Further, and more importantly, as a sitting member of the Armed Services Committee, she is one of the senate members charged with oversight. If SHE cannot (or should not) ask these questions, then whom would Sen. Clinton’s detractors deem IS an appropriate vehicle through whom these questons can be addressed?

More importantly, why hasn’t Sen. John McCain posed these questions? He’s the House ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. Or, for that matter, why hasn’t any other Republican member of the Committee written such a letter?

The fact they haven’t written such a letter seems to point to perhaps a too-obvious answer, “staying the course” and party loyalty (to the President) over serving the American people. Senators are elected, they don’t serve at the pleasure of the President. This being the case, I wish the silent Senators and Representatives would act more like they were elected (as opposed to appointed).

I am more worried about the liberals that would take away my arms, and place them solely in the hands of the military and the police – and the criminals, of course. Then what would I do when Hillary declared martial law? (provided the liberals win the election…) Of course, that is one thing that she will not be able to do. Even on a tide of screaming, panicky, senseless drivel. There are too many in America that love our country too much to see it stolen by a liar and a thief.

Your scenario would not work on my block, pal. The military police would have to kill each and every person on the block – and would have some serious casualties. However, I do not believe we are anywhere near that point. I do not advocate an armed takeover of the government – because the power of the Presidency will pass peacefully from Mr. Bush to the next elected President, without fuss, as it has for over 200 years. Even if Hillary wins the election, God forbid.

And when that happens, I, and every other law-abiding, peace-loving, arms-toting American will defend her and the United States of America with our last breath and last drop of blood. We will vote her out, after she – and the liberal government – make all the havoc they can in four years. But I would rather have some sensibility in government. So, answer my question. Define “win” in Iraq in military terms. So that the conservatives can answer you. Let’s do this the American way, and actually have a discussion and debate, and let the people choose.

Ms. Clinton’s letter was therefore a political ploy – it was intended only to emphasize that fact that we are not planning on evacuating. Based on mob reaction that the American people have had to the recent panicky cries of “evacuate – we are being killed!” by the liberal candidates for President, it will probably be an effective strategy – there are many who do not think it through. Such cries and running away from the bully. crying and whining will only result in the bully doing more harm. I don’t think Ms. Clinton cares – she wants the Presidency at any cost. Her desire is for power, and she offers no leadership.

I wish that the Democratic leadership would take on a new strategy – instead of mob manipulation, I wish they would use reason and logic to LEAD our nation. Perhaps they are right, and we have been in Iraq too long. I tend to agree. Not because of the cost in American soldiers – although that is unacceptable – but because the cost has not purchased anything. We cannot buy Iraqi freedom with American blood. If we have cut the head off the snake, it is time to leave. If we have not, then we need to make an all-out offensive and cut that head off – regardless of the collateral damage. We are there to defend our interests, not the interests of the Iraqis. Don’t we realize that most of the casualties in Iraq are Iraqi civilians? They are being killed by their own countrymen. We cannot free them from themselves.

President Bush says we must win. He has not defined “win” in terms of a military victory, but in terms of establishing a free, democratic society in Iraq. We cannot do that with arms, we cannot do that at all. A free society cannot exist until the people of that society desire freedom more than they desire life; no free society exists today that was not won that way, and no free society will ever exist that is not won that way.

I challenge the Democrats to define “win” in military terms, instead of raising hands in surrender – as did the shameful, cowardly Senator Reid from Nevada. Define it – then challenge the President to define what he considers a “victory”. The vast majority of the American people will understand the difference. They will choose what they consider victory. No American desires defeat. No American will tolerate defeat. We are a proud, fierce, and dangerous people. (”Any nation that would trade freedom for security deserves neither and will have neither.”)

As it is, this type of politicking only strengthens the resolve of the conservatives. Liberals, or Progressives, if you prefer, if you would win your point, you must argue it sensibly. If you would have leadership, you must lead. Enough of the name-calling and obscene, ignorant, second-grade toilet talk.

Free people of America, you aren’t allowed to disagree with me because excercizing your freedom would be hurting freedom.

of the

Shameless Demagogues

with special appearance by

Ruinous Trajectory!

Featuring Evil Dick at the Helm while the puppet King gets his pooter scoped.

Comment by veritas — July 19, 2007 @ 2:34 pm”

If you actually believe any of your drivel, veritas, you are either a fool, or simply delusional. No one will go to jail. Even if crimes had been commited (which they have not), no Democrat is going to jail any former administration member. That would lead to even further open warfare between the political parties and Democrats would be heading for the bighouse next.

One thing you can be sure of, regardless of the blustery verbiage, politicians will protect their political power first, and everything else comes after that…including representing the people who elected them. You will sleep better at night once you understand and accept that.

It’s one thing for politicians to talk impeachment and war crimes and all that nonsense to get elected, but it’s quite another to actually take action. Don’t you know pandering when you hear it?

Trial in the Hague? Get real.

As for Clinton: She deserved the stinging rebuke. She’s a Senator, not the President. Clinton, on her own, has no authority over the day-to-day actions of the Department of Defense, and should not be attempting to meddle in, or direct, their affairs.

Oh, well we’ll kiill’em all off….. Uh Huh

Wonderful.

The US forces currently in Iraq will be wiped out when the US/Israel nukes Iran, and that is all part of the FASCIST plan of this administration.

Destroy, privatize, eliminate the US military as an obstacle to their totalitarian agenda.

So who is really “supporting the troops” here? It certainyl is NOT the GOP…

1. Halliburton and other crony companies who receive lush no-bid contracts to go in and rebuild.

2. The Bush Administration, who needs the war to A) distract the American public from the fact they have accomplished nothing else during their term except to cut taxes for the rich, and B) maintain an “enemy” that can be used to inflame fear in the American people and thereby control them (as long as there is a “war” on, dissenters can be labeled traitors and detained without habeus corpus, for example).

The only problem is that Americans are waking up. Late — but waking up.

This has got to stop while we can still put the pieces back together again. The minute they start bombing Iran all hell will break loose, and that is where they are going with this. The men making these decisions are not operating in the interest of this country. They do not represent us nor do they care about our laws or our Constitution. We are a nation of laws, or at least we used to be. I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone..

Seems like a good time for a reminder from the ‘father of the Constitution’ James Madison:

“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” –

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”

And then there are the wise warnings from Dwight Eisenhower:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”

“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.”

“Only Americans can hurt America.”

So, tell me WHO this war is benefiting?

Comment by JG — July 20

LA Times, 7/19/07

BAGHDAD — In March, he was declared captured. In May, he was declared killed, and his purported corpse was displayed on state-run TV. But on Wednesday, Abu Omar Baghdadi, the supposed leader of an Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Iraq, was declared nonexistent by U.S. military officials, who said he was a fictional character created to give an Iraqi face to a foreign-run terrorist organization.

Probably not the samw guy caught 2 weeks ago after all, geez, what the F*ck is going on? Repubes like to talk tough. Maybe it’s time for a bunch of them to suit up and go into the game. Hey, Mr P?? P??

Hmmm… not here… probably changing into dry pantyhose and checking his makeup, again.

TROS – I must have missed this part.. What was that about??

JG
You have read my mind today, as I had exactly the same thoughts.

Comment by Marie

And then turned out to not even be a real guy!