Post by LarryGPost by w***@hal-pc.orgPost by LarryGZell Miller is a prime example of a political flip-flop artist.
One election he keynotes for Democrats, this time he does it for
Republicans. Quite a change of tune, dontcha think?
No it is not! Like he has said he has not left the democratic party,
the party left him. Those incharge are not the same type of people
that were there in 1992 nor have they been there since 1960. Since
1960 it has been hijacked by leftist radicals. Since Sen. Miller
finds that the ones who are closest to his ideals are republicans
shows you how far left the democrats have gone. It is not just Sen
Miller who has noticed this but many of my neigbors who have voted for
democrats for decades can attest to this.
The reason, if you have forgotten, why Sen. Miller spoke at the 92
convention was because he had hope in CLinton who he though would
bring the party back towards the center from the leftist. He was
asked to speak because he helped Clinton secure Georgia.
Miller, like Clinton, is/was a political opportunist. One of the
reasons Clinton's Presidency is considered so successful, is because
he frequently co-opted the Republican agenda. In doing so, he earned
a great deal of enmity - he stole credit for championing conservative
causes, and left the originators with the distasteful choice of voting
for something Clinton embraced, or voting against the very legislation
they themselves drafted.
You do not even show how Sen. Miller is/was a political opportunist.
You showed how Clinton was such an opportunist. But did Clinton really
believe in those principles or did for pure political points. Sen.
Miller has stated his principles and has steadfastly stood by those
principles from the time he was elect mayor in Georgia to when he was
Govenor of Georgia to now as Senator. He believed that Clinton held
those principles but soon saw that he did not. The fact remains that
the democrat party is not the same party that Sen. Miller originally
joined. ASk many of the blue dog Democrats and they will tell you the same.
Post by LarryGIf anything, Clinton's administration became more conservative as a
consequence, not more liberal. Miller is making things up, and you
are buying it. Heard any good swift boat stories lately?
The Clinton administration tried to pretend it was conservative but it
was ultimately held and tied to the liberal wing of the party. The
party itself has and still is on the liberal left side. Sen Miller
thought that Clinton would be able to bring the party towards the middle
but that did not happen.
As for the Swift boat accounts, I sure have and still shows that kerry
at best wildly exagerated his exploits.
Post by LarryGPost by w***@hal-pc.orgPost by LarryGThe problem with all of these weapons programs for the military
is that they didn't help us prevent 9/11, or do a hell of a lot
of good in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban actually
were.
You miss the point. These weapons are for overall protection of the
country. They also for prosecuting actions against the enemy. It was
the FBI's and Cia's role to have precented 9-11 not the military.
Also, those weapon systems were extremely useful in Afganistan. The
bombers cleared air fields, destroyed tunnels. The copters provided
point defense and offensive capabilities. Without many of those
weapons system, the ability of the military to project power in
advance of the troops going in would not have been there and could
have cost lives.
While "defense" may have been the ostensible purpose for funding
these systems, their presence poses a different risk - the temptation
to use them inappropriately. The best option, when it comes to reducing
the number of lives lost in a war, is to not start one!
The defense of a country comes in two different flavors. One for
reacting to a situation and the other for prevention through pre-emption
(hmm catchy). Whether there is temptation or not for inappropriate use,
is not a justification not to have them.
Your best option is utopian whereas the best way to reduce lives lost is
to fight and complete a war totally so that it does not have to be
refought again. That is the lesson repeated throughout history.
Post by LarryGPost by w***@hal-pc.orgPost by LarryGIraq is simply a tremendously costly misdirection of America's
force and focus. Bush can't / won't catch Bin Laden, so he
goes after much easier targets. Its like he's shooting fish
in a barrel! And you're supplying the bullets! What a maroon.
Cheers,
Larry G.
