the right's effort to pass the blame for this administration's RESOUNDING failure is breathtaking.

its "everyone else's fault" is a key talking point i expect to hear over and over as we get closer to the election.

the FACT REMAINS; a distinct, well-defined, PROVEN majority of the populace know that passing the blame for failure (an action this admin is exemplary at perpetrating) does not in any way get this administration (nor its blinded supporters) off the hook nor out of hot water. pundits can breathe fire and attack the press over and over, but it does nothing to further their case for redemption in the face of such catastrophic results.

no one, NO ONE, except those marines responsible (like their counterparts in abu ghraib) should shoulder the emotional weight of such tragic actions. no one is responsible for their actions except themselves - not you, not me, not the press, not anti-war protesters. to those who lay the blame for the actions of others at the feet of those who dare REPORT what a cluster-f*ck this asinine war really is, well, i say, point the finger back to your dear leader, who made the decision to EMBED so many reporters in the first place hoping that the show of firepower and bravado would win over the hearts of the americans at home watching from their TV sets. of course, when the reality of war unfolds, and we are forced to confront that which is real about war, the fingers start pointing the OTHER way (how convenient). [sigh] the hypocrisy...

Looks like bloviator has already made his choice, without evidence and a complete investigation. Yeah, the left supports the troops.

Michael Yon (a reporter who WANTED to be embedded with the military, like all the others) has several excellent viewpoints on the subject on his blog (from people who are ACTUALLY there).

Forgot to post the link:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

Hmm, remember about 2 months ago when Bush went on the "Blame Saddam" kick and started trying to pin the mess over there on Saddam, imprisioned for months and months and months previous to that.

People didn't buy into that one bit and he stopped using it. Then they went into blame the media mode. People arent buying that either.

People are not stupid, they know who caused the war, they have a pretty good idea why it went sideways and they definately know who was responsible.

You can blame the liberals, you can blame saddam, you can blame the media, but fact is that mainstream america is waiting for the GOP to grow a set and admit to their participation and failures and shortsightedness

Hey Axis and Bloviator-

Have you noticed that the conservativos are burning up space blogging about gay marriage on this site, but here it's strangely silent?
Passing the blame is all they have left now. They can't see an end to this so it's all BAD LIBERAL PRESS, THE LEFT WANTS US TO FAIL, DEFEATIST LEFT WING etc.

For a movement that prides itself on personal responsiblity, this passing the buck crap is truly pathetic.

For a movement that prides itself on personal responsiblity, this passing the buck crap is truly pathetic.

Indeed. Home Simpson once lamented, "Oh, this everybody's fault but mine!" Most of us took it as a joke. The current GOP adopted it as a slogan.

Remember: Lousy planning is the press's fault, not Donald Rumsfeld's.

To me it seems like the right has one of two responses for everyone when dealing with a highly unpopular war, and its equally unpopular wartime president: "Shut up if you don't have anything nice to say" or "If you aren't supporting OUR war, you're not supporting OUR troops".

The mere fact that we raise our voices against something that to us seems wrong, is a blank check to question our commitment to our communities and the people who reside there. When I say that I don't support the "collateral damage" or the complete lack of context about the real reasons these people are fighting, I get yelled at for being anti-american, but i don't think of the american people in the same way as the american political machine, they are two distinctly different things.

As one who was there (vietnam) lets look at the actual history (remenber one who fails to study history is damned to repeat it). The French ruled what was indoChina for years until defeated by General Gap at denbenu (spelling sorry) then the partion agreement (signed by then president Eisenhower was to allow elections throughout both North and South on reunifation. However, Ho was seen in the view of the cold war as a communist not the nationaist he really was..(a side note..for you that need a history lesson.. look it up and find out what the North Vietnam constution is modeled after) Hence the state department (under the gun from that great hero os the right Joe Mc. and his witchhunts) scuttled the agreement, convinced the South that a national vote was not in their interests and we send "advisors" into the South in early 55... the rest of the history follows,,, and any person who will read a true history will realize we in fact had no right to interven in that country's internal affairs.

As one who was there (vietnam) lets look at the actual history (remenber one who fails to study history is damned to repeat it). The French ruled what was indoChina for years until defeated by General Gap at denbenu (spelling sorry) then the partion agreement (signed by then president Eisenhower was to allow elections throughout both North and South on reunifation. However, Ho was seen in the view of the cold war as a communist not the nationaist he really was..(a side note..for you that need a history lesson.. look it up and find out what the North Vietnam constution is modeled after) Hence the state department (under the gun from that great hero os the right Joe Mc. and his witchhunts) scuttled the agreement, convinced the South that a national vote was not in their interests and we send "advisors" into the South in early 55... the rest of the history follows,,, and any person who will read a true history will realize we in fact had no right to interven in that country's internal affairs.

Ohio,

Watch out man, the folks around here don't like history that shows when America puts its nose into other nations for our own political/economic gains. They get a little hot around the collar when you remind them that the American government does what is in its best interest, not the best interest of its people; then huff and puff when reminded that we often reap the bitter fruits of our transgressions. But thanx for the reminder on history.

First, thank you for your service OhioGolfer, and I apologize for the Left crapping on you when you returned from your tour of duty in Vietnam.

Second, I'd like to have one person give me proof that Saddam did not have WMD and that it wasn't spirited off to Syria as reported by two top Saddam aides and a scientist in Syria. And also, give me your thoughts on the audiotapes that were recently re-released at the Intelligence Summit in March. You know ... the ones on which Saddam and his top aides are discussing their WMD and the UN inspections?

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1644&cid=2&sid=38

First, thank you for your service OhioGolfer, and I apologize for the Left crapping on you when you returned from your tour of duty in Vietnam.

Second, I'd like to have one person give me proof that Saddam did not have WMD and that it wasn't spirited off to Syria as reported by two top Saddam aides and a scientist in Syria. And also, give me your thoughts on the audiotapes that were recently re-released at the Intelligence Summit in March. You know ... the ones on which Saddam and his top aides are discussing their WMD and the UN inspections?

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1644&cid=2&sid=38

kimberly4bush, i won't sit here and be accused of not supporting this or that bc i stand up and question this "pass the buck" mentality that pervades certain entrenched ideologies around these parts...

you can pull your hat over your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and sing zip-a-dee-do-da all day long, but 'reality' and 'truth' have a strange inertial quality about them - they tend to stick in people's minds once revealed.

As regards blaming everyone, Mr. Bush has clearly shown his leadership in quickly determining the source of blame and dealing with it.

Rather than purge the entire military after Abu Ghraib, he wisely kept the focus narrowly on the actual people who committed acts in front of a camera.

