OK once again it took only 5 minutes ...

... of listening on my way to the store for Medved to piss me off. You gotta give him credit for that.

He was saying "...If you believe the contradiction... the Democrat's lie that you can be opposed to the war AND support the troops." In other words you must always be in favor of any military action or you are not supporting the soldiers.

So when Rush Limbah and all the right-wing commentators were opposed to the war in Kosovo, screaming "No war for Monica!" they were against the troops? They hated the military? They were unsupportive of our men and women in uniform? Were they America-hating communists in favor of Molslovec's ethnic clensing?

Maybe they should move over there, or "Go Home" as Medved is fond of telling his anti-war callers.

In the case of Viet Nam, it seems like bringing them home was a nice way of showing we care.

Answer to right wing email #1

Here's a RW email that's been circulating about John Kerry...


> He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
>He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
>He voted to kill every aircraft carrier laid down from 1988.
>He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
>He voted to Kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
>He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
>He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
>He voted to Kill the B-1
>He voted to Kill the B-2
>He voted to Kill the FA-18
>He voted to Kill the B-2
>He voted to Kill the F117
>In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development
>and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle
>armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of
>naked men running around with sticks and clubs.
>
> He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of
>the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to
>cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.
> But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!
>
>Is THIS a President YOU want?
>Please pass this on, as many people may not know how bad it is.
>And don't limit your sending to just your Republican
>friends. Everyone needs to know.

Here's my responce

Most of the weapons "cuts" it is talking about weren't individual
votes at all, but a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill.
16 senators, including five Republicans, voted along with Kerry against the
bill. At the time of the 1991 vote, deeper cuts in military spending were
being advocated by some prominent Republicans-including then-President George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time.

Sen. Kerry had tried to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget, a
move Bush called a "gutting."

--Actually Kerry's proposed cut was smaller than the eventual $3.8 billion cut passed by the Republican-led Congress, which focused on a mismanaged intelligence program that had accumulated excess funds.

As far as the FBI and CIA cuts at 80% or whatever, I'd really like to see the source for these numbers. I can't seem to find anything like them anywhere and wouldn't be surprised if they are just made up or highly exaggerated.

A look back at the record shows it was Cheney who repeatedly tried to cut defense spending at this time.

On 2/1/90,Cheney proudly told Congress "since I became Secretary, we've been through a fairly major process of reducing the defense budget." He bragged that during the first year of his tenure, he "cut almost $65 billion out of the five-year defense program" and that subsequent proposals would "take another $167 billion out." He trumpeted the fact that "we're recommending base closures," "we're talking about force structure cuts" and "we've got a military construction freeze." And as the 8/4/91 NY Times noted, Cheney tried "to reduce active-duty troop strength" from 2.2 million to 1.6 million while making "deep cuts in the Reserves and National Guard" - a move that is now, in part, forcing the military to extend tours of duty and increase the combat burden on reservists in Iraq.

The idea that a Kerry led military would be "naked guys with sticks" is
silly even if taken as a hyperbole.

When you hear rhetoric like this, just take a few minutes to look it up
before you believe it. But please, keep sending it. It's funnier than
blonde jokes.

Here's a link to another answer as well...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Here's an argument I'm having with some ditto head on a different board...

My answers to his "questions" are in Red.

Wow, I really wasn't trolling for a jib jab, but what the heck, I'll bite! I'm pretty sure Rumsfeld and Kerry are both Dire Wraiths, but that's another story...
OFF-LIST REPLY (and lets keep it that way)

Yes, good idea. That's just what the ROM group needs --a heated political debate...

Well the beginning of all wisdom starts with questions and you pose some here, So I'll try to address them.

Who needs Rush Limbaugh and Fox News (or Sean Hannity or Neil Bortz or Glenn Beck... and ALL the others) when the obvious truth is staring you in the face? OBVIOUS things like :

- IF (as Democrats and Liberals want people to believe) there was no tie between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, WHY did Saddam grant Osama refuge (asylum) in Iraq after the 1993 (During Bill Clinton's term in office) bombing of the trade centers?

Where did that come from? You're probably referring to a speech made by Dick Cheney in New Orleans, saying,

"After the 1993 World Trade Center attack, Iraq gave sanctuary to one of the bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin," Cheney told a gathering at the city's D-Day Museum.

Yasin, not Osama. This is the only specific tie any administration official has yet even claimed. All of the bombers, except Yasin were eventually caught and tried and put in prison under the Clinton Administration.

What Cheney left out was the fact that most of the other bombers were caught because of information Yasin gave the FBI who released him, and that after 1 year in Iraq, he was put in prison there by Saddam's government. So much for that "connection."

