The American Spectator

ray bob| 9.15.11 @ 7:29AM

it takes courage both from leadership and the troops to have made this ending happen. to hell with the politics who worked to scuttle the war, and to hell with EK may he not rest with peace.

WRTolkas| 9.15.11 @ 8:06AM

Dear ray bob,

I have to visit my mother in Washington D.C. in a few weeks, and I will visit my father's grave in Arlington National Cemetery. I'll let you know if the grass is still dead around the final squirming place of the rum-soaked corpse of edward "swimmer" kennedy (lower case on purpose).

DatsunMark| 9.15.11 @ 2:23PM

Emmett forgot one other Tyrant which we had nothing to do with his death...Senator Kennedy.

xfan| 9.15.11 @ 3:19PM

"Black cock" and "cocaine." Oh Sarah, say it ain't so.

Alan Brooks| 9.15.11 @ 4:19PM

We saved Iraq and bankrupted America-- how very kind of us.
We are self-sacrificing, self-abnegating Christians, aren't we?

Alan Brooks| 9.15.11 @ 4:23PM

... wont you at least admit that we transferred troops from Afghanistan to Iraq in accomplishing the Surge? that the transfer helped further destabilize Afghanistan?

But why be candid when dissembling will do.

Dale on left coast| 9.15.11 @ 5:08PM

Bankrupted America???
Wasn't that Dodd, banking and Fwank, Fannie and Freddie . . .

carnot| 9.17.11 @ 10:51AM

exactly.

AB's arrogance does lead him astray from the complexities.

Which is why...in the end...he should be left to wallow in his own hatreds...and ignored.

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.15.11 @ 5:22PM

This is the same TED KENNEDY who was instrumental, with the aid of the Crooked Son of a Crooked Father - Chris Dodd - who betrayed the South Vietnamese, by breaking their word, and ending Arms Supplies, so they could defend themselves from the COMMUNIST North.
The same Ted Kennedy, who sent a letter to Soviet Premier - Yuri Andropov - offering his ASSISTANCE, in thwarting OUR PRESIDENT - Ronald Reagan - at their upcoming Summit.
Will somebody explain why this TRAITOR is buried on the Hallowed Grounds of ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETARY?
And, tell us why BOBBY is there, as well.
It's a National Disgrace.

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 4:49PM

TLP: Great thoughts as usual, and I share your disgust for this family of Irish thugs aka liberal Democrats. Possibly the WHY is for making it half-way across the Chappaquidick bridge perhaps while being drunk out of his goard [Democrats give awards for such things; possibly you rremember another Democrat from Arkansas (Ways & Means Chairman) who when drunkenly flailing with a stripper in a water fountain outside a DC hotel early one AM was said to have called Ted and asked, WELL I HAVE HER IN THE WATER, NOW WHAT DO I DO WITH HER?] !!!!!

Ed Edwards| 9.15.11 @ 5:41PM

During the Vietnam war Mr. Tyrell was in college dodging the draft. Mr Tyrell is a classic Chicken Hawk!!!

DavidThompson| 9.15.11 @ 9:00PM

Mr. Edwards,
Millions of us were given legal student draft deferments, just for the asking. No one pursuing a bachelor's degree was denied.
We weren't dodging the draft; we were earning a college degree and facing the draft afterwards.
If you, Mr. Edwards, deferred your college degree at that time in order pursue the Viet Cong in defense of your country, you might be in a position to call us "Chicken Hawks." But you didn't, right?
You are a just sniveling, obnoxious little twit.

Gary W| 9.15.11 @ 11:29PM

I can't wait for Republican losers to blame the success in Iraq on Obama - surely they will manufacture something. After all, they're experts at manufacturing evidence.. e.g. the WMD thing.

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 4:54PM

We all mostly wish that those worthless pieces of excrement known as Democrats could somehow discover ways to MANUFACTURE anything right now, instead of a%skissing their labor union buddies and driving companies/jobs overseas to lower wage cost countries, you DA!!!!!!!

Mike w| 9.17.11 @ 8:25PM

If this is victory I really hate to see defeat. We lost the moment we set foot in Iraq.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 7:37AM

With all due respect Mr. Tyrrell: Our policy in Iraq has been a total, complete, and abject failure. We have seen 4000+ American service people killed, 5o,000 maimed and wounded and trillions wasted just so we could turn Iraq over to the Shia friends of Iran. We have killed, maimed, and displaced, millions of Iraqi's. The ancient Christian community of Iraq, which goes back to the time of the Apostles, has been destroyed and almost driven to dispare. A majority now reside in other countries.

Saddam Hussain was the balance in the region between the Sunni radicals of Saudia Arabia and the Shias of Iran. Without his presence we now have the Shias with the upper hand. Hussain was a secular Muslim who let women drive cars, dress in modern clothes and be educated. He let the large Christian community practice their faith freely. The vice President of Iraq, Tariq Azziz, was a practicing Catholic. People could freely drink and buy liquor. Most of the bars and liquor stores were run by the Christian community. On top of that weapons were freely availible and almost everyone was armed to the teeth. I knew we would have trouble when before the invasion I learned there were 250 gun stores in Bagdad alone.

Was Hussain a dictator and murderer? Sure he was. He was also an old ally of ours and a CIA operative in his younger days,as well. The wise thing to do would have been taken Saddam back as an ally and taken out the Saudi regime. They supplied 15 of the terrorists on 9/11. I firmly believe that they were helped by some rogue elements of The Saudi secret services, The Wahbi's of Saudia Arabia are the main builders of radical mosques and spreaders of radical Islam around the world. Our whole policy has left us with the worst possible scenario.

When Bush said mission acccomplied 8 years ago, it sure wasn't true. Patriotic consevatives who opposed this war like me, Pat Buchanan, John Duncan, Brent Skowcroft, Ron Paul, Bob Novak, Norm Schwatzkoph and all the rest, have been proved right. The Neoconservates and Cheneyite liars who got us into this war have been proved wrong.

To leave any troops in Iraq after the end of this year would be another big mistake. We have no chance of retaining influnce in Iraq. We are hated by most of the population. Our troops would just continue to be targets and potential hostages. It is time to bring the troops home from this diasaster to their loving families.

William R| 9.15.11 @ 9:28AM

Couldn't have said it better.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 10:44AM

Really? I could have said it waaaaaay better, and much shorter and more concise than Jack the anti-Semite, too.

Here...let me show you:

"America sucks. It has been taken over by a secret cabal of rich and powerful Jews who want to subjugate our sovereignty and steal our wealth.

To that end, NOTHING that anyone does who is NOT a supporter of the great, wonderful, wise, and all-knowing Doctor Ron Paul is good, or successful.

So despite the fact that Iraq has been a stunning success, we will claim that it is a failure.

And if Ron Paul is NOT the GOP nominee in 2012, we will vote for Obama just to spite the Jew-loving GOP RINOs."

- Jack in Wi
(translation provided by Doctor Right)

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 11:06AM

Uh Oh !

Dr.Reich attempts to Play The Anti-Semite Card on Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 11:28AM

It's not hard.

Especially since you and Jack are both anti-Semites...just like a LOT of Ron Paul's supporters and financial backers.

Jeffrey Lord explained this in a GREAT article about two weeks ago.

You might not have read the article, so I'll post a link for you here:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....liberal-re

FYI, Lord's accurate description of the anti-Semitism that permeates Paul's campaign is an apt description of the stupidity expressed in most of your posts...and Jack's too!

ENJOY!

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 11:32AM

"...Almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist "Paulist" politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left.

The far left.

From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR's ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.

But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day.

Specifically this included the following prominent leaders of the non-interventionist/isolationist camp:

• Liberal Republican William Borah, the Senator from Idaho
• Liberal Republican George Norris, the Congressman and Senator from Nebraska
• Liberal Republican Gerald Nye, the Senator from North Dakota
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Sr., the Senator from Wisconsin
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Jr., the Senator from Wisconsin"

- Jeffrey Lord

WilliamR| 9.15.11 @ 1:15PM

Jeffery Lord is an embarrassing joke.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 1:17PM

"When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plantiff."...Cicero

Well done, William R.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 2:21PM

Dr Wrong posts more of his usual nonsense. He hasn't had an original thought ever. Non intervention is the tradional foreign policy of the USA. It is the policy of all parties. We can look to both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Other great non interventionists of both right and left are Robert Taft, Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Charle Lindbergh, Joseph R. McCarthy, Eugene v. Debbs etc.

We know all the leading interventionists have been wild eyed liberals, starting with Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and the Bush's.

I put Reagan and Eisenhower both in the non intervention camp. Eisenhower was elected to end the Korean War and did. He also warned against a permanent military industrial complex. He also hated nuclear weapons and started to approach the Soviets for peace talks. Reagan started no wars. He pulled us out of Lebanon after making a big mistake going in. He warned against ever going in the Middle East again in his memoirs. He tried to rid the world of nuclear weapons and signed treaties with the Soviets to downsize nuclear forces.

Nixon was a mixed bag. He promised to end the Vietnam war and he did. He could have done it like Ron Paul and brought all the troops home at once. Instead he dithered and many people died on all sides for no reason.

By the way I love all those senators you mention. They have been hero's of mine since my youth. They bravely stood up to 2 warmongering liberals, FDR and Wilson, who lied and schemed us into 2 unnessary world wars.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 3:33PM

I guess you weren't paying attention on December 7, 1941?

Or do you and Ron Paul think that Pearl Harbor was our fault, too?

You really are a clown.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 4:29PM

DR.
I asked him that same question once, and the answer is yes. He does think Pearl Harbor was our fault.
Amazing isn't it?

Mike D.| 9.15.11 @ 6:59PM

Dealing with Adolph Hitler by defeating him was unneccesary, so I figure Jack must think that if Hitler could have just been left alone and finished the Jewish/Isreali problem, them shazaam, no Isreali "darkness upon the world", hence no "Jewish control of our government". Problem solved. But what if Hitler was really a swell guy and the holocaust was a phony plot by the Zionists to give Hitler a bad rap and send the world into a guilt trip thereby allowing the creation of Isreal and enraging peace loving Muslims like Amin Al Husseini (whom you can read about here)

http://tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html

then the whole thing was a setup. Daaaaaamn, we have this guy Jack all wrong, he's got this whole thing all figured out. Chamberlain had it all right in the first place. Daaaaaamn.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 11:23PM

Read Pat Buchanan's book. Churchill, Hitler and the Unecessary war. educate yourself. John Charmley had aa great book as well. I don't remember the name.

Mike D.| 9.16.11 @ 8:55AM

I read tons Jack, CFR, Federal reserve, Rothschilds, Hitler, Bilderbergs, Masons, the events leading up to WW1 from the mid to late 1800's. History of Russia back to the steppe nomads, Acheamenid and Sassanid Persians, the ottomans, The muslim conquests, Crusades, Alexanders conquests, Hattin, Kadesh with Rameses II. The Maccabean revolt with him and his brothers battles with the Seleucids. Khrushchev's memoirs. You think evil powerful men, bankers, and religionists and control are something new? Every war could be avoided if we play that concept out. I read the takes on the Pearl harbor conspiracies, I also read the views of the Japanese high command and the brilliant operation that was conducted by the IJN to pull it off. Fuchida's book on Midway and the Japanese mindset was fascinating. Oh yes, Jewish scientists contributed greatly to the development of the Atomic Bomb, so did many non-jews who discovered keys aspects of the process that led there. When Rutherford made his discoveries of the atom and its components, nuclear power and nuclear weapons were a done deal whether Jews were involved or not. Difference is Jack, you take your little slices of history that fit your paranoid concepts and your boogymen models and use it to demonize one group and conveniently ignore another. Don't give me lectures about educating myself. As far as your peace loving Muslims, if you believe that fantasy your really more ignorant than you come accross. Muslims slaughtered more Muslims over the course of the last ten or more centuries than the Jews could ever imagine and they will go right on doing it whether Jews or Christians exist or not. Heres a final thought, Isreal spies on the US, the US spies on Isreal, Russia Spies on Isreal, Isreal spies on Russia, Iran spies on Isreal, Isreal spies on Iran. The CIA ran the Opposition to the Soviets in Afghanistan, Just as the KGB ran opposition to the US in other places. Its a dirty game, and the US plays as dirty as anybody else, playing isolationist isn't going to keep wolves from the door. Have a nice day!

