove, otherwise they wouldn’t be calling for a congressional investigation into ‘leaks’ from the White House.
If you think a NYT reporter is seting in jail to protect Rove or the White House, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll seel you.
Hank
Poor Judy. No one wants her! When the truth of her incarceration becomes public, the libs are afraid that it won’t hurt the White House. She goes to jail for them and they start dumping on her!
Hank
CF: You know the lineage of my spin and I don’t? So you read minds as well as being a lib? Wow. Does your union know about this incredible amount of extra work you’re doing?
CF. Atrios?!?! Do you follow TPM and Washington Monthly?
Hammer,
AND digbysblog, AND mahablog, AND susiemadrak, AND juancole, AND robert-fisk, AND stevegilliard, AND patriotboy, AND jameswolcott, AND tomdispatch, AND rudepundit (I LOVE the rudepudit). So much so, that I’ll link to him so all you Wingnuts can get it straight up, no chaser:
rudepundit.blogspot.com
Hank,Judy Miller didn’t go to jail for me. Have you listened to anything that’s been said here so far?
And Jimmy, when it’s part of the public record where your spin comes from, it isn’t my psychic powers that should be thanked. It’s the fact that I READ and THINK.
My union is the AAUP, which encourages its members to participate in such activities.
CF, GO UNION! Patriotboy keeps me rolling on the floor, love digby, rudepundit says it all. Bullmoose? Billimon?
The AAUP!? One of the few organiztions left of the communist ACLU!
Hank
Gee Hank, Did you think the ACLU was communist when they defended your daddy, Rush?
Yea, lot of good it did him.
Hank
But Hank, you support Rush. Doesn’t that put you and the ACLU on the same side?
Hammer,
Bullmoose is one of those DLC f***s I despise, so it’s best for all concerned that I stay away. Billimon I will check out from time to time. During the election cycle I liked Ruy Teixeria on donkeyrising, and will still check in from time to time. I also like many of the folks who post on Atrios, particularly watertiger, and I’ll check Dahr Jamail’s posts from Iraq. So many sites, so little time.
Hank,
When you say ‘communist’ with reference to the ACLU, why don’t you just stop speaking in racist code and say what you REALLY mean: ‘those Jews.’
The AAUP is a non-partisan labor organization that promotes professoinal standards within academic and advocates for academic freedom. That’s a prospect that obviously scares the hell out of thought fascists like you, who are scared to death of free speech, so you resort to slander.
Just to finish on a happy, relatively non-partisan note, here’s my favorite flash animation site: it’s NOT work safe. I’m most partial to ‘Hypothermia.’
http://www.threebrain.com
Hey CF,
Tell your open-minded buddies at the next meeting of the AAUP that you’ve been defending the Academic Bill of Rights on line and let me know how that works for you.
Hank
PS The only nitwits that I personally know that belong to the ACLU aren’t Jews. Just liberal nitwit atourneys that also support the ABA.
Hey Hammer,
You bet! In this case, but by their choice, not mine!
Hank
Hank,
Does this look like an academic setting? Your attempt at an ad hominem attack comes up, well, short as usual.
‘Atourneys?’ Who’s the nitwit here? Try ‘preview,’ Hank. It could change your posts, if not your life.
When there is no substance to your attack, resort to spelling mistakes.
Dear CF,
Thank you so much for your constructive criticism. I’ll try to take your advice in the spirit it was intended.
You chide me about ‘academic setting’ then God love you, the professor in you shows up and you have to correct my spelling.
My posts during the day are made at work and I can’t devote the same amount of time to them that I would for a term paper.
I apologize,
Hank
Dear CF,
I previewed my last post. How long do I have to wait for my life to change?
Hank
Hank–
Let’s say the men’s prayer together–”I’m a man, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.” (Red Green)
But seriously, none of our lives are going to change for the better until we get the Liar-in-Chief out of the White House.
The thing that mystifies me is why conservatives like Bush–because he’s “strong?” The worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history happened while he was reading storybooks with little kids.
Because he represents “responsibility?” He hasn’t taken responsibility for a damn thing, even when his closest personal advisor is getting investigated by the Justice Department.
I’m a liberal, and I’d be the first to point out Clinton’s faults. He sold out labor on NAFTA, for instance. He appealed to the Dem Leadership Council that essentially panders to special corporate interests for money. He lied to the American people about Monica Lewinsky and hurt the party for years if not decades.
The guy had a lot of flaws and faults, and I’d be the first to admit that.
But he didn’t LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING, which is what we’ve got now.
Bush = Worst. President. Ever.
Dearest Antares,
I really believe that you are sincere, and I respect you for that. I can’t for the life of me understand why someone believes the myth that George Bush is a liar. Really!
You seem to look at everything the man says or does through the prizm that he is a guilty of being a liar and a cheat and then judge him with your perceptions instead of facts.
I wish you would tell me the worst lie you think that GWB has told the American people about anything and let’s discuss it. We’ll be civil and truthful with each other and try to convince each other with thoughtful reasoning.
