“I supported the troops before I cut the legs out from under them”
On “Face the Nation” yesterday, Tony Snow made what seems to me to be an eminently reasonable request:
What I would say to members of Congress is: Calm down and take a look at what’s going on, and ask yourself a simple question: If you support the troops, would you deny them the reinforcements they think are necessary to complete the mission?
What does this business of “supporting the troops” actually mean, anyway? Most of the time, I’m afraid, it’s empty rhetoric. And exceedingly condescending empty rhetoric, at that.
“Support” is a nice,touchy-feely word, vague enough to mean almost anything. Here are some definitions, however, for those more inclined towards precision:
# the activity of providing for or maintaining by supplying with money or necessities; “his support kept the family together”; “they gave him emotional support during difficult times”
# give moral or psychological support, aid, or courage to; “She supported him during the illness”; “Her children always backed her up”
# aiding the cause or policy or interests of; “the president no longer had the support of his own party”; “they developed a scheme of mutual support”
# support materially or financially; “he does not support his natural children”; “The scholarship supported me when I was in college”
# something providing immaterial assistance to a person or cause or interest; “the policy found little public support”; “his faith was all the support he needed”; “the team enjoyed the support of their fans”
# back: be behind; approve of; “He plumped for the Labor Party”; “I backed Kennedy in 1960”
# a military operation (often involving new supplies of men and materiel) to strengthen a military force or aid in the performance of its mission; “they called for artillery support”
# hold: be the physical support of; carry the weight of; “The beam holds up the roof”; “He supported me with one hand while I balanced on the beam”; “What’s holding that mirror?”
# documentation: documentary validation; “his documentation of the results was excellent”; “the strongest support for this view is the work of Jones”
# confirm: establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts; “his story confirmed my doubts”; “The evidence supports the defendant”
# subscribe: adopt as a belief; “I subscribe to your view on abortion”
# the financial means whereby one lives; “each child was expected to pay for their keep”; “he applied to the state for support”; “he could no longer earn his own livelihood”
# supporting structure that holds up or provides a foundation; “the statue stood on a marble support”
# corroborate: support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm; “The stories and claims were born out by the evidence”
# defend: argue or speak in defense of; “She supported the motion to strike”
# the act of bearing the weight of or strengthening; “he leaned against the wall for support”
# accompaniment: a subordinate musical part; provides background for more important parts
# play a subordinate role to (another performer); “Olivier supported Gielgud beautifully in the second act”
# patronize: be a regular customer or client of; “We patronize this store”; “Our sponsor kept our art studio going for as long as he could”
# any device that bears the weight of another thing; “there was no place to attach supports for a shelf”
# digest: put up with something or somebody unpleasant; “I cannot bear his constant criticism”; “The new secretary had to endure a lot of unprofessional remarks”; “he learned to tolerate the heat”; “She stuck out two years in a miserable marriage”
# financial resources provided to make some project possible; “the foundation provided support for the experiment”
Hard to see the current “slow-bleed” activities of Congress as “support” under any of these definitions: they provide neither money, psychological encouragement, aid to the cause, backup, approval, corroboration, weight-bearing, nor defense of the troops (although I suppose it could be argued that–for the 20,000 troops that would be included in any “surge”–they “defend” those particular troops by preventing them from going to Iraq and risking their lives–even if it is the wish of many of them to do so).
The phrase “we support the troops” uttered by antiwar activists and Congressional leaders is meant to deflect the sort of charges that became commonplace during the Vietnam War, when the conflict over that war was personalized into disrespect towards those who had served in the military. Most of those who declare support for the troops while hating the war are careful not to insult the troops directly, and certainly not to their faces.
But it’s often the subtext of their message. And others are not so careful: witness the enormous (and well-earned) flap created by Washington Post “blogger” William M. Arkin’s column characterizing our troops as a “mercenary” force who should be grateful to the American people for supporting them. (Please read the comments after his post, as well; many are far more interesting–and intelligent–than Arkin’s original piece.)
How can the troops be said to be supported by the “slow bleed” envisioned by the Democratic leadership? One doesn’t necessarily have to be a complete Jacksonian in order to see that wars should be waged competently or not at all. The Democrats and their seven Republican supporters refuse to go out on a political limb and cut off funding for the war. The fact that they are allowing troops to remain in harms’ way there, and yet refusing to give them the support (actual support, not symbolic and empty words) that commanders think would help the mission, protect the troops, and ultimately help the Iraqis as well, is profoundly hypocritical and short-sighted.
