Lazy boy Fred

[Bunz]

Thompson’s Senate Scorecard
August 20, 2007, 3:27 pm
By Michael Luo


With former Tennessee Senator Fred D. Thompson looking more and more like a presidential candidate, his productivity while he was in Congress will likely face scrutiny.

A scouring of he legislative website of the Library of Congress, from 1995 to 2002, when Mr. Thompson was in the Senate, yields a total of five bills that became law for which he was the head sponsor. A sixth passed the Senate and was replaced by an identical House bill that was eventually signed by the president.

The bills include the naming of a post office and courthouse in Cookeville, Tenn., a private bill that granted permanent residency status to a young Bolivian girl getting treatment for cancer and her family and several other minor pieces of legislation. A quick comparison with Senator John McCain, his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, for the same period turns up 17 bills that became law for which Mr. McCain was the lead sponsor.

In terms of all bills, amendments and resolutions they sponsored during that time period, the scorecard for McCain versus Thompson reads: 840 to 167.

[exstatic]

He also chafed at having to go in after hours sometimes to vote on bills. He's got enough Bubba charm to win the votes of the 85s below the Mason Dixon line, though, and will probably have to be taken seriously, if he ever declares.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think he's going to declare. I think something is physically wrong with him that he hasn't been able to shake. I heard something about it some time ago, figured it to be a rumor, and never followed up. It makes sense now, especially as bad as he looks on his public appearances.

Too bad. So far I think he would be a good president. I just don't think it will happen.

As for the bills sponsored and amendment? I believe in a smaller government. We have too many elitists right now in this country. Can we get back to the basics of what the constitution allows our public officials to do?

[ChumpDumper]

His wife is a succubus.

[Wild Cobra]

His wife is a succubus.
LOL... Maybe he just cannot keep up?

Wow, if that happens to me, just shoot me.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd prefer to go down fighting.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't think he's going to declare. I think something is physically wrong with him that he hasn't been able to shake.

He won't declare because he's on the D.C. Madam's clientale list.

[DarkReign]

As for the bills sponsored and amendment? I believe in a smaller government. We have too many elitists right now in this country. Can we get back to the basics of what the constitution allows our public officials to do?

Then the question is, how strongly do you feel about smaller government seeing as you have vehemently supported an administration that has bloated the federal government into a historically unprecedented size and scope.

Methinks some of you Republicans on this board are starting to finally realize that all the bells and whistles and cool new toys Bush has started and coveted are subject to his term limit, and its starting to scare you to think of what someone else might do with those toys.

Someone not associated with your ideology.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hillary Is Spying On Me!!!!!

[xrayzebra]

T
Methinks some of you Republicans on this board are starting to finally realize that all the bells and whistles and cool new toys Bush has started and coveted are subject to his term limit, and its starting to scare you to think of what someone else might do with those toys.

Someone not associated with your ideology.

That's what you get for thinking. If you aren't careful
you will hurt yourself...... :lol

[DarkReign]

That's what you get for thinking. If you aren't careful
you will hurt yourself...... :lol

Hehe...I did develop a headache recently. Damn thinking!

But seriously, I try to walk a logical line in politics with a complete disregard for party affiliation (because looking at the dead-end arguments that arise between the two camps on this board depresses me to no end if this is how the voting public approaches their selections).

Mitt Romney seems, to me, to be the best Republican candidate. But hes Mormon, which I dont think is a big deal, but it seems the religious wing of the Rep party do think is a big deal as he is not "hardcore" enough in pushing his religious convictions into his politics.

John McCain. Seems to me he is moving his image more to the right to appease the party and get the nomination. Not because he buys the BS, but because he wants to be president. He wont get the Rep nomination for one big reason, his age. Hes too old.

Hitlary is exactly that. A socialist who sways with every political wind, just like her husband. Whatever is popular will be in her itinerary. Not interested at all, thanks.

Barack Obama...I have no idea. Very well spoken, seems to have conviction, but he exudes the mantra "Im just testing the waters and getting a free education in national politics". It isnt that he measures his words to a fault, its that he isnt comfortable enough with his own opinions and how they will translate with us common folk.

