Carol Platt Liebau: Salter Calls 'Em Out

Monday, May 22, 2006

Salter Calls 'Em Out

McCain aide and co-author Mark Salter calls out the bratty children at the New School who found themselves unably to listen politely to a politician with whom they disagreed. Here's part of his rebuke:

Ms. Rohe and those of her fellow graduates who hailed their school's President as a war criminal and who greeted the Senator's reference to a friend's death with laughter proved only one thing, one sad thing, that they could learn a thing or two about tolerance and respect from the students of Liberty University. Like the protestors at the Garden, many in the audience at Liberty University disagreed with various of the Senator's views. Some disagreed with his support for campaign finance reform. Some disagreed with his support for comprehensive immigration reform with a path toward legalization for undocumented workers. Some disagreed with his position of climate change. Some disagreed with his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Whatever their differences with him they listened to him attentively and respectfully, as one American to another, divided in some respects, united in much more important ones.

31 Comments:

Blogger The Flomblog said...

When did we lose the ability to discuss our differences sanely. I disagree with many of the Senators views, but as a vet mysely, the man has earned respect. The courageous Secratary of state has earned respect, whatever we think of her opinions.

Has the Ward Churchill effect taken over our culture?

7:51 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Carol Platt Liebau on John McCain...
"John McCain is a war hero and a great American. But as a politician, he's an opportunist who's willing to put personal interest above almost everything else (a charge to which many of his Senate colleagues will heartily attest, at least in private)."

Yeah, don't those kids know they need to praise the man before the stick a chiv in his back?

10:09 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

Sounds like the sKerry effect, twisted. Since he served, however dubiously, we must never speak against him or his opinions. And how dare we not elect him President!

Right!

6:04 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Mr. Twister,

Carol makes her comments on her own forum when she's the one "speaking". The subjects of Salter's comments were disrespectful and disruptive while the Senator was speaking.

Of course, since it's normal for you to morally equate terrorist beheadings, etc. with the unintentional killing of innocents during war time, I see how you could miss this (to you) subtle difference that is so obvious to sainer observers.

8:29 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Pete, "Since he served, however dubiously, we must never speak against him or his opinions. And how dare we not elect him President!"

Pete there is a huge difference with disagreeing with a politician or speaking against his opinions, and condoning an extensive smear campaign dedicated to sliming a war hero.

Unfortunately for America, your unreasoning hatred of a man who actually shed blood for this country is typical of the right wing chicken hawk brigades.

10:42 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Greg, back to lying I see. Go ahead, provide the link to anything I've written that equated terrorist beheadings with the unintentional killing of civilians.

If you are so worried about civility, you may want to reconsider before you call a sitting Senator a pedophile. Oh wait, that wasn't uncivil--you were just demonstrating some of your patented wacky humor.

10:46 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Carol, speaking of "bratty children" who are "unably[sic] to listen politely to a politician with whom they disagreed," where was your sense of outrage when John Murtha was heckled by conservative students during the commencement address he gave at Seton Hall? [Cite]

Where was your outrage when Rep. Lacy Clay required security to escort him from the building after conservative students nearly rioted during his commencement address at the University of Missouri, St. Louis? [Cite]

Oh, that's right--Carol's rules of civility only apply to conservative politicians at liberal colleges. It's OK to to act like bratty children if you're a Republican.

10:53 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

twisted, there is a huge difference between a "war hero" and John sKerry! John McCain IS a war hero, whom I also disagree with politically. The so-called "smear machine" has never been shown to be false. sKerry has not shown his records, he did not get an Honorable Discharge until lily-livered Carter was President. By the way, true heros go back to be with their men, they don't run out of harms way because of a technicality, and then slam their comrades left behind as "war criminals".

Unfortunately for America, your unreasoning is tupical of the whacko left "Blame America first" crowd that can claim no real heros except draft dodgers and wounded phony intellectuals.

12:15 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Hey Pete, John Kerry volunteered to go to Viet Nam. John Kerry volunteered top serve on swift boats, when they had the highest mortality rate in teh Navy. John Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts. Would you care to share your military service experience with us?

I am so sorry that for feel the need to dishonor the men women who actually deigned to serve their country, in order to make yourslef feel better about your political leanings.

