Rumors swirling about Cheney's health

[Diego in Seattle]

I only hope that if Cheney requires hospitalization that he's admitted to Walter Reed. :mad:

[Tom In VA]

...we didn't do much to stop it, but we didn't initiate it.

The 80's...AKA "Tom's Long Nap".

The horrors you Yanks visited on Central America may be long forgotten by fat, comfortable dullards such as yourself,
but I assure you, they remember.

You sure the different factions down there weren't already maiming each other at will in a "Saw" like version of the Hatfields and McCoys.


The U.S. didn't invent evil, or torture, Marty.

[Mister Bushice]

Actually, I consider Clinton a draft dodger also.

Then you are an idiot. Draft dodging is a criminal act. Obtaining a deferment is not a criminal act.

Obtaining a deferment under false pretenses as Clinton did, could be considered a criminal act.

False Pretenses? No. Illegal, criminal? Not at all. Morally, ethically he did nothing more than any other favored son. Perhaps not a flag waving grunt, but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon. Tough call there on where the moral ground actually was.

[Tom In VA]

but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon.

LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

[BSmack]

but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon.

LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

Christ you can be a whiny bitch.

[Tom In VA]

but ten again, it was vietnam, it was Nixon.

LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

Christ you can be a whiny bitch.

Since when is asking for a bit of integrity and intellectual honesty, not to mention historical accuracy ... "whining".

I know you don't mean that B, you're a lib. A sensitive new age guy lib. :thumbingnoseatyou:

[Mister Bushice]

False Pretenses? No.

Uh, yes. When you obtain a deferment by promising the commander of the University of Arkansas ROTC that you will be attending the school and joining ROTC and then you go to an entirely different school and do not join ROTC, you are a liar who obtained a deferment under false pretenses.

Pretty simple.

So what if he changed his mind and went to another school? There's a paper trail indicating he communicated with his ROTC commander. Was his avoidance shit all that different from Bush II? Not much. Was he a typical 20 something irresponsible kid? Yep. Was he pardoned? Yes.

End of story. Find a politician with no shit in his past and get back to me when you do.

[Cuda]

There's a paper trail indicating he communicated with his ROTC commander.

You mean the "I loathe the military" letter? That communication?

Be sure and wipe down the plunger after you get it pried loose from your mangash, Babshice

[trev]

Because Saddam was in Iraq, and Cheney affected Americans.

So? The Jews, gypsys and disabled were in Europe. Do we just sit back and let a tyrant torture and kill them?

We do in most parts of the world without oil you dumb fat bitch. In fact, in many places, we support it and teach the locals how to do it. These are things you won't learn though from Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or the Hostess Ho-Ho wrappers scattered around your couch.

So we shouldn't try to help anyone ruled by an insane tyrant?

[Goober McTuber]

John Nichols: Impeach Bush to right wrongs of war

RUTLAND, Vt. - I spent this past weekend here in Vermont with three courageous members of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War: former Army Sgt. Drew Cameron, former Marine Cpl. Matt Howard and former Army Sgt. Adrienne Kinne.

It was a remarkable experience, but not because these bright and articulate young veterans had chosen to speak so openly and so directly about the reasons why they favor ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq. IVAW members are speaking up all over this country, more boldly, more aggressively, every day.

Rather, it was remarkable because these veterans have come to the same conclusion that has been reached by a growing number of honest critics of the war: that if we are determined to bring the troops home, we have to communicate our seriousness.

We cannot campaign for "nonbinding resolutions."

We need to express our seriousness by sending a signal that we feel the need to end this occupation of a foreign land is so pressing that we are prepared to speak even of impeaching the men who promise to maintain their military misadventure for so long as they occupy the White House.

There are millions of Americans who would like to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been associated with the names of these errant executives over the past six years. For instance, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor impeachment if it is proved that the president lied to the America people about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

But there are still those casual citizens who suggest that impeachment is a "distraction" from the important business of the day.

What absurdity!

Impeachment is not a casual act of political retribution. It is not a game.

We are not talking about stained blue dresses anymore. We are talking about a war that has cost more than 3,000 lives and ruined tens of thousands more (need we mention Walter Reed?), a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, a war that is emptying our federal treasury at a rate of $200 million a day.

Impeachment, as intended by the founders who created a system of checks and balances in order to "chain the dogs of war," is a political act initiated, at its best, with the purpose of preventing a president from maintaining a course of action that affronts the Constitution, endangers the republic or damages democracy.