Seamus| 9.16.11 @ 6:00PM

No, they don't. Why don't you ask whether Robert A. Taft thought it was our fault, while you're busy slandering non-interventionists?

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 3:17PM

Uh Oh !

Dr.Reich attempts to defend Playing The Anti-Semite Card.

You're A Bullshit Hustler, Just Like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson Playing Their Race Card.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 3:56PM

You know, it's taken me a while, but I've finally figured you Paul-bots out.

Allow me to explain.

I support Rick Perry, but if he doesn't win the nomination, I won't be too bothered. That's because the GOP has several great candidates this year, ALL of which would do 1000% better as President than Barack Obama.

So my goal is to DEFEAT OBAMA. PERIOD. Sure, I'd rather have a genuine Conservative in the White House like Perry, Bachman, Cain, or Santorum...But I'm not deluded. I understand that the best, first step to righting this nation is to get Obama out of office. To that end, I will vote for whoever the nominee is...even Ron Paul (although I'm not real worried about that happening.)

Also...and this is crucial...Other than being an American citizen who loves his country, I don't have a personal stake in this election, either real OR imagined. Sure, I love to argue, but I don't get all emotional about it.

But you Paul-bots are different. You guys (and you are mostly guys) talk about Ron Paul as if you have some private, personal connection to him...As if when he's speaking, he's speaking directly to you, and that he cares about you. You talk about him as if he's your close friend, and you get all emotional when he's criticized.

Frankly, it's weird. It's a quasi cult-of-personality movement. populated by the kind of people who are desperate to be led, and to "belong" to something that they sense is BIG and important, presumably because they feel pretty small and worthless without it.

And I don't know if Ron Paul has purposefully tapped into this vein of discontentment, or if he did it accidentally. Regardless, he did it. And it's not the first time this has happened, either. Perot did the same thing back in '92 (and admit it, Jack and Clint...you WERE Perot-istas, weren't you? Sure you were!). Hell, Mussolini did it in the 1920's!

And that may be his undoing, because as I've said before, Paul's followers are 1,000x more annoying than Paul is, himself.

Desperate.
Followers.
Needing to be led.
Wanting to belong.
Needing to blame someone else.

Yup. I've got you guys figured out.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 4:25PM

Interesting...Helps to explain the Paul-bots:

The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements (Eric Hoffer, 1951)

SUMMATION:
Hoffer argues that all mass movements such as fascism, communism, and religion spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements often glorify the past and devalue the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors. Hoffer quotes extensively from leaders of the Nazi and communist parties in the early part of the 20th Century, to demonstrate, among other things, that they were competing for adherents from the same pool of people predisposed to support mass movements. Despite the two parties' fierce antagonism, they were more likely to gain recruits from their opposing party than from moderates with no affiliation to either.
The book also explores the behavior of mass movements once they become established (or leave the "active phase"). With their collapse of a communal framework people can no longer defeat the feelings of insecurity and uncertainty by belonging to a compact whole. If the isolated individual lacks vast opportunities for personal advancement, development of talents, and action (such as those found on a frontier), he will seek substitutes. These substitutes would be pride instead of self-confidence, memberships in a collective whole like a mass movement, absolute certainty instead of understanding.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 4:47PM

I don't care if Obama is re-elected, if Romney, Perry or Gingrich is the nominee. I would never vote for Obama but will vote 3rd party or sit home. So will millions of other conservatives. At least one half of the party is sick of the musical chair policy that both parties are playing.

I told you before that Ron Paul is the only chance we have to change this country for the better. I voted for Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan twice, Bush twice, Dole, Bush twice. Enough is enough. They were all trash except Reagan and he disapointed me plenty. As you Jews like to say. Never again. It is Ron Paul or someone like him or ruin.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 5:05PM

"I don't care if Obama is re-elected"

Yet you call yourself a Conservative?

Hypocrisy thy name is Jack

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 11:28PM

Most Paul supporters I have met are very independent, well read people. That is unlike most of the dimwits that are supporting Perry here. Well I guess it takes one dimwit to like another. Perry has been in the campaign for 2 weeeks. I predicted when he first annouced that he would be implode by Thanksgiving. I now predict he will be out by Halloween. That would be the fitting day for him to withdraw.

Gary W| 9.15.11 @ 11:36PM

Defeat Obama? Not on your life. Even though you hate them, voters OTHER THAN white males decide elections. Check it out. Two-thirds of white male voters vote Republican every time.

Thomas Paine| 9.16.11 @ 1:10AM

As a white male, I appreciate the compliment.

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:00PM

Amti-semites?
Jeez, guys.
What's wrong with the standard term of Jew-hater?
It's more accurate.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:49PM

Dr Right---rise up and oppose the Paulbots---your Jewish overlord commands you!!!!!

By the way, on a more serious note, (the paulbots have no clue that they are gonna be beat so badly)do you prefer filet or Ribeye?

DaveS| 9.15.11 @ 12:13PM

You could not have said it worse.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 12:25PM

Recommendations?

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 9:54AM

More idiocy from "Jack in Wi"...

Here's a link for you, "Jack":

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....-jim-lacey

If you've got the cajones, maybe you'll read it...But I doubt it.

You'd rather bash the Israelis. And after your insinuation yesterday that Marco Rubio isn't fit to be President some day, maybe you should add Hispanics to the list of people that you nativist Paul-bots dislike??

The decision to go into Iraq was a sound decision, based on outstanding strategic vision, and it has most certainly paid-off.

In other words, it was a success.

Only Libs and Liber-tards disagree.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 10:19AM

The Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader, forgot to mention that Dr.Ron Paul's opponent Perry is attempting to buy the Hispanic vote with instate tuitions to illegal aliens.

just sayin'.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 10:29AM

Hey, it's Clint, from the "Ron Paul Surrender Lobby"!

Who should we apologize to today, Clint-wit?? Has your Dear Leader Ronnie sent you the talking points yet?

Here's a link to your dim-witted hero getting BOOED at a Tea Party Debate! (You've heard of the "Tea Party", right? It's an organization that Ron Paul claims to have started...but he lies.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWnFKB9yL08

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 10:37AM

Gee Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader Dr.Reich,We walked away from Ricky Santorum, after He supported The RINO-CINO Poster Boy Arlen Specter Against Pat Toomey in 2004.

Now, Our Tea Party Candidate Pat Toomey Is Our Pennsylvania Senator & Ricky Santorum & Arlen Specter Are Unemployed.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 10:40AM

Meaning what, exactly?

Other than continually kissing Ron Paul's ass, do you actually have a point to make?

...Or do you like pimping for Ron Paul's "Surrender Lobby"?

FYI...Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP nominee in 2012, so you should be prepared to have alternate plans...

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 10:49AM

Meaning The Tea Party is changing the dynamics of elections & taking on The Ruling Elite of both parties, because neither party owns The Tea Party.

The Texas Tea Party & The New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition are already exposing Ricky Perry.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 10:57AM

Well, the TEA PARTY that you claim to represent must be an awfully weak political force, then, 'cuz the evil, hated Rick Perry is STILL in the lead...

...and your Hero, Ronnie Paul, is not even close.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 11:11AM

Tell it to The Texas Tea Party & The New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition.

Our Tea Party First Wave was in The November 2010 Elections.

Our Second Wave comes November 2012.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 11:33AM

When will the 3rd Wave arrive?

Before or after Ron Paul loses the GOP nomination???

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 3:11PM

The Third Wave logically comes after the Second Wave.
Both come after The Texas Tea Party & The New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition expose Ricky Perry.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 3:30PM

What's taking them so long?

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 3:39PM

" Perry has troubled relationship with tea party

Tea Party groups from New Hampshire to Texas are collaborating to criticize Perry's record on immigration, public health and spending and his former affiliation with the Democratic Party.

Austin Tea Party activist Don Zimmerman, like many tea party activists in Texas and New Hampshire, prefer libertarian Rep. Ron Paul in his third presidential bid. Paul, Zimmerman said, is the true tea party favorite.

"Ron Paul pretty much invented the national tea party," said Zimmerman, a member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee. "It's really unfair for these other candidates to come along and claim to be the tea party favorite. It's almost like it's starting to lose its meaning."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 4:00PM

"Tea Party groups from New Hampshire and Texas ".
Fixed it for you. Two tea party groups do not speak up for the entire Tea Party.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 4:15PM

Duuuuuuuh !

The message is getting out to other States' Tea Parties, Buffoon.
How do ya think We Pennsylvania Tea Party Patriots got it.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 4:33PM

DUHHHHHH, then name the others that are in this with the two you mentioned. Your message must not be getting out because the latest poll in Gallup still has Perry pulling the largest percentage of Tea Party support

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 4:58PM

The latest Reuters poll has Ron Paul as the best candidate against Obama. That is the third poll in the last couple of weeks that says that. Ron Paul draws many more of the Independents, conservative Democrats and young people then any other candidate.

This the last pearl I throwing among the swine here for today. I have good book I am reading. Frankly I hate kicking people when they are down. You will notice that I write all my stuff off the top of my head. That is why it is so good. I don't need some dimwit like Jeffery Lord to write my stuff.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 11:51PM

Duuuuuuuhhhhh !

Tea party criticism about Perry's immigration record is now appearing on activist blogs in Arizona.
"Gov. Perry is very eager to appear tough on illegal immigration, but upon closer inspection he's part of the problem," complained William Gheen, who runs the North Carolina-based political action committee Americans for Legal Immigration. The group intends to educate conservative groups about candidates' positions on that issue."

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 3:34PM

...Riiiiight...

And where do you fit into all of this, Clint?

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 3:40PM

Asked & Answered Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader Dr.Reich.

Thomas Paine| 9.16.11 @ 12:10PM

Wow! are you guys immature. I'd LOVE to see Ron Paul as President ... though I also think foreign policy could end up a disaster. Nobody's perfect.

While a swift lurch to Constitutionally limited (aka LEGAL) Federal activity would be amazing for the country and the economy, it's hard to imagine it could happen overnight. How many laws would have to be repealed to comply with the Founders' intent on the 10th Amendment...? MOST OF THEM.

So fight the fight, but please, be realistic. The "most Liberal" candidate (probably Romney or Huntsman) wouldn't change the makeup of the House and Senate one iota. The push for limited government must come from the People, through the Congress ... and the most important thing is removing the Leftist Socialist (Fascist?) impediment from the White House.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 11:05AM

We booed the hell out of Cheney at some conservative event they were giving him an award at. Do you think a few dead enders like you are going to intimidate us off? You forgot to show all the appaluse Dr. Paul got all evening. You forgot to show Romney, Perry and Huntsman all getting roundly booed. We all know this is a battle to the death. We are going to take over this party or we are going to replace it.

The Republican strategist Jack Burkman has stated on Judge Napolitano's show that Ron Paul has the deepest support and the most committed followers he has seen in decades. He believes that such support could well give him the nomination and the Presidency. He also believes that Dr. Paul's ideas are pushing the whole campaign agenda. He is not supporting any candidate at this time.

60% of the voters, by polling, want out of these wars now. 75% of voters want the Federal Reserve audited. Over 70% want and end to all foreign aid. The whole issue of a return to the Constitution and small low tax government is also a signature Dr. Paul issue.

The followers of Dr. Paul are the only new blood the party is attracting. You Bush Cheney over the cliff dimwits are down to about 25% of the population. It is Dr. Paul or ruin.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 11:25AM

The other candidates are now Parroting what Dr.Ron Paul has discussed for years about The FED, Social Security, as well as Libya now.

Dr.Ron Paul leads with Independent Voters, as well.

Th Ruling Elite & Their Flunkie Stooges Are Scraed of The Tea Party & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 11:44AM

Clint-wit,

If you're trying to imply that NO ONE prior to Ron Paul has ever criticized Social Security, then you may be dumber than we already think you are.