12:27 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Pete the Ignorant writes, "sKerry has not shown his records..."

It appears that Petey is either lying or ignorant. In June of 2005, John Kerry authorized the release of his complete military and medical records. You can read the story here.

Lying about a decorated war hero. How Republican of you, Pete.

12:42 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Mr. Twister,

Perhaps I attributed a common leftist trait to you inappropriately when I mentioned moral equivalence. If so, my apologies. But let me ask you:

Who is more evil the terrorists or the U.S. military?

Who is more evil Osama bin Laden or George Bush?

Which is worse Saddam's torture prisons or Gitmo?

Is there a moral difference between a terrorist kidnapping/beheading and the unintentional loss of civilian life from a U.S. attack on terrorists?

As for the pedophyle comment, I have no idea what you're talking about so I have no comment. Do you have a quote to refresh my memory? Or are you making things up for dramatic effect?

2:07 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Moral differences are wonderful things to debate, but whether your head is cut off by a terrorist or you're blown to pieces because America wants to prove it can spread democracy, you're still dead.

And the ones you leave behind grieve just as much.

And while I'm sure the level of torture we practice in our black prisons doesn't live up to Saddam's level, when you're being totured, how big a difference does that make?

But here's the real issue -- what Saddam and the beheading terrorists wanted/want is simple: Power. And to get it, they use the most brutal, effective tactics available. Kidnapping, torture, murder.

We're ostensibly in Iraq to spread the seeds of love and peace and democracy. To show the entire Middle East that there's a better future available, one that isn't simply a brutal fight between the most brutal leaders.

So if our tactics are a little less brutal, not quite as vicious, less evil by degrees, that's not good enough.

You can't be a shining moral examplar by being a little less bad. Not if you have to kill tens of thousands of people just to get into the position of being less bad.

3:09 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Greg wrote, "Of course, since it's normal for you to morally equate terrorist beheadings, etc. with the unintentional killing of innocents during war time, I see how you could miss this (to you) subtle difference that is so obvious to sainer observers."

I called him out on it and challenged him, "Go ahead, provide the link to anything I've written that equated terrorist beheadings with the unintentional killing of civilians."

Greg responds, "Perhaps I attributed a common leftist trait to you inappropriately when I mentioned moral equivalence."

So your answer is that I never said what you claimed I said. You lied about what I believe an an attempt to trash me and to make a petty political point. How completely Republican of you. Please forgive me if I call you a lying sack of crap.

7:27 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

The Flomblog asked, " When did we lose the ability to discuss our differences sanely."

We lost that ability when one side of the debate decide it was alright to lie and assassinate the character of people who disagreed with their political views. In this thread, you can see this demonstrated in Pete's dishonest trashing of John Kerry's war record, and Greg lies about my beliefs.

We will never recover the ability to dicuss our differencs rationally until the people who sit on the fence make it clear that lying and character assissination are unacceptable. The ball is in the court of people like you Flomblog.

Do you start cleaning up the mess today by calling Pete and Greg out on their lies, or do you let it slide because you happen to agree with their political ideology?

7:35 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Actually - as long as you asked -- I AM a Vietnam vet. I object to being called a War Criminal -- as Mr. Kerry did. We were in SEA at the same time. I object to a man, who while still in the US Naval reserve sat down with the enemy in Paris.

I will not discuss his war record. I really do not care to rehash that portion of my life. Howevr, liek almost all of my Brother and sister Vets, I came home. Took off my uniform, went back to school and built a life for myself. And I still prize BOTH my medals and ribbons. I never threw them or any one elses, for that matter, away.

Mr. Kerry is the worst type of opportunists. He has brought shame to to party of Kennedy (John, that is) Truman and Roosevelt

And I freely admit that the above is my personal opinion.

7:52 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Mr. Twister,

Wrabkin's response is exactly the kind of Moral Equivalence I was referring to. It's a common refrain from the left.

Your posts generally espouse political views associated with the left. Therefore, I logically associated you with a common leftist theme. That's not such a stretch. Besides, I didn't actually say you specifically stated terrorists are morally equal to the U.S. military. I simply said it would be normal if you did. Given the views you've posted, I stand behind that statement.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you could actually be quoted as having made such statements. But I don't know how to search comment archives to find such things. Neither do I have the desire to do so. I would worry about my mental stability if I did.