Because of the nature of the war on terrorism, the targets and
objectives are many and numerous. Iraq was on the list. Iraq was a
dangerous wild card. We have and still have no clear information
about its WMD's. It has been proven he had them and did not disclose
them. Saddam was paying for compansation to terrorist. Do you really
think once the international community left that Iraq would have not
supplied to the highest bidder the WMD of their choice? As a result
of getting Iraq off the board, Libya capitualted with out even having
to take action. The war on terror is a wide spread war.
MRC
Iraq was on the hit list *before* 9/11. All of the excuses used to justify
the invasion were just that - excuses. Very few of them were real, and
Bush didn't care. All he wanted was some pretense he could sell the
American people.
Of course it was because it was put there by Clinton and endorsed by the
Congress. All the "excuses" as you put them were real justification
based upon the evidence available at the time. Not just from our
intellegence sources but from the British, Russians and others.
Besides, Saddam provided the best justification himself. The refusal to
live up to the terms that ended the first Gulf War. For over 10 years
he refused to unconditionally comply with us and the U.N. Look at all
the attempts to shoot down our aircraft flying the no-fly zone. Look at
the last resolution that called upon Iraq to once and for all to come
clean about is WMD. It failed to do so. Even when it reluctantly
agreed to more inspection Iraq began to stonewall again. What was the
result. WMD's were found. One three seprate occassions since the
invasions chemical weapons have been found. One inciden was shells that
were hidden. Even though it is thought they were old shells, they were
to have been disclosed. The second incident was an IED with chemicals
was found. Then in June Polish troops find over 17 rockects and several
mortar shells with chemical munitions that were being sold to the
highest bidder. Even though no huge stockpiles were found that was
believed to exist, these discoveries make you wonder what else has been
moved and hidden. Evidence of unusal border activity with Syria was
noted in documents found. Although hard links to AL-Queda were not
prevelent, several instances exist where Iraq had contact with Al-Queda.
This along with the fact that they harboured and encourage terrorism
their involvement with Al-queda can not be dismissed.
Post by LarryGTo make matters worse, our adventure in Iraq saps our focus, strength and
resolve in the real war on terror. And, our actions may in fact be
responsible for creating more or bolder terrorists, because they are
beginning to see that the U.S. can be broken, and eventually defeated.
Wars on mulitple fonts have a tendancy to do this, yet we successfully
engaged both Germany and Japan. You annd Kerry seem to forget that this
is not a conventional war with easily defined sigular front. It is
multi-faceted and requires multiply engagements. The terrorist already
knew that America is weak. all they had to do is look to Korea where we
did not have the will to finish with finality the conflict. With
Vietnam they saw how the public became weak-kneed and turned on its
support for the war there. The Leading General of the Vietanese army
stated that if it were not for Kerry, Fonda nad other war activist
putting enormous pressure on the U.S. Government, they (North Vietnam)
would have lost. We as a people have become too soft thus our resolve
is not deep. We need to be remind often about 9-11 and the losses it
caused. This war on terrorism is going to be a long battle that will
take us to many different foriegn lands. So-far Libya has capitulated
based upon what has happened in Iraq and turned over everything on their
WMD program. Also remember it is better to be fighting the terrorist in
Iraq that to have the here and suffer what the Russians have faced with
the Chechens.
Post by LarryGThe Bush Administration is an unmittigated disaster for this country.
If you loved this country as much as you think you do, you'd be in
the streets screaming at the masses of inattentive morons.
Cheers,
Larry G.
I disagree, the Bush Administration is the best thing to have happened
for our country. The world knows that this administration has the will
and resolve to do what it takes to strike at terrorist. This war is not
going to get easier. By far it is going to get tougher and bloodier.
Iraq may not have been the "big Prize" in the war on terror but it is a
key stepping stone to work-up to that prize. Best to get the easier
victories out of the way before having to eventually attacking bigger
targets like Syria, Iran and North Korea. For now containing them will
do but they will need to be reconed with.
Sure I would love be in the streets screaming at the masses of
inattentive moron like those protestors in NYC, the DNC and moveon.org
but they are brain dead anyway.
MRC
