[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.

You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.

So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.

However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.

As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.

You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.

So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.

However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.

As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.

You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.

So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.

However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.

As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: The US bombing campaign over Europe lasted just over three years (1942 – 1945). The average American four engined bomber (let’s use the B-17 Flying Fortress) carried approx 6,000lbs of bombs (standard 500lb bombs). The average mission involved approx 100 – 200 bombers on AVERAGE, meaning that while some missions mounted as many as 1,000 bombers, the average was far lower.

You are arguing that the USAAC/USAAF dropped 1.4 BILLION tons of bombs on Europe during that period? I would argue that the Wikipedia statistic should have read MILLIONS and not BILLIONS. Especially given that modern bombers, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, carry as much as 84 TONS of bombs per plane.

So, this factor of 2,700x is suspect, and I would imagine if you did a little checking you would find the same thing.

However, you seem to seize any small item and treat it as revealed truth, all the while holding yourself above the fray and refusing to deign in any substantive argument regarding the real facts.

As a former soldier, I find your comments regarding my ability to torture you repugnant and contemptible, as I found your willingness to denigrate Ex-SD’s service in Vietnam. My guess is that you never served your country and probably feel that all vets are somehow stupid for supporting America and being willing to lay down our lives for something we believe in. I have buried far too many of my friends to listen to that kind of unforgivable crap. I would ask for an apology, but with the sort of coward you clearly are, I know one isn’t forthcoming.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: I am presuming your silence indicates that you’re off doing scholarly pursuits, or frantically searching Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for proof of Bill Clinton’s divinity.

To that end, I’ve decided to start answering my own questions regarding the sainted Bill Clinton and his noble policies.

Apparently, not only did Bill Clinton believe that Iraq had WMD, but quite a few leading Dems did as well, along with the French and Russians, to name a few. Here is an interesting article tracking the chronology of the WMD issue, starting in 1998 and going right up to the eve of war. Granted the author is right wing, but the quotes are all real, as is her close following of the narrative, beginning with then President Clinton: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/

Clinton not only used extraordinary rendition (the practice of sending suspected terrorists to friendly foreign countries that allow torture), he also was the one who brought the practice into existence. That’s a doozy, isn’t it? Not only could he “feel our pain”, apparently he was pretty adept at causing it, too. The article is from Mother Jones and, dude, even you would have to admit, it don’t get more lefty than that: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/exclusive-i-was-kidnapped-by-the-cia.html

Clinton’s use of NSA Echelon program: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html

And if you want to step back further, look at President Carter’s 1978 FISA program. Does it then follow that all Dems are freedom hating fascists bent on destroying American civil liberties? Or, would it be more accurate to say that the gradual erosion of our civil rights is sadly non-partisan and enjoys the tacit approval of a silent American public?

Clintonian diplomacy versus Bush’s jingoism. Let’s look at a supposed Clinton triumph: The 1994 Framework Agreement with Kim Jong-il and the North Koreans: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06288/729839-373.stm

The point being that apparently bribery and moral suasion aren’t as effective as we were led to believe. Which is not to make the argument that Bush’s policies are necessarily any better. For the most part, they are not. However, the constant trumpeting of Clinton’s supposed foreign policy triumphs, multilateral interventions (with the UN) for humanitarian reasons and respect for American civil liberties does stand in stark contrast to the truth.

Bush, by your lights, is a “war monger”, “war profiteer” and “liar”. Without the same sort of proof that you demand, that is nothing more than name calling, and it ignores not only the actions and policies of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush I Administration, the Reagan Administration and the Carter Administration. Every one of those Presidents contributed, positively and negatively, to the present state of the world.

Lastly, as to selective reading and arguments that leave out large, and important, pieces. A conservative argument runs that Bill Clinton’s “cut and run” withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Clinton, under the spell of Murtha (the right wingers favorite whipping boy) and appalled by the sight of Somalis dragging the body of an American helo pilot through the streets of Mogadishu, decided to get out of there post-haste. The truth is somewhat more sanguine, however, in that leading conservatives were also urging withdrawal and, in point of fact, Clinton not only stayed another six months, he tried to send an additional 650 US troops. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_iii_its.html

My point? Get the entire story. This “Republican Bad” and “Democrat Good” drivel not only insults our intelligence, it reduces the entire argument to a schoolyard ad hominem shouting match.

Lastly, I don’t know when, where or how you were raised, but if you call a man a liar be prepared to say it to his face. You’re either prepared to stand behind what you say or you are not. And that, Cool Breeze, is the ultimate test of character, not hiding behind your keyboard and tossing out fictive little missives.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: I am presuming your silence indicates that you’re off doing scholarly pursuits, or frantically searching Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for proof of Bill Clinton’s divinity.