However, in the spirit of cordiality, I was willing to concede that I may have over generalized. I even offered an apology.

What was your response? Liar! Liar! All Republicans are Liars!

Is that what you've been reduced to, Mr. Twister? Have you nothing more to offer?

Besides, isn't that the same kind of accusation and association you got all upset at me over in the first place?

You can't claim semantic victory in an argument when you commit the same violation you claim to have exposed.

By responding like a child, you've proven your unseriousness and unworthiness in debate. I feel sullied by having failed to remain above you.

And it does not go unnoticed that you never clarified your views regarding moral equivalence (at least Wrabkin has the courage of conviction to discuss the issue). You never answered ANY of the questions in my challenge.

What are you hiding?

7:44 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Yes, Greg, I do have the courage of conviction to discuss the issue. You, on the other hand, seem to fail at summoning up the same courage, instead choosing to lob insults at Mr. Twister.

When we claim we are spreading the light of truth and democracy across the world, how does it advance our cause that we are "not as bad" as Saddam and the terrorists?

How can we demand the world follow our moral example if we won't follow it ourselves?

8:41 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Out of curiosity, if we are so evil, why are so many people risking death to get here?

I'm not saying 'My country right or wrong", however I really think that the progressive (?) wing of our political spectrum has 20-20 vision, unfortunately they're looking through their respective navels

10:06 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Mr. Flombog:

I am certain you are not stupid. So why waste everyone's time with moronic catchphrases like "If we're so evil, why does everyone want to come here?"

A low-wage lifestyle in the USA is more appealing than that in Mexico, or many other countries. There's a super-abundance of cheap food, so feeding a family is not a problem. Our entire society is based on comfort, so, compared to life in a Mexican bean field, it looks (and, I'm sure, is) pretty good.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with the people we torture or the wars we start to satisfy some Republican egos. If your kid is hungry and you can cross the border to feed him while working as a gardener, you don't stop because the USA political elite is a bunch of sleazy, evil, torturing crooks.

And even if you disagree with my characterization of the loathesome creatures who have seized power in this country, I have a hard time imagining that you can't see that there is no connection, and that what you posted is simply beneath you.

6:27 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Greg tries to defend ghis morally reprehensible tendency to lie about people that disagree with him.

"What was your response? Liar! Liar! All Republicans are Liars!"

Gosh, Greg, you and Pete have both been proven repeatedly to lie. If you want me to stop calling you a liar, you merely need to stop lying. There is nothing that I, on the other hand, can do to prevent your attacks--precisely because you lie about anyone who disagrees with you.

"Besides, isn't that the same kind of accusation and association you got all upset at me over in the first place?"

And no, Greg, this is not the same type of accusation. The same type of accusation would be to claim that you are a racist, because it is well known that Republicans are racist.

10:01 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

The Flomblog, I honor your service to our country. I respect your right to hold and espouse the politicial opinions you present, no matter how much I might disagree with them. Unfortunately, however, the lack of reasoned debate that you bemoan does not arise from my lack of honor or respect.

I have documented that Pete has repeatedly lied about John Kerry in this thread. Greg has admitted that he has lied about my beliefs. In both cases these unjustified attacks were made to score cheap political points.

We are back to my original question, The Flomblog. "Do you start cleaning up the mess today by calling Pete and Greg out on their lies, or do you let it slide because you happen to agree with their political ideology?"

If you don't choose to stand up for what is right, please don't waste anyone's time pretending to care about losing "the ability to discuss our differences sanely." Also, please don't pretend that you don't understand my point--I know you get it.

10:22 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

John Kerry - in spite of his statements - has not completed and signed a form 180. We still do not know for sure that status of his original discharge.

John Kerry Lied to Congress about ME and my comrades.

John Kerry sat down with members of the North Vietnam government in Paris while holding a commission in the US Navy - which is blatently illegal (See the UCMJ).

John Kerry threw "Someone's" ribbons over the white house fence - something which offends every person who sacrificed to earn them.

Because of these actions, and others by groups such as VVAW, the war was prolonged. Perhaps an additional 10,000 Americans died.

These are all documented or documentable facts.


