[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Blame 12 years of Catholic school. As I get older, though, I’m starting to think ignorance has a lot going for it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Blame 12 years of Catholic school. As I get older, though, I’m starting to think ignorance has a lot going for it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Blame 12 years of Catholic school. As I get older, though, I’m starting to think ignorance has a lot going for it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Blame 12 years of Catholic school. As I get older, though, I’m starting to think ignorance has a lot going for it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Yowza. Don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

While I agree, it goes against my nature to sit back and just allow certain “facts” to go unchallenged. And you get reasoned responses from folks like Concho, who are willing to concede that another point of view not only exists, it might also possess some merit.

Shouldn’t the words “In Vino” be in front of your handle? Sorry, vestige of Latin class popping up there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Yowza. Don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

While I agree, it goes against my nature to sit back and just allow certain “facts” to go unchallenged. And you get reasoned responses from folks like Concho, who are willing to concede that another point of view not only exists, it might also possess some merit.

Shouldn’t the words “In Vino” be in front of your handle? Sorry, vestige of Latin class popping up there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Yowza. Don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

While I agree, it goes against my nature to sit back and just allow certain “facts” to go unchallenged. And you get reasoned responses from folks like Concho, who are willing to concede that another point of view not only exists, it might also possess some merit.

Shouldn’t the words “In Vino” be in front of your handle? Sorry, vestige of Latin class popping up there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Yowza. Don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

While I agree, it goes against my nature to sit back and just allow certain “facts” to go unchallenged. And you get reasoned responses from folks like Concho, who are willing to concede that another point of view not only exists, it might also possess some merit.

Shouldn’t the words “In Vino” be in front of your handle? Sorry, vestige of Latin class popping up there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Yowza. Don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

While I agree, it goes against my nature to sit back and just allow certain “facts” to go unchallenged. And you get reasoned responses from folks like Concho, who are willing to concede that another point of view not only exists, it might also possess some merit.

Shouldn’t the words “In Vino” be in front of your handle? Sorry, vestige of Latin class popping up there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

I should have been more specific when I stated that Clinton dropped more bombs in the final two years of his administration than we did on Germany in all of WWII. It was inaptly stated and it appeared as though I conflated Desert Fox with that statistic.

In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure. This statement is easily supported by numerous websites dedicated to this.

As far as LBJ versus Nixon, yes, I am aware that LBJ predated Nixon. However, your argument was specifically designed to demonize Nixon for his war spending whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he was prosecuting a war started by a Democratic Administration. Or, more correctly, a war escalated by a Democratic Administration. The Vietnam War reached its apogee under LBJ, not Nixon.

If you want to back up even further, we can look at the respective Republican and Democratic Administrations going back to FDR and compare their warlike tendencies. The Dems happen to be a tad bit more warlike.

It is very easy to draw odious comparisons when you rig the dates and use sweeping generalizations. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the Clinton Administrations use of extraordinary renditions, as well as Bill Clinton’s use of the NSA, CIA and DIA during his administration. Then dovetail that with the “war mongering” Dubya and see where the overlap occurs. As with Vietnam, most of these policies are continuation policies and continue regardless of party.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

I should have been more specific when I stated that Clinton dropped more bombs in the final two years of his administration than we did on Germany in all of WWII. It was inaptly stated and it appeared as though I conflated Desert Fox with that statistic.

In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure. This statement is easily supported by numerous websites dedicated to this.

As far as LBJ versus Nixon, yes, I am aware that LBJ predated Nixon. However, your argument was specifically designed to demonize Nixon for his war spending whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he was prosecuting a war started by a Democratic Administration. Or, more correctly, a war escalated by a Democratic Administration. The Vietnam War reached its apogee under LBJ, not Nixon.

If you want to back up even further, we can look at the respective Republican and Democratic Administrations going back to FDR and compare their warlike tendencies. The Dems happen to be a tad bit more warlike.

It is very easy to draw odious comparisons when you rig the dates and use sweeping generalizations. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the Clinton Administrations use of extraordinary renditions, as well as Bill Clinton’s use of the NSA, CIA and DIA during his administration. Then dovetail that with the “war mongering” Dubya and see where the overlap occurs. As with Vietnam, most of these policies are continuation policies and continue regardless of party.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

I should have been more specific when I stated that Clinton dropped more bombs in the final two years of his administration than we did on Germany in all of WWII. It was inaptly stated and it appeared as though I conflated Desert Fox with that statistic.