Grow up, please.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 3:06PM

I'm Not tryin' to imply anything Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader,Dr.Reich.
None of the present GOP Presidential Candidates has a longer or more consistent record of speaking up about Social Security or The FED.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Frisbee| 9.15.11 @ 2:04PM

I bet "Jack in Wi" approves of Obama's involvement in Libya.

Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 1:48AM

I am against almost any american intervention overseas. I think most have been wrong headed and very badly managed. Libya is clearly unconstutitonal. That has never stopped them before.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 11:42AM

Jack,

I hate to break it to you, but booing in and of itself is NOT exactly a political platform.

My 5th grader boos when he sees Obama; so what?

The reason I posted the link to Ron Paul being booed last week was to put truth to THE LIE that fools like you and Clint spread about Ron Paul and the Tea Party, and particularly the supposed across-the-board support for Paul in the Tea Party.

Both are abject lies.

First of all, Ron Paul did NOT start the Tea Party; that's a falsehood that Paul and his followers like to spread, but there's not a scinitilla of truth to it. All you fools ever produce is a clip of a video from 2007 where 4-5 Paul-Bots are standing around carrying signs that say "We need a Tea Party". To extrapolate the existence of the current Tea Party movement to this event is intellectually dishonest and just plain stupid.

Secondly, as the booing at the TEA PARTY DEBATE showed, Paul is NOT the favorite among "Tea Party" voters. In fact, no one is. Tea Party members are a diverse group, and no candidate has received an official endorsement. In fact, none EVER will, because there is NO national, centralized TEA PARTY organization.

If you Liber-Tards are going to try and deceive people, you're going to have to be at least as smart as the Liberals, who've been pulling the wool over people's eyes for more than a century. Compared to them, you Paul-bots are rank amateurs.

In any event, Jack, I have a question:

IF Ron Paul is NOT the GOP nominee, will you support the winner with your vote against Obama??

That means you might have to vote for Perry, Romney, etc, so answer carefully.

I have N qualms about saying that if Ron Paul IS the nominee, I WILL vote for him. He's a lunatic, but the goal in 2012 is to get Obama out of the White House, not to be childish and refuse to play if my candidate loses.

So what's it going to be, Jack? Yes, or no? Adult, or child?

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 12:37PM

Just because you might-accidentally, of course-do something that is both intelligent and in the best interests of the US(and no one really believesthat you'd follow through), doesn't mean that your can whine and stamp you feet until others make a commitment to undertake an act that is both stupid and irrelevant.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 1:37PM

Frankly Dr. Wrong, like almost all Zionists, you don't know how to put 2 true words together. Dr. Ron Paul is the Tea party. We were out in the streets 4 years ago pushing this agenda. His son Rand was elected because of the fact that he is Ron's son.

We are a spontaneous movement that sprouted by popular demand from Ron's last campaign. It was a populist revolt that just needed a leader to inspire us. We have the leaders now. We know what the program is. We will take over this party or we put a final end to it. You Neocons and country clubbers have led us over the cliff for the last time.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 1:59PM

Yep. Zionists=bad, Iran=non-threatening country, yet largest state sponsor of terror persuing nukes.

You Ru Paulites really don't even make an effort to hide your hatred of Jews, do you. That's good. THIS Jew hates turds like you, too.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 2:39PM

You got that right. Israel has up to 600 atomic weapons and is led by lunatics who have a plan called the Samson Option. That plan is nuclear blackmail which would blow up most of Europe and the Middle East. Go google it. I would add that the Samson Option was exposed by sane Jews like Seymour Hersh and Mordicai Vanunnu.

Iran has no nuclear weapons programs at this time. That is confirmed by the NIE Report put out by our combined intelligence agencies. It is also confirmed by the atomic inspection agencies that inspect Iranian nuclear installations all the time. Irsn is a peaceful country that hasn't attacked anyone in 2 centuries. Can we say the same about Israel with it's attacks on it's neighbors and it's worldwide False flag and espionage missions.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 2:55PM

"Irsn is a peaceful country that hasn't attacked anyone in 2 centuries. Can we say the same about Israel with it's attacks on it's neighbors and it's worldwide False flag and espionage missions."

You REALLY have to be a screw-ball to believe that nonsense.

Mike D.| 9.15.11 @ 4:05PM

Quote from Jack in Wisc.

Jack in Wi.| 9.10.11 @ 1:58AM
With all due respect: Israel with all it's nuclear weapons, crazed leadership, the Samson option, the Masada complex and its control of most of our government is a terrible black cloud on the world. I don't see any light coming through that darkness.

Hi jack, its me again. I would like to know more about the "control of most of our government" comment in that quote of yours from last week. I really want to do something about this Jewish control of our government. About that "black cloud" stuff, could you tell us what we should do about it?

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 4:31PM

I will happy to repeat something like it. The Israeli Lobbey controls most of our political class using bribery, blackmail, and intimidation. They use our own laundered foreign aid money to do all this. On top of that they have a huge espionage operation going in this country. I suggest you Google Israeli espionage in the USA. With friends like Israel and Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies? The only way to cut this off is to get rid of all aid to Israel. Then you call the Israeli ambassador in and tell him to reduce his staff by 95%. Then you inform him that Israeli interference and espionage will not be tolerated any more. AIPAC was once registered as a foreign goverment agent. It is time to that again. It is time to make the ADL do the same.

As long as I am at it I will call the Saudi ambassador in and tell him something similar. I will also inform him that pushing radical Islam all over the world will not be looked on as a friendly action.

Mike D.| 9.15.11 @ 4:44PM

Is this kind of like a Zionist Occupational Government? Thats scary.

With God all things r possible| 9.15.11 @ 9:46PM

Yes, just like the CIA successfully predicted those nukes by China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc. Sure I would trust them I would! And those peaceful Iranians who changed their name from Persia to Iran (you know, Aryan) after swallowing Hitler's doctrines whole. And of course their sponsorship of terror worldwide through Hamas and Hezbollah, including attacks on Americans and American forces, so peaceful. And Ahmaduncejad's repeated vow to obliterate Israel and the Great Satan, the United States. And his dancers dancing creepy dances with vials of radioactive material as they were genies in bottles. That peaceful country, which wants only to be left in peace.

Open your eyes!

Jack in Wi.| 9.16.11 @ 1:56AM

Ya lets go bombing the whole world because porr little Israel might have a nasty bomb pointed at it. Hell i remember when 30,000 bombs were pointed at me. Nobody cared about me when I had to duck and cover. Israel has up to 600 atomic weapons pointed all over the Middle East and Europe. I sure hope there are some pointed back at her.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 2:20PM

Jack in Berlin,

Simply put, you're deluded.

Let's see...

You're not an anti-Semite, but when you get angry, you like to call people "Zionists"...Kind of like the PLO and Hamas!

You REALLY love Ron Paul...Not in a sexual way, but in a creepy, messianic kind of way. You think he'll solve all of your problems, and settle some old scores, too (probably with "the Jews").

You think that Ron Paul IS the Tea Party. Creepy, weird, and 100% wrong. There is NO "Tea Party" in the way you speak of it. It's NOT a centralized, monolithic organization. There's NO Tea Party bosses, no convention, no nominee...so on WHAT do you base the statement that Ron Paul IS the Tea Party???? And how do you propose that you will "take over the party"??? Again, Jack...there's NO "Party" to take over.

You're "spontaneous", but you have "leaders"??? Well, which is it??

The TEA PARTY was not birthed by Ron Paul's pathetic 2008 campaign. Other than you Paul-Bots, NOBODY cared about Paul in 2008...That's why he LOST.

I can tell that you have some deeply personal need to believe in Ron Paul, AND to "belong" to his quest for the White House. I guess it gives your life meaning?

Whatever.

And as far as "the cliff" is concerned, jack...if you're standing on the edge, then maybe you should take a good, hard look at your life, and accept the responsibility for your present position instead of blaming nameless, faceless others for your problems (exactly as Jeffrey Lord said in his original article).

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 4:18PM

I haven't led the country over the cliff. You and your hero's have. Israel is not my country. I could care a rats behind about either Israel or Saudi Arabia. They are both worthless kleptocracies that have interfered in our national goverment and life long enough. As for Hamas and Hizballah. They were both helped along by the mossad as a counterweight to the secular PLO and FATAH. How did that work out for you? Israel is a far more dangerous terrorist state then any Arab. It has up to 600 atomic weapons, and is led by lunatics, with the Samson Option.

JacintoKid| 9.15.11 @ 4:33PM

You're wrong Dr. Right! the more I'm exposed to the RuPauls, the more I believe he actually does have a sexual hold over these people. Why else would they get so emotional about the slightest criticism of Dr. Paul?

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 3:44PM

" Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The survey, an exit poll conducted by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”

Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”
Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent. "

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:54PM

I didn't say Perry was perfect. As a Texas grad who paid out of state tuition in Med school, I think that wass boneheaded---that's why I prefer Bachmann.

But Perry will be good on taxes, minimizing government, and defense. Paul would be rancid on defense. Therefore, Perry is preferable to Paul.

You know, I lived in Paul's Congressional district for 4 years, Clint, 1984-1988---I went to UTMB, Galveston. Unlike you, I have 1st hand experience with the schmuck. He sucked.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 10:47AM

I was a financial supporter and subscriber of National Review for 42 years. I went to the 25th aniversary dinner in 1980 at the Plaza hotel and met Mr. Buckley. Buckley and I sat together at a dinner in Waukesha Wi. in 1991. I more then held my own in the conversation. I have a picture from that event of us together.

National Review went off the rails when Buckley got into finacial trouble about 20 years ago and gave theNeoconservatives a lot of say. I read the article you referenced and stand by my above comments more then ever.

Mr. Buckley supported the attack on Iraq. Within a short time perhaps a year he said. If I knew now what the true situation was I never would have supported this action. In other words he changed his mind.

JacintoKid| 9.15.11 @ 4:36PM

Most people become more sane and rational over time. You've chosen the opposite path. You rebel you. It's scary to think there are seniors out there who have a viewpoint as warped as yours. Dementia?

Gary W| 9.15.11 @ 11:40PM

The National Review lies. Not a single reference is given because the article is a work of fiction.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 9.15.11 @ 12:33PM

Word. We took a stably unstable mess and made it an unstably unstable mess- and at significant cost, and for no apparent reason. Because Saddam butchered his people? Hardly. WMD? Please. We can only hope that the new Iraq is only remotely like the post- US Viet Nam, instead of the cesspool and quagmire that we have turned it into.

stmichrick| 9.15.11 @ 12:48PM

Jack;
What a twisted view you spew. Take out the Saudi regime instead of Saddam? They may be duplicitous but they are not about mass murder. The hijackers were not instruments of the House of Saud. Saddam Hussein allowed a number of terror training camps to function in Iraq.
Methinks you are blinded by the faux superior intellect of Dr. Paul.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 1:52PM

We didn't go after Saddam Hussain because he was a mass muderer. We went after him supposedly because he was a threat to us and the region. He had huge weapons of mass destruction and was about to attack New York city. He was the instigator of all the world's terror. It would not cost us a cent because we would get it all back in Iraqi oil. John Snow was fired as Treasury Secretary because he said it might cost 200 billion.

It has cost us trillions and mountain of blood on both sides. It was based on a pack of lies that any sane and knowledgable peron could figure out. Husain was an old man who's people were starving. He had no air force or missles left. He was under constant overfight and much ground inspection. I knew it and started saying it all over the internet. It was a pack of murderous lies. We didn't go after Mao, Castro, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Rawandans and many others. Hussain was a saint compared to some of them.

Cheney, Bush, The Clintons, Blair, Brown, and the Neocons all belong on trial for war crimes. Many Germans were hung for less.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 2:28PM

Man, one lie after another.
1. First of all yes, we believed he had WMD. No one said he was going to attack NY with it.
2. No one said he was the instigator of all world terror. Simply that he did help finance it.
3. No one but the left even mentioned oil.
4. If any sane and knowledgable people could figure it was based on a lie why did Congress pass it? Why did other intelligence agencies in other contries believe the same thing? Why did Saddam himself, say he kept perputrating the lie that he had WMD
""It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," George Piro FBI agent.

Al Adab| 9.15.11 @ 3:06PM

DS:
You about have it down. The Left continues to misstate the evidence in order to score political points. There is enough blame to go around so we need to move beyond who is at fault and get back to principles that prevent future errors.