The other candidates can all suck it, as far as I am concerned. It would take some serious discovery or a new candidate all together to change what I think of the current crop of presidential wannabes.

As it stands, I have no idea who I would vote for. But if I had to say right now which way I am leaning, I would say Romney. But thats tenuous at best.

I just realized Im not on topic...hehe...

Yes, I do in fact think Reps are waking to the fact that they may not have much of a voice in 2008 thru 2010 (maybe beyond) in Congress of the WH. And thats a bit scary seeing as they have been absolutely dominant for almost 15 years in Congress and had the presidency for 7 (or so) of those.

Its going to be an exodus, I think. Lots of turnover in Congress and a Dem in the WH.

I have always felt no party should have both Congress and the WH. Reps have had that, and IMO, have taken this country in a direction I didnt think was posssible 6 years ago. Orwellian isnt an apt word to describe the secrecy and sabotage of this administration and its enablers.

Dems might have the same luxury very soon. Both Houses and the Presidency. Scary thought seeing as the federal government is bigger and more powerful under a Rep than it has ever been under the supposed "big gov" party known as the Dems. Anything they do with the power short of declaring WW3 will look proactive in comparison to this current iteration.

Which, under the direction of a socialist like Hillary, is another scary prospect in itself.

Im just sick of the whole shibang. I encourage every voter to vote in an independant to Congress. Which is a fucking pipe dream when you consider your average American voter has the collective IQ of 60-70 and the attention span of an 8 year old coupled with an insatiable appetite for celebrity worship.

Times, they are a changin'.

[xrayzebra]

Yes, I do in fact think Reps are waking to the fact that they may not have much of a voice in 2008 thru 2010 (maybe beyond) in Congress of the WH. And thats a bit scary seeing as they have been absolutely dominant for almost 15 years in Congress and had the presidency for 7 (or so) of those.

I really don't know what happen to the Republicans when
they ascended to the fore front. It was like they were kids
in a candy factory. They lost control of themselves. And
Bush didn't help a bit by putting the brakes on things.
Of course most everyone knew Bush wasn't a true Conservative by any means. All you had to do is look
at his record here in Texas. He like is Father is more of
a liberal, the old Democratic party.

I see no one on the Democratic side I could vote for. And
it might be like it seems anymore, I wont vote for someone
but like I vote against someone.

I was shocked by Bush when he let Teddy, the swimmer,
write his education bill. I couldn't believe
he would do such a thing. The dimms are made up, now
days, of agenda driven groups and each has an axe
to grind. This country is so divided now it is pitiful.
Actually it is scary. Every since the 68 Democratic
convention when the hippies did their thing in Chicago
and got a seat at the table we have gone downhill in
politics.

[smeagol]

Every since the 68 Democratic
convention when the hippies did their thing in Chicago
and got a seat at the table we have gone downhill in
politics.

Yep, the good 'ole days before those damm hippies

[xrayzebra]

Yep, the good 'ole days before those damm hippies

I really didn't mean it that way. But unless you lived during
the hippy generation, which by the way is who is running
the country in many respects, you could pretty well
determine a person's politics by the party the supported.
You can no longer do that.

[DarkReign]

...you could pretty well
determine a person's politics by the party the supported.
You can no longer do that.
True. People I thought would be liberal-leaning, were flat-out staunch supporters of Bush Co.

Its been such a revelation with some of my family and friends this past 7 years, I actually choose not to listen for family sake.

[ggoose25]

Hehe...I did develop a headache recently. Damn thinking!

But seriously, I try to walk a logical line in politics with a complete disregard for party affiliation (because looking at the dead-end arguments that arise between the two camps on this board depresses me to no end if this is how the voting public approaches their selections).

Mitt Romney seems, to me, to be the best Republican candidate. But hes Mormon, which I dont think is a big deal, but it seems the religious wing of the Rep party do think is a big deal as he is not "hardcore" enough in pushing his religious convictions into his politics.