In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure. This statement is easily supported by numerous websites dedicated to this.

As far as LBJ versus Nixon, yes, I am aware that LBJ predated Nixon. However, your argument was specifically designed to demonize Nixon for his war spending whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he was prosecuting a war started by a Democratic Administration. Or, more correctly, a war escalated by a Democratic Administration. The Vietnam War reached its apogee under LBJ, not Nixon.

If you want to back up even further, we can look at the respective Republican and Democratic Administrations going back to FDR and compare their warlike tendencies. The Dems happen to be a tad bit more warlike.

It is very easy to draw odious comparisons when you rig the dates and use sweeping generalizations. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the Clinton Administrations use of extraordinary renditions, as well as Bill Clinton’s use of the NSA, CIA and DIA during his administration. Then dovetail that with the “war mongering” Dubya and see where the overlap occurs. As with Vietnam, most of these policies are continuation policies and continue regardless of party.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

I should have been more specific when I stated that Clinton dropped more bombs in the final two years of his administration than we did on Germany in all of WWII. It was inaptly stated and it appeared as though I conflated Desert Fox with that statistic.

In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure. This statement is easily supported by numerous websites dedicated to this.

As far as LBJ versus Nixon, yes, I am aware that LBJ predated Nixon. However, your argument was specifically designed to demonize Nixon for his war spending whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he was prosecuting a war started by a Democratic Administration. Or, more correctly, a war escalated by a Democratic Administration. The Vietnam War reached its apogee under LBJ, not Nixon.

If you want to back up even further, we can look at the respective Republican and Democratic Administrations going back to FDR and compare their warlike tendencies. The Dems happen to be a tad bit more warlike.

It is very easy to draw odious comparisons when you rig the dates and use sweeping generalizations. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the Clinton Administrations use of extraordinary renditions, as well as Bill Clinton’s use of the NSA, CIA and DIA during his administration. Then dovetail that with the “war mongering” Dubya and see where the overlap occurs. As with Vietnam, most of these policies are continuation policies and continue regardless of party.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Operation Desert Fox was part of an on-going Clinton Administration program that included sanctions, enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, as well as direct military intervention in Iraq.

I should have been more specific when I stated that Clinton dropped more bombs in the final two years of his administration than we did on Germany in all of WWII. It was inaptly stated and it appeared as though I conflated Desert Fox with that statistic.

In terms of human cost and monetary cost, Clinton spent a lot of American blood and treasure. This statement is easily supported by numerous websites dedicated to this.

As far as LBJ versus Nixon, yes, I am aware that LBJ predated Nixon. However, your argument was specifically designed to demonize Nixon for his war spending whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that he was prosecuting a war started by a Democratic Administration. Or, more correctly, a war escalated by a Democratic Administration. The Vietnam War reached its apogee under LBJ, not Nixon.

If you want to back up even further, we can look at the respective Republican and Democratic Administrations going back to FDR and compare their warlike tendencies. The Dems happen to be a tad bit more warlike.

It is very easy to draw odious comparisons when you rig the dates and use sweeping generalizations. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the Clinton Administrations use of extraordinary renditions, as well as Bill Clinton’s use of the NSA, CIA and DIA during his administration. Then dovetail that with the “war mongering” Dubya and see where the overlap occurs. As with Vietnam, most of these policies are continuation policies and continue regardless of party.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Ah, the strong smell of moral equivalency wafts in.

Bush II is worse than Rev. Wright, so everything associated with him is morally worse and worthy of stronger condemnation.

Your posts are notoriously thin on facts, but strong on rhetoric and polemic. “War mongering” and “war profiteering” and “lying”. Clinton didn’t lie? Bush I didn’t lie? Nixon and LBJ didn’t lie?

I am so sick of the war mongering meme. So, the Clinton Administration didn’t believe Saddam had WMDs? Iraq used WMDs during the Iran-Iraq War and against the Kurds at Halabja. The idea that Bush and this neocon cabal simply cooked up the war to justify their own ends is risible, to say the least.

You accuse Nixon, a Republican, of war mongering, but conveniently ignore LBJ, a Democrat, who was responsible for escalating the Vietnam War.

Bush II is slightly better than Lucifer in your book, while you gloss over Bill Clinton and the ills of his administration, including engaging in a strongly interventionist American policy.

How about some facts? How about a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument instead of the thinly veiled strawmen?

[Author]

Posts