Lets focus on one point - we can discuss you other scattershots (and mine admittedly) at another time.

In my opinion John Kerry, Jane Fonda and their cohorts should have been indicted for treason!

7:31 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

As flomblog has just shown, twisted, you have not "documented" how I have lied or anything else. And if it is any of your business, I did serve in the Navy from 60 to 64. Since I was East Coast, I was part of the Cuban Blockade, and in Panama during that crisis. I apologize for not getting shot - but then I did not scatch myself to earn a medal either, or spread lies about the people I served with. Minor technicalities, tho, to you, right? (Or should I say left?)

I admit to sharing Greg's feelings regarding stooping to your level in this discourse. You call names, flame the host of this blog, and then climb up opn your high horse and act insulted when we respond. What a waste of time to talk to you in this forum.

6:31 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Mr. Twister,

I have not been proven once to have lied, much less multiple times. You calling me a liar does not prove me to be a liar. And your claims do not qualify as documented fact, either.

You accused me of calling a sitting Senator a pedofile. I have no recollection of having done so. Maybe I did, but I don't recall having done so. Can you produce "documentation" - other than your claim - that I did so? If you can't, does that make you a liar? If you can, I will be surprised. But at least I will own up to it.


Wrabkin,

Moral Equivalence is more than comparing the value of the lives lost in conflict. It's also more than comparing battle tactics, although anyone is on very shaky ground when they try to morally equate terrorist activity to U.S. Military activity.

No, moral equivalence must also consider the cause each side is fighting for. What is the reason they do what they do?

It's NEVER good for innocents to die. But there's never been a war - justified or not - in which innocents have not been killed. So it must be accepted that wars - even morally justified wars - will result in the death of innocents. All that can be done is to try to minimize its occurrance.

That endeavor in itself provides clear proof of the moral difference between the U.S. Military and the terrorists. The U.S. tries very hard to minimize collateral damage. Terrorists try very hard to maximize collateral damage. Surely you see this. And surely you would agree that one is morally superior - not just less bad - than the other!

It is equally NEVER good when combatants commit atrocities. But, just like the death of innocents, I can't think of a single war - justified or not - where some kind of war crime has not been committed by both sides. Certainly Allied Troops must have at some time or another took action that was not acceptable, shameful even. Does that make Allied involvement in WWII immoral? Does it make the Nazi cause morally equivalent to the Allied cause?

The overall purpose each side fights for must be considered when trying to decide who, if anyone, is fighting for the morally superior cause. The terrorists are trying to force people into bondage. The U.S. is trying to free people. How could it be argued that the U.S. cause is not morally superior - rather than just less bad - than the terrorist cause?

8:53 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Thank you, Greg, for your thoughtful answer. There's a lot in there I agree with, and also the one thing that keeps us from agreesing on these issues:

I do not believe we invaded Iraq to "free people," and I never will.

I do not believe this administration gives a damn about the Iraqi people, or about any people except themselves. They had a grandiose vision of reshaping the world, and anyone who got in the way -- Iraqi or American -- was simply going to be collateral damage.

I believe this was a war of choice. A war of politics. A willingness to kill any number of people to advance a political goal.

That's why this was sold to us as a war of self-defense. It was only when those claimed were proven to be utterly hollow that the rationale shifted to "spreading freedom."

I know you don't agree with this. I can hope that someday you will come to see what I believe to be the truth, but that doesn't seem likely.

And this is why you see civillian casualties as simply part of a just war, and I see them as victims of mass murder.

10:01 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Sorry you feel that way, Wrabkin.

Of course this was a war of choice. We chose to invade Iraq. Every war is a war of choice. We chose to invade Afghanistan. We didn't have to. Granted, that invasion was easier to justify. But still, it was our choice.

Also, every military action - no matter from whom - is a political action.

As to your vision of the current administration, feel however you want about Bush. That's your right. And, thankfully, you will never be persecuted for it. But let's not let Bush hatred get in the way of the facts.

It's simply not true to say that freeing the people of Iraq from a tyrant in order to spread the seeds of democracy in the Middle East was an after thought to continue to justify the war after WMD were not found. (Unlike some, however, I will not call you a liar.)