The fact that the left and the MSM share the overwhelming majority of responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq puts the libbies in a spin, as shown by their comments here. You can't lose the war and then not admit, and accept blame for, the mistakes you made.

I'm glad someone brought up the gay marriage issue as it pertains to this, because it is that very sort of pro-gay, pro-goat-sex liberalism that ruins morale at home and abroad and furthers our goals in Iraq.

Think big picture, folks.

I was commenting on your statement:

"no one, NO ONE, except those marines responsible (like their counterparts in abu ghraib) should shoulder the emotional weight of such tragic actions. no one is responsible for their actions except themselves"

It made it sound like you had already convicted the Marines. Perhaps you should have said, "No one except those Marines ALLEGEDLY responsible ..."

kimberly4bush, don't bring up facts to the left they'll ignore the facts and start in on their childish behavior. Bloviator just gave us an example. Ignore what you said and go on to some real immature rant. They also ignore that they are doing exactly what they are accusing us of, what a bunch of carp.

ahh History,, if we had studied what happened to the French maybe our own little affair in a country that in '55 few Anericans could find on a globe, would have been more succesful.. Maybe if we went there with a few folks who knew the language, who knew the culture and were not so shocked when a Buddeist monk burned himself in the middle of Siagon...maybe.....

and appearently we still have not learned,, Vietnam was a insurgent war,,,, like the one we are fighting in Iraq... and like Vietnam we when there with but few personnel who spoke the language,, understood the culture,,, who know why the sunni and shities are opposed to each other ... Ahh History....

Most of the violence and wanton killing of civilians is being committed by former regime elements and their al qaeda allies. Bush is not wrong to point this out, however, much of what we currently face perhaps could have been prevented with better planning and better execution. The administration and the military planners will need to accept responsibilty for this aspect. They seem to be sorely lacking in this area. I think a second look at some of our policies is in order. That said, there is no guarantee that had we have followed other suggested courses of action that the situation would have been any better than it is now. For all we know, it may have been even worse. Ultimately a leader should be judged by what they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish. To this end Bush has failed in the following areas: 1.)The administration and congress have spent money like drunken sailors. 2.)The administration has failed to do anything meaningful to secure the borders. 3.) The US has spent to much time relying on multilateral institutions that do not always have American interests at heart.

It is to early to determine if the Iraq policy will be succeed or fail. Decisive action will be needed to break the current stalemate. We will need to understand that Al Qaeda, former regime elements who make up the insurgency who are allied with Al Qaeada, and the Marxists of Russia and China who are closely allied with the terrorists supporting states pose a direct survival threat to America and the western world. Attempts to appease Nazi Germany did not work and attempts to appease the current enemy are unlikely to work. Perhaps some form of containment, while not the optimal solution, could work. Also, we should learn from the Israelis. Their attempts to appease the international community have not worked and have gotten them nothing. The staunchly pro-Palestinian policies of the Bush administration have gotten them nothing, as well. Another look at some of our policies is defintitely in order.

ok - no one except those marines allegedly responsible.. i stand corrected

but the greater debate going on here, as con to the core remarks upon above, is that the left should somehow shoulder responsibility for the failures that have transpired in iraq. as if the left has had ANY say whatsoever in steering policy, making the decision to go to war in the first place (not the same as voting for the authorization for the use of force ONLY AS A LAST RESORT and ONLY after all diplomatic channels have been exhausted), holding back funds (NO), holding back body-armor (not the left's fault), ill-equipped humvees (rumsfeld), IED's (umm - insurgents last i checked), the list goes on and on..

this whole the left is wearing on the morale of our troops is a boatload of horsesh*t, you know why? because armed forces radio ONLY carries RIGHTWING RADIO! that's right. the left doesn't even HAVE a voice over there for them to hear..
so the argument is bogus in so many ways its hard to take this debate serisouly. i only do, because it makes me angry that i am accused of somehow being complicit in the failure of this whole charade.

We would have won the Vietnam war (even the Vietcong leader said so in his memoirs). We lost because our administration caved in to the anti-war zealots.

Now, that's a piece of history I DO NOT want to repeat in Iraq.

I'd like to know where you people got the impression that this debate is about the left shouldering the failures of the Iraq war??? Read the initial post.

It states: There are any number of liberal congressmen, commentators and opinion leaders who, like their European counterparts, actively wish America to fail in Iraq because it will mean the failure of the hated Bush presidency.

If a Democrat were in office right now, I would not be hoping for failure because I hated his presidency. I would be hoping for victory. Because America comes first, my party affiliation second.

And PS to bloviator ... our military gets cable tv, including CNN, and has use of the Internet.

Kimberly4bush... I doubt your version of history...there were many problems and one generals memoirs do not erase the true history...our troops were not supported by the govn. multiple tours (sound familiar) a foreign place where adapting made coming back to the states unbearable,,, fragging .. drug use... many problems we are seeing all over again. support ..lack of armor.. too few troops unclear directives.. multiple tours.. and somewhat different using guard troops where all have known each other for a long time and loses are concentrated in a given place, in Nam the companies were make up of troops form all over, your bunkmate may well have come from a different state and in any company few if any came from the same town,, so loses were not felt so badly , don't get me wrong,,, each soldier morns the lost of another,, but when you have known him only a few months and not years or all your life... as with the guard... things are different...as is the mourning back home,, 6 or 7 or some number of loses within a company meant in Nam 6 or 7 funerals in as many states., in Iraq,, it now means 6 or 7 funerals in the same town

And these effects problems cannot be layed at the feet of the liberals...sorry...

Kimberly,

I don't think anyone can PROVE the WMDs were shipped out of the country prior to the invasion, but just as proof is needed before we convict marines, we need prof to go accusing/invading nations (no matter how bad they are) of wrongdoing.

Secondly, think logically about the structure of Saddam's government, it was a centralized, socialist government which was built around the concept that you please the leader, or you might quickly find yourself out of favor...and a mass grave or a torture chamber is where those who curry ill-favor with him ended up. Saddam was rendered pretty much impotent after 1991s war, and the following years of inspections; infact when W came into office him and his administration went out of their way to answer all questions regarding Saddam with the same answer that he was not a threat and that he was being kept quite well in his box, so much so that he couldn't even touch the people in northern iraq which were protected by our no-fly zones. Now if you live in a heavy-handed socialist society the only chance you can ever hope to have of making money was by skimming it off the top, so I would argue that many of the scientists and generals and politicians who were telling Saddam they had WMDs were getting HUGE amounts of money to build things that they knew they could never contruct, but that doesn't mean they couldn't present fancy science projects to wow and amaze generals and Ba'athists, all the while skimming their part, right off the top; this is probably why we have yet to have a single scientist provide any proof, even with iron-clad guarantees from the US to remove them and their families form Iraq and get tons of cash, to turn over the evidence we wanted, NOT ONE...you would think a scientist/truck driver/janitor who could be out of Iraq and on US soil with him and his family would jump at the opportunity to turn over evidence to us.