The idea of the troops as naive (Arkin’s word), exploited, poor, misguided, and stupid saps is a meme that won’t die, despite demographic evidence to the contrary. But if one continues to promulgate (and possibly even to believe) these things, then the term “support” becomes translated into something other than “support what they are doing and what their commanders feel is needed.” It becomes “support them by telling the poor misguided little ones what the truth is in order to protect them from their own ignorant perceptions.” And what’s that truth? “It’s what we understand it to be.”
The condescension is thick. Here’s Arkin again, in a follow-up post:
In the middle of all of this are the troops, the pawns in political battles at home as much as they are on the real battlefield. We unquestioningly “support” these troops for the very reasons that they are pawns. We give them what we can to be successful, and we have a contract with them, because they are our sons and daughters and a part of us, not to place them in an impossible spot.
And yet, strangely enough, one can easily say (and I hereby say it) that those Democrats (and the seven Republicans) who voted for the recent resolution are guilty of using the troops as political pawns and of doing their best to “place them in an impossible spot.”
Their condescension is especially misplaced in regards to an all-volunteer military. With a draft, there’s a better argument to be made for the reluctance or naivete of troops. Volunteers are presumed to know what they’re getting into: they have a choice, and they’ve chosen the military. That’s why Arkin and others have fallen into the “mercenary” charge; it’s the best one they can muster to counter the fact of an all-volunteer military, besmirching the motives of those who serve and reducing them to a desire for money.
Of course, being a volunteer in the military doesn’t mean a person who serves has chosen this particular war. Although it’s also a well-known fact that the majority of the military tend to vote Republican, there’s also no question that some who serve would–and will– vote for Democrats, and would prefer not to go to Iraq. But that’s by no means a universal point of view, and reenlistment statistics–as well as interviews with military personnel such as the one that sparked the original Arkin article–certainly tell a different tale.
I’ll close with the incomparable Steyn on the entire subject:
So “the Murtha plan” is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don’t have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he’s a great American! He’s a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn’t support them in the mission, but he’d like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally “fully funding” a war you don’t believe in but “limiting his ability to use the money.” Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:
“Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy.”
And I’ll offer a rather simple definition of the word “undermine”: it’s the opposite of “support.”
By trying to publish time tables for withdrawal the are also pulling the rug from under our troops. You do not announce your plans to the enemy in CNN interviews. Next, they will be announcing the evacuation plans and the type of ammo needed to shoot down the last helicopter.
I used to think this was an elaborate effort to justify Boomer’s actions in Vietnam (like Kerry), but it has spread to wider groups. I now believe that many Americans (and most Democrats) just want little or nothing to do with the rest of the world. It’s just trouble. I’m in the energy business and I’ve heard family members to the left ask me how we could eliminate the need to depend on Middle east oil. The message was so we could let them all fight among themselves and we wouldn’t have to worry about it!
Bush has done too good a job. There have been no more attacks on US Soil and the economy is booming. People are still nervous and want someone to make them feel better with gifts of job security or health insurance.
If we fail (or are made to fail) then the Dems won’t have to worry about taking a role as a Superpower. Most have seen this as a distraction from their domestic agenda.
I think it’s more than just political opportunism or isolationism. The Democrats want us defeated. They think America _deserves_ defeat — we’re too rich, we consume too much, we’re racist and sexist and everything else-ist, and they think we deserve to be punished for our sins.
They’re Puritans without God — instead of believing that sinners will burn in Hell they wish to make Hell on Earth for us right now. And what’s truly horrifying is that they think they’re doing us good by plunging our country into poverty and defeat.
The Democrats have declared war on America; it’s time we fought back.
When the shit hits the fan, and the factories stop making sugar-cakes — the Left will wake up and find God real fast.
Saw Tucker Carlson today on MSNBC, (not my television), talking to Pat Buchanan and some unidentified Democrat about Mutha’s proposal and whats down the road in Iraq.