John McCain. Seems to me he is moving his image more to the right to appease the party and get the nomination. Not because he buys the BS, but because he wants to be president. He wont get the Rep nomination for one big reason, his age. Hes too old.

Hitlary is exactly that. A socialist who sways with every political wind, just like her husband. Whatever is popular will be in her itinerary. Not interested at all, thanks.

Barack Obama...I have no idea. Very well spoken, seems to have conviction, but he exudes the mantra "Im just testing the waters and getting a free education in national politics". It isnt that he measures his words to a fault, its that he isnt comfortable enough with his own opinions and how they will translate with us common folk.

The other candidates can all suck it, as far as I am concerned. It would take some serious discovery or a new candidate all together to change what I think of the current crop of presidential wannabes.

As it stands, I have no idea who I would vote for. But if I had to say right now which way I am leaning, I would say Romney. But thats tenuous at best.

I just realized Im not on topic...hehe...

Yes, I do in fact think Reps are waking to the fact that they may not have much of a voice in 2008 thru 2010 (maybe beyond) in Congress of the WH. And thats a bit scary seeing as they have been absolutely dominant for almost 15 years in Congress and had the presidency for 7 (or so) of those.

Its going to be an exodus, I think. Lots of turnover in Congress and a Dem in the WH.

I have always felt no party should have both Congress and the WH. Reps have had that, and IMO, have taken this country in a direction I didnt think was posssible 6 years ago. Orwellian isnt an apt word to describe the secrecy and sabotage of this administration and its enablers.

Dems might have the same luxury very soon. Both Houses and the Presidency. Scary thought seeing as the federal government is bigger and more powerful under a Rep than it has ever been under the supposed "big gov" party known as the Dems. Anything they do with the power short of declaring WW3 will look proactive in comparison to this current iteration.

Which, under the direction of a socialist like Hillary, is another scary prospect in itself.

Im just sick of the whole shibang. I encourage every voter to vote in an independant to Congress. Which is a fucking pipe dream when you consider your average American voter has the collective IQ of 60-70 and the attention span of an 8 year old coupled with an insatiable appetite for celebrity worship.

Times, they are a changin'.

As usual your post is right on.

But I'd add that if you think Hillary is a panderer, Romney is just as bad if not worse. I can't respect a guy whose convictions change dependent on what position he's running for.

I don't ask for people to apologize for their success, but he is just so smug about everything that it makes me sick.

Other than that, you're right with your assessments of the remaining candidates.

Obama's problem is that his positions do not come strictly from right-left ideology (even though that plays a part). For the most part they come from him, and because of that they are not always firmly settled in his mind. It makes him come off as too abstract, weak, and indecisive.

Politcally its a nightmare for him to maintain partisan decisive stances that win elections, when he truly does not think that way.

And although he is personable, he struggles to find a link with the average American. Next time there is a debate, just watch him. He is trying so hard to find a precise word that makes him sound intelligent, but not too intelligent. It's this balancing act that is ultimately going to doom his chances if he loses. He is too pragmatic to run for an office that the majority of people demand ideology from.

[ggoose25]

Oh and for Freddie.

I don't know anything about him. Other than that his wife is a succubus.

[DarkReign]

And although he is personable, he struggles to find a link with the average American. Next time there is a debate, just watch him. He is trying so hard to find a precise word that makes him sound intelligent, but not too intelligent. It's this balancing act that is ultimately going to doom his chances if he loses. He is too pragmatic to run for an office that the majority of people demand ideology from.

Damn, you nailed it! That was precisely the vibe I was getting but couldnt accurately describe! He almost dumbs himself down so as not to alienate himself from the voting masses.

Now, onto Romney. Like I said, tenuous at best, but out of the prospects, he seems to have conviction at least.

I am aware that he was once pro-choice, but is now pro-life. Whichever, it seems to me that he wants Roe v Wade overturned on the Federal level and let the states decide.