As to the WMDs, our troops actually found chemical factories and the chemical componants needed to create the nerve gases he had used previously. The actual final cause of the attack was Iraqi consistant violation of the UN imposed no fly zone. As an instrument of the UN (which I always thought the Left loved) the US had every right to act when and how it did. In fact, don't I remember that the same Lefties criticized Bush 41 for NOT going into Baghdad?

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 3:39PM

Why yes Al, you do remember that. I was there at the time and I remember the frustration of not being allowed to finish the job the first time. So, what do we do? We pull back, allow them 10 years to re-build and regroup and finally decide enough is enough. But that is a lesson the Paulbots will never, ever learn.

And yes, our troops did find chemical factories and compounds. Much of it degraded but it isn't hard to build back up. In fact, even the left leaning Wikileaks stated the same findings as well as yellowcake uranium. 55o metric tons to be exact, where removed in 2008.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25.....nium-iraq/

Now I know Jack will say it wasn't weapons grade, and he is right. But I also know that Jack will ignore the fact that it doesn't have to be to make a dirty bomb, and a desperate, broken Saddam could have sold it to terrorist in a heartbeat.

Seems some Paul supporters are as bad at missing facts as the liberals when it goes against what they believe in.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 3:40PM

Correction
were removed in 2008

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 3:52PM

" ( William ) Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 4:04PM

But Clint, accord to your BFF Jack Mr. Buckley himself was not longer following conservative principles once he got into financial troubles.

So are you quoting William Buckley the conservative or William Buckley the sell out?

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 4:26PM

Take it up with Jack, Jack Ass.

You callin' William F. Buckley " A Sell Out " Israel Firster Asshole Drunk .

"Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy, including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran and its nuclear facilities.

"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 8:39PM

Clint: You are doing beautiful work. Some of the stuff you dig up are real treasures.

Jack in Wi.| 9.15.11 @ 8:48PM

Buckley sold out all right. He did have concience and it bothered him. Near the end of his life he tried to make some ammends for the mistakes he made. That is a good policy for everyone. I usually don't respond to old drunks but I made an exception in this case.

BARBBF| 9.16.11 @ 11:27AM

"If any sane and knowledgable people could figure it was based on a lie why did Congress pass it? "

Why did Congress agree to invade Iraq??? Because they are a spineless bunch of idiots...just like the bunch today who have let Obama get away with the illegal invasion of Libya...which has caused the deaths of over 30,000 Libyan civilians...as of April 2011.

stmichrick| 9.17.11 @ 12:35PM

All I can say to all those distortions is how glad I am that you and Dr Paul are not in charge of our national security. Al Quaida and Saddam Hussein would have played you like a cheap fiddle.

Crystal ball gazing and monday morning quarterbacking are no way to run an airline.

Bob| 9.15.11 @ 1:33PM

Well said.

BARBBF| 9.16.11 @ 11:19AM

THANKS FOR THE REALITY CHECK. The US is still spending $8 BILLION A MONTH in Iraq and another $7 BILLION A MONTH in Afghanistan. It was reported and denied by the Pentagon that the US invasion of Iraq was responsible for the deaths of over a MILLION Iraqi civilians. Some Accomplishment!

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 5:00PM

I'll only agree to your last two sentences. Instead of VietNam'ing our military after 9/11/01, we should have instead NAGASAKIED/HIROSHIMIED the deserts of the ME and warned their governments to never allow members of their radical populations to murder 3000+ innocents within our country ever again if they wished to remain thereafter populated!!!!!!!!!

Mimi| 9.15.11 @ 7:40AM

I hope that country succeeds in becoming a prosperous nation.... and its people can live in PEACE.
Our family members returned from Iraq and told us all of the horrible abject poverty they witnessed...My grandson...82nd airborne came home carrying no clothes his outfit left all their personal belongings and donated them to the people.....God Bless all who served there and wish someday they could visit the country and as WWII vets did in Italy and France see the peace they worked so hard for.

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 12:31PM

Your grandchild is a fool if he actually believes that.
As are you.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 12:51PM

Don't you have some soldiers to go spit on & call "baby killer?" People like you are an utter joke.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 1:07PM

No, her Grandchild has a big heart and apparently is willing to sacrifice to make things better for others. You, not so much?
At least your moniker is accurate.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 1:09PM

And you're pond-scum to insult both Mimi and her grandson, who has served his country with distinction.

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 2:43PM

With all your blowhard tirades here, you mean you yourself didn't actually sign up for either of the two bouts of insanity still in progress? Why, I thought surely you must have killed at least 1,000 Taliban barehanded-before breakfast!

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 3:01PM

How do you know any of us DIDN'T?

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 3:36PM

I DID my time in the USN, punk.

What's your excuse?

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:56PM

Dr R,

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Warrior| 9.15.11 @ 2:04PM

It's one thing to rationally discuss anti-war sentiments and whether the reasons for this war justified all the sacrifice. It's rather disgusting to criticize those who risked everything and in the end charitably attempted to help those less fortunate. You should smirk elsewhere as you add nothing to the discussion of any value.

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 2:50PM

The woman's grandchild risked life and limb in actions that had nothing to do with the best interest of his nation or its' citizens and then gave up his own-actually, tax payer provided-personal effects to a group of people who had no relation, connection or commonality to him, some of whom tried to kill him and his associates.
That's foolish.
And if you wish to charitably assist the less fortunate, give-your own money-to the Salvation Army; they have a very long record of providing effective assistance in a cost effective manner, often to actual Americans.

Warrior| 9.15.11 @ 5:00PM

If you would stop be a self centered asshole for a few minutes, you would thank everyone who was willing to make the sacrifice in what they saw as their sworn duty. If our elected officials would similary live up to their oaths to defend the Constitution we probably don't need to have this conversation about an unConstitutional and undeclared war.

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 5:29PM

If 'they' saw it as their sworn duty, why would
they-or their spokescritters-care about thanks?
But its more about you maintaining your desperate and pathetic delusions as a worshiper
of stooges for empire.

Mimi| 9.15.11 @ 4:37PM

You....Smirking Weasel...He saw the POOR with his eyes ...what actually did YOU see???

Mimi| 9.15.11 @ 4:40PM

He was there and saw....were you there?

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 5:25PM

No. I'm not foolish and deluded.
If he wanted to 'help the poor',
there's plenty of fellow(?) Americans
he could assist.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 7:09PM

OHHHH, so your a racist then? You don't object to his helping others only to the fact that he helped others that were not American. Now I understand.

Coward

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:20PM

I never gave a rat's ass whether there were WMD's there.
I wanted Sadaam dead, and 100,000 US troops wading into the most dangerous pile of shit in the ME.
I wanted them to scare the crap out of all the punk-ass dictator scumbags in the region, and kill as many filthy jihadi arabs as possible.
They did; I'm happy.
Mission accomplished!

martin j smith| 9.15.11 @ 7:56AM

What is necessary to avoid the LEFT from skrewing up our efforts in defense related matters is a clear understanding for the American People as to why being involved in such and such a place is in our National Interest. I do not believe that most voters clearly understood what Communism is nor do I believe they understand what Radical Islam is either. I believe we need a President who talks to us --as they say--like grown ups.
My sense is as to the Iraq War correct in general but was not politically handled well at all and I can see at least two reasons: It dragged out too long without any real sense of achievement and our goals I think were too ambitious. The two are interrelated. Then we had the Socialists who would be against even a spit ball war. And, I truly believe that the International Socialist ( Communist )movement --well funded and well organized --were a major problem. Finally the silence of GWB did not help much at all.

Of course all of this stuff about Iraq and Afganistan are connected to the " War on Terror" which should really be called the " War on Radical Islam ". Here again lies another factor in our difficulties in explaining to the voter what we are doing and why.

So in my view we have one political Party--The Democrat( ic ? ) Party--aka the Socialists and the Republican Party ( with confused or no real identity ) with conflicting ideas about our national security.

The pacifists of the Socialists I do not trust even for one nanonano second. But neither do I distrust the Republican Party because they lack a clear vision and are unwilling to be upfront about goals. In any even I think both parties better understand that more voters see the pboney crap in the area of national security as well as any other political matter and will reject candidates that do not show a semblance of honesty and integrity in their presentations of arguments.

Warrior| 9.15.11 @ 2:20PM

Democrats have no more interest in ending the wars than the Republicans do. If Democrats truly wanted to end the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, they could have passed defunding actions through the House as early as 2007 and by January 2009 had large majorties in both houses and a radical far left president in which little resistance could have been offered.

Both parties cheered and high fived the president on his personal declaration of war on Libya. It's not the left screwing this up, it is simply modern politics as usual.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.15.11 @ 7:56AM

Well done, troops!
Thank you all!

Bob| 9.15.11 @ 1:41PM

The troops were simply doing their job, and yes well done. Now the real issue. The issue here is that the principles behind counterinsurgency were largely unfulfilled, principles have either been violated, overlooked, or just plainly unfulfilled. Most of all, their is still a lack of a political structure in place that is reliable and that the people can trust that the reality he's overlook in commentary!

RCV| 9.15.11 @ 2:30PM

Amen, Ken. They're the finest in the world. If you want to read a thoroughly inspiring account, look up the story of Dakota Meyer, the Marine who is receiving the Medal of Honor for his incredible bravery in repeatedly taking fire while going back six times to rescue fellow Marines and Afghan soldiers who were trapped by the Taliban, and to retrieve the bodies of his fallen comrades. That's our young men and women in uniform. God bless them.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 3:42PM

RCV,
Just read that today. Amazing story and a humble hero! A living example of SEMPER FI!

W| 9.15.11 @ 3:50PM

Agree, great story, brave man.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 10:58PM

Indeed, they are awesome. My wife's college roommate is an officer in Air Force intelligence. Awesome lady.

Erling| 9.15.11 @ 8:11AM

Mr. Tyrrell nails it. I was stationed in northern Iraq (Multi-National Division North) when GEN Petraeus arrived, and what an improvement we saw between '06 and '07. I'll never forget how liberal Democrats in Congress rooted for our defeat. I know the Good Book commands us to love our enemies, so I guess I owe Durbin, Reid, Murtha, and Teddy Kennedy a big hug.

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 12:32PM

Your 'improvement' was simply the result of bribery, an ancient solution whose efficacy ends when the act itself ends.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 12:49PM

Your name is appropriate for someone who so cavalierly discounts the efforts made & the blood spilt by our soldiers in making that region the best success story of the whole Iraq war. The Kurds would beg to differ with your assesment.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 1:09PM

Translation. Smirking Weasel didn't have the balls to join and fight for a cause so he tries to cover his feelings of inferiority by besmirching others. It's a common tactic among cowards.

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 2:39PM

You mean too much intelligence to fight for something that has nothing to do with the best interests of my own nation and its' people. Your
entire identity is wrapped up in some fictionalized
tale of soldier-boy as savior and when that tale proves false your entire sense of self, and self-worth, collapses. It is sad, and pathetic, but the rest of us are under no obligation to reinforce your fantasies.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 3:39PM

So enlighten us, genius...

What ARE the best interests of "your" nation?

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 3:50PM

News flash coward, I not only did my time in the USN, I pulled the full 20 years. That makes me a little more aware of the type of people that serve than you are, especially since it is obvious by your disdain for them that you consider yourself "too smart and enlightened" to ever serve.
In fact I am willing to bet your entire world revolves around you and your petty wants. Not reality and damned sure not what may be right for your fellow man. If you think that is beneath you, fine. Live in your bubble. But you show your craven cowardice by attacking others that are at least attempting to better this world while you simply sit back and wallow, Michael Moore, style in the good fortune that living in this country has provided you. All the while you forget how this country has gotten to where it is and many of the brave men and women that have given of themselves so that this country can be where it is. I tried to do my part and even defend punks like you, including your right to insult us and burn our flag. But I will warn you , if you try to excercise your free speech rights and desecrate our flag in front of me, I will express my free speech rights and gladly pay the cost of punching your teeth down your throat.

Have a nice day, coward.