From the beginning the Bush Administration used multiple justifications for invading Iraq. Spreading the seeds of democracy in order to solve the root causes of terrorism was always a chief component of that argument.

If you would like, I'm sure I can find quotes from the President and his spokespeople from the beginning of the build up to the invasion of Iraq.

10:37 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Yes, you can find quotes. They were sprinkled in there. But when the US addressed the UN, it was all about WMD. When the President went to Congress, it was all about WMD. When the President made his state of the union address, it was all about WMD. Chemical weapons, flying drones, and uranium from Africa -- much of which they knew was not true.

They did this for a reason. They did this because they knew the American people would not sacrifice thousands of American lives (and God knows how many Iraqi lives) and untold billions or trillions of tax dollars to support a war based on the idea of spreading freedom. They may well have believed that this was their noble cause -- but they did not believe that the people of this country would follow them in it.

So they lied. They lied to us about why we were going to war. And yes, every now and then, they'd talk about how wonderful the MIddle East would be after we invaded. But that was clearly presented as an additional benefit, not a cause. Because they knew this country would not go to war for a theory.

Americans supported the invasion of Iraq because they were convinced Iraq was an imminent threat to our lives. And they believed this because the President told them so, and Colin Powell told them so, and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and all the rest.

And you can say this war had a noble purpose. But to achieve that purporse, those who wanted to fight it lied to the American people. That makes this a corrupt enterprise, no matter how inspiring the ideology behind it.

We do not have a king in this country who can make war because he wants to. The President needs the support of the American people. And this president knew -- or at least assumed -- that if he gave his real rationale for going to war, that the American people would not follow. He was right, as the current polls show.

And what makes this particularly cynical is that he chose to go to war while protecting everyone he knew from making any sacrifice whatsoever. No tax increases on his social peers -- in fact, they all got their taxes cut. No member of his family actually serving in the military. And there has been no oversight of the huge amounts of spending, even while tens of billions of dollars have simply disappeared, apparently into the pockets of Bush supporters. Because sacrifice is for suckers. It's a level of cynicism I've never seen in my life -- we have a shining philosophy for how to remake the world, and the costs will be borne by people we don't care about.

Do you hear Bush hatred in my voice? Yup, it's there all right. But it's not an irrational hatred like righties frothing over Bill Clinton's sex life. This man has betrayed every ideal that this country has ever stood for. He has shamed us in the world. He has spit on the constitution. He has nothing but contempt for 200 years of American history.

I do not let Bush hatred blind me. Instead, it opens my eyes. I wish you would open yours. Because what's in front of them is truly horrifying.

1:25 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Mr. Wrabkin:

I sort of feel sorry for you. There is a p[owerful Brotherhood/sisterhood that you will never know. There is a ki nship that you cannot be part of.

I have never met Pete, however I know for a fact that if needed, he would have my back. I Also know that I would have his. We Both wore the suit. OK, Mine was Air Force, his was Navy, but we both took the oath. By wearing the suit, we were prepared to do what was needed.

Please do not take this as a flame or a slam, but the military teaches you a code of honor that you can nevr understand. Unfortunately in many of our minds, Lt. Kerry violated that code of honor.

For generations we have had national leaders who have been guided by the polls. We finally have one who is guided by his principles. There are issues that I disagree with. But I do not fault his reasoninhg, or call him cheap names.

You see, our president wore the suit! There has been no real evidence that he did not wear it with honor. I will cover his back!

In Basic I memorized a phrase, let me repeat it:

I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces which guard our country and way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Right Pete?

7:33 PM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Mr. Flom --

I will try to take your declaration of pity in the way I hope it's intended. I'm glad you find comfort in your kinship. I wouldn't trade my life for yours, despite the fact you think some complete stranger on the internet has your back. But to the extent you think you meant well, thanks.

That said, if you think that simply wearing a uniform -- or serving in the military -- automatically makes you an honorable man, then you are a fool. History is littered with thieves, murderers, blackmailers, rapists, and every other sort of villain who have served in the military. It is also full of brave, true, noble souls who have served honorably.

Yes, the military teaches a code of honor. Bush has violated every tenet of that code. He has lied. He has suborned perjury. He has ordered torture.

But you don't care about all that, because you like his politics.