Kimberly.

Your statement of the "orginal; concept of this discussion leads me to question your proof of this.. Maybe some of us question the wisdom of even being there... maybe we see the same failures of government we have witnessed before and fear the same result,,, maybe we don't see the end goal as obtainable.. we believe the state department and the rest os the government don't truely know the situation,,, do the Kurds want a unified iraq or their own state,, and what do do the Turks feel about a Kurdist state. do we, the government true feel we can bring unification to a centries old fight between the shities and sunni's. It is the failure of Bush and his policies we seek,., but rather a clear well defined and obtainable goal... and pratting off "democracy in iraq" is not the answer unless you can present a clear plan to achieve it..

sorry that last post should read

It is the NOT failure of Bush and his policies we seek,., but rather a clear well defined and obtainable goal...

also sorry for the double posts but the site was giving me trouble.. (must be a liberal webmaaters fault i"m sure)

kimberly,

it so happens that a number of left-wing (if you want to label them as such) sites are in fact forbidden overseas. an itemized list of some of the selective censorship going on:

* Wonkette - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion."
* Bill O'Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) - OK
* Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
* Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) - OK
* ABC News "The Note" - OK
* Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
* G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) - OK
* Don & Mike Show (www.donandmikewebsite.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/) is categorized as: Profanity, Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies."

anyhow, to your first point. yes, i have inadvertently wrapped into this argument a defense of sorts against the vociferous accusations that have been flying of late that the media and the left are somehow to blame for our failures 'over there' (just turn on fox news to appreciate my point). so i should have been more pointed in focusing on the crux of this particular post.

Kimberly

You are truly a GREAT American, and I am sick of guys like OhioDrinker, Third Guy's Open and BlowAviators attacking you in this vicious way.

You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves, with all your hate-filled invective.

Anyone who actually STUDIES history knows that Vietnam was not just "winnable" but was a slam-dunk well on its way until the liberal press hacked it to death and the cut-and-run President decided to leave office and his mess to future Presidents. By the time it was safely in Republicans hands, Nixon was hamstrung by the Democratic Congress, who eventually strung him up on whatever feeble "crimes" they could find in his administration.

We will not let that happen again. We will not let the Democrats in Congress hamstring Bush, regardless of whatever crimes he commits. Victory is the only course in Iraq.

Good work, Kimberly. You and I think alike.

Constipated to the core YOUR BACK, WELCOME !!

Ok enough with the pleasantries.

"The fact that the left and the MSM share the overwhelming majority of responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq puts the libbies in a spin, as shown by their comments here. You can't lose the war and then not admit, and accept blame for, the mistakes you made."

Excuse me?!!!
Have you lost your mind man?!!!!
Where's the logic? The MSM (as you refer to with such paranoia) does'nt make policy decisions, or directs troop movements, or plans strategy for fighting the insurgency. Thats the Decider in Chimp's job. In fact the MSM was kissing your butts up until recently. Before Bush started blowing it in Iraq he was THE GREAT COMMANDER (chris mathews-"Doesn't he look great in the flight suit!!"
Please it's the conservatives who have gotten themselves into a sticky spot , dragging us all with them by the way.

FALAFEL

Conservative,

you mean like the "slam-dunk" we had with Saddam's WMDs?

well con, unlike kimberly, you lack an apparent ability to debate in a non-regressive manner, defaulting to standard name-calling and accusations of hate-filled speech. actually pretty civil until you interjected...

by the way, i had a response to kimberly's last response to me but apparently it is still being moderated? even though i have a typekey login?

You are truly a GREAT American, and I am sick of guys like OhioDrinker, Third Guy's Open and BlowAviators attacking you in this vicious way Comment by Consertative to the core.

Please show my were I have attacked Kimberly in any way less a visious way,. Is argument with out attacking the messenger ( as you do) any attack,,, Please explain your charge and defend it

And Kimnerly you are feel to join in if you feel I have attacked you in any way.

Kimberly-

The left isn't hoping for failure in Iraq. I don't think anyone wants that. We want victory more than anyone. A loss would be the ultimate tragedy in an already obviously foolish venture. What we, meaning the left ,do see is that Iraq is hurdling toward failure. There was never a war that so easily could have been avoided only if we had a commander with a cool and calculated mindset. Someone who really expended all the options.
Simply standing behind the president isn't going to do it anymore. We did that. The press , the left, we all stood behind him, hoped he'd pull it off. Saluted him when inside we felt he may be going in the wrong direction. In the papers and on TV he was lauded, even reveered when in fact he should have been made to answer serious quetions. We held our tonges when we heard unrealistic assertions such as this war would only cost $20 million. It's that same willingness to believe that keeps some people saying that Saddam had WMD. He just sent them to Syria. Can I ask you, what leader, especially a controlling dictator would in their right mind ever give all of his most valuable weapons to another country for safe keeping?
We kept quiet on a whole host of false promises and rosy predictions and now look where we are. Well I say no more.It's time to put feet to fire.
In reality,it's not the left or the media, he's the problem. His foolish hotheaded nature got us into this mess and that same stubborn mentality is refusing to deal with the realities on the ground. I for one knew he wasn't in touch with it when he landed on that carrier and proclaimed victory. And now he's stuck and he is just treading water hoping for some respite. Well I and an overwhelming majority in this country see none.

FALAFEL

Kimberly-

The left isn't hoping for failure in Iraq. I don't think anyone wants that. We want victory more than anyone. A loss would be the ultimate tragedy in an already obviously foolish venture. What we, meaning the left ,do see is that Iraq is hurdling toward failure. There was never a war that so easily could have been avoided only if we had a commander with a cool and calculated mindset. Someone who really expended all the options.
Simply standing behind the president isn't going to do it anymore. We did that. The press , the left, we all stood behind him, hoped he'd pull it off. Saluted him when inside we felt he may be going in the wrong direction. In the papers and on TV he was lauded, even reveered when in fact he should have been made to answer serious quetions. We held our tonges when we heard unrealistic assertions such as this war would only cost $20 million. It's that same willingness to believe that keeps some people saying that Saddam had WMD. He just sent them to Syria. Can I ask you, what leader, especially a controlling dictator would in their right mind ever give all of his most valuable weapons to another country for safe keeping?
We kept quiet on a whole host of false promises and rosy predictions and now look where we are. Well I say no more.It's time to put feet to fire.
In reality,it's not the left or the media, he's the problem. His foolish hotheaded nature got us into this mess and that same stubborn mentality is refusing to deal with the realities on the ground. I for one knew he wasn't in touch with it when he landed on that carrier and proclaimed victory. And now he's stuck and he is just treading water hoping for some respite. Well I and an overwhelming majority in this country see none.