Smirking Weasel| 9.15.11 @ 6:01PM

Such a sad pathetic l'il fellow, wholly dependent on others genuflecting to your conception of
self-worth for any sort of emotional stability.
Please go to the VA and seek mental health
assistance.
And if you try to punch me-which would be assault-I'll shoot back.

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 7:15PM

Not only do I not need anyone thanking me, I specifically asked for no thanks and no retirment ceremony. See I did this because it was something I believed in and still do. I did it with no expectation of thanks. In fact, I did it expecting to be attacked by parasites like you. Guess I was right.

I'll shoot back. What's wrong big guy. Can't defend yourself? Like I said, I would punch you if you tried to deface the flag in front of me. Otherwise you aren't worth the time. And trust me, in that case you would be in front of me and in arms reach, you better pray your a quick draw because I wouldn't give you second chance.

I know your game, it's called being a shit disturber. That what gets you off is to offend and irritate others. Another sign of a coward. Fine, if that's what get you through life. I am done with you.

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 5:11PM

DS: Since I've probably been amiss previously in not doing so, let me take this opportunity to THANK YOU [AND ALL MILITARY MEMBERS HERE ALSO] FOR YOUR MILITARY SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, AND TO ME AND MY FAMILY [FOR THE PROTECTION THAT YOUR SERVICE PROVIDED]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mimi| 9.15.11 @ 4:50PM

The TROLLS lately arn't worth correcting.....The Dems must be going broke ....their hiring the SCUM of the earth ...lowest of the low!
You who POST....they don't deserve a speck of attention.

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:22PM

The jerk whose post follows mine is an asshole.

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:23PM

Oops!
I meant smirking shithead.
Sorry Mr. Smith.

martin j smith| 9.15.11 @ 8:17AM

There is a post I read today --perhaps in more than one site that asserts that Obama is " still very popular in Europe". Well I am not surprised. Most of Western Europe is SOCIALIST and that explains why they are in financial mess which apparently WE hand a hand in bailouts--ha ha !!!!!!!!!!
Most important, Europeans, Socialists were a major factor in anti-War Demos ( Iraq war to be specific under GWB ) and for those who followed th news you should recall major demonstrations.
So, I have a suggestion: Obama resigns as Prez of the US and is given a new Job of Prez of the EU.
Let me add one other thing related to the EU and NATO. Do you know that Turkey is a member of NATO --and this government has turned anti-West. That is correct--their PM Erdogen (? )
has an Islamist agenda. in my view Our ability to call the EU 'friends or allies" is highly dubious..
A more neutral term such as associate or some such thing would be more truthful.
Thus, when we are faced with the need to engage militarily that is in our national interest it may well be that NATO's views might not be ours and we do what we have to do. Except we had better be darn sure of our facts please.

Doctor Right| 9.15.11 @ 10:47AM

That might not be a bad idea...

After all, Europe is becoming increasingly Islamic, so Obama would feel right at home.

And then he could screw up the Muslim's economy just like he's screwed ours' up!!!

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.15.11 @ 8:31AM

This is the same TED KENNEDY who was instrumental, with the aid of the Crooked Son of a Crooked Father - Chris Dodd - who betrayed the South Vietnamese, by breaking their word, and ending Arms Supplies, so they could defend themselves from the COMMUNIST North.
The same Ted Kennedy, who sent a letter to Soviet Premier - Yuri Andropov - offering his ASSISTANCE, in thwarting OUR PRESIDENT - Ronald Reagan - at their upcoming Summit.
Will somebody explain why this TRAITOR is buried on the Hallowed Grounds of ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETARY?
And, tell us why BOBBY is there, as well.
It's a National Disgrace.

stephen | 9.15.11 @ 11:14AM

Saddam was a dangerous person who terrorized his own people, used chemical weapons against them, started a war with Iran, paid Muslims 25K to kill American soldiers; and you say he was the balance of the region. FACT there is no "balance in the region unless you are a bedouin and have no country since they are nomads.
The world is a better place without Saddam's regime. He ran his coutry with fear and no freedoms. He tortured, mamed and killed people fort the fun of it.
Imagine if we didn't get him out and he did give these radicals who want us dead a chemical weopon and they used it on our soil? Ever get gassed Jack or Dr right? I have and it is no fun. This stuff is deadly and thank goodness it isn't in the bad guys hands

JP| 9.15.11 @ 11:30AM

It was a necessary, Just and Prudent War in Iraq, against Saddam hussein and the Terrorist Groups he sponsored.

One day the facts will rise above the Lies from the Left: http://husseinandterror.com

Chuck| 9.15.11 @ 11:43AM

Ted was such a funny fellow, we all know about the car flipping trick into Pocha Pond but his Vietnam stance is almost as interesting. He was absent from the senate during the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin debate. But his two brothers were gun-ho prior to 1964 in escalating the Vietnam War. Speaking of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution do you know anti-war critics George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Clinton mentor J William Fulbright (Half-Bright according to Truman) all voted for the resolution. In fact Senator Half-Bright served as LBJ's water boy hand carrying the resolution through the senate assuring no escalation. Also Johnson had the resolution written even before the incident. What foresight especially from a dummy. The Democrats waited until a Republican was in White House before they rescinded the resolution why not 1966. What phonies these Democrats are such funny fellows.

Nick| 9.15.11 @ 11:38PM

Chuck,

Teddy 'the Swimmer' also skated out of the Korean War. Like cowards are wont to do.
Bobby, also, didn't serve, in either WWII or Korea. He was eligible to serve in both wars.

I guess fighting for this country stopped with Joe Jr. and Jack, huh?

Who Knows?| 9.15.11 @ 11:53AM

Pace the irreplaceable Michael Ledeen’s ongoing point, unless and until the bastards in Iran are ousted (and hung up by their feet like Mussolini, hopefully), at best the to-date “good” results of American sacrifice in Iraq is a SUB-mission accomplished.

Think ahead to, say, 2020, with a stronger Iran making ten times as much trouble in Iraq, as well as other close by neighborhoods, and “Mission Accomplished” will better apply to THEM----and make those who used the phrase about American TEMPORARY tactical successes look like the fools they are.

The real war raging across the globe is taking place within every human’s heart and mind.

Only the few and proud are called to deadly acts, to wit personally killing perceived enemies, but we are all---those who are informed, anyway---involved in the current New Thing, the Manichean Mother of all splits, powered by the programmed minions of the Muslim faith.

When you get down to the lowest big split, which is between human beings and non-human beings, there exist myriad examples from history to guide us. For the true believing Nazis, Jews and gypsies were SUB-HUMAN.

Just so, then, these days, for the crème of the Muslim “crop”, led by the top guys in Iran, the black and white verity is that non-Muslims are---animals, in essence. And, as the bible says, man has dominion over NON-MAN---you can be sure the Koran is even more extreme in this do or die splitting core belief.

Thus, the REAL WAR is being waged in the heart, even before the mind is forged in the factories called Madrasses. That is, each individual born into a Muslim family is well taught at the earliest age, BEFORE mind is even hardly begun, at the HEART, to accept the form of self-other of that “religion”.

It’s actually completely simple to understand.

Every religion NECESSARILY self-defines adherents as absolutely different from non-adherents. Islam, being the baby worldwide religion, still hasn’t grown up.

So, the transcendental split seems to be the following---Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc, certainly play the difference game, but they have all matured beyond their extreme beginnings, so that TOLERANCE applies to non-adherents. It is a higher, albeit still splitting self-other, religion, wherein live and let live as a way of dealing with OTHERS pertains.

Islam’s mass of believers must fight the war of reformation, among THEMSELVES, and come to the same Realization about non-Muslims!

The key way, then, to Absolutely get to “Mission Accomplished”, across the entire world, is to use every means possible to assist the poor “devils” so deeply programmed in their HEARTS as Muslims to---grow up, and just let others live in peace!

Any bets on how long it will be before THAT happens?

DaveS| 9.15.11 @ 12:15PM

Emmett: what made you leave Mao's name off? Were his deeds to large and would they make the 'small' evildoers vanish in the background?

Gary W| 9.15.11 @ 11:43PM

Oh didn't you know, we're all lobey-dobey (eyes fluttering) with China.. and Tricky Dick Himself shook hands with the Great Mao. How can any liberal-munching Republican ever dump on Mao?

DaveS| 9.15.11 @ 12:25PM

Democrats almost succeeded in foisting failure on the rest of us. I saw NatGeo's show on the hijackers and their relationship to OBL. They left off the Sudanese government's offer to turn Bin Laden over to us during the Clinton years and simply said he went from the Sudan to Afghanistan. The treatment of Bush by NatGeo was nowhere near as forgiving. They also did not discuss the 9/11 commission's fighting over assistant attorneys general keeping intelligence walls up when none were required by law.

I submit this to 'Jack i Wi': do you think the libyan rebels would have even attempted a resistance had not the Iraq situation caused Gaddafhi to give up his WMD? Do you think it possible that there is Iraqi WMD hidden in Syria and that the Baathists there would not consider its use?

We won; they lost; it's forever 9/12/2001 - though 'Jack in Wi' (I'd change that name if I were him) still lives in the period before 9/11/2001.

DaveS| 9.15.11 @ 12:29PM

Gee, DaveS: Egypt looks bad, Libya looks bad, and Gaddafhi may be looking to lash out at somebody. I wouldn't travel anywhere near that region unless I went to save Americans - even boots on the ground Americans in Libya.[We aren't supposed to notice.]

Gary W| 9.15.11 @ 11:45PM

Are you out of your cottonpickin' mind? It has been a Democratic administration for 2 1/2 years. Don't go stealing credit if you can't achieve anything on your own.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 12:42PM

Seems like the former soldier spitting Jack & the Ru Paulite anti Semite Clint are frothing at the mouth again. So we haven't done any good in Iraq? I'll bet the Kurds beg to differ. I'll bet the familes of those who were rounded up & summarily executed or put into rape rooms would beg to differ. And, of course, the figures Jack cites are more than likely from the Useless Nations or some other jihadi sympathizing institution.

People like Jack & Clint are like those whom Demosthenes tried to convince about the encroachments of Philip of Macedon. Willfully ignorant of the threat that faces them. And when they're called out for their ignorance, they call people "chickenhawks" (amazing, since none of THEM have served) & "Israel Firsters."

"If, therefore, Philip had then come to the conclusion that it was a difficult task to fight the Athenians while they held such strong outposts in his own territory and he was destitute of allies, in that case he would have never gained his present successes, never acquired power. But, men of Athens, Philip saw clearly that all these outposts were but open prizes of war, that by natural right the property of the absent belongs to those who are on the spot, and the property of the careless to those who can face toil and danger.

It was precisely by acting on this principle that he has mastered and now holds them all. Some he has seized by right of arms, others he has won by alliance and friendship. For indeed alliance and respect are are willingly offered by all men to those whom they see ready and prompt to take action."...Demosthenes

How are the encroachments of Philip on Athens/Greece any different than the designs of the jihadis, who seek to impose their caliphate on the world? THEY AREN'T.

PS. For all you idiots who use the "Israel Firster" label, I have a question. Since I apporove of the large amount of military hardware we supply to Britain & I was supportive of their actions in the Falklands & Northern Ireland, does that make me an "England Firster?" Does that make all those who sympathized with the IRA "Ireland Firsters?" Or is it only a big deal if the ally you support happens to be the only Jewish state in the world? I'm DYING to hear the obfuscation on this one.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 2:57PM

When You place The National Interests of some foreign nation ahead of the National Interests of The United States & U.S. Taxpayers, You're A Foreign Firster, Israel Firster, Con Job.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 3:04PM

Never done that. I DO believe we should support our allies. Especially the ones that are right next door to the state sponsor of Hezbollah. You dolts who don't think they'll sell nukes to them are dumb enough to buy an oceanfront condo in Death Valley.

Al Adab| 9.15.11 @ 3:08PM

Apparently Chef your point is exactly what our friend Clint cannot comprehend. The strength of our allies is a vital interest of the United States.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 11:00PM

Again, thank you, thank you, thank you, DS. Love your stuff.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 4:04PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,

" On Iran, President Obama should:

1.) Explain to the American people that Iran is no threat to the United States unless we or Israel attack it first, and then it would be a serious threat to U.S. access to energy and would likely stage terrorist operations in the continental United States. [The last thanks to 30-years of federal immigration policies that leave us without knowledge of who is in the country or what they are capable of doing.]

