Sure, they’re deserters. That’s why they’re able to appear on a widely viewed television show.

Prove that you’re sane.

Prove that you have an ounce of common sense.

And while you’re at it, prove that you’re nothing but a troll.

Check these out:

Chris Matthews and guest Republican–TX-17 candidate Van Taylor (with guest Paul Hackett) on Hardball debating the Iraq war.http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/22/paul-hackett-on-hardball-2/(This is priceless!)

“They call themselves the Band of Brothers, about 50 men – and a few women – all Democrats, all opposed to the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq, and all military veterans. One more thing: They’re all running for Congress this year. Not since 1946 have so many vets from one party come together in a political campaign, they claim. Their wildest dream is to give the Democratic Party the extra edge it needs – by boosting its weak image on defense and patriotism – to end Republican control of the House.… (more)”http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.html

Prove that McCain DIDN’T sire an illegitimate child at some point in South Carolina.

But, when confronted with similar demands he just dodges like a typical BushBot.

Moments like these have tested the resolve of previous presidents, Hirsh writes.

“George W. Bush is going to Kennebunkport, where he’ll test his golf skills with Poppy.”

********************************************************************

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Joe – YOU are the one making the wild accusations. It is YOUR job to provide proof. You have failed to do so.

NEXT!

By the way, according to my sources, Bush likes to ‘play’ with little boys when he is stoned on crack. PROVE THAT IS NOT TRUE!

Hey Joe, if you take this bet, could you let some of the rest of us know. I’d like to talk to you about betting some serious money!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html

There are downsides to the plan not mentioned in this op/ed. Would Turkey invade an independent Kurdish country? Would Iran have a pretty strong influence on any Shi’ite state? The majority of Sunni’s don’t live in parts of the country where there is much oil — can they be given enough of the oil wealth?

These downsides are definitely challenges, but grappling with them might be better than “stay the course — and try to stay out of the line of fire” Bush plan. His plan is to hand off the mess to the next president. Great plan, huh?

They also believe that Republicans stoled and cheated in the elections of 2000 and 2004.

You haven’t came up with any proof the says otherwise. I posted my link with the poll numbers that proved it.

Next!

That’s about as accurate as it gets. I was in Vietnam late (71-72) and everybody in power was making plans to get out. And they happily sold us out to do it.

Why did we forget the lessons of Vietnam? How could all you republicans so conveniently forget history?

History tells us that no occupying army has ever defeated an insurgency. It’s never happened before…it ain’t gonna happen now.

Joe,”Sure! We can talk about the failures and mistakes overthere time and time again, but there are also many successes and I’m betting that we do succeed there.”

Define “succeed”. If by succeed you mean we’ll leave a democratically elected government that lasts more than a year and a stable country, I got $100 that says you’re all wet. Care to put some money where your mouth is?

Don’t try to lecture me on the aftermath of the fall of South Vietnam. My family hosted a former South Vietnamese guerrilla from 1978-1979. I was at least as close to what happened there as you, and probably closer, since my church in Southern California, St. Anselm’s Episcopal, was a central actor in the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees in Garden Grove (known as “Little Saigon”).

Was there a bloodletting in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon? Absolutely. But that wasn’t my point, which, predictably, you seem to have missed. My point was that the situation in Vietnam is PREFERABLE to the situation in a failed state such as Somalia. I did not say it was “OK” on its own terms. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.

More to the point, the numbers associated with the fall of Saigon range from a low estimate of 65,000 people killed to double or triple that figure. A lot of folks, to be sure. To date, in Iraq, the civilian body count ranges from 40,092 to 45,144. That’s the baseline. If full-blown civil war develops from the current, limited sectarian war that is currently underway, the numbers could go way, way higher. And as should be obvious, none of us want to see that.

Finally, the good Cap’n is right: the government of South Vietnam was hardly a “stable” government. Try “puppet state supported to further U.S. interests.”

Historical accuracy, Heckler, historical accuracy. College courses are calling you!

Your ignorance is appalling . . . you must be a right-winger.

The only thing stable about the South Vietnamese gov’t was their ability to salt their secret bank accounts with US taxpayer money.

But who could blame them?

After the CIA shot dead President Diem for not being enough of a U.S. puppet, no S. Vietnamese with any brains would take a “leadership” position.

They all knew S. Vietnam was going to fail. That’s why they made plans to bail out and used graft and corruption to fund their escape.

It’s what any thinking Iraqi in this charade of a government is doing too.

First of all, we haven’t failed yet in Iraq, as much as some people seem to hope we do. Second, it WAS a bloodbath in South Vietnam after we left. I have friends and co-workers who lived through it. What I find astonishing is that you seem to think that it was OK because a somewhat stable government took over. GOOD GOD CF, there was a stable government in place before the North invaded!!!

What twisted logic CF, you must be a college professor.

The difference, Paul, is those deaths are for a reason–stopping Nazism or meeting transportation needs.

The deaths in Iraq are a total waste. And entirely preventable.

Case in point is the attempted coup of Hugo Chavez in Venezula in 2002. He was democratically elected twice.

Bush announced this week that we will be in Iraq through the rest of his term. One suspected that would be the case, but he clearly confirmed that recently. This commitment to Iraq raises the question of what would be the best role for the U.S. military to assume in the middle of this sectarian civil war? Is there anything besides counting casualties that we could be doing?

As for me, I can’t see where we can do much of anything, but try to stay out of the line of fire. Not a good place to be. And, if this is the best we can do, how can we have any alternative but to bring our troops home?