FALAFEL

typekey is screwy today

Leftorium

I don't think diplomacy was going to work with the former Iraqi government. He had corrupted the system through the UN oil for food program and was already close to a de facto end to the sanctions. By March of 2003 the only reasonable option seems to have been to remove him. Unfortunately the execution of the policy seems to have not been done as well as it should have been. Like you I felt he did not get it when they kept assuring the American people this would be easy. That being said, I have trouble with the "incompetent" label being applied to the administration. This implies that defeating this enemy should have been easy. This enemy is not easy. They are fully capable of defeating the USA. So far, to have held our own, in less than ideal circumstances is quite an accomplishment on the part of the military. That being said, we need to find a way to win this. We need to find a way to break the current stalemate. Saddam may have sent his WMD to Syria because they are allies and they both hate America. So he felt he could trust them. Also, some reports have indicated the Russians moved the WMD. By the time the WMD was moved he may not have had control of them.

still waiting for Conservative to the Core to reply... seems he can't take correction to his poor ways in these forums

FALAFEL

Good post, but I point out again, the mistakes were made early. We went in with no plan, no knowledge of the local mores, no strong language skills, not looking at the area's Political situation, i.e the Kurds and the Turks view of a kurdish state the history of the sunni/shities. Seems we have been there before and failed to learn.

And learning these things on the fly is not the way to insure success. The belief that all peoples see Democracy is not a proven fact, yet it is Bush's gut belief and may be at the root os the problem.

OhioGolfer-

Likewise a good post and to the point. I agree wholeheartedly .

FALAFEL

OhioGolfer-

Likewise a good post and to the point. I agree wholeheartedly .

FALAFEL

bloviator

The one sided coverage of the media has played a role in this situation, however, for the administtation to blame it all on the media is not warranted. It would be helpful if both the the media and the administration would take responsibilty for their actions. The fact that the media is biased does not excuse the administration for what seem to be errors in planning.

OhioGolfer

You raise some interesting points, had the Democrats focused on these things they would probably control the House, the Senate, and the White House right now. Instead they focused on various "Bush lied" diatribes.

FALAFEL

You write: "Its that same willingness to believe that keeps some people saying Saddam had WMD. He just sent them to Syria." If Saddam sent his WMD to Syria, this is hardly a pro-Bush argument. This would mean that the Iraqis managed to get the WMD out of the country. One of the main reasons for the invasion was to halt the spread of WMD. If this happened, this means the administration failed to achieve the most important objective. Had the Democrats focused on completeing the investigation, they would probably control all branches of government now. As for why Syria would help Saddam, two possibilities come to mind: 1.) The former Iraqi regime and the Syrian government were close allies and both opposed the US. 2.) Some reports indicate the Russians moved the weapons. The Russians played the biggest role in Saddam's WMD programs after the first gulf war. They are trying to expand their role on the world stage and to be exposed at thsi juncture would have been unhelpful to their goals. The Russians may have taken control of the arsenal and moved it to Syria, who is another staunch Russian ally. Btw, I would not classify Saddam as being in his right mind.

Conservative to the Core,

It is quite impossible for you to think "big picture" because your mind is permanently stuck on "narrow focus"

"As regards blaming everyone, Mr. Bush has clearly shown his leadership in quickly determining the source of blame and dealing with it."

-- Yes, he has, but this is easy since HE is the one always shifting the blame for his bungling on other people. Blames the media, blames saddam, blames the liberals, never himself. Donny Rummy only stepped up to the plate about Abu Gharib because he had to, everything lead back to him. But thats the only time you have seen courage of any kind from that pair.

Rather than purge the entire military after Abu Ghraib, he wisely kept the focus narrowly on the actual people who committed acts in front of a camera.

-- Yes indeed, let the investigation die at the low level soldiers and IGNORE the ones that ordered them to commit the acts, so these sick superiors can continue to order up more torture.

The fact that the left and the MSM share the overwhelming majority of responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq puts the libbies in a spin, as shown by their comments here. You can't lose the war and then not admit, and accept blame for, the mistakes you made.

-- The MSM reports on what is happening, they are not there to put rose colored lens on their cameras and report on non-existant good news, they will report on whats happening. There is no good news, thats why its all bad. More people are dying in the civil war than the month before, more soldiers die than the month before. It is clearly escalating.

Funny how you talk of accepting blame, and yet your party have never accepted responsibility for anything. They knew about 9/11 threat, did nothing, accepted no responsibility. Knew about Katrina, did nothing, no acceptance of any reponsibility, knew Iraq was going to be a boondoggle because everyone that actually knew anything told them so, including Bush Sr.! SO it all went to hell and they accept no responsibility, just want to pass the mess onto the next president to clean up.

The responsibile thing to do is for Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice to all resign and let someone competent step in and fix the mess.

------------------

As regards blaming everyone, Mr. Bush has clearly shown his leadership in quickly determining the source of blame and dealing with it.

Rather than purge the entire military after Abu Ghraib, he wisely kept the focus narrowly on the actual people who committed acts in front of a camera.

The fact that the left and the MSM share the overwhelming majority of responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq puts the libbies in a spin, as shown by their comments here. You can't lose the war and then not admit, and accept blame for, the mistakes you made.

I'm glad someone brought up the gay marriage issue as it pertains to this, because it is that very sort of pro-gay, pro-goat-sex liberalism that ruins morale at home and abroad and furthers our goals in Iraq.

Think big picture, folks.

Anyone who actually STUDIES history knows that Vietnam was not just "winnable" but was a slam-dunk well on its way until the liberal press hacked it to death and the cut-and-run President decided to leave office and his mess to future Presidents.

-- I think you have been smoking Jeremiah's peace pipe a little too much. What study of history shows that Vietnam was winnable and a slam dunk? Everyone that was in it and lived through it said otherwise. What was the average life expectancy for the troops on the ground? 20 minutes? Doesn't sound like a slamdunk to me.

Interesting that you note about your Republican leaving his mess to future presidents, EXACTLY the same as Bush SAID he will do.

The MSM was all up in arms in Vietname because there was a DRAFT, because it was a mistake from the get go, because the US was losing and because they had no exit strategy, even assuming that they won.