2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 9.15.11 @ 4:07PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,

"On Iran, The President should:

1.) Explain to the American people that Iran is no threat to the United States unless we or Israel attack it first, and then it would be a serious threat to U.S. access to energy and would likely stage terrorist operations in the continental United States. [The last thanks to 30-years of federal immigration policies that leave us without knowledge of who is in the country or what they are capable of doing.]

2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 9.15.11 @ 12:47PM

The piece above illustrates this country's principal problem: as many on the right subscribe to ridiculous ideas concerning the military and military spending as do those on the left who subscribe to equally idiotic ideas on the economy, taxation and domestic spending. Explain how this country is one iota safer or tangibly better off following the wasteful war prosecuted against Saddam

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 12:55PM

You don't think that the yellowcake uranium he had & the weapons infastructure that he outsourced to Libya would've been sold to the highest bidder? Were the SEALs who went into Iraq in the beginning lying about the Al Qeada camps they found? I think I'll take their word over yours.

Richard Davis| 9.15.11 @ 1:03PM

You did notice that we didn't do anything about Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, or any number of other dictators. We weren't told that we were going into Iraq to depose a dictator, we were told it was because of WMD. So the war was based on a lie, and you are tying to rewrite history.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.15.11 @ 1:23PM

We didn't? So what you're saying is that there was no Cold War? You DO realize that during the Cold War, each side had Mutually Assured Destruction to dissuade the other. You REALLY think that a culture like that of The Religion of Pieces, which sends its kids into pizza shops & markets strapped with bombs to kill civilians give a RAT'S ASS about MAD? "We love death more than you love life" has been uttered by MANY a jihadi in their final "martyr's" video.

Al Adab| 9.15.11 @ 3:14PM

Chef:
It's the same old stuff. The Left focusus on one item, the WMD issue, and pretends that was the sole justification for invasion. It was one of a long litany or reasons. The main reason was to enforce the UN no fly zone and sanctions.

As to little Richard and his heros list of dictators, it was too bad the right Presidents didn't get their chance at Pol Pot and Castro. Casting blame for 40 year old errors doesn't justify not taking action today to prevent future mistakes. Remember when these same people criticized Bush 41 for NOT moving on Baghdad in gulf war one?

Bob| 9.15.11 @ 1:27PM

In all due respect, the surge violated the central tenet of counterinsurgency doctrine in that it did not redirect political authority toward the central government. To add additional troops to only assist in a peace keeping role, and assist in calming a violence situation which tribes were working behind the scenes and on their way to producing their very own solution to peace, makes the surge an incomplete mission. And to this day, the political solution is still in the air.

sirbourbon| 9.15.11 @ 1:32PM

"Lonely George Bush" was calling for a more "humble foreign policy" when he was trying to win his party's nomination for president. Back then Clinton and Gore had been the war hawks bombing Iraq to enforce a UN "no fly zone" edict and expanding war into Bosnia . On the stump Bush was playing the part of peace dove.

Professor of Georgetown University, Dr. Carroll Quigley cynically agreed with the establishment policy makers that in order to push this policy forward the two "opposing" political parties should essentially have the same in policy regardless of a Clinton or a Bush being the Party's standard bearer.

Quigley thought it a wonderful idea that the only change or difference between the 2 major parties would be the actors. The two parties would not change the policy no matter what the actors said out on the cmpaign trail. The serious candidates wishing to break with the Council on Foreign Relations' crafted polcies would be hissed and booed off the stage and the media would be told to focus only on the establishment parties "top tier."

Professor Quigley's cynical analysis was correct. We have been given more war, more government intrusion into our lives and higher deficits by both parties.

Since there is no faster way to build government at home than war, the establishment party leaders favor them. Once war begins it's just a matter of play acting; one side accusing the other of being soft on terrorism and the other not being tough enough.

The war on the nation's treasury continues, pegged around $4Trillion, unabatted by both sides. The war on our constitutionally protected rights surge forward masked by flag waving by establishment conservatives while liberals play to their base yet continue to fund war through foreign aid bills and sit quietly while a Democrat war hawk expands the war into Libya via an executive order! The bizarre feature of it all is that while our soldiers fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan we are helping them in Libya by backing the "rebels" that have strong ties to al-Qaeda. And in the Palestinian Authority we give money to the PLO president and help train the terrorists!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....tution/857

The 9-11 plotters and bombers and murderers coud have long ago been tried and hanged. Our treasury would not have been depleted, TSAers would not be grabbing granny and kiddies at train depots and airports had we simply used the power of the Constitution to go after just the plotters that committed the heinous acts and left those that had nothing to do with it alone.

We got Ramzi Yousef, the World Trade center bomber, without waging a war on a tactic of fighting. That is what terrorism is, it's a form of waging war on the non combatant portion of a country.Terrorist are successful only when the populace reacts by demanding that their government secure them from further attacks. There is where the terrorist wait and smile when they see us building a Gestapo like "security" apparatus and choking back on the people's freedom to travel; to be free of goons searching us without any warrant. The terrorists sit back and laugh as our politicians toss away our heritage by fighting an endless war on a tactic.

Afghanistan--10 years
Iraq- 8 years

How many years were we in Vietnam? Our troops in Vietnam were not allowed to win that war. Who was behind the policy that deny us victory? The CFR policy wonks that shaped that policy and continue in power to shape our foreign policy today.

We can win in 6 months said candidate Nixon. But once in office he followed the no-win policy of Johnson and the CFR policy wonks!

Bob| 9.15.11 @ 1:45PM

That's good!

Jim in Virginia| 9.15.11 @ 1:34PM

What are you smoking? Victory you claim? Let's decide that question in a few years after our troops have left Iraq. Domestic politics lost us Vietnam? To have "won" in Vietnam, we would still need to have troops stationed (and dying there). The world is not black or white. There are conflicts not worth starting or entering, and there are times to decide to withdraw from a conflict. We should not have entered Iraq, and while nearly all Americans could and did support attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan, few agreed to a long-haul nation-building program in a place where religion and language identify the country more than social or political cohension does. Time to leave.

Bob| 9.15.11 @ 1:56PM

I think what's important to note is what we have left out so conveniently beyond the soldiers who have lost their lives, is the monetary cost of war. Sirbourbon eludes to it, but while the GOP wants to limit the debt ceiling, let's talk about the trillions involved to accomplish what. Can we truly count it as a real success, and are we really safer now as a result of all these wars? I don't think so.

David Smith| 9.15.11 @ 1:34PM

Mission accomplished? Yeah, the same way the mission was accomplished in Vietnam: declare victory and bring the troops home.

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 1:52PM

No, what actually happened was Nixon ramped up the war with decisive and very strategic military strikes in North Vietnam that essentailly brought the Viet Cong to their knees. They realize they lost the war and agree to sign Peace Treaty on US terms. They sign. Nixon is destroyed by Dems and media on Watergate breakin soon after and resigns. Democratic congress pulls the plug on funding for war, abandons committments to Souh Vietnam, and refuses to support treaty. Troops are all pulled out within a month. Viet Cong realize they can invade South Vietnam without retribution. They do so.

That is the real story. A bit different then what your ex-hippy public school teacher taught you?

JacintoKid| 9.15.11 @ 4:51PM

The only thing you left out was the slaughter of millions after the dems cut the funding. I'm sure not one dem shed one tear or lost one night of sleep either. Amoral scumbags

sirbourbon| 9.15.11 @ 11:54PM

Nixon's six month war turned into a no win operation that had so many "time outs" (cease fires), sanctuaries (no bombing above the DMZ); no blocade of Hai Phong Harbor from which the north received regular shipments of war supplies like SAMs to kill our pilots from the eastern bloc of nations- nations that Nixon was conducting business with like aid and trade!

The South East Asia Organization of which we were a signator got us into that war, a war that could have been averted and the communists under Ho Chi Minh (born Nguyễn Sinh Cung and also known as Nguyễn Ái Quốc) defeated his army of butchers had we helped the French Foreign Legion when Ike had agreed to help them in Dien Bien Phu with air strikes on red positions but backed out at the last moment and the reds overran Frech positions changing the makeup of the region. Ike messed up and Kennedy did too despite Jack forming the Green Berets Special Forces.

Johnson invented the Tolkin Gulf incident and the war was expanded but still no plan to win since Dean Rusk and Robert Strange McNamara had no intentions of wiping out the communists and winning the war. One can truly say that Johnson's advisors were pro-communist since they set up so many barriers that it became extremely difficult to win it without nukes.

The fact is that SEATO was a UN subsidiary and SEATO forces were subject to UN dictates that set the rules of engagement for our side and gave the advantage to the North Vietnamese army. Hai Phong was never blocaded and those missles sites were never taken out.

BackToBasics| 9.16.11 @ 7:47AM

But the bottomline of it all is that Nixon was slowly getting us out of the quagmire that Johnson got us into.

The bombing went in cycles because he had to placate the North at times. But Templar's account is accurate too. Massive bombing build-ups gave Nixon the bargaining power he needed during talk stalemates to wind the war down for the US. And when we went toe-to-toe such as in the North's Tet offensive, we outfought the North when they lost 10 to 1. It was hand-to-hand in Hue and other smaller cities.

The South VietNamese army fought well after we left. But when air-support and supply funding was cut by the Democrat Congress, they were overwhelmed. For our side, the South VietNamese are also forgotten heroes, just as our own men were and still are.

It's a royal shame they way our military men were treated by those on the left!

MOS 1 1 2 | 9.16.11 @ 12:24PM

In the late forties the dems cut off aid to the Chinese Nationalists and within 2 years the ChiCom had taken over mainland China. History repeating itself.

sirbourbon| 9.16.11 @ 6:55PM

Hey, that's is an excellent point.

The other point is that the policy makers are the same policy makers regardless of who is in the White House. That has to change or we'll be forever involved in no win wars. "Forever," that is until we run out of money. And bankruptsy of the nation is the point of these wars!
The purpose of Vietnam is "simply to be at war."
"Comysymps" communist sympathizers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co73TDl_F7E

Nick| 9.17.11 @ 12:49AM

sirbourbon,

"Nixon's six month war turned into a no win operation that had so many "time outs" (cease fires), sanctuaries (no bombing above the DMZ); no blocade of Hai Phong Harbor from which the north received regular shipments of war supplies like SAMs to kill our pilots from the eastern bloc of nations- nations that Nixon was conducting business with like aid and trade!"

Excuse me?

Nixon reversed LBJ's disastrous Operation Rolling Thunder, and bombed North Viet Nam, with few restrictions. He bombed the Ho Chi Minh trail in both Cambodia and Laos. He bombed Hanoi and Haiphong. He also mined Haiphong harbor.

All while drastically reducing U.S. troop involvement. Which drastically reduced the KIAs and wounded.

The ARVN routed NVA forces during their failed Easter Offensive, of 1972. It took the NVA 3 years to recover enough to attack again.

Vietnamization was a success. Until, democrats deliberately ruined it, in April of 1975.

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 1:40PM

American progressives have largely been responsible for every conflict that we have engaged in within the last century. Their apppeasement strategies and weak national security stances have worked us into every corner of the world, two world wars, a dragged out cold war, and this current war on terror.

When these conflicts drag out and fall under the supervision of their political opposition then they turn up the anti-war rhetoric and do everything that they can possibly to undermine our war efforts and put the blame for these involvements on conservatives and the GOP.

The Vietnam conflict and the Kennedys are a perfect example. Jack starts the war, involves us in another police action like Korea and Truman did, Johnson drags it out, Nixon comes in and wins it, and Eddy Kennedy and the LEFT do everything they can to lose it and undermine it.

This has been the pattern for a long time...most of our post world war two history.

Think back, Wilson, the great progressive, runs on a ticket of no war, small defense budget, appeasement, big government, and starts us on the road to socialism. Soon after, when things are left to spin out of control, world war one begins, we enter to make the world safe for democracy( that is socialism). Soviet communism is born. Fabian versions of socialitic parliamentary governments take over the monarchies. Wilson progressive versailles treaty sets us up for act two.