To that end, I’ve decided to start answering my own questions regarding the sainted Bill Clinton and his noble policies.

Apparently, not only did Bill Clinton believe that Iraq had WMD, but quite a few leading Dems did as well, along with the French and Russians, to name a few. Here is an interesting article tracking the chronology of the WMD issue, starting in 1998 and going right up to the eve of war. Granted the author is right wing, but the quotes are all real, as is her close following of the narrative, beginning with then President Clinton: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/

Clinton not only used extraordinary rendition (the practice of sending suspected terrorists to friendly foreign countries that allow torture), he also was the one who brought the practice into existence. That’s a doozy, isn’t it? Not only could he “feel our pain”, apparently he was pretty adept at causing it, too. The article is from Mother Jones and, dude, even you would have to admit, it don’t get more lefty than that: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/exclusive-i-was-kidnapped-by-the-cia.html

Clinton’s use of NSA Echelon program: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html

And if you want to step back further, look at President Carter’s 1978 FISA program. Does it then follow that all Dems are freedom hating fascists bent on destroying American civil liberties? Or, would it be more accurate to say that the gradual erosion of our civil rights is sadly non-partisan and enjoys the tacit approval of a silent American public?

Clintonian diplomacy versus Bush’s jingoism. Let’s look at a supposed Clinton triumph: The 1994 Framework Agreement with Kim Jong-il and the North Koreans: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06288/729839-373.stm

The point being that apparently bribery and moral suasion aren’t as effective as we were led to believe. Which is not to make the argument that Bush’s policies are necessarily any better. For the most part, they are not. However, the constant trumpeting of Clinton’s supposed foreign policy triumphs, multilateral interventions (with the UN) for humanitarian reasons and respect for American civil liberties does stand in stark contrast to the truth.

Bush, by your lights, is a “war monger”, “war profiteer” and “liar”. Without the same sort of proof that you demand, that is nothing more than name calling, and it ignores not only the actions and policies of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush I Administration, the Reagan Administration and the Carter Administration. Every one of those Presidents contributed, positively and negatively, to the present state of the world.

Lastly, as to selective reading and arguments that leave out large, and important, pieces. A conservative argument runs that Bill Clinton’s “cut and run” withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Clinton, under the spell of Murtha (the right wingers favorite whipping boy) and appalled by the sight of Somalis dragging the body of an American helo pilot through the streets of Mogadishu, decided to get out of there post-haste. The truth is somewhat more sanguine, however, in that leading conservatives were also urging withdrawal and, in point of fact, Clinton not only stayed another six months, he tried to send an additional 650 US troops. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_iii_its.html

My point? Get the entire story. This “Republican Bad” and “Democrat Good” drivel not only insults our intelligence, it reduces the entire argument to a schoolyard ad hominem shouting match.

Lastly, I don’t know when, where or how you were raised, but if you call a man a liar be prepared to say it to his face. You’re either prepared to stand behind what you say or you are not. And that, Cool Breeze, is the ultimate test of character, not hiding behind your keyboard and tossing out fictive little missives.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: I am presuming your silence indicates that you’re off doing scholarly pursuits, or frantically searching Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for proof of Bill Clinton’s divinity.

To that end, I’ve decided to start answering my own questions regarding the sainted Bill Clinton and his noble policies.

Apparently, not only did Bill Clinton believe that Iraq had WMD, but quite a few leading Dems did as well, along with the French and Russians, to name a few. Here is an interesting article tracking the chronology of the WMD issue, starting in 1998 and going right up to the eve of war. Granted the author is right wing, but the quotes are all real, as is her close following of the narrative, beginning with then President Clinton: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/

Clinton not only used extraordinary rendition (the practice of sending suspected terrorists to friendly foreign countries that allow torture), he also was the one who brought the practice into existence. That’s a doozy, isn’t it? Not only could he “feel our pain”, apparently he was pretty adept at causing it, too. The article is from Mother Jones and, dude, even you would have to admit, it don’t get more lefty than that: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/exclusive-i-was-kidnapped-by-the-cia.html

Clinton’s use of NSA Echelon program: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html

And if you want to step back further, look at President Carter’s 1978 FISA program. Does it then follow that all Dems are freedom hating fascists bent on destroying American civil liberties? Or, would it be more accurate to say that the gradual erosion of our civil rights is sadly non-partisan and enjoys the tacit approval of a silent American public?