Only thing different about Vietnam and Iraq is that there is no draft yet, so its war on the cheap and people are still tolerating it because it has not affected them directly yet, aside from those that sacrafice themselves and their family members to the war.

That why the tax cuts were so important, to buy you silence with $20 bucks back extra a year.

Ohio Golfer conveniently forgot to mention SEATO--the SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization---by which signatories agreed to defend each other against communist agression. But thanks for the info that North Viet Nam was not communist. That had a lot of people fooled for a long time. Not.

The benign intentions of North Viet Nam toward the south were shown by the subsequent slaughter of millions of South Vietnames after we tucked our tails into our heinies and ran, slinking off to appease the lying liberals who had the country convinced it was "losing" an "illegal and immoral" war.

Abu Ghraib was an anomaly, a situation in which representatives of the US Military broke the military rules, and were subsequently tried and punished. Even given the occurrances there, the prison was vastly superior under the Americans than it ever had been unde Sadaam. Christopher Hitchens was there immediately after we took over the prison, and said it was unbelievably foul, a combination of a torture chamber and an abbatoir. (That's a slaughterhouse, for you libs and canucks.) The Left has chosen to trivialize true torture by labeling embarassment and discomfort as torture, but the relatively mild discomfort of the Iraqis tormented by the guards was punished. The Left is still calling for blood on that one, as no military person can ever be punished enough.

TEO presents a typically convoluted revisionist theory of Iraq in the 90's, a version in which "Saddam was rendered pretty much impotent .." Tell that to the 300,000 or so who were tortured and murdered during that decade. In TEO's version, Sadaam's defeat by America turned him into an amiable and easily fooled teddy bear, who "was not a threat". He was just duped by well-paid underlings into thinking he had WMD. That doesn't explain why he claimed they had been destroyed and then refused to provide proof of such destruction---maybe the dupers weren't paid enough to forge extra documentation to keep the US at bay.

Who knows what it would take to "prove" anything to TEO and axis and so on---probably nothing less than a Ranty Rhodes endorsement would convince them. But we have witnesses to the construction of WMD. We have captured rockets whose only purpose was to deliver WMD. We have found sarin and anthrax, just not tons of either. We have testimony from people who helped ship heavy metal bottles marked with signs indicating poisons or toxic materials, on converted passenger planes flying established and allowed passenger schedules and routes into Syria. We have testimony from scientists who worked on nuclear projects, one of whom led US officers to illegal nuclear development machinery buried in his yard. We have satellite tapes and photos of convoys of tractor-trailers moving across the Syrian border. We have the testimony of a former high-ranking Iraqi that there were carefully established protocols for removing WMD in case of a threat to Iraq, backed by Russia and China---protocols which were enacted. We have traces of WMD in several of the buildings which we knew were factories, with markers to indicate that they were of recent manufacture and not left over from the days before we pulled Sadaam's teeth and turned him into a genial empty suit with no power and no influence.

axis of ignorance refers to an effort of Bush's to "blame Sadaam" for the mess in Iraq---and claims the world saw through that effort. There are so many levels of insanity in that claim it is not worth spending the time to address them. Suffice it to say that axis does not think "the mess in Iraq" can be blamed on Sadaam, and move on to reality. He does go on to lecture us on military strategy, such as the infamous "exit strategy" myth. Name one war with an "exit strategy", axis. One. Name one "exit strategy". Tell us who got $20 from the tax cut. Tell us anything factual. Surprise us...

You guys are good for only one thing----comic relief. If you ever develop a sense of personal dignity, and decide to stop being bufoons for the left, you'll deprive us of some real entertainment. You are the human (?) equivalent of a cat chasing a flashlight spot on the wall. Ranty and Al wave the light around, you all chase it with such zeal and intensity, and we all just sit back and marvel at your gullibility.

"Purging the entire military" for the actions of a few bored guards would be like purging the entire country of Canada because of one village idiot named axis.

Kimberly is right---the top North Vietnamese general admitted that they were on the verge of surrender before Kerry started his street theater in Washington.

John McCain said in his memoirs that a North Vietnamese guard told him that they did not need to surrender because Kerry and Fonda would win the war for them. And they did.

North Viet Nam was approaching other countries, including Britain, to ask for intervention with the US to assure that their leaders would not be tried, a la Nuremeburg, to set up the outlines for surrender.

But Kerry, while still an active Navy officer, let his hair grow, wore shabby clothes, and recruited a ragged bunch of losers willing to claim they were not only Viet Nam veterans but had committed atrocities and seen many more, all sanctioned by the government and the military. He testified under oath to these lies to Congress. They went to thrift stores and pawn shops to buy old war medals, which they then claimed to be medals awarded to them for heroism in Viet Nam, and which they then threw over the fence at the White House to show their disdain for "their" awards. This, the man you wanted to be YOUR president, lied to undermine the will of the American people to uphold their legal and moral commitment to the people of South Viet Nam. The man you wanted to represent the United States traveled in secret to an enemy country, twice, while still an active member of the United States Navy, to conspire with them on how to help them win the Viet Nam war. And he did. I guess that's what YOU call "leadership".

This is from a recent discussion about Jane Fonda being named one of the
"100 Women of the Century" by our beloved befuddled lefty Bawa Wawa---the same Barbara Walters who gets all weak in the knees when remembering how sexy Fidel Castro is.

"Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still
countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country,
but specifically men who served and sacrificed
during Vietnam.

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot
The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.

In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF
Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison
the "Hanoi Hilton."

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell,
cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was
ordered to describe for a visiting American
"Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane
treatment" he'd received.

He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was
dragged away.
During the subsequent beating, he fell forward
on to the camp Commandant's feet, which
sent that officer berserk.

In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from
double vision (which permanently ended his
flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied
application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the
47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the
"Hanoi Hilton",,, the first three of which his
family only knew he was "missing in action".
His wife lived on faith that he was still alive.
His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and
clothed routine in preparation for a
"peace delegation" visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to
get word to the world that they were alive
and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny
piece of paper, with his Social Security Number
on it, in the palm of his hand.

When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a
cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each
man's hand and asking little encouraging
snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed
babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane
treatment from your benevolent captors?"
Believing this HAD to be an act, they each
palmed her their sliver of paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. At the
end of the line and once the camera stopped
rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs,
she turned to the officer in charge and handed
him all the little pieces of paper.

Three men died from the subsequent beatings.
Colonel Carrigan was almost number four
but he survived, which is the only reason we
know of her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor
in Vietnam, and was captured by the NorthVietnamese communists in South Vietnam in
1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.

I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one
year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year
in a "black box" in Hanoi.
My North Vietnamese captors deliberately
poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a
nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South
Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the
Cambodia border.
At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)

We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by
the camp communist political officer if I would
be willing to meet with her.