FDR gets in and plays footsy with Mussolinni and Hitler, admires Mussolinni, plays to the appeasement, anti-war crowd, weak on defense bunch. Starts us on the second round of socialism for America.

Socialistic Dictatorships flourish throughout Europe and the world. We are attacked. We enter second world war. Chinese communism is born with the aid of the State Department. The progressives wrap it up and set the groundwork for the cold war, allow Soviets take half of Europe, and half of Germany.

Nearly fifty years of cold war and two police actions later started by the Dems, Reagan comes in and ends cold war without a shot fired.
Guess what, we did not even cover the mideast foreign policy of appeasement via the progressives and what that has led to!

Clinton comes and while he is being serviced by Lewinsky, he is a bit preoccupied and ignores Bin Laden and the growth of the international terrorism and terrorist networks. Touts the usual appeasement, weak defense, and anti-war rhetoric.

We are attacked. Bush enters office and strikes back. The Dems start up the anti-war rhetoric, politicize the war, and do everything to undermine our defense. Kennedy calls involvements Vietnam quagmires.
We have come full circle!

Bob| 9.15.11 @ 2:00PM

@ Simon Templar: What??? What history book are you reading there's no evidence to support that. What notable authors are you getting that from, please provide evidence of that. Just one please!

RCV| 9.15.11 @ 2:33PM

He's probably referring to that crackpot Bruce Herschenson's book that retells the Vietnam fiasco in a way that is wholly unrecognizable to anyone who lived through the period. Herschenson is a Nixon apologist of the highest order, and remakes history by pretending that Nixon "won" the Vietnam War, but was somehow betrayed by a traitorous Congress. It's pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 2:59PM

You lived through it? The Peace Accords in Paris, the deep northern and successful bombings and strikes in the North that took out over 60 percent of VietCong resouces, the congressional disfunding, and every point I made did occur and can be found in many resources including pages 32 of most papers of the time for those who really were paying attention and actually LIVED through those times.

The Vietnam war was the most politicized war of the twentieth century and the left wing propaganda that surrounded it was at a pitch never seen before.

I was at university at the time and I knew personally dozens of Vietnam vets returning to America those days. All of them felt betrayed by the US government and everyone I knew to my surprise was willing to go back and fight in Cambodia. All of them were disgusted with what the Dem congress pulled.

Most Americans did not have a clue to what was really going on as they are today.

You and Bob are just the second generation of useful idiots weened on the baby boomers ex-hippy public education system. You are pathetic.
You just lap this crap up without taking a breath.

Even wikipedia can substantiate this.....
"the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:
"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men."[12]"

RCV| 9.15.11 @ 3:15PM

I thought you were attending those left-wing meetings in college that you wrote about?

While you're looking through Wikipedia, Simon, you might take a look at the entry on Nguyen Van Thieu, and gain a better understanding of why we lost in Vietnam:

"During his rule, Thieu gained a reputation for turning a blind eye to and indulging in corruption, and appointing loyal cronies rather than competent officers to lead ARVN units. In 1968, he was caught out by the Tet Offensive due to complacency, and during the 1971 Operation Lam Sơn 719 and the communists’ Easter Offensive, the I Corps in the north of the country was under the command of his confidant, Hoang Xuan Lam, whose incompetence led to heavy defeats until Thieu finally replaced him with Ngo Quang Truong. After the signing of the Paris Peace Accords—which Thieu opposed—and the American withdrawal, South Vietnam struggled to hold off the communists’ final push for victory. Thieu gave contradictory orders to Trưởng to stand and fight or withdraw and consolidate, leading to mass panic and collapse in the north of the country. This allowed the communists to generate much momentum and they were close to Saigon within a month, prompting Thieu to resign and leave the country aboard an American helicopter with millions of dollars in gold, just before the communists completed their victory. He eventually settled in Massachusetts and lived in seclusion until his death, avoiding angry refugee compatriots who blamed his administration for the nation’s demise."

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 6:13PM

Like a typical commie liberal, ignore the facts when you are losing the argument and misdirect to something else irrevelant.

You lost this one. Your ignorance shows. Give it up. WE won the war, and you back stabbing America hating bastards undermined it and lost it.

If those reading this have doubts about the latter, spend some time reading recent statements in the last 10 years from ex-Viet Cong generals and officials that said if it was not for RCV and people like Bob, they would have lost much sooner.

RCV| 9.15.11 @ 7:03PM

According to you, Simon, you were in those leftist meetings in college.

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 7:59PM

That the best you can do? You know nothing about me and you certainly do not know what I was doing then, so shut up, it is lame.

What were you doing...climbing up your mothers leg and trying to get their first? Just think if she had exercised her state given right to an abortion as it was just hot off the supreme court press, I would not have to bother with the likes of you, now.

RCV, one other thing. Nothing that has ever spewed forth from you that is original. It is the same old crap rewarmed dozens of times for the past 40 years, heard over and over again. You are in a long line of useful idiots.

Those leftist meetings were very illuminating in retrospect as they taught me a great deal about your thinking patterns, your argument styles, and your real agendas.

Nick| 9.16.11 @ 12:19AM

RCV,

Relying on wiki can get one into trouble.

The Easter Offensive was in 1972. After it was over, ARVN forces had routed the communists. It took North Viet Nam 3 years to recover, get re-supplied by the Soviets, and attack again.

Nixon's Vietnamization policy was a success. Thanks to his appointing General Creighton W. Abrams to run the war.

It was because of democrats like 'The Swimmer" Kennedy, Church, and McGovern, that military aid was constantly cut-off for the last years of the war. Nixon was too busy trying to save his sorry backside, to do anything about it.

I will put some of the blame on Ford. He should have ordered air strikes, from our bases in Thailand, to stop the commie offensive in '75. That would have given our carriers time to get there, and finish the job.

Thanks to Congressional democrats, our country sold-out an ally. Our nation's word wasn't worth squat, until, Ronald Wilson Reagan became president.

RCV| 9.16.11 @ 1:19AM

The war was a disastrous mistake from start to finish, Nick. Not because Ho Chi Minh wasn't a brutal, murderous communist, which he certainly was. But like the French before us, we thought that propping up a series of thoroughly corrupt puppets was worth the massive sacrifice of our finest. It wasn't.

And as for Reagan (for whom I voted twice and consider one of our best Presidents), his word to Lebanon to help stabilize the Maronite government was abandoned the moment our Marine barracks were bombed and US lives lost, a costly error that helped fuel terrorism for decades.

Both were examples of the foolishness of committing US ground troops when to strategically indefensible positions without the concomminent political will.

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:32PM

I agree with your revisionist BS.
Next time, we should just nuke whoever we don't like and forget about them.
Let's start with Iran!

Nick| 9.17.11 @ 12:06AM

RCV,

Yes, the war was disastrous. All wars are.

But, all of those "corrupt puppets" were a hundred times better than Uncle Ho and the commies.

My main point was that Vietnamization worked, despite the revisionist history of leftists like Peter Arnett, Howard Zinn, Richard Reeves, and Walter Cronkite and the rest of the CBS mafia.

As far as President Reagan and Lebanon go, we had a treaty with South Viet Nam. We went to Lebanon as part of the Multinational Force (MNF) peace keeping mission. No treaty was involved.

And, the battleship New Jersey remained off the coast of Lebanon, shelling targets well into 1984. Also, the MNF's mission was to let the PLO and Syrian forces withdraw from Beriut. Which it accomplished.

So, I conclude that your comment, about President Reagan not keeping his word, and abandoning Lebanon, to be incorrect.

Whether, or not, we should have been in Lebanon, or Viet Nam, in the first place, is an entirely different discussion.

Nick| 9.17.11 @ 1:16AM

p.s. I keep forgetting to ask you this. A few weeks ago you mentioned Sarah Palin's phone messages and how she treated subordinates. I tried looking this up, and found nothing.

Could you have possibly meant all of those e-mails that were released by the State of Alaska under FOIA requests?

RCV| 9.19.11 @ 1:42AM

No. I was referring to an episode involving Joe Miller, whom Palin had endorsed for Senator. Miller was asked if he thought Palin was qualified to be President and if he would endorse her if she ran. He equivocated. Miller's staff leaked phone messages to a reporter purportedly left by Sarah and Todd threatening to withdraw support if he didn't change his tune. The information about how she treated subordinates comes from a variety of former state employees she worked with.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 11:01PM

I wish we hadn't saved those PLO and Syrian forces. I think that was a mistake.

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 3:06PM

This is one of those teachable moments. If you are an independent, young person, or a curious democrat that still has a few working brain cells left and have stumbled onto this web site, take great notice of this.

Ask yourself just how troll liberal Bob and RCV can talk with such convincing arrogance about matters that they clearly are lying about or are just ignorant about.

I think they know very well and are lying and doing what liberals typically do..historical revisionism and lying for the cause.

Margie| 9.16.11 @ 2:15AM

RCV also has a few suck ups here now, supposedly on our side, so he feels empowered.

He's a lying snake.

RCV| 9.16.11 @ 1:12PM

Ah, more words of Christian charity from TAS's resident Bible-believing non-Christian.

Margie| 9.16.11 @ 4:58PM

Words of truth, you are a lying snake.
Perhaps VIPER be more suitable, hmm, punk?

Margie| 9.16.11 @ 5:23PM

"You are of your father the Devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jn. 8:44.

Now, before you go accusing Christians of not being Christians, know that liars are despised by God. He throws them into Hell.

RCV, you are an Episcopalian. You "believe" homosexuality isn't Sin.

YOU are the one who is not a Christian.
You are an Obama suck up, lying, Socialist and antiChrist.

May God have mercy on you and you repent before you drop dead.

RCV| 9.16.11 @ 7:14PM

Margie, a Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. You don't. Just as Muslims do, you believe that Jesus Christ was created by God, but is not God himself.

Even if we defined a Christian more broadly, as one who follows the teachings of Christ -- even if they don't believe Christ is God -- you wouldn't qualify, given the venom that you spew at anyone who disagrees with you. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is not exactly your watchword.

I believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, of one being with the Father. As the Apostle John taught us, He "became flesh and lived among us." I'm not sure why you choose to reject this teaching about the essential nature of Jesus Christ, but you do, as is your perogative.

I wish you no malice, despite your hostility and the scorn you heap upon all who disagree with your unique theology. God bless!

Margie| 9.18.11 @ 7:28PM

"Margie, a Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. You don't. Just as Muslims do, you believe that Jesus Christ was created by God, but is not God himself."

HEY PUNK:

That is NOT what I believe!

Lying snake!

Now, better quit continuing to misrepresent me or I'll sue your lily-livered rear end.

RCV| 9.19.11 @ 1:36AM

See you in Court any day, Marge!

RCV| 9.19.11 @ 2:07AM

It's the forum we "Papal inquisitors" like best. The Judge makes the witness answer the question directly.

IUT| 9.15.11 @ 3:57PM

The Democrats were 100% invested in U.S. defeat at the hands of the insurgents.

Our victory is a huge disappointment to the Democratic party.

Think about that.

DaveS| 9.15.11 @ 9:10PM

99.7% true.

MOS 1 1 2 | 9.15.11 @ 4:03PM

Did you ever notice that most pundits and policy makers never served themselves, or if they did , not in front line areas? There are some exceptions like John McCain but not a hell of a lot. Remember the sci fi novel, I think it was Star Ship Warriors, I'm not positive, in which you were either a warrior or a tax payer. The non warriors had no say in decision making about such things as going to war. Just thinking.

RCV| 9.15.11 @ 4:26PM

I don't think that generalization is really true. Just off the top of my head, I can reel off Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, Daniel Inouye, Lyndon Johnson, George Bush Sr., Gerald Ford, John Kerry, John McCain, John Murtha, Frank Lautenberg, John Warner, James Webb. There are dozens of others, I'm sure.

MOS 1 1 2 | 9.15.11 @ 10:39PM

10 of those were WWII and 6 were Nam. Those were draft eras. Since the draft ended few pols are vets, though 2010 added a number of young ones to Congress. IMO those who experience combat are slow to commit the next generation to any war not clearly in defense of the U.S or in vital U.S interests.