To me, thats cool. Even if its a hot-button issue like abortion, maybe it takes the hottest-button known to the political world to remind the American people that States were intended to govern themselves. This bloated federal authority is the embodiment of the blaze-fare attitude that most Americans have. With every law that impinges state sovereignty, the Fed gets stronger and ever present in our lives.

Is abortion the proper issue to hammer this point home? And if Roe v Wade were overturned, would the reason behind it be for the reasons stated above?

I have no confidence in the American people to govern themselves, but forced compliance may be the needed vehicle to get people involved politically at the most important level. Locally.

[Wild Cobra]

Then the question is, how strongly do you feel about smaller government seeing as you have vehemently supported an administration that has bloated the federal government into a historically unprecedented size and scope.
I am all in favor of smaller government. I am perhaps one part libertarian, one part constitutionalist, and one part conservative. I am for a larger military, and eliminating most of the social programs the federal government controls us with.


Methinks some of you Republicans on this board are starting to finally realize that all the bells and whistles and cool new toys Bush has started and coveted are subject to his term limit, and its starting to scare you to think of what someone else might do with those toys.
First off, all my voting life, I am not a republican. I have had one thing written under 'party' which is "Not Affiliated" under my party status. In the 80's I could equally support democrats and republicans, and voted primarily independent parties. Either I got wiser or the democrats changed. I see them at best as socialists, and worst as communists who could become fascists if they could get away with it. These last several years I normally vote republican as a third party is a spoiler vote, and the republicans are the less of the viable evils.

Someone not associated with your ideology.
I'm sorry, what does that mean?

I don't look for someone to follow my ideology. I look for someone who does not embrace things I find harmful, and who I can respect. President Bush is not that, but he is the lesser of the evils. My God. Too many idiots actually voted for senator sKerry. I never liked president Bush in 2000, but I voted for him because I despise Al Gore He is a shifty politician. When president Bush took charge following 9/11, I started respecting him. I even though he could go down as one of the best presidents until I discovered he was an open borders and free spending president.

On the social spending, there is one series of programs I disagree with constitutionally, but agree with in principle. Those are the ones taking care of our elderly and handicapped. I was giddy when president Bush changed the Medicare prescription programs. He accomplished a program the democrats promised for maybe 30 years and never enacted. Yes, it increases the federal spending, but these are primarily our elders. These are the only long term social programs I support.

[101A]

Yes, I do in fact think Reps are waking to the fact that they may not have much of a voice in 2008 thru 2010 (maybe beyond) in Congress of the WH. And thats a bit scary seeing as they have been absolutely dominant for almost 15 years in Congress and had the presidency for 7 (or so) of those.

I really don't know what happen to the Republicans when
they ascended to the fore front. It was like they were kids
in a candy factory. They lost control of themselves. And
Bush didn't help a bit by putting the brakes on things.
Of course most everyone knew Bush wasn't a true Conservative by any means. All you had to do is look
at his record here in Texas. He like is Father is more of
a liberal, the old Democratic party.

I see no one on the Democratic side I could vote for. And
it might be like it seems anymore, I wont vote for someone
but like I vote against someone.

I was shocked by Bush when he let Teddy, the swimmer,
write his education bill. I couldn't believe
he would do such a thing. The dimms are made up, now
days, of agenda driven groups and each has an axe
to grind. This country is so divided now it is pitiful.
Actually it is scary. Every since the 68 Democratic
convention when the hippies did their thing in Chicago
and got a seat at the table we have gone downhill in
politics.

The country IS divided; partisan, etc...but what REAL change of direction will there be regardless of which party is elected. What REAL differences do the two parties have iin MAJOR fiscal policies; directions, growing or shrinking govt. etc..??? Don't listen to them LOOK AT THEM and what they do! Same old Same old.

The Republicans will scream about shrinking government and lowering taxes while the Democrats will holler about the rich paying there fair share!! The difference in policies??? A few % points!!! OOOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!! And what about the size of government results from these impossibly bitterly divided sides with COMPLETELY DIFFERING WORLD VIEWS AND AGENDAS? Pretty much a linear growth line; regardless of Congressional or WH control! Differences my hairy white ass!!!