I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real
treatment we POWs received... and how
different it was from the treatment purported by
the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as
"humane and lenient."

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky
floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched
with a large steel weights placed on my hands,
and beaten with a bamboo cane.

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda
soon after I was released. I asked her
if she would be willing to debate me on TV.
She never did answer me."

These first-hand experiences do not exemplify
someone who should be honored as part
of "100 Years of Great Women."
Lest we forget..." 100 Years of Great Women"
should never include a traitor whose hands are
covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral
reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in
blatant treason, is one of them.
RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron, Chief of
Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431
COMM: 883-6343

B.Poster-

"You write: "Its that same willingness to believe that keeps some people saying Saddam had WMD. He just sent them to Syria." If Saddam sent his WMD to Syria, this is hardly a pro-Bush argument. This would mean that the Iraqis managed to get the WMD out of the country. One of the main reasons for the invasion was to halt the spread of WMD. If this happened, this means the administration failed to achieve the most important objective. "

That is definately a pro Bush argument because it draws pressure off of his insurmountably stupid decision to go to war in the first place. Oh he failed to secure those weapons, but I assure you they were truly there. So his original decision was sound. Look that was the basis for us going to war. If your basis for an act is proven to be wrong then your act is wrong. The goal post for this war has been moved so many times no one can tell any longer why we went there. First it was WMD, then it was removing Saddam, then it was bringing democracy to Iraq. They've gone so far off the original intent for this war precisely because it stinks of failure.

"As for why Syria would help Saddam, two possibilities come to mind: 1.) The former Iraqi regime and the Syrian government were close allies and both opposed the US."

Your statment is true but that hardly gets us to a point where Saddam would just hand over thousands of tons of WMD to Hafiz Al Asad. Look Saddam may be psychotic but he's not stupid. You don't get to level that he got by being an idiot. Do you honestly believe he would do this and think that Asad would just hand these weapons back to him when the heat was off? Friend or no on the world stage power is the only friend you really want. Where is Saddams bargining chip if he gives away all that makes him so powerful. What would he theaten Asad with if he didn't return them. This would increase Asad's power and weaken Saddam's. Politically , strategically, and psycholgically this makes no sense. Even or own government said that this idea was bogus.

"2.) Some reports indicate the Russians moved the weapons. The Russians played the biggest role in Saddam's WMD programs after the first gulf war. They are trying to expand their role on the world stage and to be exposed at thsi juncture would have been unhelpful to their goals. The Russians may have taken control of the arsenal and moved it to Syria, who is another staunch Russian ally. Btw, I would not classify Saddam as being in his right mind."

I don't know what these "some reports" are or where they came from but this idea falls apart before i even got to the end of the first sentence. Why would the russians take such a risk and expose themselves like this. And why would Saddam need the russians to move them anyway. He would have all the men and material he needed to get this job done himself. I'm not saying that the russians wouldn't love to get a better stance in Iraq but doing what you suggest would have been too risky for the payoff. If anything they would have been far more effective to Iraq by asserting more control in the UN on the Iraq issue. This whole russians moving other countries weapons to third party countries is fantastic at best. I may have been more open to you saying that Saddam had UFOs take the weapons to Syria.

The Democrats seem unwilling or unable to distance themselves from the likes of Jane Fonda and other anti-American leftists. To date, this is why they have been unable to win national elections. If they would distance themselves from the likes of moveon.org, codepink, ANSWER, Michael Moore, and others they would win easily.

Kimberly is right---the top North Vietnamese general admitted that they were on the verge of surrender before Kerry started his street theater in Washington.

-- Sounds like typical conservative rhetoric. You can always spot it because they make statements that can't be proven one way or another.

Bottom line,

1) Millions of people died
2) It was a war that the US had no business involving itself in
3) They went in with no exit strategy.

Nothing you can come up with can make up for those 3 facts.

Leftorium

Thanks for your response to my post. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq are spelled out in the Congressinal resolution authorizing the use of force. To summarize they are as follows: 1.)Eliminate Iraq's WMD and WMD programs. This was especially a concern because they had used them before. The events of 911 fundamentally altered how the American Government would deal with national security issues. 2.)Enforce the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War. Iraq was in violation of this. 3.)The Iraqi govenrment was actively supporting international terrorism and members of Al Qaeda were known to be in Iraq. 4.) UN resolutions requiring Iraq to stop repressing its civilian population should be enforced. 5.)The national security interests of the United states needed to be protected. It was deemed in US interests to secure international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. 6.) Iraq had shown extreme hostility and a willingness to attack the United States. This included firing on American aircraft who were trying to enforce UN resolutions and an attempt to assainate former president Bush. 7.)The Iraq Liberation Act that was passed by Congress needed to be enforced. This act stated it should be US policy to support the removal of the Saddam regime and to promote a Democracy to replace it.

The reasons for the invasion go beyond WMD. We may not agree with all of the reasons cited. I don't but these were the reasons given. I see no attempt to shift the goal posts, except possibly by the main stream media. Whether or not invading Iraq was an insurmountably stupid decison is not known at this time. The original premise for removing Saddam was sound, however, whether Iraq can achieve Western style Democracy is questionable. That being said, they have made it farther on the road to Democracy than I ever thought they would. Ultimately it will be judged by the final outcome. Do we end up with a pro-American Democracy or at least someone we can work with?

If WMD were moved elsewhere, the administration failed to achieve one of the key goals of the invasion. This could be an impeachable offense. This is hardly a pro Bush argument. Leaders should be judged by what they achieve not by what they intend to achieve.

Admittedly by seeking assistance from Syria Saddam would be taking a risk, however, the benefits to him of embarrasing the coaliton seem to outweigh this. Keeping the weapons where the coalition can find them easily provides credibility to the Coalition and harms Saddam's position. The plan may have been to retrieve them after the insurgency drove the Coalition out of Iraq. Between Iraq's vast oil reserves and the cash from the Oil for Food program Saddam had a vast network of allies. This would help to ensure he could achieve whatever he deemed to be in his interest. Some reports indicate that Iraq and Syria may have made an agreement to work together, if either country was attacked. Common enemies often draw countries together. The Iraq Survey Group did conclude that it was in their judgement that the convoys did not contain stockpiles of WMD but that further investigation was warranted. The conventional wisdom on this could turn out to be correct. I sincerely hope it is. If the conventional wisdom is not correct, this means a large stockpile of WMD that we wanted to eliminate is unaccounted for. Could it be in the hands of terrorists? Again, this hardly seems to be a pro Bush argument. All I'm suggesting is to complete the investigation into the Syrian connection before we draw a definitive conclusion. Again, I hope the conventional wisdom is correct.

