The Vietnam Vets call McCain "Songbird." sm

• Great headlines - Go Obama! - MT
  • obama's church - sm
    • please disregard most of my post, as I should have - checked with snopes first...VERY sorry...NM
  • SM, better links than supplied by OPs - he's not fond of israel, something to think abo
    • Uh-huh, better or biased? - -nm
  • and I too had to pass on this info - More on Mr. Barack Obama....sm msg
    • Actually - Taiga
      • excrement comes in all cultures/colors/ - religious AND political parties/rallying.....SM
        • That it does! - Taiga
          • By the way - Taiga
            • Don't waste your breath. No one with a modicum of sense can honestly - Libby
              • The Vietnam Vets call McCain "Songbird." sm - LVMT
                • Yep, the "if its true" factor. - -Libby
              • Of course, you are right. - Taiga
    • well - Well
  • looks like a bunch of sheep to me living in USA..sm - if they all jumped off a bridge, would ya follow?
    • if we were all sheep we would be voting for another - white man
      • duh yourself - Barack IS 50% white... LOL - no message
        • that doesn't make him white...my son is half black - I don't consider him white or black
          • interesting that everyone behind him on TV - sitting around him is white....sm
            • Well my son is being raised in an all white family (stepdad) - and mostly all white neighborhood
              • from his teens on he was raised by maternal - sitting around him is white....sm
          • It was brought in because - nana
        • oops above post have said sm message, not NM - sm message
    • We do have minds of our own - MT
      • You said, - nana
        • Obama Rated the Most Liberal Senator - linda
          • Liberal: A definition. - -sm
            • Which candidate meets this definition? sm - LVMT
          • newsflash - OMG - ExMQMT
          • well then that's good news for us liberals!!! - that's why this is a liberal board....n/m
            • obama--mega lib - linda

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

right-wing extremists, KKK, skinheads, etc. would try to target returning veterans because of their knowledge of and possible access to weapons. (Remember Timothy McVeigh, a decorated Army veteran and American terrorist who killed 168 people and injuring hundreds?)  No doubt that thousands of returning vets are suffering from PTSD or other emotional/mental problems caused when GW Bush forced them to remain in combat for repeated tours without even giving them the break that they were supposed to get. 

But telling the truth makes Obama look better so I guess we'll go with your inaccurate story instead, right?

Total U.S. military deaths in vietnam was 58,000. 

Perhaps your sources of information are erroneous or just not well researched.  And using common sense I believe reference was made to the course and justification of the Vietnam War, not the total casualties. 

I think that you have made a crucial error in believing that WWII and Vietnam are at all similar.  WWII and the US Civil War were also very different wars.  There are even major differences between Iraq and Vietnam and the Korean War although some historians would also find greater similarities in these three wars.  You may rewrite the history of wars as well as US history to fit your agenda of political hatred, but you will never be able to present a convincing argument if you have completely questionable sources and facts to back it up.

You negate most historical records, which I admit often have some aspects of questionable validity, and you seem to re-create a fictionalized account to accommodate your rather far-out-there belief system based in hatred of the left.  You rearrange and fictionalize facts and history to make your point.  You provide spurious sources for your facts (I could probably find sources that prove that the earth is populated by aliens from Mars if I looked hard enough).

I also notice on the conservative board constant condemnation of liberals, leftists as a whole.  We are characterized as stupid, immoral, crazy, unpatriotic, love the terrorists, cowards, angry, on and on.  You are condemning at least 50 percent of the citizens of this country with those adjectives. Doesn't seem at all patriotic to me.  Your group also points out nuts (like those who would spit on veterans) as representing the liberal mindset.  I realize I am not going to be able to convince you of the great disservice you do to yourself with a narrow and naive mindset like that.  I know many Republicans and with the exception of possibly one, none are as condemning and narrow-minded as the posts I see on your board.  Thank heavens for that.  While I have participated in bashing and see bashing on the liberal board, it rarely occurs in a generalized fashion toward all right-wingers.  As I said, that would be a very naive assumption and the root of bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is in the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset.....think of Muslims, blacks in the south pre-Civil Rights, Native Americans in the 1800s (and even now).  So easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals.  Actually the comments I see made about the liberal mindset are so far removed from the reality of most liberals in the United States it verges on the ridiculous, well no, it doesn't verge on the ridiculous, it IS ridiculous.

As far as your further condemnation of Democrats as far as blacks and their allegiances, I believe most informed political science folks would be the first to admit that the party doctrines have evolved over time.  What probably counts most is the current party belief system.  Just some common sense.