Clintonian diplomacy versus Bush’s jingoism. Let’s look at a supposed Clinton triumph: The 1994 Framework Agreement with Kim Jong-il and the North Koreans: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06288/729839-373.stm

The point being that apparently bribery and moral suasion aren’t as effective as we were led to believe. Which is not to make the argument that Bush’s policies are necessarily any better. For the most part, they are not. However, the constant trumpeting of Clinton’s supposed foreign policy triumphs, multilateral interventions (with the UN) for humanitarian reasons and respect for American civil liberties does stand in stark contrast to the truth.

Bush, by your lights, is a “war monger”, “war profiteer” and “liar”. Without the same sort of proof that you demand, that is nothing more than name calling, and it ignores not only the actions and policies of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush I Administration, the Reagan Administration and the Carter Administration. Every one of those Presidents contributed, positively and negatively, to the present state of the world.

Lastly, as to selective reading and arguments that leave out large, and important, pieces. A conservative argument runs that Bill Clinton’s “cut and run” withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Clinton, under the spell of Murtha (the right wingers favorite whipping boy) and appalled by the sight of Somalis dragging the body of an American helo pilot through the streets of Mogadishu, decided to get out of there post-haste. The truth is somewhat more sanguine, however, in that leading conservatives were also urging withdrawal and, in point of fact, Clinton not only stayed another six months, he tried to send an additional 650 US troops. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_iii_its.html

My point? Get the entire story. This “Republican Bad” and “Democrat Good” drivel not only insults our intelligence, it reduces the entire argument to a schoolyard ad hominem shouting match.

Lastly, I don’t know when, where or how you were raised, but if you call a man a liar be prepared to say it to his face. You’re either prepared to stand behind what you say or you are not. And that, Cool Breeze, is the ultimate test of character, not hiding behind your keyboard and tossing out fictive little missives.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: I am presuming your silence indicates that you’re off doing scholarly pursuits, or frantically searching Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for proof of Bill Clinton’s divinity.

To that end, I’ve decided to start answering my own questions regarding the sainted Bill Clinton and his noble policies.

Apparently, not only did Bill Clinton believe that Iraq had WMD, but quite a few leading Dems did as well, along with the French and Russians, to name a few. Here is an interesting article tracking the chronology of the WMD issue, starting in 1998 and going right up to the eve of war. Granted the author is right wing, but the quotes are all real, as is her close following of the narrative, beginning with then President Clinton: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/

Clinton not only used extraordinary rendition (the practice of sending suspected terrorists to friendly foreign countries that allow torture), he also was the one who brought the practice into existence. That’s a doozy, isn’t it? Not only could he “feel our pain”, apparently he was pretty adept at causing it, too. The article is from Mother Jones and, dude, even you would have to admit, it don’t get more lefty than that: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/exclusive-i-was-kidnapped-by-the-cia.html

Clinton’s use of NSA Echelon program: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html

And if you want to step back further, look at President Carter’s 1978 FISA program. Does it then follow that all Dems are freedom hating fascists bent on destroying American civil liberties? Or, would it be more accurate to say that the gradual erosion of our civil rights is sadly non-partisan and enjoys the tacit approval of a silent American public?

Clintonian diplomacy versus Bush’s jingoism. Let’s look at a supposed Clinton triumph: The 1994 Framework Agreement with Kim Jong-il and the North Koreans: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06288/729839-373.stm

The point being that apparently bribery and moral suasion aren’t as effective as we were led to believe. Which is not to make the argument that Bush’s policies are necessarily any better. For the most part, they are not. However, the constant trumpeting of Clinton’s supposed foreign policy triumphs, multilateral interventions (with the UN) for humanitarian reasons and respect for American civil liberties does stand in stark contrast to the truth.

Bush, by your lights, is a “war monger”, “war profiteer” and “liar”. Without the same sort of proof that you demand, that is nothing more than name calling, and it ignores not only the actions and policies of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush I Administration, the Reagan Administration and the Carter Administration. Every one of those Presidents contributed, positively and negatively, to the present state of the world.

Lastly, as to selective reading and arguments that leave out large, and important, pieces. A conservative argument runs that Bill Clinton’s “cut and run” withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Clinton, under the spell of Murtha (the right wingers favorite whipping boy) and appalled by the sight of Somalis dragging the body of an American helo pilot through the streets of Mogadishu, decided to get out of there post-haste. The truth is somewhat more sanguine, however, in that leading conservatives were also urging withdrawal and, in point of fact, Clinton not only stayed another six months, he tried to send an additional 650 US troops. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_iii_its.html

My point? Get the entire story. This “Republican Bad” and “Democrat Good” drivel not only insults our intelligence, it reduces the entire argument to a schoolyard ad hominem shouting match.