In fact, there is strong evedence that In 1993 Osama commanded his al-quaeda operatives not to carry out any more attacks against iraq, because al-quaeda actually considered itself at war with Saddam's "secularized" Baath party government and there were quite a few quaeda terrorist attacks AGAINST Iraq.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html according to intel reports, Quaeda presence in Iraq is largely BECAUSE of the US invasion, not because they were allied with Saddam's government.

At least 15 attempted large-scale attacks on American soil were thwarted during the 90s -and with no Homeland Security dept. Amazing what an on-the-ball president who actually reads his briefings can do --especially when the FBI is allowed to do its job rather than have 200 agents working for a year uncovering the Monica Lewensky scandal. Thank your republican senate leadership in the late 90s for that.

- IF (as Democrats and Liberals want people to believe) there was no tie between Saddam's Iraq and Osama's terrorists, WHY in God's name are the terrorists fighting so hard to keep Iraq from becoming a democratic nation!?!?!? If there is no tie, why should they care!?

This question assumes that ALL islamic "terrorists" are one single cohesive group. This is a perfect example of the childish over-simplification of foreign affairs that prevails among the chicken-hawk right these days. Al Quaeda wants US and western influence out of the Arab world period, but the Shiite rebels in Iraq are not Al Quaeda (though quaeda forces will attack us wherever they can --and thanks to this war their recruitment numbers are at record highs).

Shiites in Iraq are a completely different group, and their motives are stated pretty clearly. They don't like being bombed, having their resorces carved up by western companies and they don't like being occupied. Would you like 150,000 Iraqi troops in the US? They don't trust their occupiers and contract war-profiteers to design their government for them.

- HOW could George W. Bush be responsible for starting this war when IT STARTED IN 1993 during Bill Clinton's term in office!? Or have you loonies forgotten that those rag-head SOBs attacked the World Trace Center then, too!?

If the war was already started, then why did GW call for a UN vote? Why did he need approval from congress? Why did he have to lie to us about dirty bombs and anthrax and weapons grade plutonium and "attack within 45 minutes?" Why did he send Colon Powell to the UN council with vials of non-existant Anthrax to look like a complete idiot. Clearly the "loonies" are on the other side.

BTW Which "rag-head SOBs" are you referring to? They weren't from Iraq --so youre once again lumping all Middle Eastern people together in a typical bigoted right-wing over-simplified fassion.

- IF (as Democrats and Liberals want people to believe) this war is all about oil," why did THEY attack US first (in 1993 AND on 9/11)? Does that mean they want our oil? Care to try and explain that?

First, what democrats and liberals said it's "all about oil?" This as well as most of these questions mischaracterize the Democrats point of view. Plus not all conservative republicans rally around this invasion as much as some people think. 6 Conservative Republican representatives broke ranks and voted against it.

Yet clearly when a group of Oil and energy company CEOs wants to invade a major oil producing country, it's hard to rule out oil as a factor...

But don't listen to liberals, Here's a quote from Wolfowitz (of the Bush Administration)
“Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: ‘Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil revinues.’ “

..why did THEY attack US first (in 1993 AND on 9/11)?

Does your memory go past 1993? Apparently whoever told you what to think left out some stuff. Can you say "Gulf WAR?" or how about "Arming Isriel" or "Military bases in Saudi Arabia." or "Selling high-tech weapons to the Ayatholla Khomeni." or "Bombing Libia for no reason" Plenty of interesting stuff happened before 1993, you should really look into it.

Does that mean they want our oil? Care to try and explain that?

OK that part made me laugh out loud. It makes no sense so I'm not sure how to address it. It's a joke right? Wait, is all of this a joke? Am I being X'ed?
It's like sayng If 2+2=4 ( as the liberals would have us believe) then how come 2 +3 = 5 ? huh? explain that!

You just gotta be able to think for yourself (instead of being a pawn to someone else's OPINION) to get it I guess. Like Fox Mulder says... the truth is out there! And I am MORE THAN WILLING to debate it with you any time you feel like you can handle it!

So regurgitating some some extremely weak tired out right-wing rhetoric = thinking for yourself? Yawn. What site/ spam mail did you cut and paste those questions from? At least try to look some of this stuff up so you have your facts straight. I could argue FOR the war in Iraq better than that.


But don't believe the liberals: How about George Bush Senior?

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs...Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. ---George Herbert Walker Bush

Or Ronald Reagan's son?

"Bush's White House squandered vital credibility, turning even relatively minor gaffes into telling examples of its tendency to distort and evade the truth.."
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html

Rep Ron Paul (Republican) from Texas:

"For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine..."

Rep Morella (Republican) from Maryland:

"Can I or can any parent look into the eyes of an 18-year-old boy and with a clear mind and clear conscience say that we have exhausted every other option before sending him into the perils of conflict? "



GW sure isn't sending his twins over there any time soon. In fact no one in the Whitehouse has any relatives over there what so ever.
FDR (a democrat, bdw) had 2 sons fighting WWII --just to put it in perspective.