Hell, congressional approval is at EIGHTEEN FREAKING PERCENT, but I guarandamntee you that over 90% of 'em will get REELECTED next year! How goddamned convenient!

We are all getting played by two sides of the same coin, IMO. They divide US to keep themselves in power.

[Oh, Gee!!]

you're the last angry man, and you're not gonna take it anymore!!!

[101A]

you're the last angry man, and you're not gonna take it anymore!!!

Coffee sucked this morning.

[ggoose25]

Now, onto Romney. Like I said, tenuous at best, but out of the prospects, he seems to have conviction at least.

I am aware that he was once pro-choice, but is now pro-life. Whichever, it seems to me that he wants Roe v Wade overturned on the Federal level and let the states decide.

To me, thats cool. Even if its a hot-button issue like abortion, maybe it takes the hottest-button known to the political world to remind the American people that States were intended to govern themselves. This bloated federal authority is the embodiment of the blaze-fare attitude that most Americans have. With every law that impinges state sovereignty, the Fed gets stronger and ever present in our lives.

Is abortion the proper issue to hammer this point home? And if Roe v Wade were overturned, would the reason behind it be for the reasons stated above?

I have no confidence in the American people to govern themselves, but forced compliance may be the needed vehicle to get people involved politically at the most important level. Locally.

The Romney Two-Step:

Another Romney flip-flop? The Washington Post picks up on the state's rights comments regarding abortion that Romney recently made in an interview with Nevada political journo Jon Ralston. The Post notes that Romney's states' rights defense differed from a debate answer he gave when he said he was in favor of a Constitutional amendment to restrict abortion. The campaign’s response: that Romney “supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions." Is anyone else a bit confused? Did Romney simply get caught up in "states' rights" spin because he knew he had to justify Nevada's support for gaming?

washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202863.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

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

I know you only expressed preliminary interest in Romney, but I thought this would show you why I don't trust this guy. He is even flip flopping on the state rights claims he has made before; something that you seem to really value. But this man has no convictions. He has only aspirations and ambition. He says whatever he thinks the crowd he's speaking to at the time will approve of!

[xrayzebra]

The Romney Two-Step:

Another Romney flip-flop? The Washington Post picks up on the state's rights comments regarding abortion that Romney recently made in an interview with Nevada political journo Jon Ralston. The Post notes that Romney's states' rights defense differed from a debate answer he gave when he said he was in favor of a Constitutional amendment to restrict abortion. The campaign’s response: that Romney “supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions." Is anyone else a bit confused? Did Romney simply get caught up in "states' rights" spin because he knew he had to justify Nevada's support for gaming?

washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202863.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

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

I know you only expressed preliminary interest in Romney, but I thought this would show you why I don't trust this guy. He is even flip flopping on the state rights claims he has made before; something that you seem to really value. But this man has no convictions. He has only aspirations and ambition. He says whatever he thinks the crowd he's speaking to at the time will approve of!


Question. And I am serious, not trying to prove any
point. Would one issue turn you off of a candidate?

I am very much pro-life, as you well know. But I
could vote for someone if they were neutral or
pro-abortion. Bush said he was pro-life, but he has
been in office almost eight years and nothing has
really changed. And from experience over my life,
politicians are politicians and some of them have
made some major changes in our country, but most
haven't.

[ggoose25]

I don't know who that question is toward, me or DR?

But my response is one issue doesn't persuade me one way or the other. I personally think abortion is awful. Its a sad sad thing. But I feel people have the right to do it if they feel they can't take care of their baby properly, are raped, or have their health endangered.

I just dont trust Romney, the same way many don't trust the Clintons. I think he is very charismatic and was a good governor, but he has done 180degree flips on some issues that make me question whether he has any convictions outside the poll numbers. This is the same feeling I get from Hillary.

I just provided this example because he had brought it up as as an example of why he liked Romney.