It sounds as though Carlson read the same commentary neo posted earlier:
http://www.examiner.com/a-566636%7ELawrence_Haas__Democrats_should_beware_of_the_post_Vietnam_syndrome.html
Calson says has always been opposed to the invasion of Iraq, yet had the same concerns as Lawrence Hass. (there’s a pun in there…). He asked his Democrat guest if the Democrats have really thought this one through.
The Democrat representative responded with the usual deflections and subject changing “Murtha has always supported the troops” whitewash.
They’re interested in one victory alone. Their own political victory.
One of the Republicans that sided with the Democrats on this one is from my state. I guess ol’ Gordon Smith is betting the majority of his constituents have all become rabidly anti-war and/or is hoping enough Democrats in his district forget he’s a Republican.
Well, actually, it works for me.
the Left will wake up and find God vreal fast.
Yes, and their God will be the God of Islam. Hatred of Western Civilization is too deep in them. For example, I point you to all the feminists who have taken to the burka, and rant on and on about how “free” it makes them.
They don’t actually believe the ideals they have preached. How often have you been told “Racism is wrong” and “Affirmative action is the right thing to do”, or “Homosexuality is something people can’t help, because they are just born that way” and “Homosexuality is a personal and private choice.”? See. DoubleThink is hard; DoubleThink is easy.
They don’t believe Iran’s comments about wiping out the Jews, because a liar never believes anyone else.
So, since they don’t even believe what they have said, they are ripe to be attracted to whatever belief others hold most deeply; especially, when those that believe also hate what the Left hates. When you believe in nothing at all, it is easy to believe in anything.
Gordon Smith is done.
Here is Oregon (especially the People’s Republic of Portland, and I assume Eugene) Hatred of America is considered patriotic.
What a FANTASTIC argument, Justaguy! Call the guys on the other side names! Why didn’t we think of this?????
Ah, so we only allow those that are either in the military or have served to decide? Great, then you support the Iraq war since the military and veterans overwhelmingly support it.
Plus, way to go on silencing a large portion of the public who doesn’t agree with your stance. Can we say fascists (and in this the underlying idea is truly fascists with the chosen ones the only ones able to make decisions)? Nice to see that you do not even make an attempt to hide that you think that a large portion of the populace has no right to their opinions.
“A “chicken hawk” is one who strikes the pose of a warrior, who imputes the personal courage of a soldier in combat to themselves…” etc., blah, blah, blah.
Yep, that definition means…Heinlein was right, only those who have served in combat can ever take us to war! No more civilian presidents for me, no sir, because my goodness they could be a chickenhawk.
Such a tired, stale argument. Howevere, those who profess it bask in their own brilliance.
1. Howevere = however
2. He got what he wanted: ATTENTION.
Justadweeb
Where’s the courage of YOUR convictions, Justadweeb? Why haven’t you human shielded yourself? Why do you LIVE HERE paying taxes, stimulating the economy(paying taxes), buying “bloody” oil(paying taxes). YOU enable those “evil neo-cons” to commit “crimes” in your name. And all you do about it is go to “weblogs” and cry? Sounds like YOU’RE the hypocrite here. Bush has already “stolen” the elections twice already. What makes you think he’ll just “relinquish power”? So, I’m not demanding you leave; my question is: If it’s really all that bad, why exactly do you stay?
justa hails from New Zealand.
Lee, Justaninanedweeb posts from New Zealand, but is an expert on all things American. And uses the personal possessive pronouns regarding Sharia.
As for Chickenhawk: It’s greatest use in America, perhaps even its coinage, was during the Vietnam War. It is what Sidney Hook would call an “epithet of abuse”, used to silence and smear rather than to say anything substantial. Its logical conclusion is Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”.
Given that no one is a mindreader, the “believes that their advocacy is proof of the(ir) courage” is simply self-serving on the part of those who throw the term.
Oh, that explains it. Someone who NEVER has had to fight or work for what they have, while crying all the while how terrible it is that he has it. Notice, though, they don’t DECLINE all that western society has to offer?
Most people I’ve met or talked to from New Zealand are pretty nice people. Well, I guess there’s an exception to every rule.
Justadweeb, have you said thank you to the United States Navy lately so you can choose to speak English instead of Japanese?
Justa HIDES because National Socialism is banned in NZ.
C’mon, even a 12 yr. old can come up with a snappy comeback to that one.
I said that I would never vote again for “readmylips” Bush and I didn’t. Whatever yellow dog the Democrats run against Senator Gordon Smith next time has my vote.
