A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The America of 2006 is a much freer more fully realised version of the shining city on the hill that god envisioned and destined for it, than the Peanutfarmer America of 1979. the lion's share of the credit goes to Reagan, W, Gingrich, Scalia, Rehnquist and a few others. Warner was at best a bit player and a little too much of a hot dog at times, at the expense of team.

You misunderstood my time frame. I meant it more to apply to the last 15+ years, but expanded it to cover the end of the 1980s. I intentionally omitted the first-term Reagan because, while I think what I said applies to some in his administration (esp. Meese), and some of it applied to him, RR was and became a much larger figure.

The fact that you include lump W and Gingrich in with RR -- who is not exactly a hero of mine, but come on -- is a sign of how far your GOP has fallen.

Yes, Warner did not lead your alleged march to "glory" any more than GHW Bush did, but that is sort of my point. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but I say those men are worthy of respect and admiration.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm very, very sad about Molly Ivins' death. She was an awesome lady, and a good, hysterical check on the government. I don't think her voice can be replaced.

This sucks.

I had not heard. She was honest and funny without being nasty. A dying skill.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You misunderstood my time frame. I meant it more to apply to the last 15+ years, but expanded it to cover the end of the 1980s. I intentionally omitted the first-term Reagan because, while I think what I said applies to some in his administration (esp. Meese), and some of it applied to him, RR was and became a much larger figure.

The fact that you include lump W and Gingrich in with RR -- who is not exactly a hero of mine, but come on -- is a sign of how far your GOP has fallen.

Yes, Warner did not lead your alleged march to "glory" any more than GHW Bush did, but that is sort of my point. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but I say those men are worthy of respect and admiration.

S_A_M

Taking W out of it for a minute because I know how close minded the liberals are on the reality of his leadership, Gingrich and is K with America is a perfect bookend to the first phase of the revolution Reagan set in motion. Why you show such disrespect for the man who freed you from the cold war and 70% marginal tax rates is beyond me. Would you rather be speaking russian now?

As for GHWB, he peed on Reagan's legacy. But for siring W, he is worthless.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I had not heard. She was honest and funny without being nasty. A dying skill.

S_A_M

Don't fret, you still have Dowd. And Carville.


eta: ooops I read your post as dishonest and unfunny....me bad.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I had not heard. She was honest and funny without being nasty. A dying skill.

S_A_M

I don't normally respond to the same post twice, but this one seemed to warrant it......


pun intended?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
I wonder how much the Republican caucus will shrink once it's finally shed of Penske-identified "dead wood."

I would propose a "Logan's Run" type rule on both houses on the Hill to purge the "dead wood" from both parties.

Take the Stevens and Lotts and Warners and Kennedys and Byrds and Kerrys ....

you get the idea.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
The fact that you include lump W and Gingrich in with RR -- who is not exactly a hero of mine, but come on -- is a sign of how far your GOP has fallen.

What, pray tell, is wrong with Gingrich?

Hell, the primary reason the GOP has fallen so far from grace is BECAUSE its turned its back on the Contract and its architect.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I would propose a "Logan's Run" type rule on both houses on the Hill to purge the "dead wood" from both parties.

Take the Stevens and Lotts and Warners and Kennedys and Byrds and Kerrys ....

you get the idea.

The thought of them swimming naked towards the end of the movie sort of gives me the willies.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The thought of them swimming naked towards the end of the movie sort of gives me the willies.

True, though I feel that the photoshops have probably prepared us for the experience.

[Hank Chinaski]

For years people hav ebeen criticizing Bush because he wouldn't "work with the Dems," but it becoming clear no one can "work with the Dmes." The Dems can't even work with the Dems.

Yesterday one of your leaders is insulting black people from the start of the country until today, then this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249400,00.html

• Hispanic Caucus Chairman Denies Rep. Sanchez 'Whore' Remark
  
  WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus told FOX News that allegations that he called a female lawmaker a "whore" are not true.
  
  Rep. Loretta Sanchez made the claim in an interview published on the Web site Politico.com. Sanchez resigned from the caucus Wednesday in protest of Rep. Joe Baca's caucus leadership.
  
  Baca denied a rift within the caucus on Thursday, saying that he would welcome Sanchez back to the caucus and hopes to work with her again.
  

you do know that "work with the whore" is a spanish euphenism for anal sex, right?

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
I don't much like his "You work for us, so STFU" attitude towards the military, and I think he is wrong to somehow suggest that they don't have it all that bad in Iraq.

I think he's pissed because: (a) the Army probably manipulated the situation to create this "story" and (b) he disagrees with those soldiers' substantive position that, essentially, if you don't support the Administration's policy you don't "support the troops."

I think that the position enunciated in the article he discusses are simplistic and wrong. That said, those folks are entitled to have and express their opinions just like the soldiers interviewed who say "This situation is all fouled up." He has no business taking a "How dare they" point of view.

S_A_M

Not content to write one of the most venomous articles ever published (or uploaded, as it was on their website) by a leading newspaper, William Arkin follows up today, digs in his heels, and mocks everyone that identified him as the fool that he is as "arrogant" and "intolerant"

What a dick.

The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans -- who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I've received, I've never written that soldiers should "shut up," quit whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.

I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

What I've heard ever since my article "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People" was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making.

I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"

Thousands have written telling me to "shut up and quit whining," that the troops do support the American people - "with their lives."