The war in Iraq does all of these things. And yet, as the Bush-Cheney administration proposes to surge 21,500 more young Americans into the quagmire in Iraq, and as the Congress debates nonbinding resolutions that, by virtue of their very names, are guaranteed to be inconsequential, there are those who would dare suggest that impeachment initiatives might distract the House and Senate.

There is no more serious work than ending the war.

The veterans I traveled with this last weekend had nothing but disdain for nonbinding resolutions.

They expressed a faith, born of bitter experience, that only a serious movement to impeach Bush and Cheney will meet these maladministrators with a response equal to the crisis they seek to perpetuate.

Over the course of three days, we spoke in schools, churches and community halls across the state of Vermont about the war and impeachment. We were encouraging Vermonters to vote for impeachment resolutions at today's town meetings as part of a process to persuade the state legislature to forward articles of impeachment to Congress and to get Vermont's U.S. representative to propose such articles.

We were joined by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain Iraq War soldier, who has long been an advocate of the "Impeach for Peace" movement, and by Dan DeWalt, the instigator of Vermont's grass-roots impeachment campaign.

If the call for impeachment is raised by the town meetings of Vermont today, it will not be a "symbolic" act.

It will be the right response to the wrong war. It will be the response that our bravest veterans say we must embrace if we want to get about the business of bringing the troops home.

[Tom In VA]

It shocks me that returned troops would be so vocal against the surge and here's why, it seems as if they are turning their back on their comrades in Iraq, many of whom say more people and more equipment are needed. These notions of pursuing a more binding resolution and/or attacking the "purse strings" to stifle the President's ability to wage war appear to me to make one group of people suffer .....

The grunts in the field right now.


Personally, I wish we could, as mvscal's brothers have said either quit playing paddy cake OR just withdrawal completely.

I'd much rather we "turn tail" and run, as it were, then have those guys out there right now suffer the "death of a thousand cuts".


Let 'em fight or bring 'em home.

[BSmack]

LBJ and JFK get off scott free in your eyes ?

Christ you can be a whiny bitch.

Since when is asking for a bit of integrity and intellectual honesty, not to mention historical accuracy ... "whining".

You weren't asking for "intellectual honesty", you were propping up strawmen. It's pretty much your stock in trade to demand a full accounting of all Democratic sins whenever anyone, even in passing, slights a Republican President.

[Tom In VA]

You weren't asking for "intellectual honesty", you were propping up strawmen. It's pretty much your stock in trade to demand a full accounting of all Democratic sins whenever anyone, even in passing, slights a Republican President.

I interpreted the dude attributing Vietnam to Nixon. Perhaps I was wrong in that interpretation but Bushice opted to ignore me and my request.

And no that is not my stock in trade, I'm more objective in most internal issues than you have ever displayed yourself to be.

[BSmack]

I interpreted the dude attributing Vietnam to Nixon.

In that case, you're either being disingenuous or you're retarded. I'll give you some credit and go with the former.

Perhaps I was wrong in that interpretation but Bushice opted to ignore me and my request.

As well he should have. You and your request made no fucking sense whatsoever.

And no that is not my stock in trade, I'm more objective in most internal issues than you have ever displayed yourself to be.

Is Paul writing your posts for you? Because I'm about ready to que up some Wilbert Harrison in your honor.

[Tom In VA]

I interpreted the dude attributing Vietnam to Nixon.

In that case, you're either being disingenuous or you're retarded. I'll give you some credit and go with the former.

Perhaps I was wrong in that interpretation but Bushice opted to ignore me and my request.

As well he should have. You and your request made no fucking sense whatsoever.

And no that is not my stock in trade, I'm more objective in most internal issues than you have ever displayed yourself to be.

Is Paul writing your posts for you? Because I'm about ready to que up some Wilbert Harrison in your honor.

My post must have made no sense because of my declining writing skills. MAYBE, I'll do better here but this is my final shot.

It did seem to me he was attributing that all that was "wrong" with Vietnam was Nixon and that's why Clinton was avoiding the draft. Number one, Nixon wasn't president when Clinton received his first draft notice if it was right after High School. I found his clumping of "Nixon and Vietnam" to be one of blatanty bias. I stand by that opinion.

My request was "So as it relates to Vietnam, JFK and LBJ get a pass in your eyes" ? To which the answer is either yes or no. Again within context of Clinton avoiding the draft, chances are it was during LBJ's tenure and prosecution of the war. Why bring "Nixon" into the mix ..... again within contect of Clinton avoiding the draft.