I am not aware of any lie that GWB has told the American people. Now I admit that I also come to the discussion with my own perceptions and prejudices, but…I’m a man, I can change…
Want to give it a try?
Hank
Hank–Here you go, my friend. Enjoy.
http://www.alternet.org/fivelies/
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq provides a concise primer on the subject with this dense but readable exposition of how the White House responded to 9/11 not by sanely mobilizing global cooperation against a genuine terrorist threat, nor by addressing the root causes of the problem, but by cynically playing on Americans’ fears and patriotism to scare up support for an outrageously irrelevant military adventure in Iraq. Scheer and his colleagues chronicle the charade in painful detail: the Bush administration’s selective use of intelligence to fit preconceived conclusions; its pattern of lying, obfuscating, and retracting while maintaining deniability; and its arrogant cluelessness about the outside world. Even for those who consider themselves well read on the subject, Scheer’s book offers a lucid and disturbing overview of how this country was so easily bamboozled.”
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003Not true–not only were intelligence agencies saying the opposite, Hans Blix on the ground was saying there was no evidence of this for months. Even if it’s not technically a lie (because Bush believed it), he uttered something that was UNKNOWABLE as if it were true, and that is in itself a kind of lie.
“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by peoplenow in custody reveal thatSaddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Okay, this is a damn lie. There was not a shred of evidence linking Saddam and bin Laden, and Bush knew it. Bin Laden in fact wanted to take out Saddam as bad as Bush did . . . we did Bin Laden’s job for him.
Bush said, the IAEA has estimated that Saddam could have nuclear weapons in as little as six months. Actually the IAEA said that Saddam could not produce a nuclear weapon, he had neither the materials nor access to materials. This was a clear and blatant lie.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/5/bennett-d.html
“Every single child in America must be educated, I mean every child. … There’s nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child.” — George W. Bush, presidential debate versus Vice President Al Gore, Oct. 11, 2000But in his 2003 budget, Bush proposed funding levels far below what the legislation called for, requesting only $22.1 billion of the $29.2 billion that Congress authorized. For the largest program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides support to students in impoverished school districts, Bush asked for $11.35 billion out of the $18.5 billion authorized. His 2004 budget was more than $6 billion short of what Congress authorized. Furious, Kennedy called Bush’s proposal a “tin cup budget” that “may provide the resources to test our children, but not enough to teach them.
“Our goal is a system in which all Americans have got a good insurance policy, in which all Americans can choose their own doctor, in which seniors and low-income citizens receive the help they need. … Our Medicare system is a binding commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by providing the seniors of today and tomorrow with preventive care and the new medicines that are transforming health care in our country.” — George W. Bush, Medicare address, March 4, 2003The man simply has no shame. His program does none of this. What it does, simply, is to make dramatic cuts in the benefits for both the poor and the elderly.
“Clear Skies legislation, when passed by Congress, will significantly reduce smog and mercury emissions, as well as stop acid rain. It will put more money directly into programs to reduce pollution, so as to meet firm national air-quality goals. …” — George W. Bush, Earth Day speech, April 22, 2002Actually, the Clear Skies law doesn’t do any of this. The act, in fact, delays required emission cuts by as much as 10 years, usurps the states’ power to address interstate pollution problems and allows outdated industrial facilities to skirt costly pollution-control upgrades.
From “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” by Al Franken.
“The vast majority of my tax breaks go to those on the bottom of the economic ladder.” Bush
Clear and blatant LIE–Fifty-two percent of the tax breaks went to the top 1 percent of income earners in the U.S. Paris Hilton and Dick Cheney did very well under Bush. Cheney alone saved 6 MILLION DOLLARS on his taxes the first year. The poor SOB’s slogging it out in Iraq got diddly-squat.
Here’s a good list of Bush lies on Iraq, including the ridiculous “pilotless drone” aircraft Iraq supposedly had.http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/27_lies.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/9969749.htm
“Bush has fulfilled less than half his campaign promises.”
Bush openly abandoned campaign commitments, such as his pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by electric utilities. On other issues – the line-item veto, for example – he proposed an idea to Congress but spent little time on it. A similar Knight Ridder analysis found that, during his first term, President Clinton had fulfilled about 66 percent of the 160 commitments that he made during his first presidential campaign.
Books on BUSH LIES–Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenWorse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush by John W. DeanBushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush’s America by Molly IvinsBig Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe ConasonThe Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America by Eric AltermanAgainst All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror by Richard A. ClarkeAmerican Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush by Kevin PhillipsThe Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Art of Deception by David Corn
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0714-05.htm
“the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that the administration purposely held back the true costs of the convoluted Medicare prescription drug bill from Congress.No laws were broken, he said, but indeed Thomas Scully, the administration’s Medicare chief at the time, threatened to fire Medicare actuary Richard Foster if he gave the true cost figures to Congress when it was debating the bill.”
