Arkansas Blog

Mr. Bush has not been in combat, nor has Mr. Cheney. So, who are his advisors on this policy and have they been in combat or experienced imprisonment and torture?

Just because Mr. Bush hasn't been there doesn't mean he can't advocate, but it would help to know who is on his side of the equation that might balance the opinion of Mr. Powell and Mr. McCain.

If there isn't anyone, then, Houston, we have a problem . . .

This is sort of off topic, but it might do you guys good to see this video of police brutality towards counter-army-recruitment protesters. It's really, really scary shit. A submissive woman is tased, a 65+ year old lady is bit by a German sheperd and more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVdH1G0KQt4&eurl=

Be afraid, be very afraid of the heightened state of tensions THIS ADMINISTRATION has brought.

That's right. I said it.

Maybe we should let that experienced military strategist, Bill Clinton, weigh in on the subject. You all never brought up his lack of experience in the military as reasons why to disregard his decisions as commander in chief.

According to Mother Jones magazine:

55% of the Guantanamo Bay detainees have been determined not to have committed hostile acts against the US or its allies (but have been kept imprisioned for up to 3 years).

AND...only 8% are thought to be Al Qaeda fighters.

What an embarrassment. How can our electorate not feel a sense of urgency, a moral obligation, to get these clowns out of office?

Dear HankRearden:

Clinton certainly did all he could to avoid military service in Vietnam, but I don't recall his ever asking Congress to allow him to abrogate the Geneva Conventions on prisoner torture.

aybe we should let that experienced military strategist, Bill Clinton, weigh in on the subject. You all never brought up his lack of experience in the military as reasons why to disregard his decisions as commander in chief.

Once again, you have trouble understanding concepts.

Let me break it down into an outline for the slower ones.

1) Yes, Clinton and Bush had no military experience.

2) Bush tried to lie to us and convince us that he wasn't AWOL in the National Guard. Alas, the truth eventually came out.

3) Clinton's wars had allies; Bush's didn't. (You forgot Poland!)

4) Bush first implied Iraq had connections to

a) 9/11....
b) then to Al-Qaeda (when not specifically the 9/11 attacks)
c)then it had WMDs
d)now we don't know what the f*** his reason is.

It was illegal. End of discussion.

I'm honesltly getting annoyed how 35%ers can still manage to confuse SIMPLE concepts like these. I am starting to think there needs to be a way to hold these people accountable for their piss-poor logic. They should all be required to fight in the Iraq War, for example. Or, they should be forced to start a utopian society on Antarctica governed by their inane rules and world-views.

I can assure you that the CIA "interviewed" criminals and terrorists even under Mr. Clinton's watch.

Hank, do you work for the Republican Party or something?

I can't see why someone who has been repeatedly embarassed and proven wrong would continue to post here. They are either a) too stupid to understand when their logic has been torn apart ...or b) have some interests in continuing to post, even if they know they haven't thought things out completely.

It is amazing that conservatives cannot talk about Bush, only Clinton.

Bush isn't fit to lick Clinton's boots intellectually, morally or administratively, but that's beside the point.

When the point is Bush, bringing up Clinton as a defence is essentially conceding the point.

Hank, do you work for the Republican Party or something?

I can't see why someone who has been repeatedly embarassed and proven wrong would continue to post here. They are either a) too stupid to understand when their logic has been torn apart ...or b) have some interests in continuing to post, even if they know they haven't thought things out completely.

Sure, there are a few other intellectual conservatives on this board (or maybe just one), but they don't make such brazenly idiotic comments.

I wouldn't put anything past this administration JD. Our government has been targeting anti-war protesters for some time. Guess as long as their not being hauled off to concentration camps a few dog bites/taser stings don't matter.

Listening to the Kool-Aid drinkers tying themselves into knots trying to redefine what 'is' 'torture' would be amusing if it all wasn't so disgustedly sickening.

But I really love how Bush/Cheney are trying to morph this Iraq disaster into some big new cultural struggle for Western Civilization as they employ every military atrocity since ancient times...nothing new about their crap.

I can't see why someone who has been repeatedly embarassed and proven wrong would continue to post here . . . Sure, there are a few other intellectual conservatives on this board (or maybe just one), but they don't make such brazenly idiotic comments. - Posted by: JD
********
Junior Deputy:

Man, this would be a lonely place if every person who posted with bad facts or a nutcase opinion lost their privileges. I look at some of my past comments and wonder "what was I thinking?" Then I review some others (ahem), and I feel much better about myself.

This is AMERICA and I reserve the right to make idiotic statements along with . . . oh man, I can't list all of you misguided guys/dolls here by name. . . at least I can post until the AT sheepherder cuts me off.