End of sermon.

Here's one of them, Daniel Goetz.  There are others there, as well.  I'm sure most of you know this site exists.  I've added it to my Favorites.  I'd also recommend reading Daniel Goetz' blog, as well.

Seven months ago, my service in the army was to have terminated. Instead, I am in Iraq for the second time. I sit next to a DOD contractor whose job is identical to mine. Except he makes $120,000 more, works four hours less, and visits home four times more often than I do. Daniel Goetz is currently serving in Samarra, Iraq.  Read his blog here. I am not alone in my anger and humiliation. When we were here in 2003, there was anger, but there is a difference between anger and bitter hatred. The atmosphere of discontent is thick and contagious. Even soldiers not stop-lossed feel The Betrayal. They know it might be them next time. Dissent will not change anything for us now because our voices are muted. Still, there is hope. It is that in twenty years, it will be these men and women in office. Perhaps, that alone should make me feel better. I don't think it is enough, though, for our wounded and fallen. I can't speak for them, of course. Not yet, at least.   I joined the army soon after I finished college; the decision was an amalgamation of desire to serve, to belong, and to repay student loans. I wanted the challenge to see if I really could be all I could be. Our country was a vastly different place then; one in which policemen, firemen, and servicemembers were no different than any other American. I had almost completed my two years of training to become an Arabic linguist when September Eleventh dramatically changed the nation's climate. I knew my own role would be pivotal, and was eager to see our country avenged on the battlefield. Until then, I had a rather dim view of the army. Their promise to repay my college loans turned out to be false, and I was left to shoulder the massive burden of debt alone. My dismay melted away in the patriotic euphoria that enveloped the country in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq. Like the rest of the America, I clung fervently to the justifications for it. The underlying righteousness was my source of motivation when we crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border in March of 2003. In the months that were to follow, those justifications collapsed - and with them, my confidence in a nation. In those days, my colleagues and I would often patrol the streets of Baghdad with the infantry in a bid to quell boredom. We were also looking for hope among the Iraqi people; we could live vicariously through their optimism, and perhaps therein find meaning for our occupation. But hope betrayed us as the insurgency swelled. It was when the fighting began again in earnest that we left Iraq. By the end of August, I was back in The United States, free to pretend Iraq never happened. But it had. And nothing could wrench the darkest memories from repression like the knowledge that we were to return. Worse, our year in America was wasted. Almost every week, CSPAN would feature one committee or another complaining that our armed forces hadn't enough servicemembers in critical jobs like intelligence and military police. I wanted them to know how poorly we were thought of in our own units, and how little job-specific training we received before we left. At one point, we were told to study Arabic only on our own time. That was hardly possible when we were kept late every night, sometimes doing only menial tasks like weapons-cleaning until three in the morning.   The last straw was stop loss. My enlistment contract ended in March of this year. It is seven months hence, and I am still in Iraq. I propose that, in order for me to respect my commitment, the army ought to respect the contract we agreed upon. It was for five years, not six. Proponents of this form of conscription argue that I signed it nonetheless, fully aware of possible outcomes. True, I ought to have prepared myself better. But to remain bound to an expired commitment - exposed to prolonged peril in support of an unjustifiable cause - was beyond my expectations. Today, I find the greatest challenge of the army is to find honor in service. I don't ever regret having joined because I've learned so much about myself and about America. I have faith in both, but yearn for hope to become reality. I want to go home as badly as I want to be proud of my country again.

WASHINGTON - Lawyer Patrick Murphy and five other veterans of the Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions. Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.

This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.

On Monday, with support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other party leaders, Hackett decided to seek a higher office, the Senate seat now held by two-term Republican Mike DeWine, said spokesman David Woodruff.

Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country, said Murphy, 31, who fought with the 82nd Airborne Division. We need to have an exit strategy now.

While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely.

That wasn't the time to question our government, Murphy recalled.

Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.

Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.

In 1974, public outrage over the Watergate scandal and Republican President Richard M. Nixon's administration swept a class of reform-minded Democrats into office. It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House is an early indicator.

The Democratic veterans walk a fine line as they reach out to voters who may question Bush's handling of the conflict. The task is to challenge the administration while still being seen as patriotic.

David Ashe, who spent most of 2003 working as a Marine judge advocate general in Iraq, chooses his words carefully when asked whether the United States should have invaded.

There's no reason to Monday morning quarterback the decision, said Ashe, 36, who is trying to unseat first-term Republican Rep. Thelma Drake in Virginia's 2nd District. I would say we're in the right position to succeed. Whether or not we're going to get that success remains to be seen.