Paul ? So you're going the overplayed and overused "I said you were insert assertion here" card. Okay. You said I was subjective first, you win this round. But you're wrong.

[Goober McTuber]

There are millions of Americans who would like to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been associated with the names of these errant executives over the past six years.

Name one.

John Nichols.

[Tom In VA]

There are millions of Americans who would like to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been associated with the names of these errant executives over the past six years.

Name one.

John Nichols.

Okay I laughed. Nice one, you sir are on a roll.

[Cuda]

There are millions of Americans who would like to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been associated with the names of these errant executives over the past six years.

Name one.

Going 5-Hole on Condi Rice

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

It shocks me that returned troops would be so vocal against the surge and here's why, it seems as if they are turning their back on their comrades in Iraq

Twist the knife deeper into the backs of actual vets, Tom. Enjoy redecorating your rec room this comfy weekend.

Let 'em fight or bring 'em home.

You're not supposed to be fighting, you're supposed to be keeping the peace, as any occupying army should.
What a sad, fucking lousy job you're doing of it. A complete mess.
America has failed.
F-

[Tom In VA]

It shocks me that returned troops would be so vocal against the surge and here's why, it seems as if they are turning their back on their comrades in Iraq

Twist the knife deeper into the backs of actual vets, Tom. Enjoy redecorating your rec room this comfy weekend.

How so ? All I said is I don't understand their not wanting to send more people to help their buddies still in-country. You of all people have no clue and really aren't qualified to shed any light on that for me. Further there are even more initiatives in the works to cut funding and kill the war effort "by a thousand cuts", meanwhile the guys that are still in-country are left holding the bag. Short-handed and if things go the way the dems like murtha want, short of money and resources to do their jobs. Once again, you aren't really qualified to comment because you'd have to have served to shed light on this matter for me.

Oh, but nice try at a cheap shot Marty. "Enjoy your jelly donut" was always one of my lines are you "Pauling" it these days as well ?

[Mikey]

If they were more inclined to their associates and less inclined to violence there wouldn't be such a problem.

[RadioFan]

Maybe we've just been going about this all wrong. We should try flooding Iraq with truck loads of chewing gum, wire and rocks.

Sigworthy.

[BSmack]

My post must have made no sense because of my declining writing skills. MAYBE, I'll do better here but this is my final shot.

It did seem to me he was attributing that all that was "wrong" with Vietnam was Nixon and that's why Clinton was avoiding the draft. Number one, Nixon wasn't president when Clinton received his first draft notice if it was right after High School. I found his clumping of "Nixon and Vietnam" to be one of blatanty bias. I stand by that opinion.

Only someone with an overactive persecution complex could possibly read that Bushice was attempting to lay all the blame on Nixon. Referring to the time (1969-70) when Clinton's deferment was a political issue in the making, he said "Perhaps not a flag waving grunt, but then again, it was Vietnam, it was Nixon. Tough call there on where the moral ground actually was."

I read it as a very narrowly constructed statement referencing the exact moment in time that Clinton was wresting with how to avoid getting sent to that God forsaken hellhole. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that it certainly was not an endorsement of the policies of JFK or LBJ that led to that moment in time.

My request was "So as it relates to Vietnam, JFK and LBJ get a pass in your eyes" ? To which the answer is either yes or no. Again within context of Clinton avoiding the draft, chances are it was during LBJ's tenure and prosecution of the war. Why bring "Nixon" into the mix ..... again within contect of Clinton avoiding the draft.

Because Nixon was the President at that time. But with you around nobody can utter even the faintest of condemnation towards a Republican without you demanding a full and complete accounting of all relevant or irrelevant sins committed by Democrats be they real or imagined.

Paul ? So you're going the overplayed and overused "I said you were insert assertion here" card. Okay. You said I was subjective first, you win this round. But you're wrong.

There's nothing wrong with being subjective. This world would be a boring place without advocates. You were just wrong in your interpretation of the subject.

[Tom In VA]

Thanks for the time B. I suppose you're right, I do tend to get defensive, especially when people such as yourself continue to try and prop ONE party as somehow the only bastion of righteousness and goodness. I don't view either party as that but I do tend to be subjective and biased towards the Republican side due to their strengths as it pertains to ... defense ... I was a linebacker ... defense ... odd pattern developing here (laugh dammit). But you're right, I was wrong, my entire knee jerk reaction was based on the assumption that Clinton's draft issues occurred right after H.S., which would have been before Nixon.

Thanks again.