Nick| 9.16.11 @ 12:52AM

RCV,

Johnson and Nixon didn't serve on the front lines.

Johnson phonied-up a silver star medal, which he didn't deserve, and wore it proudly on his lapel.

Kerry, by his own admission, tried to avoid the front lines by joining the U.S. Navy's Patrol Craft, Fast (Swift Boats.) Which, when he joined, were patrolling the coast of South Viet Nam, and not seeing much action. Kerry was trying to be the reincarnation of John Kennedy and PT-109.

Then the PCFs were deployed into the rivers that were supplying the communists, and were now on the front lines. Kerry quickly changed plans, and conveniently "earned" 3 Purple Hearts. Which allowed him to return to the world, after only four months.

The other great democrat Viet Nam vet, algore, spent more time in-country!
Even if it was only five months, as a photographer.

RCV| 9.16.11 @ 1:21AM

All the men I listed saw combat. I didn't and I am not one to belittle the risks they took. Maybe you have the record to do so.

Nick| 9.16.11 @ 1:55AM

RCV,

This is not true. LBJ and Nixon never saw combat.

Nobody has to have been in combat, to tell the truth about someone's record. I never saw combat, even though I served during Operation Desert Shield/Storm, in a combat area.

Unless, you count the time, one night, when we thought that we were under fire, because some Coalition pilot caused a sonic boom, while flying back to base!

Everything that I wrote is a fact.

RCV| 9.16.11 @ 1:14PM

Nick, I genuinely thank you for your service to our country, just as I do all the men I listed.

Nick| 9.16.11 @ 8:05PM

RCV,

You're welcome.

I'm not trying to denigrate those who served and didn't see action. I just can't abide those who try to inflate what they did in during a war. Or, lie about it.

The reason I don't like Nixon is not because he didn't see combat. It's because he abused his power. But, he never claimed that he was in combat, or was a war hero.

I don't know the percentage, but I know that most of the 12 million men who served in uniform during World War II did not serve in front line units. Somebody had to work in supply.

Johnson flat out lied about what happened to him, and put in for undeserved medals. Kerry, after coming home and lying about what was going on in Viet Nam and the soldiers serving there, 30 years later he tried to act like he was Rambo.

He constantly let the sycophants around him call him a hero. Real heroes dismiss the claim and say that they served with heroes, most of whom did not come home.

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:34PM

I'll take GWB's Nat Guard service with honor over John Kerry's scurrilous treason anyday.

shipley130| 9.15.11 @ 4:25PM

Some seriously dirty words in this article, Mr. Tyrrell. Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid. Shame, shame.

fblaze| 9.15.11 @ 4:28PM

The war is a success if you abandon the definition of the term as set by Bush and Cheney. It is a success by the terms established by President Obama. It is not a Vietnam because we (Obama) chose not to stay involved in an endless war.

shipley130| 9.15.11 @ 5:39PM

Hello, reality check, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama got involved in another conflict.

CarbonDate| 9.15.11 @ 4:49PM

I must say, it's absolutely fascinating watching the neocons and Tea Partiers trash each other in the comments section here.

Of course, there's a wide disparity between what the neocon cheerleaders say and what the actual "brain trust" of the neocon movement admit in hushed tones, which is that the ultimate good which came out of our invasion was that we got a staging point from which to launch future military operations... or at least we would have, had we not fostered such ill will in our early years in the country. Patreaus came in to do damage control, and he did a rather good job of it. Fact is, the real mission was a failure, and no amount of spin from the neocon apologists can get around that fact, as well as the fact that Barack Obama would not be president right now if not for the Iraq War and everything it encompassed.

Fact is, while we saw improvements in the security situation following the surge, the country was an absolute mess for over four years before that. The fact that it's substantially less of a mess lately (but still a mess) doesn't validate the decision to invade.

The troops who worked hard to fix the mess created by their superiors should be proud of the work they did. Their superiors should be ashamed of themselves.

shipley130| 9.15.11 @ 5:41PM

Destroying the Al Qaeda so called brain trust and the Taliban is a pretty good win, in my opinion. You know, those scumbags that throw acid in the faces of females that want to go to school.

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 6:34PM

I find it equally fascinating to watch all the uninformed idiots come out here like yourself and throw down a load of crap with self satisfied arrogant attitudes about issues and events that display an obvious ignorance about them.

You know it always has bewildered me how brave, patriotic men and women defend this country with their lives for assholes like you. They read the same crap spewed out by ignorant idiots like you and your smarmy remarks but still get up each day and take the fight to the enemy.
Yeah, the fact is...you are a self indulgent, uniformed, ignorant jack ass.

Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 11:04PM

You know, Simon, they defend the country because most of them are genuinely awesome people.

Honestly, I had a lot of enjoyment with most of my Vets I treated. Very nice men, the majority of them.

rolkand cowpwerthwaite| 9.15.11 @ 4:49PM

What is your name, Alan Brooks, in Vietnamese, please. Oh wait, you won't remember that. Have a nice day...oh by the way, stay off this board.

Rad Manley| 9.15.11 @ 4:55PM

I offer this posit as a decorated Vietnam Veteran 11B Infantryman who was under fire and engaged in considerable combat experiences. Jack in Wi. and his handful of butt buddies fit the boiler-plate of those fortunate clerks in the rear who amazingly always had their armchair battle plan screeds to loudly spread around after we returned from some particularly nasty engagement. Curiously, a number of them found themselves in "go bang" circumstances as they leaped from their bunks trying to avoid the frag that had been rolled into their hootch. I have a sticker on the back of my F-150 that says "Vietnam Vet with PTSD - Spit on me Now." How bout it, Jack?

Drunken Sailor| 9.15.11 @ 5:15PM

Nicely put Rad! Thanks for your service and I will apologize for those that treated you badly even if they themselves won't.

Simon Templar| 9.15.11 @ 6:21PM

Rad, thank you for your service. Your generation were the true heroes of that era. You fought bravely and in the face of a lot of undermining bastards and unpatriotic know nothings. To me that spells the true name of a hero and the true nature of one.

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:37PM

God bless you sir!
I want a video of you dismantling some peacefreak.

rcaruth| 9.15.11 @ 6:21PM

Apples and Oranges. We had a Draft for Vietnam which gave us the ability to have a large war there. Had we had a Draft for Iraq,there would have been massive street protests as America's middle class youth were sent away.

Joe Six-Pack| 9.15.11 @ 7:27PM

I just wish that I could say that the war is over. It is not and if we do not take more aggressive action, we are going to find out just how big it really is. It may take a few more years, but time is NOT on our side.

Diane1976| 9.15.11 @ 10:11PM

The military deserve great credit in Iraq, as elsewhere, for doing the job they were asked to do, and doing it better than anyone might expect.

It seems to me that it was military leaders and anlysts who finally found the right approach in Iraq, and soldiers who bravely fought to bring this affair to an honourable end.

Only time will tell if Bush's decision will have the expected benefits for Iraqis or Americans. I, personally, think Obama is bringing the affair to a conclusion more or less the way Bush would have if he had remained in power beyond his allotted term, in an orderly and proper way.

Either way, all the brave soldiers, American and many, many others, deserve credit for the making the best of it.

John Sanford| 9.15.11 @ 10:13PM

If the Viet Cong had murdered 3,000 American civilians the outcome there (Vietnam) would have been much different. Only the Left sees Iraq as a different war. Most Americans understand that Iraq was a campaign, not a war. The war it is part of is the War on Terror, which is the response to the war on the west being waged by Islam. For PC reasons, nobody wants to face the fact that Islam is at war with the rest of the world and America and Israel are walking point. Just as WW2 had many campaigns, so does the war on terror (Islam)

rcaruth| 9.15.11 @ 10:50PM

But John,they didn't kill 3000 Americans;they didn't kill one American until we arrived in their country,so what the he-- were we doing there?

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:38PM

Killing filthy arab jihadis, and anybody else who got in the way.
Somebody has to take out the trash in the world.
Thank God it's U.S.

POST American| 9.15.11 @ 11:02PM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

---AND no background whatsoever on the
background, particularly WHY Bush Sr.
refused to remove Hussein when it would have
been expedient ---in 1992. By any reckoning
one of the greatest, and most costly blunders
in recent decades.

---------MEANWHILE-----------

AS the FUKISHIMA world nuclear disaster
and Global DEPOP OP goes into its 7 month
of media cover up ----DO CHECK OUT

OXP Radio
'Stanley Kubrick Moon Landing Hoax'
with documentary film-make Jay Weidener

----------Drippy interviewer

----------------Riveting Weidener

He's on the west coast and lays out exactly
what's going down with the FUKISHIMA
fallout catastrophe.

---------------Iraq is even starting to look good.

----REALLY----

------------NO JOKE------------

Gary W| 9.15.11 @ 11:26PM

Re. "this war unlike Vietnam is ending in success."... Vietnam was touted as a success when it ended, and in Iraq, Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" before the boots on the ground were dry. We've been had before. Not all of us were born yesterday.

MOS 1 1 2 | 9.16.11 @ 1:34AM

Obama and the left must be defeated, but who on the right is for the Republic, the Constitution, and America first, last, and always.

JohnTee| 9.16.11 @ 2:12AM

RET, you don't really consider Iraq a success with Maliki in there do you? Only Bush could be snookered into pushing elections in a society that couldn't tell a vote from violin, in the middle of a damn war. I thought you were smarter than that.
A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money! Even bankruptcy. We don't have the belly for a war that lasts longer than American Idol, and aren't likely to develop it with a Pravda press.

JohnTee

POST American| 9.16.11 @ 4:20AM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------

RE: The unfolding FUKISHIMA world nuclear disaster
and budding DEPOP OP

"--It's as though a neutron bomb is going off
every hour, and that's been since March 11th.
---The fallout's going to be falling in the
water supply, the vegetables, milk, meat
your clothes, your house, your couch
----everything will be contaminated.
This is cumulative.
The media blackout is a
concerted effort to hide the awful truth.
It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
ALL major media is controlled."
-Jay Weidener
documentary film-maker
(Kubrick's Odyssey)
Reporting from Portland Ore.
June 2011

Including the Rock--F--L--O foundation
front op NEO-CON 'journals'.

"Every country in the world should be
sending they're greatest scientists and engineers
to come together and brain storm and
come up with an idea to SAVE the world
--but they're NOT even talking about it.
Obama's NEVER mentioned it."
-(cont'd)

Time to break the Tavistock programming
kiddies.

Time to DE-program and REAL---EYES
what's being done to we ---the ITs.

----------------------HIGH TIME------------------------

army training| 9.16.11 @ 7:52AM

Hi,
I appreciate your compliment.
Thanks,
Paul

Stormy| 9.16.11 @ 9:17AM

"Yet there remains a gaudy throne, a gift from the deceased Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. "

If so, then it means that it was paid for by the good ole U.S. of A.

Guillermo| 9.16.11 @ 6:26PM

This article is almost laughable. If you think this is a victory.... I got some Ocean Front property in Arizona you would love. This is a fiasco. When someone punches your brother you burn their house down but Iraq didnt punch our brother so we had no business out there. Sadam was a bad man but if that is the measure we use to invade a country then lets get ready for Iran, North Korea, Syria, Somalia etc.... If you think we did the Iraqis a favor your mistaken. Freedom is only worth it when you have fought for it and guess what the Iraqis are not ready for it. Look at the Libyans they are something to be proud of! They didnt wait for someone to come in and give it to them they TOOK it. Now the hard part for them lets see how they handle it how they nurture it and grow it. The Iraqis on the other hand I believe will fall back into chaos within 5 years.

Skippy| 9.16.11 @ 9:24PM

Yawn....zzz....

Oldefarte| 9.17.11 @ 5:24PM

[On this subject] Whether or not these wars are justified or not from a political viewpoint, the FACT with me will always remain of my continual gratitude to the military members of this country, both current and former, who have selflessly served our country [and me and my]. There is not a day that goes by, or one that has not done so, that I will not think of you and your service, and be eternally gratful for same. There would simply be no United States of America, if not for you all. May the Almighty bless and keep you all!!!!!!!

RCV| 9.19.11 @ 2:10AM

I join fully in every word of that sentiment. Well said!