I can't speak for DR, except that from his posts it seems like he is in favor of less federal government and more local sovereignty. And that he believed Romney would bring about that change.

Until today I thought he might be right. But after reading that he wants a constitutional amendment for abortion, I was reaffirmed in my original take that he is just pandering to his audience. If he's speaking to Nevadans, he touts state rights. If its to Baptists he wants constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and abortion. He doesn't even know what he wants, other than to sit in the Oval Office.

[xrayzebra]

GG, the question is to all really.

I really haven't paid a lot of attention to any candidates on either
side of the aisle. Well except, I wouldn't vote for Billary or Obama.
Their philosophy turns me off. Both of them are Socialist to the
core. And I do believe one or the other and possibly both will
the be the dimms choice.

On the Republicans. Like I said I haven't looked at them very
close. Damn it's over a year before the election, too long to
sit around listening to all the talk. And I am not so sure we
might not have an independent running, although don't think
any that would run as a independent would have a chance.

[DarkReign]

The Romney Two-Step:

Another Romney flip-flop? The Washington Post picks up on the state's rights comments regarding abortion that Romney recently made in an interview with Nevada political journo Jon Ralston. The Post notes that Romney's states' rights defense differed from a debate answer he gave when he said he was in favor of a Constitutional amendment to restrict abortion. The campaign’s response: that Romney “supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions." Is anyone else a bit confused? Did Romney simply get caught up in "states' rights" spin because he knew he had to justify Nevada's support for gaming?

washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202863.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

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

I know you only expressed preliminary interest in Romney, but I thought this would show you why I don't trust this guy. He is even flip flopping on the state rights claims he has made before; something that you seem to really value. But this man has no convictions. He has only aspirations and ambition. He says whatever he thinks the crowd he's speaking to at the time will approve of!

Well then, if thats the truth, my tenuous support just fell of the side of the cliff. Fuck em, if thats his intention. He intends to pull the baseball equivalent of a double-switch.

"Im overturning it so the individual states can decide."
Yay!
"Now that its overturned and every state has decided, I am endorsing an amendment to regulate those states decisons that allowed it."
Boooo!

[DarkReign]

Question. And I am serious, not trying to prove any
point. Would one issue turn you off of a candidate?

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Not about abortion.

That question obviously implies much more than it seems. If a candidate supports going into an uneeded war, then I dont care if he is the next coming of George Washington, he isnt getting my meager vote.

But, I assume you meant it in context of abortion. No, that issue alone would not dissuade me from any candidate. But, in turn, if what GG25 purports (and is corroborated by the article posted) then that pandering turns me off from the candidate completely for no other reason than that.

I never liked Kerry, not even for a second. But I despise Bush, or maybe moreso his administration (sorry, Bush doesnt come off as too bright and Yale as a whole must weep every time he opens his mouth).

[ggoose25]

Well then, if thats the truth, my tenuous support just fell of the side of the cliff. Fuck em, if thats his intention. He intends to pull the baseball equivalent of a double-switch.

"Im overturning it so the individual states can decide."
Yay!
"Now that its overturned and every state has decided, I am endorsing an amendment to regulate those states decisons that allowed it."
Boooo!

I think you're right. IF those are his intentions. There's no way to know until he's in the WH, though. We didn't know W's true intentions until he was sitting in the West Wing.

It's a shame too. He has the tools to be a good president.

And who knows, he might switch it up again and say he meant state's rights. We'll find out soon enough.

[xrayzebra]

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Not about abortion.

That question obviously implies much more than it seems. If a candidate supports going into an uneeded war, then I dont care if he is the next coming of George Washington, he isnt getting my meager vote.

But, I assume you meant it in context of abortion. No, that issue alone would not dissuade me from any candidate. But, in turn, if what GG25 purports (and is corroborated by the article posted) then that pandering turns me off from the candidate completely for no other reason than that.

I never liked Kerry, not even for a second. But I despise Bush, or maybe moreso his administration (sorry, Bush doesnt come off as too bright and Yale as a whole must weep every time he opens his mouth).