“Social security will be broke and bankrupt.” State of the Union Address, 2005
Social security can’t go “bankrupt” because as long as people work and have FICA taken out, there will be some money to pay retirees. The CBO estimates that 80 percent of benefits could be paid for infinity if after 2054 if nothing is all is done now. His use of “bankrupt” is a clear and blatant lie.
Instead, the administration allowed Congress to act under the false assumption that the cost of the Medicare bill would be $395 billion over 10 years when it knew that the real cost was $534 billion.
“I’m going to raise Pell Grants.” State of the Union, 2005. Yes, he raised them by 100 dollars. However he CUT THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO GET PELL GRANTS. Lying weasel . . .
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/10/30/team_bush_.php
Bush flies out to an aircraft carrier to declare “Mission Accomplished.” Remember that?
“Suddenly, six months later, the President claims that the “Mission Accomplished” sign that graced his carrier-deck photo-op was the idea of the sailors and not of his handlers.[*] The Navy says the sign was made by the White House. [*]. This CNN report (via Buzzflash) shows how carefully choreographed the whole event was.”
TeamBush told the media that the Clinton’s had stolen property from the White House and Air Force One. Their people had vandalized equipment.
That was a despicable lie.http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Clinton%20Vandalism Toledo Blade writes, the GAO “spent a year and $200,000 investigating the alleged ‘damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks’ in the transition from the Clinton Administration to that of…Bush in January 2001. The result: ‘little corroborating evidence’ to support Republican claims that departing Clintonites had shamefully trashed the White House. The GAO inquiry, which resulted in a 217-page report, was never a legitimate fact-finding exercise but a sophomoric attempt by GOP partisans to further embarrass Bill Clinton, even after he was already out the door…
******
Okay, Hank, work on those and when you’re through with them, I’ll send you another list that’s even longer.
Antares: It so good to see someone using a thoughtful and intelligent approach to these blogs. Name-calling and insults are way too common and I appreciate your research on this issue.
Dear Antares,
Oh wow! Now let’s review my proposal again, I wrote:
“I wish you would tell me the worst lie you think that GWB has told the American people about anything and let’s discuss it. We’ll be civil and truthful with each other and try to convince each other with thoughtful reasoning.”
I appreciate the time and work that you have put into this already, but I want to keep it manageable and simple. Pick a statement by GWB that you believe to be a lie. Then we will try and determine if it was a lie or not.
Let’s start the discussion by agreeing on the definition of a lie, OK?
This is a definition from dictionary.com.
Lie
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
If you agree with this definition, pick one of the GWB statements you believe to be a lie and we’ll begin. (pick any statement I still don’t believe he has lied)
Sincerely,
Hank
Antares: Don’t you just love them?
Dear Zoom,
If Antares declines the discussion, are you willing to accept the proposal?
Sincerely,
Hank
What discussion? You have already stated you don’t believe Bush lied. There is no discussion with those who refuse to see or hear the truth.
My dear Zoom,
I take that as a no. If you read my proposal I said we we will try to convince each other with reasoning.
It’s a very simple debate. Pick a statement and either prove it a lie or not.
Is Zoom your real name?
Hank
Okay, I’m back.
You’ve got the bar set pretty high, Hank, because I have to prove Bush KNEW he was telling a lie. Since Bush acts like the stupidest president we’ve ever had, when he says something that’s later proven untrue (which is practically everything), his supporters on the right just say that he made a “mistake.”
So, when Clinton said that oral sex was not sex, that wasn’t really a lie, was it? Because CLINTON BELIEVED IT WAS TRUE.
Strangely, Clinton could never get away with that kind of defense, but then on the other hand, Clinton the Rhodes scholar and law school grad couldn’t get off the hook because he was some kind of Forrest Gump either.
Anyway, I can still prove Bush lied and lied about the most important issue a president can address–going to war.
Here’s a link from the White House’s own transcripts–http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
Q But, still, those countries who didn’t support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
*****
Everybody who looked at the “mobile weapons laboratories” Bush apparently refers to knew that they were weather balloon trucks.
Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: ‘They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.’
Note that the President didn’t say, we might have found them or we probably found them. He said, “people who say we didn’t find WMD are wrong. We found them.”
Also, even if the trucks HAD been mobile weapons labs, which they weren’t, they still wouldn’t have been what Bush said they were–WMD’s.
Good luck.
Ok Hank,How about when Bush pledged to be a uniter and not a divider in the 2000 election? Another obvious lie.
Get in line Hammer.
Is Hammer your real name?
Hank
Yes indeedy.
*Ahem* Hank?
George Bush, two months after the invasion of Iraq, “For those who say we haven’t found . . . the banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.”
Comments?
Dear Antares,
I accept! It might be tonight or tomorrow morning before I get back to you because I’m at work and pretty busy.
Yes, some would think the bar is pretty high. Before I call someone a lier I feel it is imperative that I know he is a lier. That means that I know that he knows he is attemping to decieve with his words.
Sincerely,
Hank
PS Do you really think that in his heart, Clinton believed it was true?