Trimegistus: They’re Puritans without God
Hmm, I actually did a post on this some time back. Melancholy and the Infinite Simpsons. Too long to quote more than a taste:
I assume justadweeb’s post was deleted?
We’ve established that he’s a troll in previous threads. On this one, even with his post deleted, he’s managed to get 12 comments referring to him, about 60% of those on this thread before mine. That’s success for him. ‘Don’t feed the trolls’ should be about the only response we give to him anymore.
And, since we’re ‘irrelevant,’ the same for WR. Don’t need ’em around? Then don’t give ’em the attention they crave.
No, justadweeb, I’m not trying to do any of that stuff, I,m just identifying you as a nazi(cries of protest notwithstanding). As simple as that. No deeper than that.
Now, can you give me the “chicken-hawk” screed again, please?
“A “chicken hawk” is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.”
So, in other words, there isn’t a single person who fits your complaint yet you rant on about it? Ok, if that is really the stance you want to take I’ll let you (to note, you may want to go look at that one again – your probably better off with calling all pro-war people chicken-hawks). When you find someone who fits that description call us back. Until then – how about at least attempting to say something useful?
At least we have have Democrats – who do not have the backbone to actually call for a troop recall and instead pursue a plan that nearly all agree will get extra troops killed and us automatically loose (with the attempt at blaming it all on the Republicans).
Iraqi civilians supporting the troops.
You have to give grudging acknowledgement to the ‘Rats and the Left’s ability to stay on message. Political power is the ‘Rats mission and crushing the Capitalist, Imperialistic Beast is the mission of the Left.
They don’t seem to have a problem with using Islamist fanatics as proxies to accomplish their missions. The fact that this is parochialism writ large doesn’t bother them much since they gave up on complexity in favor of procrustean solutions years ago.
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that’s all.
Interesting story in the news here on the West Coast about a school in Los Angeles wherein teachers are attacking the Junior ROTC program on campus. One anti-ROTC teacher wears a t-shirt in class emblazoned with the words “War is not the answer” while flying a flag with the (in)famous Che Guevara likeness on it.
It seems the Left is never aware of its own cognitive dissonance.
notherbob2:
“Whatever yellow dog the Democrats run against Senator Gordon Smith next time has my vote.”
A yellow dog Democrat in Oregon? These guys all have Che Guverra for President bumper-stickers!
Not only are we supposed to accept that those who are attempting to engineer defeat (not JUST defeat, but a long, drawn out defeat that will cost more lives) ‘support’ our troops, but we should also never question their patriotism, right?
After all, they are the ones with the moral courage to end..well, no not end the war..slow down..well, no not slow down the war..they want to save..well, no not save lives..
As far as I can tell, they want to be sure we lose, but drag out the process of losing as long as possible in order to erode political support for their opposition while mollifying their own base. Yeah, these guys deserve a lot of respect.
‘conned, don’t be tecious. Points can be and have been made for the Iraq operation from geopolitical, strategic and realpolitik, to name a few. Google is your friend search on my posting name and, say, terms like Azeri, Kurd, etc. You know, the ones you never read?
Besides, you don’t have a dog in this fight, remember?
“less sense than ever”
Yes, you do display this daily, ‘conned.
Every post you’ve ever made.
Thanks.
Neo,
You should save these. Classic troll every step of the way.
Emotionally-stunted low-life of the Internet.
“…for those more inclined towards precision“:
This is the administration’s defination of “supporting the troops”.
Every war is unwinnable to those who do not want win it. And everything is possible for those who have enough willpower – if their firepower is adequate. I would never believe that nation that was able to send astronauts to the Moon can’t send to hell a bunch of criminal thugs. This is only question of resolve and devotion.
“. CAn’t even call them opponents you have to demonise them; hence liberal use of the word troll.”
Nope. Pure sophistry. Sites of all kinds and political persuasions deal with trolls.
Troll behavior has been defined and is a known problem. Wiki has a decent definition, but there is more on the web that lists the characteristics. Its in the aggregate of those characteristics that a troll is defined and known. Being banned from a site and coming back again and again is one characteristic.
Note about author of the article which WR linked:
“she is married to William Goodfellow, a far-left political activist and current executive director of the Center for International Policy (CIP), who has been at the vanguard of many of the most rabid attacks on Bush Administration policy.