Bush "served" in a cushy job because Daddy was in congress, and he never even bothered to finish his duty. But John Kerry, he's a scumbag, because he served in combat, then said some things you don't agree with.

You are using your oath and your service as a cover for your politics. You claim to honor service, but you trash people who have served honorably but now disagree with your politics. (Quick -- is John Murtha still a traitor now that the Marines confirm the Haditha mass murder of civillians? Because I thought part of the code of honor was not standing by and letting dishonor pass.)

And now that we've dealt with all that, I wonder if you might be bothered to address any of the substantive points I've made. Was it morally right for Bush to lie about WMD to lead this country into a war he wanted for reasons he knew the people wouldn't accept?

It's great to say that "Bush is guided by his principles, not polls," but this is a democracy. He does not rule; he governs. Should he be allowed to do whatever he wants, even when three quarters of the country wants him to stop, simply because he is "guided by principles?" When there's a Democrat in office, should he be given the same lattitude? In fact, if Bush's principles say that the congress should stay Republican even if the country votes overwhelmingly in the other direction this fall, shall we let him throw out the election? Because it's so cool that he doesn't like polls?

I'm happy to salute you for your service to this country. Happy Memorial Day, sir.

8:43 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Ah - the sword of justice, however mispent

I do not recall saying anything about John Murtha.

The tactics of the malevalent - left - tell a lie, assume it's true and use that as a basis for your
arguement.

Bush Lied?
Iraq HAD wmd's, ask the Kurds
Iraq HAD a nuclear development program
Iraq supported terrorism - $10,000 for the families of suicide-bombers?

3. You say "But John Kerry, he's a scumbag, because he served in combat, then said some things you don't agree with."

I never called him a scumbag. I find fault with two actions.

the testimony before congress - which has been proven to be a lie (do I need to cite proof?)

The meeting between him and the North Vietnamese while he still held a commission in the US Navy - Which is defined as treason in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Again, do I need to cite proof?

"Bush "served" in a cushy job because Daddy was in congress, and he never even bothered to finish his duty. "

Yup - ask Dan Rather about that one.

I joined the Air Force because I did not wanted to get drafted. does that make me a draft-dodging scumbag?

Many people opposed the war.If you had lived throught those days you would understand what was going on. I have friends who "beat the draft" by working in hospitals, I honor them.

Again, John Murtha

"Quick -- is John Murtha still a traitor now that the Marines confirm the Haditha mass murder of civillians? Because I thought part of the code of honor was not standing by and letting dishonor pass.)"

Hmmm - The Marines had already started a pre-trial investigation before Murtha jumped all over the story. Perhaps some Marines did understand what a code of honor meant. Also while we're on the subject. Abu Graib was already in the Military justice system before the press brought it out.

You said "Bush is guided by his principles, not polls," but this is a democracy. He does not rule; he governs."

Where did I say that the President Rules? By the way, this is not a democracy, it's a federation of 50 states. We were never a democracy.

You said: Should he be allowed to do whatever he wants, even when three quarters of the country wants him to stop

Ah the polls. Polls are remarkedly easy to force. There are multiple ways to get a poll to say whatever you want. (BTW - I teach statistics at the college level). 3/4 of the country? Hmm 75% - can you cite that statistic? last one that I saw was that 51% wanted to continue our task in Iraq. But I don't believe in polls anyway.

You said "You are using your oath and your service as a cover for your politics. You claim to honor service, but you trash people who have served honorably but now disagree with your politics"

well, my experiences while in the service are a root of my politics. I did not trash Kerry for his service in combat, I trashed him for the crimes that he committed, which are all part of the public record. I never trashed Murtha.I disagree with him, but that is not trashing. I didn't even speak about the man - neither here or in my Blog. I disagree with John McCain. But I will never trash the man. As a matter of fact, in starting this thread, talking about Senator McCain I said" I disagree with many of the Senators views, ... the man has earned respect."

And - He has ordered torture. Where? when? Define torture?

We're fighting a war! We're fighting a group of people who wear no uniforms, follow no traditional rules, who blow up pizza shops full of teenagers and schoolbusses.

My only problem with this war is that I'm too old and crippled to get back into uniform.

10:07 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

I'll say it:

BUSH RULES !!

:o)

8:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google