Boy, it sure got quiet around here all of a sudden . . .
Well, if we can look into people’s hearts, then we don’t need to read the newspapers, do we.
I just measure what Bush says against what is shown true by the best evidence.
Well folks, if he didn’t lie, he’s stupid, and that’s probably worse. I don’t think a moron should have his finger on “the button”.
I fully agree Hammer. But they sold you a mouse anyway.
Hank
That was pretty good, Hank. Who thought it up for you?
Here’s another good one also from the President’s own transcripts, Sept. 7, 2002:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html
THE PRESIDENT: “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”
Gee, Mr. President, how about evidence that isn’t a total fabrication?
The text of the actual report, authored by IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, reads: “There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.” [Washington Times, 9/27/02]
What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive . . .
It’s now almost 11 a.m. Thursday, and still no comment from Hank.
Clear and blatant lie number three:
In his first debate with Gore, Oct 3, 2000 “By far the vast majority of the help (tax cuts) go to those at the bottom end of the economic ladder.”He repeated the same line with John McCain in the primary debates.
Despite widespread media criticism, Bush loved this line.
FACT–the bottom 60 percent received 14.7 percent of tax savings. The top 40 percent received 85.3 percent. The top 1 percent received over 50 percent.
The vast majority of Bush’s tax cuts went to the very richest Americans, not the poorest, as he surely must have known.
Of course, he may be a complete and utter idiot.
Or he may be a liar and idiot at the same time. Given the way Iraq is turning out, I’d opt for the last choice.
What you see with Bush is exactly what the Republicans tried to do to Clinton–establish a PATTERN of lying.
This is what we see. Time after time, what Bush says does not match the simple facts, and yet he continues to say what he must know to be false.
“People will believe a big lie sooner than a small one,” Hitler.
Um, Antares, we gave Hank just what he wanted and wasn’t getting….Attention. We let the old Perv hyjack the thread.
I’m so disappointed. I was really looking forward to Hank’s rebuttal.
Yup, Tara, that’s the story on this pResident. The people who take the time to see what he REALLY does and what he REALLY stands for, get more and more disillusioned with him.
I don’t want to hate Bush, I don’t want to believe he’s a despicable liar. I’d like to believe that our country is led by a decent man who is concerned first and foremost with American’s welfare.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I take no pleasure in “winning” these kinds of arguments, for by winning, I only show how we’re all losing . . .
Sorry gentle people, but I’ve been away from my ‘puter all day. Really not trying to avoid you all.
Dear Antares,
And the lie is? At the time President Bush made this statement I think he really did believe these trucks were mobile labs. I still think they probably were. They wee made in Germany. At the time they were discovered everyone seemed pretty sure they sere mobile labs. A few weeks before the presidents statement Powell or Rumsfield said they were labs.
Then the story they were portable hydrogen generators came out. Really? Of course everyone on the left immediately believed that! They were used to make hydrogen for weather balloons. Of course, no weather balloons were ever found. There is no evidence that the Sadman cared enough about the weather to launch a balloon.
But, if you wanted to launch a balloon, why not have Germany build you a couple of trucks to make hydrogen? Quarter million a piece. Keep ‘em secret, why?, because they don’t want anyone to know they are paying $500,000.00 to make hydrogen with a truck they can hide (and do hide) when you can buy helium for $50.00 a bottle.
What amazes me is not the twisted way liberals try to find evidence the president is a liar, but the amount of evidence that he is not a liar they have to wade through to find it! WMD, WMD, there is no WMD’s. It doesn’t matter. The democrats are still using that straw man to discredit the president and it doesn’t matter. It’s not the only reason we went to war. It’s not the most important reason we went war.
Sorry Antares, you’ve given me know evidence that what the president said was untrue. Furthermore, if it these trucks are hydrogen generators, or good humor ice cream trucks (more believable) there is still no evidence that the good President was trying to deceive us.
Nice try though,
Hank
Well done, Hank.
You have proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that right-wingers even when presented with unequivocal proof of a damned lie will crab and parse and clutch at any straw to avoid the truth.
“a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: ‘They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.’”
But YOU know more than the WMD expert . . . you, sitting at home in front of your computer know more than someone who has studied and researched and examined the mobile weapons lab in the field first hand.
The reason that the reports were that the trucks were “mobile weapons labs” were the same reason that aluminum tubes were “nuclear devices” and that 500 tons of botulism toxin turned out to be Bush’s imagination and a length of string.
Thanks for proving what we already knew, when confronted with the clear facts, you will draw any conclusion so long as it doesn’t conflict with the holy-of-holies, that George W. Bush is a man we can trust.
*****
That was very entertaining, btw. In Henry 4th Part 1, Falstaff and his three friends rob some rich travellers and then Prince Hal and Poins (in disguise) rob Falstaff and company.
Falstaff returns with a cockandbull story of how he fought off dozens of attackers. It’s quite entertaining too . . .