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?

I am not being snide. But it is a legitimate question.

As a matter of information to you and others. I was
completely surprised we didn't take on the whole of
the Middle East when the WTC got bombed. And I
am not sure we did the right thing by NOT taking
them on. And many others felt the same as me.
But we were thinking in mode of our lifetime, not
younger people. We, those of my age group, were
raised in the period of WWII and many of those
that were WWI were still alive and we were well aware
of what war is and what it takes to really win one.

Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.

[ChumpDumper]

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?I think for myself.


As a matter of information to you and others. I was
completely surprised we didn't take on the whole of
the Middle East when the WTC got bombed. And I
am not sure we did the right thing by NOT taking
them on.The whole middle east didn't attack us. Just some dudes who were hiding in Afghanistan and are now hiding in Pakistan. We should have kept after those guys instead of bogging down in Iraq.


Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.Which begs the question: "How serious was Bush about the war on terra and Iraq compared to his rhetoric?"

The answer, determined by myself, is "not very" -- definitely not in comparison to World War II. That can't be denied.

[DarkReign]

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?

I didnt think its a snide question at all, its a good one. IMO, true war is such an enormous burden to the entire nation, we should decide. Not by popular vote, but by support or unsupport.

Iraq was a supported war. But what was supported was, once again, a double switch. The only reason any of us even use the abbreviation for "weapons of mass destruction" is because it was used ad nauseam as the lead up to Iraq.

Not only that, Powell was convincing us that not only did he have WMDs, but that he was intent upon using them or giving them to individuals who would use them either on us or our allies.

Culminate all this with the hysteria of fear and aftermath of 911, and it was rubber stamped by everybody in a position to question it under the guise of "patriotism".

5 years later, Im sure a buttload of people in Congress wish they could repeal their vote. But then again, maybe not. Funny thing politics, those not in power reap the benefits of those who are cyclically speaking.


Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.

Now this, I couldnt agree with more. Youre absolutely right my generation doesnt know what real war is, and God forbid the day we do. The military is not the end-all, be-all of disagreements in theory and practice. If that were the case, Joe Schmo the ugly bouncer from the local biker bar would be running things. But he isnt, and there is a reason.

[ggoose25]

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?

I am not being snide. But it is a legitimate question.

As a matter of information to you and others. I was
completely surprised we didn't take on the whole of
the Middle East when the WTC got bombed. And I
am not sure we did the right thing by NOT taking
them on. And many others felt the same as me.
But we were thinking in mode of our lifetime, not
younger people. We, those of my age group, were
raised in the period of WWII and many of those
that were WWI were still alive and we were well aware
of what war is and what it takes to really win one.

Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.

I think this is an excellent post.

[xrayzebra]

CD said I think for myself.

No one is questioning you thought process. I am speaking
for decisions about the country.

Obviously, we cannot have a "popular" vote on every question, especially war.


CD said: The whole middle east didn't attack us. Just some dudes who were hiding in Afghanistan and are now hiding in Pakistan. We should have kept after those guys instead of bogging down in Iraq.

If you believe that, then really any statement I make will
be considered irrelevant by you. But the fact of the
matter is that most of the ME has policies that are
opposed to our view. And are hostile to us. And we
are not bogged down in Iraq as you state. Politics once
again raises it ugly head to cause us to not use the
full power that we could bring to bear. And one of the
reason we cant is because of people/politicians like you
who seemed to not want win the war.




CD: Which begs the question: "How serious was Bush about the war on terra and Iraq compared to his rhetoric?"

Well since you voiced your personal opinion, I will voice
mine. Since VN the politicians in Washington have been
very wary of war. Clinton and his war in Bosnia was
fought by air above (cant remember the altitude) to hold
casualties down. And he got away with it. But Clinton
also showed the AQ that if they bloodied us enough we
would pull back. As in Black Helicopter Down. Clinton
would not commit enough troops to win a battle, much less
a war.