I have not been proven wrong on any of my points that I have made here. Just because you say otherwise, does not make your opinion or your set of facts correct. To make comparisons with previous administrations is fair game. To put into perspective what is going on requires comparisons. Whether it is Bush or Clinton or JFK or Lincoln, I believe that each believed that he was doing what was right at the time. Only history can really judge his actions. Daily emotional diatribes on either side is just that. An emotional response based upon what you might think is the case at the time. Take a breath. It will be ok.

Isn't it convenient to forget that the Geneva Convention was designed for uniformed combatants of recognized armies from recognized nations? It was not intended to apply to covert operatives, terrorists or criminals.

Continue the apples to oranges discussion of terrorist grilling if you like - but I won't be convinced that we've done wrong until one of the Islamic nations fesses up to being in charge and puts its uniforms on all the terrorists. Then we can change our practices with newly captured combatants.

'...You all never brought up his [Clinton] lack of experience in the military as reasons why to disregard his decisions as commander in chief."---Hank

Didn't have to. Your side of the aisle brought up all the time and hammered constantly on it. As Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said in 1998, "We can support our troops without supporting the President."

You all have missed my point. One partisan here made the comment that Powell and McCain, having experience as warriors, were credible because of their military background. He compared Powell and McCain to Bush and Cheney, who have no direct combat experience, and asked who their military experienced advisors are. My answer to that is: the current Joint Chiefs of Staff.

HankRearden, your opinions are as archaic as the literary doorstop from which you take your name. At least Ayn Rand had an idea or two; you seem to get all yours from Rove Central.

Thank you for that condescending remark, Dog Town.

Hank,

The Joint Chiefs of Staff owe their jobs and livelyhood to their Commander and Chief. If they disagree publically, adious. They are not independent agents. In my opinion, the WH leadership and it's lack of military or combat experience presents a problem when dealing with those who do. It is painfully apparent that politics plays a bigger role in this government and that the military is being used as a political means to a poltical end.

The buck stops at Bush, even though in all his 60 years, he has never grasp the concept that with leadership comes responsibility.

Lord knows we need men in leadership that resemble, Truman, Roosevelt and Esienhower (yes he was an R).

Tell me, Blue Ticker, which decisions of Eisenhower did you agree with the most?

One partisan here made the comment that Powell and McCain, having experience as warriors, were credible because of their military background. - Posted by: HankRearden
********
Hank: Easy there fellow, If you are quoting me, I said they were experienced, I didn't say they were credible, there is a small difference.

Partisan? Me? You must have me confused with someone else. . .

Thank you for that condescending remark. . .-
Posted by: HankRearden
******
Might as well get used to it.

Glad to see you are polite to those who would insult you. Kinda raises the caliber of the discourse here . . .

"Tell me, Blue Ticker, which decisions of Eisenhower did you agree with the most?"--Hank

Hank, hope you will not be offended by my interjection into this but I will post my list of agreements:

1). Supported Truman's decision to fire MacArthur.

As President:

1). enlarged Social Security to cover 10 million more people.

2). broadened unemployment compensation to cover more workers.

3). minimum wage increased from .75 to $1.00 per hour.

4). promoted increased activity in public housing.

5). placed the first federal tax (.04 per gal) on gasoline to fund the construction of the interstate highway system.

6). tried federal aid to public education but failed (Sputnik will later take care of this logjam).

7). St. Lawerence Seaway Project started.

8). never denied his sexual affair with Kay Summersby.

One of the things I disagree with:
1). Eisenhower Soil Bank Plan....where farmers and agri corporations are paid not to produce.

Yikes, I forgot another agreement with Ike.....

9). Little Rock Central policy.

Rasputin, I am impressed with your knowledge of the decisions and actions by the Eisenhower administration. Thanks. Now, how about Mr. Blue Ticker?

History major, Hank.....

Rasputin, I guess that really means you have quick access to historical reference books? Or was all of that simply off the top of your head?

I have not been proven wrong on any of my points that I have made here. Just because you say otherwise, does not make your opinion or your set of facts correct.

You're wrong again Hank.

Let's bring up the handy blockquote function again:

You said this:
Maybe we should let that experienced military strategist, Bill Clinton, weigh in on the subject. You all never brought up his lack of experience in the military as reasons why to disregard his decisions as commander in chief.

I showed you why your point does not have equal weight.

I told you specific facts to back up my argument. You gave a vague statement that isn't even provable.

Let's analyze, shall we?

You said, "You all never brought up his lack of experience in the military as reasons why to disregard his decisions as commander in chief."
First of all, he's not President any longer. Was he actually the current commander-in-chief, your point would be semi-valid. He's not.

Simple, right? Now let's move on. I took your bait, and for my response, assumed your comment was relevant to begin with.