Try the next two clear and blatant lies. Let’s see how that goes, Sir Hank . . .
My dear Antares,
I actually know a lot about oxygen generators. In fact, I could once have been considered an expert. I’ve seen the pictures of the mobile labs in question, and I can’t say they are biological weapons labs, but they don’t seem to have any of the characteristics required of a hydrogen generator.
Common sense. Let’s use some. Where are all of the weather balloons and why would he require them? If he used weather balloons, why not buy bottled helium? Why pick the most expensive and logistically difficult way in the world to blow up a balloon? If you needed to make your own hydrogen why not have a central facility and fill bottles? Or maybe….the balloon story was just a cover?
But wait, now we have found out that Germany, France, Russia and several other countries were supplying Iraq with materials and equipment in violation of UN agreements. Could the oil for food scandal have anything to do with it?
Since you like to give me references, here’s one: http://www.cnn.com/2003/world/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/index.htmlIt is one of the stories on CNN about mobile labs. Saddam had them on trucks, railroad cars, buried near weapons stations, etc., so-on-and-so-forth.
We have literally found hundreds of them. Now, you find two that a British agent says there was no evidence had been used and all of a sudden Bush is a liar. The rules you agreed to were simple. Agree to the definition of a lie. Agree to the definition of a lier. You failed to prove the lie.
You are the failure my dear, sorry.
Hank
“It’s not the only reason we went to war. It’s not the most important reason we went war.”
Ahem. I don’t mean to interrupt, but I just want to paste this. Carry on, Hank and Antares.
Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is VERY CLEAR: disarmament.” [emphasis mine][3/6/03]
“When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.”–Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”Letter to President Clinton.- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 |
But, gentle readers, Bush is a liar?
The problem with tough talk is that if you don’t back it up someday the bastards will attack you.
Hank
The
Sir Hank Falstaff–See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You use a citation from CNN in April 2003 that quotes Colin “Tons of Botulism Toxin” Powell as saying they found several BURIED CHEMICAL LABS.
But you completely IGNORE the story the story that came out a week later also from CNN that reads”KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) — The buried labs U.S. troops found last week were not the mobile chemical and biological weapons labs one U.S. Army general suspected, according to the head of an expert team brought in to examine them.”
This is exactly what the Bush people do, they make these widely reported outrageous claims, and only later does the truth quietly dribble out–no, everything they said was wrong, oh well . . .
It’s like the majority of Americans who still believe, because of Bush’s shilling, that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together, even though when pressed directly on it they have to admit there was no evidence of this.
Here’s the definitive report–Bush’s own handpicked team after spending two years and millions of our tax payer dollars searching reported THIS:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
“In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq’s WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq’s nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.”
Okay, that’s the bottom line, the last word, the end of story. If you can’t accept that, you can’t accept what any reasonable person accepts as true, and I’ll be forced to conclude that you’re not a reasonable person.
As Sir John Falstaff would put it, “Bush is a liar, that’s his profession, it’s no sin to labor in one’s profession.”
As for the democrats who lined up to condemn Saddam and his weapons, they disgust me too. They were so eager to look just as tough as Bush after 9-11 that they went along with all this crap.
Yes, they too in large part share the blame of our wrongheaded and tragic involvement in Iraq.
Two wrongs still don’t make a right.
Since I’ve clearly won this round, let’s move on to round two–”the vast majority of my tax cuts help those at the bottom of the economic ladder.”
Let’s see you tortue logic on that one . . .
Bush: “To those who say that we haven’t found Weapons of Mass Destruction, they’re wrong. We found them.”
Duelfer report: “Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them.”
Interviewer: “What mistakes have you made as President?”
Bush: “I can’t think of any.”
Dearest Antares,
So, in your little world, everybody is a liar! President Bush goes public with something that he thinks is true, Something that I can find quotes from over twenty democrats that believe it is true also, something that most major intelligence aencies from around the world also think is true, and you find one or two things that are evidence that some of it may be wrong, and everybody is a liar.
The rules were simple. You failed to prove that Bush was a liar. I submit to you that you are so against war for any reason that you would rather submit to radical muslim extremists than fight for your freedom.
As far as the tax cuts go, you do not posess the basic knowledge of economoics to even discuss this subject intelligently. In George Bush’s tax plan the people at the lowest end of the ladder don’t get tax cuts, THEY DON’T PAY TAXES! However, in his plan the do get tax credits and more help in other ways. The problem with our tax code is that presently half of the Americans don’t pay income taxes. The democrats have the debate so screwed up that people like you can no longer talk intelligently about income taxes. They present it as a fight between the haves and the have nots, class warfare. The very way you approach the subject shows that you will never understand the problem. The whole liberal democratic approach to the debate is a lie.
Most of your posts in the WE blog have very little of substance. You add little to the debate. Calling everyone with a different political position a liar has all of the debating skill of a spoiled pre-schooler.
I post here for my amusement, I am beginning to find your posts tedious. Your arguments are repetitive and without substance.