Although they often talk tough about the Bush administration, some of the candidates don't fit the typical anti-war image, said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

They really want to help the Iraqi people and see the mission through, and they think we're losing because of stupid mistakes made at the senior leadership level, Sheehan-Miles said.

Historically, war experience has added to a candidate's credibility. As many as 70 percent of lawmakers in the 1950s were war veterans, but only about 40 percent of the members of Congress today have military experience.

During the Vietnam War, there was such a collective funk that veterans felt free to criticize, said John Johannes, a political science professor at Villanova University. A few, like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., got their political start as anti-war activists.

Veterans today have an advantage because Americans have a positive feeling about soldiers, said John Allen Williams, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.

Unlike Vietnam, people who do not like the war are not blaming the veterans, Williams said.

But that will not guarantee success, contends Ed Patru, deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Democratic war veterans who are seen as liberal on other issues aren't going to be popular with voters, he said.

I think a lot of Democrats are looking at what happened in Ohio and trying to duplicate that around the country, Patru said.

Taylor, 33, a Republican businessman from West Texas, supports Bush's policies. He is a major in the Marines reserves, and, like the Democrats, cites his war experience.

The war on terror is going to be with us for a long time and Congress is going to grapple with the war on terror, Taylor said. We need policy-makers who know what it means to make war.

Bryan Lentz, 41, an attorney from Swarthmore, Pa., volunteered to go to Iraq at age 39 with a civil affairs unit. The Army reserves major was so disillusioned by the lack of a plan in Iraq that he decided while he was in Iraq to run for Congress.

He is trying to unseat 10-term GOP Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-failure, Lentz said. We need to define what victory is and we need to set a plan to get there. You cannot stay the course if you do not set a course.

yourself a saint, for all I care.  How do you get your arm back there to pat yourself on the back? You are more sensitive than others.  Thanks for letting us know.  If you hadn't told us we might have missed it.

the fact is that he is actually doing something (as opposed to the party of NO and hip hop) that will actually help the economy.  What's funny to me is that you guys seem to be terrified that he might actually manage to help someone who you would consider beneath you in the process.  Yet another example of republican greed.  Hey, maybe Steele can bust a few rhymes with that....

My name is Michael -- My game is to stifle -- We keep peons hungry -- And we keep all the money....Everybody in the house say Hey!...say Ho!

Con means to deceive or mislead.  That's how they communicate, from Bush right on down to his peon worshippers.  They deceive, lie, mislead, twist, manipulate.  They do everything except speak the truth.  This is a perfect example.  You asked them above to see the post.  You didn't get a response, did you?

Now they'll just continue to troll this board with more outrageous fictional tales conceived in their tiny little minds, all for the purpose of demeaning and attacking liberals.

It's really sad, irritating and definitely bothersome, but they are their own worst enemy because they are getting more and more out of control every day.  In a way, I guess I will really be worried if it stops.  If I no longer see those angry hateful posts here, I will fear that they finally snapped in real life and either hurt someone else or got hurt themselves.

Read this article closely:

Describing George W. Bush as the most stupid president in U.S. history, the Al Qaeda leader reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning faster than expected in Iraq.

The U.S. president's policy had enabled the militant group to achieve their goal of fighting more Americans, said the Al Qaeda leader.

We call the lame duck (Bush) not to hurry up in escaping the same way the defense minister did, he said, referring to the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary following the Democrats' victory in Midterm elections.

They are getting ready to leave, because they are no longer capable of staying, the Al Qaeda leader said.

Remain steadfast in the battlefield you coward, he called on the U.S president.