So, why do I think that Clinton's decisions would be more valid than Bush's, despite the fact that they both never served?

A few reasons I listed here:

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

1) Bush tried to lie to us and convince us that he wasn't AWOL in the National Guard. Alas, the truth eventually came out. This is a credibility issue. Too big of a word? Ok. The fact that he was willing to go so far to mislead Americans tells us something about his character; namely, he is a lyin',cheatin', SOB.

2) Clinton's wars had allies; Bush's didn't. (Other than negligible sized forces.)

3) Bush first implied Iraq had connections to

a) 9/11....
b) then to Al-Qaeda (when not specifically the 9/11 attacks)
c)then it had WMDs
d)now we don't know what the f*** his reason is.

You see, Bush was wrong about a,b, AND C. Because of the downing street memos, richard clarke, and other ex-officials.....we know he was lying.

4) And now a 4th reason: Bush's actions are unconstitutional. I'm sure that fell on deaf ears. The constitution is some nebulous object to many.

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

See the difference between our responses?

You don't? Ok. It's that I used facts to back myself up. You, on the other hand, gave some convoluted, irrelevant response: "Just because you say otherwise, does not make your opinion or your set of facts correct."

P.S. Facts are always correct, buddy.

Had you used the same style of writing in a university-level writing class, you would have quickly been shot down. You never addressed any of the points in my post. You circumvented addressing the issues with your statement. Basically: a lot of fluff words with little or no meaning in the context.

JD, I guess you are just smarter than me. I, of course, could go to the time and trouble of refuting all of your so-called facts, but I have miles to go before I sleep. Since you are grading yourself with debate points, I think it would only be fair to acknowledge that facts must be doucmented or at least footnoted. You have done neither. But confidence in oneself is ususally scored pretty high even if the facts do not add up. So there you go again, JD, you are one smart dude. Congratulations.

Rasp and JD,

Thanks guys for carrying on the debate. Got bogged down in making a living.

As for you Hank, what they said.

Quoth the raven, nevermore.

Don Kehotay,

"If there isn't anyone, then, Houston, we have a problem . . ."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/15/america/web.0915detain.php

"The senators also dismissed the letter from the military lawyers, saying they had questions about whether it amounted to an authentic endorsement of the White House proposal. They said they put more weight on extensive public testimony in which the lawyers raised doubts about the Bush plan.

Some military officials briefed on the military lawyers' position also disputed the notion that the lawyers had reversed course. They said the lawyers agreed to sign a letter at a meeting on Wednesday after discussing the language over several hours.

The lawyers would agree only to say that they could not find anything illegal about the specific issue of amending Common Article 3, the defense officials said, but still do not endorse several points in the administration's approach. . . ."

So notice that the senators' believe that Bush and his cronies are putting so much pressure on the military lawyers, that they signed a watered down endorsement to get the White House off their back and trusted to their testimony to refute Bush's manic endorsement assertions.

And Hank, I know you don't believe it. Thats O.K. A wise man once said, You should never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. This missive is fo Mr. Kehotay.

Hank, off the top of the head. That's why I forgot the very important LR Central thing. Ike was one of the best men we ever elected to the White House, He was honest, genial, of good character. That doesn't mean he had no weaknesses,(such as his English chauffer Kay Summersby, whom he wanted to marry after divorcing Mamie. General Marshall put a stop to that notion. But my point was when he became president he acted more like a Democrat than a Republican, going to work on issues he had condemned as a candidate.
I think too, Americans felt secure with Ike in the White House. He did a lot better job his second term after getting out from under the influence of his secretary of state John Foster Dulles.

Alas, I could go on and on, but.....

I've been meaning to say this, and I think this thread is a fairly good example of my observation.

I truly don't think the Hank's of this world are idiots. Misquided and misinformed yes. I see alot of the youth on both the left and the right, who are so intrenched, so dead sure of their convictions, that reason has disappeared. Notice, I said both sides of the isle.

I attribute this in large part to the technological advances and a vast, very vast generational gap.

When I was growing up, I didn't have 24/7 cable news that wasn't really news, but a form of entertainment and a tool to be used to influence your thinking and persuade your leanings.
I grew up with Cronkite and Brinkley, where the news was just the news. I grew up with William F. Buckley on the right and Gore Vidal on the left, slugging at each other on the issues, but never the vial and vicious "politics" of debate we have today. These guys made you think.

I never had the internet, where blogs from one group and the other spread their talking points. I never had email, or "breaking news" coming my way every minute of the day.
If I wanted to research something, I went to the library, I read newspapers that were not newspapers with polltical agenda's. When you talked politics, you did it face to face around the kitchen table or at the local bar. Most times it was civil, but heated. But you got to look your "opponent in the eye" and test the man, his character and the strength of his convictions.