Sincerely,
Hank Price
Hank–
Let’s think this through. You say that poor people don’t even pay income taxes.
How then can Bush claim that the “vast majority of the benefits go to the bottom?”
If I make 25,000 and I normally would pay 1000 dollars in taxes and Bush gives me a tax break and I pay nothing, that’s great.
But let’s say I’m Dick Cheney and I make 36 million dollars like he did for six months work? And he saved 6 million dollars on his taxes thanks to his pal W.
Who benefitted more, would you say?
What is tiresome about this argument is the inability of the right wing to see that 90 percent of what W. says is a damned lie.
“A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.” Shakespeare (in a prescient prediction of our 43rd president.)
Well Hank, you’re sounding pretty smug there, old-timer. And I have to admit, it’s real hard to pin George down on an outright lie (at least a lie that fits your definition). Mostly, Bush is guilty of stupidity. But he’s also a liar. (Stupid liar? LOL)I believe your definition was:
Lie
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Hank, would you like to issue the same challenge to me?
Dearest Antares,
My little war protester. Why don’t you use real numbers to pose your question? You pretend that Bush’s buddy Cheney has profited by his association with the good president. Do you even know the finacial sacrifice that man has made by being GWB’s running mate? Do you have any idea how much money he was making before he ran for vice president? Do you in any way understand the personal sacrifice he has made to again take political office?
Oh, I know that your six million dollar imaginary figure seems to be a lot to you, but it probably cost him much, much more than that when he aggreed to put his investments into a blind trust the day he accepted the role as vice president.
Your previous post, with its imaginary numbers proves that you are too ignorant of ecnomicss and the tax code to intelligently discuss George W Bush’s tax cut policy.
In time of war, his tax cuts have resulted in an all time low unemployment rate. Just two weeks ago it was announced that the projected deficit will be more than 100 billion less than expected. Out economy is booming. That helps the ‘little guy’.
Ah, Shakespeare, (I’ve had tea in his garden) at least that’s an improvement over Al Frankin! Reading Shakespeare won’t make you any smarter on economics, but at least it won’t dumb you down like the works of Frankin have.
Sincerely,
Hank
I guess I’ll just have to start refering to Hank as “Old Yeller”.
Dearest Hammer,
My little Texas cowboy. It’s not my definition. dictionary.com. And no my friend, you don’t seem to be any smarter than Antares. At least she has passion. She takes the time to at least find some sources that back up her left wing nitwittery.
You my friend are just bitter. You go around with that chip on you shoulder and contribute even less to the discussion than Antares. At least Antares has never called me a liar. You sir, have either called me and everyone else you have disagreed with either a liar of insinuated that we were liars. Over things that you have no knowledge of or way of ever gaining any knowledge of.
No, kind sir I think I will decline. George W Bush is very intelligent. He is an honest, straight forward man. An honorable man. He has brought dignity back to the office of the president. He doesn’t need some poor broken down old perv defending him.
The democrats that disparage him constantly also believe he is honest and intelligent. They are afraid of him and what he stands for. That is why they get up every morning and try to convince the fools that make up their base that he is stupid and dishonest. That is why they will continue losing elections for the next 25 years.
The way I was raised, it is a very serious thing to call a man a liar. In my opinion, to call a man a liar without proof is worse than being a liar. That is why it is so dispicable to call a man a liar for nothing more than a politcial advantage. Fortuantely, the fools that believe it are becoming fewer and fewer.
Sincerely,
Hank
Ah, listen to the pot call the kettle black.
I knew you’d “crawdad”.
So there we have it. The final word from “Old Yeller”.
(Cue Chicken noises).
My little Texas cowboy, is Hammer your real name?
Hank
How many times I gotta answer that for you? You’ve asked me that several times now…is this leading somewhere, or are you trying out for a position as the poster-child for Dementia?
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if my first name was “Jack”? Or how about “Mike”? Maybe “Brad”? Now see there Hank, you got me laughing again!
And would it be somehow dishonest to use the name “Hammer” If my name was Hammerskjold? Or Hammerstein (wouldn’t Ed have a field day with that)? Or Hammersky (Polish-Jewish….ACK!)
What’s in a name?
“A Rose by any other name is just as sweet!”
Hank, the answer is out there. Seek and ye shall find.
Why even bother with Hank? Hank is a ditto head hannitized deceptive moron.Yo Hank? What happened to your image as the kindly old VFW guy?But in true liberal fashion, I seek to understand. Hey hank? What is it that you do? (I mean besides hanging around the VFW)Calling ya out hank.I helped expose nathan for what he is and I made YOU lose your cool and your cover.So help us understand the mind of the hannitized ditto-head.Hank? I call your president a liar. Serious enough for ya?Oh and hank? As to our numbers getting “fewer and fewer” I’d encourage you to wear a pro-bush identifier. My 11 year old son can kick shins pretty hard.
JR, I have unfinished business with “Old Yeller” (Hank). I didn’t realize how easy it would be to make him chicken out. Notice when I challenged him, he ran away like a little girl.