Lastly, I don’t know when, where or how you were raised, but if you call a man a liar be prepared to say it to his face. You’re either prepared to stand behind what you say or you are not. And that, Cool Breeze, is the ultimate test of character, not hiding behind your keyboard and tossing out fictive little missives.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: I am presuming your silence indicates that you’re off doing scholarly pursuits, or frantically searching Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for proof of Bill Clinton’s divinity.

To that end, I’ve decided to start answering my own questions regarding the sainted Bill Clinton and his noble policies.

Apparently, not only did Bill Clinton believe that Iraq had WMD, but quite a few leading Dems did as well, along with the French and Russians, to name a few. Here is an interesting article tracking the chronology of the WMD issue, starting in 1998 and going right up to the eve of war. Granted the author is right wing, but the quotes are all real, as is her close following of the narrative, beginning with then President Clinton: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/11/02/where-did-the-wmd-intel-come-from/

Clinton not only used extraordinary rendition (the practice of sending suspected terrorists to friendly foreign countries that allow torture), he also was the one who brought the practice into existence. That’s a doozy, isn’t it? Not only could he “feel our pain”, apparently he was pretty adept at causing it, too. The article is from Mother Jones and, dude, even you would have to admit, it don’t get more lefty than that: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/exclusive-i-was-kidnapped-by-the-cia.html

Clinton’s use of NSA Echelon program: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html

And if you want to step back further, look at President Carter’s 1978 FISA program. Does it then follow that all Dems are freedom hating fascists bent on destroying American civil liberties? Or, would it be more accurate to say that the gradual erosion of our civil rights is sadly non-partisan and enjoys the tacit approval of a silent American public?

Clintonian diplomacy versus Bush’s jingoism. Let’s look at a supposed Clinton triumph: The 1994 Framework Agreement with Kim Jong-il and the North Koreans: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06288/729839-373.stm

The point being that apparently bribery and moral suasion aren’t as effective as we were led to believe. Which is not to make the argument that Bush’s policies are necessarily any better. For the most part, they are not. However, the constant trumpeting of Clinton’s supposed foreign policy triumphs, multilateral interventions (with the UN) for humanitarian reasons and respect for American civil liberties does stand in stark contrast to the truth.

Bush, by your lights, is a “war monger”, “war profiteer” and “liar”. Without the same sort of proof that you demand, that is nothing more than name calling, and it ignores not only the actions and policies of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush I Administration, the Reagan Administration and the Carter Administration. Every one of those Presidents contributed, positively and negatively, to the present state of the world.

Lastly, as to selective reading and arguments that leave out large, and important, pieces. A conservative argument runs that Bill Clinton’s “cut and run” withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Clinton, under the spell of Murtha (the right wingers favorite whipping boy) and appalled by the sight of Somalis dragging the body of an American helo pilot through the streets of Mogadishu, decided to get out of there post-haste. The truth is somewhat more sanguine, however, in that leading conservatives were also urging withdrawal and, in point of fact, Clinton not only stayed another six months, he tried to send an additional 650 US troops. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/reconstructing_murtha_iii_its.html

My point? Get the entire story. This “Republican Bad” and “Democrat Good” drivel not only insults our intelligence, it reduces the entire argument to a schoolyard ad hominem shouting match.

Lastly, I don’t know when, where or how you were raised, but if you call a man a liar be prepared to say it to his face. You’re either prepared to stand behind what you say or you are not. And that, Cool Breeze, is the ultimate test of character, not hiding behind your keyboard and tossing out fictive little missives.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Spare me the tendentious nonsense and the bad math. No, there was a not 2,700/1 ratio of bombs dropped during WWII versus Iraq during the final two years of the Clinton Administration. This kind of stupidity beggars description.

You’ve conspicuously avoided answering any of my questions regarding various practices and policies during the Clinton years, yet claim false propaganda.

Did Clinton engage in extraordinary rendition or not? Did Clinton use the NSA to engage in domestic spying and surveillance?

What is the difference between US Military War Deaths suffered during the Clinton years and the Bush II years?

I think your answering those questions is going to reveal some blatantly false propaganda.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Spare me the tendentious nonsense and the bad math. No, there was a not 2,700/1 ratio of bombs dropped during WWII versus Iraq during the final two years of the Clinton Administration. This kind of stupidity beggars description.

You’ve conspicuously avoided answering any of my questions regarding various practices and policies during the Clinton years, yet claim false propaganda.

Did Clinton engage in extraordinary rendition or not? Did Clinton use the NSA to engage in domestic spying and surveillance?

What is the difference between US Military War Deaths suffered during the Clinton years and the Bush II years?

