tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post113181705249342919..comments2024-03-13T21:26:03.011-07:00Comments on Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher: The President's Veteran's Day SpeechDarrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1132104400706007422005-11-15T17:26:00.000-08:002005-11-15T17:26:00.000-08:00Name-calling weakens your argument.I don't accept ...Name-calling weakens your argument.<BR/><BR/>I don't accept that the President lied. I've established why I believe he doesn't. You can disagree and draw different conclusions from the evidence, but when you get emotional and start calling names you deviate from logical and civil discourse.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, David Kay's report came out when?<BR/><BR/>I'm not defending my political party. I'm defending a man I believe in, whose integrity I trust, against the obvious political smearings and lies by people who would seek to discredit him for political purposes. <BR/><BR/>And I know full well what being patriotic means. Your friends on the left should learn some about it.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1132079537250723192005-11-15T10:32:00.000-08:002005-11-15T10:32:00.000-08:00All you are doing is blaming others for mistakes o...All you are doing is blaming others for mistakes of our president or at best, you are saying (with lot of help from other biased sources) others are at fault too. Keep in mind, the decision to go to war and the way it was handled was totally of a deranged individual and a country gone fearful/nuts. <BR/><BR/>You also fail to mention what Clinton's bombings did. Here it is, from David Kay etc:<BR/><BR/><..><BR/><BR/>Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.)<BR/><BR/>http://www.slate.com/id/2094415/<BR/><BR/><..><BR/><BR/>I am no democrat but people like(and there are plenty) you do a disservice to the party you belong to. You want to defend your party, even if its clear to everyone else(including your own genre) that you are wrong.<BR/><BR/>Were you this thoughtful and critical when Bush&Co were parading WMDs to scare its (mostly ignorant) citizens. You should learn to respect the country and not any particular party. Being patriotic does not mean married to any party.<BR/><BR/>Have you ever thought what you and ohter hacks would be doing if these actions(war, lying etc) were done by say, Clinton. You and others like you would be jumping up and down. I would be with you , but for completely different reasons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1132020468953180962005-11-14T18:07:00.000-08:002005-11-14T18:07:00.000-08:00Were they?Which Republicans voted to allow Clinton...Were they?<BR/><BR/>Which Republicans voted to allow Clinton to bomb Iraq, and then later said they shouldn't have?<BR/><BR/>Which Republicans saw the intelligence and honestly believed that Saddam posed a threat, and then claimed that Clinton manipulated the intelligence--and did this for partisan gain?<BR/><BR/>Which Republicans said that Clinton bombed Iraq to benefit his Arkansas buddies, or politically-connected companies, or the military-industrial complex in general?<BR/><BR/>Had Republicans done this, they would have been wrong. But they didn't. <BR/><BR/>And lastly, Mark, did 4 days of bombing make Clinton a "wartime President"? Yes, I can in hindsight relate the current hostilities to a genesis in Clinton's presidency, but do you really want to hang the "wartime President" mantle on Clinton? It's not a term that was ever used during his tenure.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131980099833264872005-11-14T06:54:00.000-08:002005-11-14T06:54:00.000-08:00Oh, and Save Ferris.Oh, and Save Ferris.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131943711722967892005-11-13T20:48:00.000-08:002005-11-13T20:48:00.000-08:00Wulf, thank you for your service. :-)I *did* vote...Wulf, thank you for your service. :-)<BR/><BR/>I *did* vote for the guy. Twice. I thought going into Iraq was the right decision in 1998, I thought so in 2003, and I think so today. If we disagree, that's ok.<BR/><BR/>But you're right. The credibility gap here lies with the liberals and their Democrats in Congress.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131938777579656572005-11-13T19:26:00.000-08:002005-11-13T19:26:00.000-08:00Darren, I was in France on the USS Enterprise when...Darren, I was in France on the USS Enterprise when Clinton made that speech in 1998, and I remember it really well, because a few days later I was in the Persian Gulf, watching F-18s taking off very heavily laden and then returning free of ordinance. On Bill Clinton's watch.<BR/><BR/>I am always glad when somebody reminds the world of this. It is disingenuous to put this whole situation on Bush's head. I don't like some of the things Bush has ordered done, and I didn't vote for the guy, but I will be fair with him. The Democrats would gain some credibility with me if they could do so, too.<BR/><BR/>Keep reminding them!Wulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03046088470354334443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131903122995950252005-11-13T09:32:00.000-08:002005-11-13T09:32:00.000-08:00Anonymous, you're ignoring the fact that Saddam wa...Anonymous, you're ignoring the fact that Saddam was in violation of the cease fire of 1991, which does, under (here comes that term) international law, invite reinstatement of "hostilities".