(Cue more chicken noises)
So my little Texas cowboy, its a simple question. Is Hammer your real name? Yes or no?
Hank
And as I said, the answer is out there. If you’d have paid a modicum of attention, you’d know.
(Cue Chickens)
Poor “Old Yeller”. Stuck in the naming of names, confined by the rigidity of a definition. “There are none so blind as those who will not see”. But he sees not.
We have a conundrum here. If I say my name is Hammer, what if it’s not? If I say it’s not (suspecting some foul plot), what if it is?
I am who I am, Hank. Just a simple travler on the information highway. I am Hammer.
(Cue Chickens)
Ah, my dear Hammer,
Perhaps the question is to subtle. You see, I don’t care what your name is. I merely ask in a way to show the real chicken in the discussion. You see my anonymous friend, the answer is in the question.
You are chicken.
It is a yes or no answer. If the answer is no and you don’t answer you are a chicken. You bravely post disparaging remarks under an assumed name. You are so proud of your views that you don’t want them connected to your real name. Furthernmore, you are so chicken that you won’t even admit it is an assumed name.
On the other hand, if Hammer is your real name and you won’t admit it, then you are chicken again.
So you see my friend the question does not seek an answer. By asking I merely demonstrate the quality of the character of a man that will bravely hide behind a phoney name.
Sincerely,
Hank
My dearest JR,
Another person that brings a wealth of information to the discussion! So, I’m on the run? From a mental midget that somehow in his twisted world view thinks that I should be ashamed of belonging to the VFW?
Did you ever figure out the requirements to belong to the VFW?
Actually, Rush and Hannity are pretty mainstream. I enjoy and listen to Michael Savage and G. Gordon Liddy more than anyone else. Now that should get your little patriotic panties in even a bigger bunch!
Hank
PS What was my ‘cover’ anyway?
Ah, but Hank, I have answered your question directly, and in no uncertian terms. I gave you the answer in the format you required (a simple yes or no). If it’s quality of character we’re discussing, it simply shows that you’re so wrapped up in the fog of your unfounded notions that you don’t read, or at least comprehend a simple straightforward answer. But my experience is, you miss a lot of things. You lead me to suspect a cognizant dislocation in your thought process. You don’t really read the answers we post, all you have in mind is your next flippant post.
You have a history of mis-reading, demonstrated throughout these threads. You need to work on that. Hiding behind a phoney name? I’m not hiding behind anything. The answer is plain for all to see in no uncertian terms. I have told you twice, straight up, the answer to your question. Open your eyes and your mind.
(Cue Chickens, sans Roosters)
I think we all learned something from this exchange. I wondered if it were possible for a hard-core right-winger (Sir Hank) to admit when confronted with unequivocal proof of Bush either lying or at least saying things that he COULD NOT KNOW were true because they hadn’t been shown true, whether Sir Hank could admit that Bush lied or at least spoke as if he knew something he couldn’t have known, thereby “giving the appearance” of a certitude when that is impossible.
“To those people who said we haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction, they’re wrong. We found them.”
Nope . . . this statement is no problem for Hank. 1. We really DID find the weapons. I know because I live in Kansas and years ago served on a submarine. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, Duelfer and his definitive report, we really did find them. Just listen to what the Bush administration said, at least before they stopped talking about it . . .
So I give up. It truly is a waste of time to argue with a fool, just like the old saying goes.
If there was an “ignore” button on this website, I’d put Hank on it. I really expected more from him, at least a willingness to consider facts . . .
And as if that isn’t bad enough, instead of dealing with the outrageous lie that “the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the very bottom,” he just ad-hominem’s me about my knowledge of economics and the great “sacrifice” Cheney made by becoming VP.
It is on record from Cheney’s income tax form that in one six month period he made 36 million dollars. Given W.’s tax breaks for the rich that year, Cheney saved some 6 million. These are simple facts, easily checked.
But like the Duelfer report, facts don’t matter to the people like Hank whose minds are already made up.
It’s scary, isn’t it . . . knowing that there are millions of Americans out there like Hank who are going to vote for Bush-types because they talk tough and swagger and are rich Texans.
“I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just, and his justice will not sleep forever.” Thomas Jefferson
Hank, what does it take to get you to understand that a lot of vets don’t give a damn about the VFW? You carry on about the requirements to join the VFW. I don’t see why anyone would care. A lot of us see no reason to sit around with a bunch of dotering old men discussing old wars. Hank, I’ve been to a few VFW posts for various reasons. They’re usually tired, dusty places. How many members in your post are under 30? How many are 60 or older? Just a guess, I’ll bet a large majority of the members of your post are past retirement age. Sounds like a crashing bore to me.
(Cue old men snorting and wheezing sounds)
Dear Hammer,
My little Texas cowboy. Sorry I missed your answer, is Hammer your real name, yes or no.