I think your answering those questions is going to reveal some blatantly false propaganda.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Spare me the tendentious nonsense and the bad math. No, there was a not 2,700/1 ratio of bombs dropped during WWII versus Iraq during the final two years of the Clinton Administration. This kind of stupidity beggars description.

You’ve conspicuously avoided answering any of my questions regarding various practices and policies during the Clinton years, yet claim false propaganda.

Did Clinton engage in extraordinary rendition or not? Did Clinton use the NSA to engage in domestic spying and surveillance?

What is the difference between US Military War Deaths suffered during the Clinton years and the Bush II years?

I think your answering those questions is going to reveal some blatantly false propaganda.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Spare me the tendentious nonsense and the bad math. No, there was a not 2,700/1 ratio of bombs dropped during WWII versus Iraq during the final two years of the Clinton Administration. This kind of stupidity beggars description.

You’ve conspicuously avoided answering any of my questions regarding various practices and policies during the Clinton years, yet claim false propaganda.

Did Clinton engage in extraordinary rendition or not? Did Clinton use the NSA to engage in domestic spying and surveillance?

What is the difference between US Military War Deaths suffered during the Clinton years and the Bush II years?

I think your answering those questions is going to reveal some blatantly false propaganda.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Spare me the tendentious nonsense and the bad math. No, there was a not 2,700/1 ratio of bombs dropped during WWII versus Iraq during the final two years of the Clinton Administration. This kind of stupidity beggars description.

You’ve conspicuously avoided answering any of my questions regarding various practices and policies during the Clinton years, yet claim false propaganda.

Did Clinton engage in extraordinary rendition or not? Did Clinton use the NSA to engage in domestic spying and surveillance?

What is the difference between US Military War Deaths suffered during the Clinton years and the Bush II years?

I think your answering those questions is going to reveal some blatantly false propaganda.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dukehorn: I’ll hit your individual points below, but first wanted to say that as a former military officer, I am absolutely appalled by the torture memo(s) and Gitmo. I should provide a little context and backup on this as well. I was a military advisor in Central America (specifically El Salvador) with the Rangers during the Reagan years (I was there from ’84 – ’88), so I am more than a little familiar with the use of torture and various interrogation techniques. I will say from experience that we gleaned little to anything of value, intel-wise, by using torture. It was used mainly by the Salvadoran military to send a message, and it was a practice that we shut down fairly quickly after we realized how detrimental to our cause it was.

As to your individual points:

A) Yes. While not explicitly stated, I see the erosion of our civil rights, especially privacy, as the major issue confronting us as citizens right now. I pointed out earlier in this thread that neither the Dems or Repubs seem to care overmuch about individual liberties anymore, and the mad scramble to be first to sign the Patriot Act by both parties was positively terrifying. The old Ben Franklin saw about trading liberty for security rings more true now than ever.

B) Speaking as a Catholic and an American, yes, there is (or should be) separation of church and state. The amount of power that the religious right wields within the Republican Party is indicative of how dangerous a “state religion” can be, and your question about Intelligent Design underscores the danger of checking our brains at the door. Not to state it too strongly, but Intelligent Design is nonsense. However, that being said, I am also not jumping on the Al Gore/Inconvenient Truth bandwagon either. Global warming is not settled science by any stretch of the imagination and the demonization by the left wing of scientists and scholars who have the temerity to speak out against the consensus shows that the hard Left can be just as close minded as the far Right on certain subjects.

C) Absolutely not. Having spent my some of my time in the Army in Germany during the Cold War, I have no desire to see political commissars (of any political stripe) attempting to “steer” science. As above, this applies to the Left and Right.

D) No. If you are here, even as a non-citizen, certain rights should accrue to you. If you are guilty of a crime, you should be punished accordingly, however, the notion that any person who is not a citizen can be arrested and held without any sort of due process for an indeterminate period of time goes against everything I believe in as an American. While I realize that is probably an unpopular sentiment with some, I would argue that as with (A) we are sliding fast down a particularly slippery slope when it comes to individual liberties, and no one seems to paying attention.

I read (briefly) about the “blacklisting” of liberals and left leaning folks at DOJ and I don’t think there is anything more I can add to that. It is clearly wrong, and speaks to the Brownshirt mentality that now exists within this administration.

Yeah, it is disingenuous to criticize social programs whilst the military dumps billions into programs like the B1 bomber. However, that is also a little disingenuous in that many of those social programs were non-starters in their own right. Given the long-term failure of many social welfare programs, one could argue waste on both sides of the issue. The Dems like throwing money at social programs, the Repubs like throwing money at Defense. Both are wrong and right, all at the same time.

Sorry for the long-winded treatise, hope this answers your questions.

[Author]

Posts