I can't respond to everyone individually - keep the cards and letters coming though, I do read them - but I'll try to tease out of the comments some themes that confirm in my mind the difficult state that this impossible war has put us.

TR writes "you're an America hater and a friend of our enemies."

JS writes that "this country is in the fight of its life. Terrorists are attempting to establish a world-wide caliphate. And you tell us we DON'T need to stop them."

And adds MEJ: "Cowards like you guarantee that my grandchildren will be fighting a war someday because we of the generation were too cowardly and comfortable to be honest about the world around us."

These are opinions about the war in Iraq and the "war" against terrorism. They aren't facts. I understand people need to believe that the United States is engaged in a grand and noble mission to continue to support the deaths and sacrifices being made by American forces. Nonetheless, there is also an equally valid opinion that not only is the United States NOT involved in some fight for our lives in Iraq but that our military actions merely increases and complicates our insecurities tomorrow.

An army Major with the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad writes: "there is no way to accurately opine about the war unless you've been on the ground."

KJ (and many others) adds that I am just "sitting in the lap of luxury that is the United States."

Again, I understand the frustration of those in uniform and the supporters of the war. But these are not the only people who have a valid opinion, and there is great danger for the nation - as Bush-Cheney and company have already demonstrated - when people arrogate to themselves the sole determinant to make a judgment about national security.

The Army Major goes on to say that "soldiers -- unlike journalists -- have values inculcated from the very beginning of basic training."

D speaks of "last week's leftist freak show in D.C." to describe anti-war protest.

KC questions how I could jeopardize the "safety and morale of those who lay their young and noble lives on the line for you and your ilk."

Too many to count denounced me (and my ilk) for being elitist, arrogant, exclusive, a Washington a@$*hole or worse, above-it-all, and superior.

Given that I spent so much of my time in this column every week railing about Washington myself, the dismissal is hilarious. But there is such contempt for civil society in these words and I wonder where it comes from?

As the Major says, something is inculcated into the minds of military members from day one of duty. It is not just defense of the Constitution, it is also unanimity of thought and an unwavering regard for hierarchy. Without this, you can't have a military and you can't expect human beings to go against their instincts to put their lives on the line.

I'm not saying that this makes people in the military automatons, or that they are stupid. But this unanimity of thought and this absolute allegiance to a hierarchy of ideas is and should be foreign in the civilian world. That's what makes the two different.

I hesitate to describe the military "attitude" about the world, or to even apply some negative connotation to the assertion that the military, from the Pentagon on down to the lowest platoon assumes a singular worldview.

But Major TW from Baghdad describes the world as he sees it and condemns me for my dissent:

"Iraq is only a mistake if, like Vietnam, we don't finish the job. Your sloppy logic at the end of your piece belies your agenda. You write Iraq, 'is not some necessary endeavor, the people just don't believe that anymore.' Would invading Europe in 1944 been a "necessary endeavor" if the American people had not believed it? How about maintaining West Berlin in the 1970s? And what about Somalia in the 1990s? Pulling out following the Blackhawk Down incident arguably emboldened bin Laden and played a hand in 9/11. With the benefit of hindsight should we have stayed? Even if it cost more American lives it might have saved 3000 years later."

The Major asks a terrific question as to what it says about our society that 3,000 lives are not considered "worth it" and I'll develop some thoughts on this in the future.

But what does it say about our current political and military leadership?

Bush and company, and the Abizaid's, Casey's, and Petraeus's have had years to make their case to the American people that the threat is so great and the mission so noble that the sacrifice is worth it. They clearly have failed to make their case and that is why the majority of Americans no longer support the war.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

By William M. Arkin | February 1, 2007; 9:39 AM ET | Category

link

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


you do know that "work with the whore" is a spanish euphenism for anal sex, right?

Yes, you're wife told me that.

[SlaveNoMore]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I believe Ty was saying that the NYT makes stuff up.

Sparling said that.

I'm sure reporters get stuff wrong on occasion. I'm not prone to see this as the result of political bias, as opposed to laziness, say.

eta: Which is to say that before I found out who Sparling was, the thought never crossed my mind that the NYT reporter was "making stuff up."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What a dick.

Well, I like this column better than the last one.

A couple of thoughts:

"Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people."

I don't think this attitude is limited to some in the military. I think this sentiment infuses the debate today over national security issues and the war.

"An army Major with the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad writes: 'there is no way to accurately opine about the war unless you've been on the ground.'"

Well that's just tough shit Major. If that is true, none of the key civilian decision-makers is equipped to "opine about the war" -- including all of those with the Constitutional responsibility to make the key decisions. A few short visits don't give you much grounding either. [You hear that Slave? He sez STFU!]

"As the Major says, something is inculcated into the minds of military members from day one of duty. It is not just defense of the Constitution, it is also unanimity of thought and an unwavering regard for hierarchy."

I don't quite agree with this statement. Unanimity of thought isn't inculcated or enforced -- especially in the officer ranks -- in the same way as unwavering regard for hierarchy. Self-selection and group-think are powerful forces, though.

[This makes it odd to me that so many folks -- including conservatives here -- have suggested that the senior military could and should have made an end-run around Rumsfeld or speak out publicly if and when they disagreed with him. That just isn't done -- it is more or less beyond the pale -- even if Bush would have been receptive (he wouldn't).]

S_A_M