Hank
Dear Hammer,
As far as the VFW goes, I think I mentioned it first to make a point about medals. Then, all of a sudden I was ‘bragging’. One of the great intellectual giants that post around here also carefully explained to everyone that since I was on submarines all of my medals didn’t mean much, just unit awards that everyone on the sub recieved.
I know a lot of vets don’t care about the VFW, and I know that a lot of people think they are just a bunch of old men that set around and drink and brag about old wars. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the members don’t talk about war. You see, for them it’s not an abstract thing. It’s not something that they have seen on TV or heard about from others. It’s real. For many of them it is still to painful to talk about.
The VFW is made up of men that have been in harms way in time of war. There are more vets that don’t qualify for the VFW than do. They have a lot of community service projects. Scholorship programs. Educational programs for the schools. We support little league teams, boy and girl scout troops and many, many more programs for children. We volunteer at the veteran’s hospitals. We actively lobby for legislation that helps our current servicemen and their families.
And yes, you might be suprised by the number of younger men that have joined since the first Gulf War. Men that are proud of their service and want to still have a venue to serve their countries and communities. Young men that are not ashamed of their service. Young men that are not uncomfortable in the presence of other wariors and patriots.
On second thought, maybe I was bragging a little bit. Being a past commander of a VFW post is something I am very proud of. It is something that is deminished in no way by the fact that some ‘vets don’t care’. The men in the various VFW posts I have belonged to are the finest men in the world. They are the men that have put their lives on the line so that you and the rest of the mental midgets in this county can enjoy the freedoms that you have.
No, Hammmer my little Texas cowboy, don’t tell me about the VFW. Don’t tell me about your service, I don’t care. The men in the VFW are still serving their country. Don’t try to disparage my service and at the same time show disrespect for the other veterans, living and dead, that have sacrificed for their country. Just say thankyou.
Your welcome,Hank
Why thank you Hank. I must admit that I really don’t have any idea what the VFW is about. As I said before, I never paid much attention. But if what you say is true, then I’ve obviously labored under a false impression and judged the VFW according to my opinion of you.
In view of what you’ve said and my own research (You know I wasn’t going to take your word), I offer my abject appoligy to the VFW for any insult I’ve aimed in their direction.
And never forget, John Kerry qualifies for the VFW. So does Al Gore.
George W. Bush doesn’t.
Ironic, isn’t it . . .
Twister, that was good! wonder what the old Poop will have to say about that?
Dear Hammer,
I accept your apology for the VFW.
Hank
Thanks
Dear Twister,
As Commander-in-Chief, I think GW qualifies for an honorary membership. If I remember right, Gore is a member and Kerry isn’t.
Hank
Once again, bush gets something he didn’t earn and doesn’t qualify for.
Well, you’re right, Hank . . . W has CREATED a lot of veterns of a foreign (Iragmire) war. Unfortunately, close to 1,800 of those veterns are DEAD.
Until Bush puts his own a## on the line or one of his daughters, he remains the stinking hypocrite he always was . . . Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, wow . . . Kerry was getting shot at and W was drinking shots.
No way he qualifies except as a vetern shirker.
My, My, Twister,
We seem to be a little bitter. How long before you get your panties out of a wad over Bush’s military service?
Hank
What military service?
Dear Hammer,
I’m sorry. I forgot that in your little world service in the National Guard is somehow dishonorable.
Well, in the real world, volunteering to fly fighters in the Air National Guard is still considered military service.
Hank
Hank, I figure it’s like climbing into a little boat and hiding uunder water. Not really as dangerous as, oh, say being shot at. Oh well, I guess they COULD give out medals for heroic hiding. Bet you saw some ferocious firefights on your little boat.
There ya go Hammer,
Disparaging my service and you know absolutely nothing about any of the medals I have earned.
I think this same ignorance carries over into almost everything you post.
You might get a copy of the book, Blindman’s Bluff. It documents submarine operations during the cold war. It explains a lot of what went on while we were ‘hiding underwater’. You are getting almost to pathetic to communicate with.
I do wonder why it is that my honorable service in the USN is so threatening to you.Hank
Bitter? That a former AWOL fly-boy sends my son to Iraq to put his life on the line for a pack of lies?
You’re right, living in Bush’s America is a growing experience. I’ve grown bitter, at the lies, at the lost lives, at the sacrifice of the nation so that the ruling junta can profit.
Oh give it a break, Hank. You were a sea-going bell-hop. You played hide and seek and snoop and poop with the Reds. I’m not impressed.
Oh, and Hank, I’m not disparaging the Navy, I’m disparaging you.
I give up Hammer. You are too stupid to carry on an intelligent discussion.
I wrote:
“Disparaging my service and you know absolutely nothing about any of the medals I have earned.”
I said nothing about disparaging the Navy. Read before you write.
Hank
And to you Twister,
Congratulations! You have raised a better man than you are! If your son is in Iraq it is because he volunteered to serve his country.
No one drafted him!
Again, tell him thanks for his service. My prayers are with him.
Hank
Knew I could back you down, old timer.