If this does not chill your blood, with all due respect, there is something terribly wrong.  These people are focused on the destruction of the United States.  They get their information from the New York Times and CNN,  and they are heartened that the majority of this country who voted espouse the cut and run theory on Iraq.  They seek to divide us from within and for the country to turn on the President (and they have done that successfully it would seem).  They think (and it would appear that they are right in many cases) that the US as a whole has no stomach for the fight.  In their eyes, we are weak and not willing to fight for what we believe in like they are, and in their eyes that makes us cowards.  We are in a WAR, yes a WAR, like no other.  And if you do not think us pulling out of Iraq prematurely will not fire the jihad you are very sadly mistaken.  They will view it as a major victory and I shudder to think what will follow it.  The very reason we have not had more major attacks on our soil, in my opinion, is that these people, with all their bluster, are afraid of George Bush and what he might do.  They are afraid that if they pull something like that again Iraq might be a walk in the park and would mean even more American boots on the ground in places they don't want them.  They just can't be sure of what the US might do under his leadership, and that is why they are biding their time.  If we get a dovish adminstration, it could, and most likely would, get ugly real fast.  All it will take is the first (and probably homegrown) jihadist to blow himself up in a mall somewhere and take several innocent American lives with him....and then it will be too late.  It could happen, do not think for a moment it could not.  They want dead Americans.  They would prefer dead American citizens on our own ground.  They prefer the cowardly fight.  They do not prefer having to face our military.  But they will, because they are dedicated to their belief, no matter how perverse it is, while all the time trying to get back on the playing field they prefer...cowardly suicide attacks.  We will learn what Israel has had to live with for years, the hard way.  Do you see where I am going with this?  We NEED for them to remain afraid of what we might do if they start something like that.  We need for them to respect our willingness to stand toe-to-toe for what we believe in.  We need to demonstrate that we are willing to do so and not waver.  We need to demonstrate a belief in our country and our way of life as strong as theirs is.  We are already wavering as a country, and we need to suck it up and stand up straight again.  It is time to wake up.  We are not acting as the World police in Iraq.  We are in a fight for our survival, the survival of a free country where we are not afraid to go into a mall or get in a car or go anywhere we wish without fear of suicide bombers, car bombs, being grabbed off the street and found without a head a week later.  We do not need to join the  hunker down and be quiet and maybe they will leave us alone club.  That does not work.  They are not going to leave us alone.  No one is safe, for these people there is only one way....their way.  They are not going to stop and go quietly away.  That should be patently obvious.  This is the most important issue that faces us.  None of the rest of it will matter if we lose in Iraq.  Take a moment to look at history, all the precursors of 9-11.   Had we not gone into Iraq, and swept yet another incident under the rug (with Khobar Towers, the Cole, the Achille Lauro, Tanzania, Somalia, and on and on and on) there is no telling where we would be right now or what other awful things might have occurred.  For those of you who cannot grasp that, who think that if we pull out of Iraq and pander to these people that everything will be all right....God help you.  God help us all.

Great article and on target!  It also should chill the blood of the get out of Iraq now crowd, because what this article describes is precisely what would happen.  But, they have blinders on.  Iran in control of Iraq's oil .... think on that for a minute.  With their nuclear ambitions .... think on that for a minute, people.  It is still hard for me to believe that we actually have leaders, members of our own Congress, who are ready and willing to turn our belly up to be ripped out by these fanatics.  Sorry if that is graphic, but that is exactly what they want to do.  How can anyone in their right mind support a party who would rather go after the man who had guts enough to fight for this country, than to go after the terrorists?  If they would focus the hatred of George Bush and the energy trying to bring him down on terrorism instead we might be a lot closer to defeating them.  How did their thinking get that screwed up?  How did it become acceptable to screw over your fellow Americans, your own country, to have power?  And how were they able to sell that garbage to a portion of the American people?  I ask the question and I know the answer.  Because a great portion of the American people have strayed from core values, moral stands, and the black and white of right and wrong to the gray area of appeasement and whatever makes ME feel good, to heck with what is best for the country.  The REALLY sad part of it is that they are going to drag us all down with them.  As I said in another post....as THEY sow, so shall WE all reap.  It is heartbreaking.  We cannot give up, however.  We still have a mighty sword and that is prayer.  And not to sit down nor shut up.  God Bless!

a political survey. I went Obama all the way.  I love to respond to telephone surveys, but wish I knew who was gathering the data. They asked me if I was borned again.

Instead of mutt or just plain old American, it wouldn't be so bad for me, just Irish-German-Cherokee Indian, American but think of my kids, who would be Irish-German-Cherokee Indian-English, Scotish-Polish-French Americans.  Good golly ms. Molly.

There was not one candidate, let alone the presumed nominee in either party, that I can support.  Obama scares the bejezers out of me and Hillary gave me the willies.  The republicans are not an iota better either.  I keep praying that as Lou Dobbs predicted last year, I think it was, that an independent would enter the race and win.  I would vote for him.  Whether he would hold up as a politician or not, I don't know.  Maybe he would corruptify in the D.C. tradition but at least he would probably attempt to stand up for "we the people" at least for awhile.  What are we AMERICANS thinking anyway to let our government tromp on us???  I write to our congressman/woman on a regular basis.  What do I get?  A form letter of course telling me why they are right and I am wrong.  Never mind that the majority wants.