Goodfellow has been described by his wife as a human rights activist. Yet, that is hardly an accurate or complete job description. For the past 30 years, William Goodfellow has pushed radical causes in a string of inter-related far-left think tanks.”
So, one hardly can expect objectivity from this traitor.
“…everything is possible for those who have enough willpower…“:
This was Japan’s fighting myth during the WWII. I seem to remember that it lost that war.
Regarding the applicability of space engineering the Soviet Union managed some admirable technical feats. Unfortunately it was unable to translate those into meaningful action on the ground in Afghanistan.
“But still here to make you realise that there are other views”
Ah, the “I’ve been appointed by God” purpose, also known as hubris. Do some troll characteristic research, please.
As for Neo’s banning, you need to get around more, she has actually been pretty soft. Some siteowners would have banned you immediately just because of the moniker.
Anyway, enough time arguing with someone that claims water is dry. Good luck to you with your appointment from God.
Not me. I am, alas, already not in military age. Who is enemy? You do not know? Terrorists, of course. Arabs. Muslim. Persian. Chechens. Palestinians. And jihadi boys of any other tribe. If crusaders could save Europe from them centures ago with swords and spears, why Americans can not do it now with aircraft carriers? With MOABS? With nukes?
Afganistan was good illustration of lack of willpower, and Japan – lack of firepower. You need both to win. Any one of this two is not enough.
More from the Wiki
“A troll is a person who approaches a board with the specific intention of destroying a forum’s hegemony, either with no particular motive or provocation in mind, other than to be purely destructive or if the motive or provocation is against the ethos of the board.”
“But still here to make you realise that there are other views”
You are self-appointed. That is called hubris. No one believes you are here to debate, too much off-topic and too much goal-post moving. Again, not any one characteristic but the aggregate.
It isn’t your place to decide how a siteowner should run their site.
Since you like debate, use your debating skills and take the opposite stance of any post at Democratic Undergound. Good debaters, like good lawyers, can argue either side. Enjoy.
“It isn’t your place to decide how a siteowner should run their site.“:
I don’t think neoneoconned has tried influence LiveRack Inc. (the site owner) in any way.
One sign of victory is absence of further attacks on American soil. Another – scamper of Al-Sadr to Tehran. But this is long battle, indeed. We are are now only at first episodes of it. Patience is a virtue. Endurance too.
Thank No.1 Son for all of us.
“I thought I had heard most things but this is the winner. Advocating war for young people and then lying about his own background to the extent of an imaginary fighting son. Hope you are proud of this acolyte neo.”
Well, justaguy said it, so it must be true! Talk about echo chambers…you guys are just too much. If either of you knew anything about the intelligence business, you’d know that SW wouldn’t say more than he’s already said, with good reason.
For you to latch onto justa’s BS so immediately, neoneoconned, just proves that you’ve got no aptitude for critical thinking.
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours(if you have one): “The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.”.
“Wasp outed himself by sending threatening e-mails over international borders.”
…and this proved, what, exactly? That he has an e-mail account and a computer?
Neo’s new site can’t come too soon.
“not a psychiatrist”
I believe the claim was a “background in therapy”.
You’d disagree?
“an identity that can be easily traced back to them”
You know who SW is, then? Probligo got exactly what he wanted. Talk about unpleasant.
“psychiatrist, therapist, whatever. Don’t talk about what a nazi dumbass neoneotwerp is, don’t you think it’s strange that someone besides us would manufacture imaginary soldiers? This is what I want to focus on.” signed neoneoconned.
Congratulations to Sergey! He succeeded in goading a troll into making a comment relevent to the post.
As neoconned says, “thats probably what al-sadr thinks as he hides out till the latest push winds down”.
Exactly. And he knows, thanks to the left, that this is supposed to be the ‘last surge’ and he need only wait it out.
Nothing quite like a food fight with trolls to make a mess of the place, is there? The one funny bit is seeing an obsessive neurotic like connie talk about how weird anyone else is, even if he can’t spell it.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, what’s actually interesting to watch is the Democrats (and white-flag Republicans) pussyfooting around this whole issue. With no concern for actual troops, and no responsibility for the safety of the country, what they fear more than anything is that the level of violence in Iraq might actually begin to diminish over the course of the next year and a half. What if, they sweat, voters actually decide to hold them accountable for any vote to defund, “redeploy”, or otherwise undermine an effort that looks like it might be working? I mean, how were they supposed to know things would actually get better?!? A long shot, perhaps, as I’m sure they’re reassuring themselves, but it gives them anxiety attacks nevertheless at the wretched unfairness of it all.