<BR/><BR/>So if you'd like, we could date the beginning of this war to August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Or to February 1991, when Desert Shield became Desert Storm. Either way, the President was on firm legal ground and doesn't appear to be hiding anything.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131898487051198452005-11-13T08:14:00.000-08:002005-11-13T08:14:00.000-08:00So let's review class. A recently inaugurated pres...So let's review class. A recently inaugurated president, carrying all the international experience of your typical state governor, has been told by his own CIA, his own National Security Council, MI5 British Security, the Germans, the French, the Russians, the highest ranking members of the previous administration, and all of <A HREF="http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php " REL="nofollow">these </A> other national and world figures, that Saddam currently has and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. <BR/><BR/>What do you with this information class? <BR/><BR/>Why of course, you muster all the confidence of that experience in Austin and you ignore it. <BR/><BR/>Makes sense to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131873211227738002005-11-13T01:13:00.000-08:002005-11-13T01:13:00.000-08:00SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this...<I><A HREF="http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm" REL="nofollow">SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.</A><BR/><BR/> Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .</I><BR/><BR/>Just saying, it kinda sounds like you're construing exactly what they told you not to construe with your #1 there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131858349838296372005-11-12T21:05:00.000-08:002005-11-12T21:05:00.000-08:00When you have proof that he omitted relevant infor...When you have proof that he omitted relevant information with the specific intent of lying by omission, present it. You'd be scooping the world with this news, because no one else has been able to credibly present any.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131856806900695092005-11-12T20:40:00.000-08:002005-11-12T20:40:00.000-08:00There is no evidence at all that the President lie...<I>There is no evidence at all that the President lied to take us into war. </I><BR/><BR/>Is omitting relevant information that undermines the impression one is trying to convey a form of lying, even if all the statements made are technically true as far as they go?<BR/><BR/>If you don't think so you don't have teenage children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131851449524327272005-11-12T19:10:00.000-08:002005-11-12T19:10:00.000-08:00Good summary, Daren. Thanks.Good summary, Daren. Thanks.Ralph Thayerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05408950745180065613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131836730683553792005-11-12T15:05:00.000-08:002005-11-12T15:05:00.000-08:00As for you, Anonymous, I won't need you at all. I...As for you, Anonymous, I won't need you at all. I don't think we're going to lose this war--not as long as we have a committed guy in the White House, like we do now. <BR/><BR/>And remember, it wasn't just Bush-backers who believed. Kerry, Gore, Pelosi, Clinton(s), et. al. all believed, and they believed when Clinton was President, too.<BR/><BR/>You have strange views, Anonymous.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131835977412294272005-11-12T14:52:00.000-08:002005-11-12T14:52:00.000-08:00Leeroy, now *you* be nice. No need to call names....Leeroy, now *you* be nice. No need to call names.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, what does the left offer America? Socialized medicine a la Canada, crushing deficits a la Europe, and appeasement a la Chamberlain, that's what I see.<BR/><BR/>With the current Administration you still get the crushing deficits, but that apparently isn't enough for you. Amazing.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131826612136440252005-11-12T12:16:00.000-08:002005-11-12T12:16:00.000-08:00Dude, no need to get nasty.We'll still have some R...Dude, no need to get nasty.<BR/><BR/>We'll still have some Repugs around after we've tossed out Bush and company.<BR/><BR/>We do not need defeat in war to toss out Repugs. Look at the first gulf war vs. the 1992 election!<BR/><BR/>Our best strategy is to let the Repugs do what they do best, cut their own heads off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1131825786231323142005-11-12T12:03:00.000-08:002005-11-12T12:03:00.000-08:00Or how about "Ahmed Chalabi lied, Bush-Backers bel...Or how about <BR/>"Ahmed Chalabi lied, Bush-Backers believed, soldiers died, lefties cried foul."<BR/><BR/>Play nice Darren. Remember, you need me. You'll need someone to blame in the years to come after U.S. forces are defeated and Bush supporters are wiped off the face of the earth forever.<BR/><BR/>You'll need me in the end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com