Why would Russia take the risk to remove Saddam's weapons? Russia is trying to increase its power on the world stage. For example they are trying to join the WTO. They have already secured the support of many countries. Recently they secured the support of Australia. Russia was Iraq's largest military supplier including their WMD programs. To get caught with their finger prints on Saddam's WMD program would have severly hampered their efforts to gain a larger role on the world stage. For example, their support for WTO membership would likely end. The risks of getting caught with their finger prints on Iraq's WMD program may have outweighed the risks of trying to erase the evidence. Why would Saddam had Russia move the WMD? Two possibilities: 1.) The Russians were the largest contributor to Saddam's military including the WMD program. The Russians took control of these items and moved them to their allied country of Syria. In other words, Saddam had no choice here. Russia has given anti air craft weapons to Syria. This may have been to protect their investment. 2.) Russia has significant influence with both Syria and Iraq. Saddam may have wanted the Russians involved to protect his interests and the Russians wanted to continue their business deals with Iraq. The reports on possible Russian involvement have been reported by thw washingtontimes, Newsmax, Frontpagemag, Fox News, and a few others. There is allot we don't know. The investigations need to be completed. OIt is a matter of American and Allied national security. On this note, from my perspective it seems a number of mistakes have been made and not enough has been done to correct them. I'm more than a little steamed about this. If the conventional wisdom is wrong, people need to lose their jobs. This may even include the President. I fail to see what UFOs have to do with this.

One other thing forgotten in the discussion of Vietnam and while this may not be on point, it is still good to remember. Vietnam was a testing ground for the weapons makers of several countries. We, the US, tested several new munitions there, including cluster bombs, raining hail, the F111 (a total failure by the way) to name just a few. A russian general, his name escapes me for the moment, lost his job for the failure of the SAMS, really first tested in Nam. They ringed Moscow and he, the general, had proclaimed that they would totally protect that city. But the US wild weasel defense against the Sams proved their failure.

Thank you, Almiranta.
Sometimes I wonder if the liberals have succeeded in brainwashing the world about what really happened in Vietnam. Don’t forget that the effort was hamstrung by Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara; they killed more people - ours - with their idiot restrictions in both North and South Vietnam. We flew ops into North Vietnam daily with predictable times, points of entry/exit, altitudes, all established in DC! It takes a Fonda, Ash and Shipley to come out of the shadows when things get quiet to point fingers when they were not in there standing tall.

Axis is a Canadian, so he doesn’t understand that when you agree to protect allies, you do as you’ve pledged. Canadians don't respect treaties when they involve sacrifice. We won every campaign in ‘nam, we lost the effort on the streets of Washington, in the traitorous meeting halls in Detroit and in the NY Times. We lost when our “allies” allowed the cowards sanctuary in their country.

Especially for “Ash” who refers to our commander in chief as a coward; little man, you try strapping on an F-102 to your butt all by yourself. Add a couple tons of JP and big a$$ flame. Go out and do day/night intercepts, pull g's in a plane that is a hand-me-down, maintained by other 'cowards', flying with other 'cowards' at 30,000 feet. But, you’ve already admitted that you ran away.

And I don’t know what OhioGoofy is blathering about; we tested weapons? What’s your point?

Bane,

GW never flew a single mission in 'Nam...quit trying to equate some sort of military prowess with a guy who was in a group called the "Champagne Unit" and consistently missed his required attendance requirements. All he had to do was play fighter pilot for a few years, here in the states and he couldn't even manage that on a regular basis.

TEO,
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Bush was a fighter pilot, serving in the Texas Air National Guard, flying an F-102. He honorably served, met all requirements and was honorably discharged. What the hell have you done in service to your country? Do you have the balls to strap an F-102 to your butt? C'mon, tough guy, show me what a coward he is by matching his record. You’re just another hide-in-the-shadows liberal that doesn’t have the stones to stand up when the country calls.

Bane,

Are you done stroking-off George?

According to his records he never showed up for a flight physical after 1971, so how exactly did he get clearance to continue his training with TXANG, in Alabama, or Boston? ... Oh thats right he didn't, he got some BS position as an "Executive Support Officer" even though according to the military he wasn't qualified for that position.

you see, the record has no consistency anywhere. You can argue minutia all you want, but this guy never saw a lick of action in 'Nam, instead stayed back on the homefront running from his duty and having his last name protect him from retribution.

I have flown an ultra-light before, now you try to perform a soft-field landing with 15 knot cross winds...I don't need to prove the size of my brass cohones to you, because I wasn't trying to pretend I am some sort of war-hero who stood by and let his comrades in the military attack a man who has verified and RE-VERIFIED his 3 purple hearts.

Bane,

Are you done stroking-off George?

According to his records he never showed up for a flight physical after 1971, so how exactly did he get clearance to continue his training with TXANG, in Alabama, or Boston? ... Oh thats right he didn't, he got some BS position as an "Executive Support Officer" even though according to the military he wasn't qualified for that position.

you see, the record has no consistency anywhere. You can argue minutia all you want, but this guy never saw a lick of action in 'Nam, instead stayed back on the homefront running from his duty and having his last name protect him from retribution.

I have flown an ultra-light before, now you try to perform a soft-field landing with 15 knot cross winds...I don't need to prove the size of my brass cohones to you, because I wasn't trying to pretend I am some sort of war-hero who stood by and let his comrades in the military attack a man who has verified and RE-VERIFIED his 3 purple hearts.

TEO,
Once again you show complete ignorance; Lt. Bush completed his service honorably, and received an honorable discharge. You did not serve anywhere ant any time in any capacity. We who did serve know that the Guardsmen, the Airmen the Seamen, and the soldiers that served in every capacity and in every country are more honorable in their service than cowards like you, ash and shipley.

Ultra-lite? Are you kidding me? An F-102 and an Ultra-lite? You pathetic piece of crap! This is typical of liberals; you don't have the balls to serve, only carp about those that did. I never had to stand between the enemy and my country, but I did get shot with a paintball, once! I would rather you just said thank you to Lt. Bush, and went on your way, "Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

Kerry may have received the requisite number of minor injuries to get his sorry ass out of harms way, but every serviceman in country that was injured only wanted to get back to their unit; Kerry only wanted out. Kerry didn't receive an Honorable Discharge until years later, and then only by Executive order.

Your ignorance is not worth my time, it wasn't in 1971, and it's not now, fool!

Bane,

get over yourself, i'm sorry if you're holding onto old wounds, but you need to realize that Bush isn't doing anything for you by making the same mistakes his forebearers did.