Sally, from what I’ve noticed, the left has always suffered from “doom and gloom” syndrome. What did they say before the first Gulf War?: “We haven’t seen real combat since Vietnam; those Iraqis have been hardened after 8 years of IranIraq. There will be thousands of casualties. It will be a quagmire.” Hot knife through butter come to mind? How ’bout the run-up to this one?: “Gulf War I was one thing, now we’ll be up against the elite Republican Guard that Saddam hoarded the last time. There will be thousands of casualties. It will be a quagmire.” Air through open window? Goes by the flipping coin theory: Flip it enough times, it HAS to come up tails, sometimes. So now they finally got one right(insurgency more resillient) and now they say “See, we were right all along!” The brilliance of the left.
The thing that gets me this time, is their blatent attempts to manufacture that defeat when it won’t come naturally on the battlefield. The Democrats, I mean(dash of Repubs).
Moral Waivers and the Military
“There is no “left” in America. There is just a less extreme right.”
Now that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Of course, it may be partly true; go around the world one way, you’re bound to get to the other side….
For the record:
US Army: 1962 to 1982, combination of active and reserve duty. Branch: MI. DD Form 214 in hand. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Subsequent civilian service in same field on waivers per DOD and Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.
BA, MA, PhD. Rural Political and Economic Development, Comparative Governments and International Relations. Military equivalent is Intel Ops in Counter Insurgency.
Two sons: One in reserves on active duty; a trigger puller in a combat branch. 2nd former active duty and separated from reserves; Combat Support Branch.
Lifelong rail fan and model railroader, On3 scratch builder, thanks to my maternal grandfather. Not the same as a UK “anorak” or trainspotter.
Involved in IT since the days of the IBM 360/70 when my campus was one of three, total, Internet/ARPANET sites. Email user since 1971.
After initial retirement from academia, volunteered at local library and wound up as the library system’s, multiple sites, IT consultant and chief technical officer. Not a librarian which requires a professional MS.
Have had a couple of email/weblog dust ups . justadweeb’s “trace” back is laughable and wrong. probligo got spanked by his ISP and justa got investigated by his county’s Special Branch and was judged as a harmless crank.
You may believe their twaddle if you wish.
Now retired, for good, to the Texas Hill Country and planning to drop back to a dial up since I’ll be out in the boonies. Ta all. Fight the good fight.
“was judged as a harmless crank. ”
Not if he’s allowed to vote, he isn’t…
Hey, I like “this” anonymous.
UK to begin withdrawing Iraq troops
“Any one of this two is not enough.“:
If lack of will power is sufficient for a country to loose a war and if the Soviet Union lacked the will power to fight a war in Afghanistan then why did the Soviet leaders start the war there?
Becouse of senile USSR leadership was lulled into this trap by Afgan communists who attempted a coup and could not stay at power without Soviet help. Nobody in Politburo wanted this war, but nobody had guts to say “no” to Kremlin-bred Afgan carpet-baggers.
Anonymous, 12:40 am—justa’s from New Zealand. He can’t vote here, but he can (unfortunately) vote there (I’m assuming). His brand of leftism is just as dangerous in Auckland as it would be in New York.
Isn’t probligo from new z land too?
What’s up with all the downunder folks coming for a kangaroo punch. What did happen to probligo anyways?
Trolls are another description for narcissist. Or malignant narcissist.
To read more about it
“Becouse of senile USSR leadership…“:
That is where we are so very lucky. We do not have that sort of senile leadership who would put our country in such a disadvantageous position.
WR: That is where we are so very lucky. We do not have that sort of senile leadership….
Sadly, that’s not exactly true — Pelosi and the gang of Congressional Democrats are providing ample symptoms of querulous, premature senility. Where we are lucky is in having an administration that’s able to provide the strength and determination they lack.
US generals ¿will quit¿ if Bush orders Iran attack
I’m sure we need these generals as much as Lincoln needed McClellan, Pope, and McClernand.