I never had a party so subvertly and affectively high jack the media for it's own gain. In my time, party politics was about doing the right thing for the country, not the right thing for those who controlled a party and who were so determined to maintain power, at all costs.

I guess what I'm saying, is that the Hank's of this world, and I'm not picking on you Hank, are a product of our technological explosion and a form of intellectual laziness.

I took great measures to instill in our kids, that what you hear, what you read, and what you see may not be the truth. That unless they did their own homework and thought for themselves, they'd be just sheep. I did such a good job, that I've got one Dem and on leaning R - but they are both engaged and don't drink the kool-aide, even mine.

I believe that with the tech boom, we put our country and our future in great danger if we don't teach the fundamentals of being your own man.
Well, I'll get of my soapbox for now.

Lord, sorry, visions of DBI length. No snark there DBI. Just didn't realize until this posted just how long it was.

And here I go adding to it.

Dear Lord, Hank. (No, those terms aren't interchangeable.) You're going to make me go through fact checking, when it's obvious you never have?

JD, I guess you are just smarter than me.

Now we're getting somewhere.

I, of course, could go to the time and trouble of refuting all of your so-called facts, but I have miles to go before I sleep. acknowledge that facts must be doucmented or at least footnoted. You have done neither.

I'm sorry, I thought it was common knowledge by now. I guess you make up those 40% of American who think Saddam had ties to 9/11? He didn't Hank, if you still don't know the answer.

FACT:
Bush did not serve in the Air National Guard, but tried to make it seem as if he did.

See this document: http://www.glcq.com/docs/oer_5-2-73.htm

About the document:
"Bush was next brought to the attention of ARPC when his superior officers submitted Bush's annual "Officer Effectiveness Training Report" (OETR) claiming that Bush "has not been observed at this unit" for an entire year, stating that Bush had been doing "equivalent training in a non-flying status" with a unit in Alabama. "

2) Clinton's wars had allies; Bush's didn't. (Other than negligible sized forces.)

Uh, what the hell, Hank? Do I need to list out countries for you to believe this is a fact?

3) Bush first implied Iraq had connections to

a) 9/11....
b) then to Al-Qaeda (when not specifically the 9/11 attacks)
c)then it had WMDs

Are you so ignorant that you don't know these facts? If so, it doesn't say much about your side. Please view the past State of the Union speeches.

Now Hank, where are your facts? You're not responding because you know your argument doesn't have equal weight. In fact, any conservative with an IQ above 90 wouldn't be caught dead saying such hellaciously inane comments.

Better yet, tell me which of my facts are wrong.

But confidence in oneself is ususally scored pretty high even if the facts do not add up.

Uh, ok? Your words and meanings seem to have departed ways. Did you read my previous post?

Once again, you circumvented actually contributing something to the dialogue with pointless rhetoric.

All I'm saying is that if your calling is lifting heavy objects, you should stick with your calling. (Joke.)

Aw, JD, be nice to the guy. Some people just like to sit in the car and play with the horn until Momma gets back with the groceries.

Well, this has been an interesting thread.
I just logged on, dang, I missed all the fun.
Hank's just silly. Arguing with him seems pointless, because despite all the terrific posts from the fellow dems are spot-on, Hank won't back down and admit he's wrong.
Same for Don.
They are beyond hopeless. Won't listen, won't learn.
But, I appreciate them - they have livened up the blog.

Blue, I've read several studies that say dogs with fleas are happier than dogs without. The fleas give them something to do.....or at least that is my take from an exciting afternoon reading studies about dogs.

My favorite study was right down P's alley. It said 8 out of 10 dogs failed to get an erection after being forced to smoke 1 cigarette. Let that settle in for a minute......zelda jump in here....I've owned a lot of dogs. None of them ever smoked. I don't know how you get 10 dogs to sit down and smoke a cigarette. I really don't want to.

But the older I get the more I think about the 2 dogs who DID get an erection after smoking 1 cigarette. First of all they're my kind of dogs. Secondly, how much did the person get paid who gave the 2 dogs erections after their smoke. And did they show them some kind of doggie porn? Is Clinton and Monica very important if someone is getting paid to give a dog a handjob....surely nothing more than that.....lordy...that's bad enough.

Maybe this is why wingnuts hate science? And after reading that I've never been able to look at that picture of dogs playing poker in the same way I did as a kid.

Hank won't back down and admit he's wrong. . . Same for Don . . .They are beyond hopeless. Won't listen, won't learn. . . But, I appreciate them - they have livened up the blog.- Posted by: BlueRidge
********
On behalf of Hank (if he doesn't mind) and myself, we thank you for acknowledging that we have a purpose in life. May our placement here create marvelous works of beauty much as a grain of sand does so by irritating the oyster . . .