I can't change your mind, and my intention never was that; nor can I make your hate inside any less.

My service to my country doesn't include a weapon because I choose not to have the blood of innocents on my hands. I serve my country by volunteering my time to worthwhile causes, if you don't think that means much of anything, then that's your opinion, but don't push out your chest at me old man, I appreciate the sacrifice of those who didn't hide behind their daddy's coattails in some frat-boy unit playing fighter pilot, while he stands around like a moron letting a guy who was in the mud, watching people die gets slandered by hired thugs.

so put that in your tail-pipe and light it

Well, TEO left a very dangerous country to come to one that is safe, and then denigrates those who made it so.

But he consoles himself by preening over "not having the blood of innocents on (his) hands". How noble of him. Of course, he had to walk away from his own country and its own strife to hide out in a nice safe strong country, one which guarantees that he can KEEP those hands lily-white because real men and women are willing to fight to protect him so he can play with his expensive toys and feel smug and superior.

And he clearly has no idea of the purpose of the Air National Guard, or their duties, or responsibilities. No one who had the slightest idea of how the military works, or the responsibilities of those who served in the National Guard, could ever utter such total drivel as "some frat-boy unit playing fighter pilot..." He "PLAYED" fighter pilot by learning to fly one of the most demanding and dangerous planes in the military, and going on to excel at flying that plane. When he was scrambled to intercept a bogie coming in over the Gulf, he never knew if it was some lightweight wannabe in an ultralight or an enemy coming in to do him, and the country, harm. Five of those in his training unit died in training---it was a dangerous job, in a dangerous plane. He didn't hide behind anyone's coattails---there was no waiting list for ANG pilots, because it was so demanding and so dangerous. The "weekend warrior" National Guard took on a few weeks of basic training and served a weekend a month. The pilots served nearly two years, full time, under the Air Force, during pilot training, and were on call for more than a weekend a month, to go intercept and possibly have to shoot down undentified aircraft.

The old Lefty talking (whining) points about Bush just crack me up. After all the explanations about why Bush didn't need that last physical because he was going to apply for an early out and physicals were for people who were going to continue flying, they still hang on to that. But what can you expect from a bunch that thinks "Fake But Accurate" makes sense? Hey, this is the same bunch that prides themselves on "tolerance". Yeah,if "tolerance" means hating everyone who isn't just like they are......

If they really cared about honorable service, they'd be trying to find out why Kerry didn't get his honorable discharge till 2001. Or who pulled strings to get him a Purple Heart for a scratch that only required a bandaid---or two more that also did not require any hospitalization. They'd ant to know why he was not court-martialed for his leadership screwup that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of a father and his young son. Or how he managed to travel to and oonspire with the enemy while he was supposedly an active duty Naval officer? Have you seen any of these guys questioning his long hair and time spent on anti-war posturing while he was supposed to be on active duty?

But no, lightweights like TEO think goofing around on weekends in expensive motorized kites and "volunteering their time to worthwhile causes" means they are strong, brave, and relevant. Hmmm...am I the only one who suspects that "worthwhile causes" means carrying preprinted placards outside WTO meetings?

Kerry has verified and REVERIFIED his Purple Hearts? On what planet, TEO?

He has admitted that the first one was a mistake, once it was made clear that the "wound" was not received in enemy action.

(To refresh your memory----he was on a Boston Whaler training boat, being taught how to fire a machine gun. His jammed so he picked up a grenade launcher and fired it at a cliff that was way too close for safety. A very tiny piece of the resulting shrapnel got stuck in the top layer of skin on his forearm. Instead of taking it out, he carefully supported that arm with his other and insisted on being taken to a doctor. When the doctor asked why he didn't just scrape it off, he said he prferred to have a doctor remove it. The doctor, disgusted, took out some tweezers and pulled it out and slapped on a bandaid.

Then Kerry asked for paperwork to apply for a Purple Heart. The doctor kicked him out. So Kerry hung around till the next shift, and approached the new doctor to sign off on a wound treatment. The doc, not knowing the story, did so. Verified? Not hardly. REVERIFIED? En su suenos.)

The Purple Heart/Bronze Star fiasco was nearly as bad. When several Swift Boats went to the aid of one that had hit a mine, Kerry took off, so fast that he dumped Rasmussen over the stern. Those who did not run for cover were firing , for a few minutes, into the jungle to provide possible cover for their rescue efforts. (It was a tactic to wait till a boat hit a mine and then fire on the rescuers---this was a precaution.) Rasmussen thought the firing was from a hidden enemy, and as he was in the water, he was not in a position to know better. When Kerry finally came back to pick him up, he thought Kerry was a hero for braving enemy fire---but there wasn't any. Kerry's wound? A small piece of shrapnel from the mine explosion. No hospitalization required. No enemy fire.

No one hired the Swift Boat veterans. Many had voted for Gore in 2000, and did not particularly want Bush to win, but couldn't stand to have Kerry's self-serving lies go unchallenged. They risked being sued---though it was a small risk, as they knew Kerry could not risk being in court, under oath, and/or being required to provide the paperwork he would have to produce if this got ito the legal system. Many lost a lot of money by going public, in time off their jobs and from retaliation from Dem business contacts. They were hardly "thugs" but were true heroes, and true patriots.

Kerry originally applied for Swift Boat duty when all they did was ferry stuff between offshore ships and the shore. It was a sweet gig, and also a shortcut to a captaincy. His peers and officers remember the hissy fit he threw when he found out that after he was accepted for Swift Boat duty the boats got reasssigned to river duty. Remember, he had applied for several deferments and been turned down before he ended up joining the Navy,and being under fire was simply not part of his plans.

But unlike you, Child of Privilege TEO who actually got to get out of your troubled country and get into a safe and cushy one, Kerry DID have "the blood of innocents" on his hands, albeit indirectly. When he somehow failed to see an oncoming boat on his radar and then leave his bankside position to intercept it, (his assigned mission) it came upon the Swift Boat unawares. The man in the cockpit, surprised to suddenly be so close to a gunship, reached down and pulled out a rifle. The gunner fired upon him, in self-defense, and killed him---and the six year old boy (approx.) who was in the cockpit with him. The crew sweated that out, wondering how long it would take to be hauled into a naval review and probably a court-martial, and were surprised that nothing happened.

It was not till Kerry was running for President and they read his book that they learned that the official report on the incident omitted mention of Kerry's negligence, and of the killing of the man and boy by the gunner. Instead, the story had Kerry leaping into the gun tub and firing the 50-cal machine gun at a boat full of the enemy, nearly single-handedly capturing some Viet Cong intelligence officers. They were amazed to see the terrified woman and infant they did take aboard