DR: I didnt think its a snide question at all, its a good one. IMO, true war is such an enormous burden to the entire nation, we should decide. Not by popular vote, but by support or unsupport.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Support
or unsupport (nonsupport). You cannot have it both
ways. The war was supported by Congress. And is
still supported by the majority of Congress. They will
not or have not cut off funding for the Iraq war. And
wont so long as the public supports it, which the public
does. Don't be mislead by the MSM and polls, if the
public was against it, funds would have already been
cut off. Much of the public, like me, don't want to see
the United States humiliated again and see the
aftermath of us pulling out will cause.

The WMD is really puzzling. Much ado has been made
about there being no WMD being found. Yet, everyone
knows Iraq had WMD and everyone, and I mean everyone,
thought he had it when we invaded. The question which
I have ask and others have ask: What happened to it?
And everyone should be concerned with that question.
Some folks say it was moved to Syria. It wouldn't
surprise me. Saddam was not on great terms with
any of his neighbors. But it didn't stop him from
flying his AF to Iran, did it.

One point that seems to have been lost in all this
talk is that Saddam was offered a deal to leave Iraq
along with his millions and family and even one
country agreed to accept him and he turned it down.
Do you remember that? I do. Had he accepted that
maybe, maybe, no war would have occured. Civil war
or AQ coming out of their training camps in Iraq to
attempt a takeover. Yeah for all the talk about no
terrorist in Iraq, AQ did have training camps there.

[ChumpDumper]

No one is questioning you thought process. I am speaking
for decisions about the country.

Obviously, we cannot have a "popular" vote on every question, especially war.So? I don't have to agree with a cowardly congress abandoning its constitutional duties, either.



If you believe that, then really any statement I make will
be considered irrelevant by you. But the fact of the
matter is that most of the ME has policies that are
opposed to our view. And are hostile to us.Not really.


And we
are not bogged down in Iraq as you state.I've never heard of a four-year blitzkrieg.


Politics once
again raises it ugly head to cause us to not use the
full power that we could bring to bear. And one of the
reason we cant is because of people/politicians like you
who seemed to not want win the war.Nah, Bush had every opportunity to expand the military and invade Iraq using something closer to Op Plan 1003. Just another opportunity squandered by Bush.


Well since you voiced your personal opinion, I will voice
mine. Since VN the politicians in Washington have been
very wary of war. Clinton and his war in Bosnia was
fought by air above (cant remember the altitude) to hold
casualties down. And he got away with it. But Clinton
also showed the AQ that if they bloodied us enough we
would pull back. As in Black Helicopter Down. Clinton
would not commit enough troops to win a battle, much less
a war.Yeah, Reagan turned tail in the face of Islamic terror first. So what? Bush ignored Al Qaeda and let the issue fester in deputies meetings until 9/11. There's plenty of blame to go around.


The WMD is really puzzling. Much ado has been made
about there being no WMD being found. Yet, everyone
knows Iraq had WMD and everyone, and I mean everyone,
thought he had it when we invaded. The question which
I have ask and others have ask: What happened to it?They were destroyed. If you think anything else than the Iraq War was a colossal failure.


And everyone should be concerned with that question.
Some folks say it was moved to Syria. It wouldn't
surprise me. Saddam was not on great terms with
any of his neighbors. But it didn't stop him from
flying his AF to Iran, did it.What Air Force?


One point that seems to have been lost in all this
talk is that Saddam was offered a deal to leave Iraq
along with his millions and family and even one
country agreed to accept him and he turned it down.
Do you remember that? I do. Had he accepted that
maybe, maybe, no war would have occured. Civil war
or AQ coming out of their training camps in Iraq to
attempt a takeover. Yeah for all the talk about no
terrorist in Iraq, AQ did have training camps there.The camps were in norther Iraq where Saddam had little control and where we routinely flew combat aircraft.

To bad most of the real Al Qaeda was and is still in Pakistan.

[clambake]

Training camps? Where? Show me. Show me the trainees. Show me the instructors teaching trainees. In Iraq. With Saddam in the bleachers. Or was he out buying yellow cake?