Comment posted by Kerry Apologizes “if anyone misunderstood” « Nuke’s news & views
at 12/1/2006 1:38:31 PM

[…] And, just in case anyone would like to review what it is that they misunderstood, here is my original post “Kerry Apology Fails Global Smell Test“, which includes a transcript, a link to the video, and Cortney Fielding’s Pasadena News report. Layla’s Open Trackback Weekend […]

Comment posted by Nuke’s 2.0 Website of the Week « Nuke’s news & views
at 11/17/2006 2:55:29 PM

[…] The political left owns the internet like the right owns talk radio. You may not agree with that statement, and the fact is, most of the right blogosphere doesn’t even realize it, much less have a clue as to why or how it happened. My own trip down the 2.0 rabbit hole began in earnest a few weeks ago after reading an excellent article from Robert Cox, and came to fruition after a post from this blog was picked up by BBC’s “The Reporters.” How could a small political blog in the right blogosphere be picked up by an international news organization (which generated some staggering hit counts, btw)? Because I cross-posted my entry to web 2.0, it was given international exposure, and truly illuminated the theme of Cox’s article for me. It was a “Eureka” moment. […]

Comment posted by Nuke’s Website 2.0 Network of The Week « Nuke’s news & views
at 11/10/2006 9:38:57 PM

[…] The political left owns the internet like the right owns talk radio. You may not agree with that statement, and most of the right blogosphere doesn’t realize it, much less have a clue as to why or how it happened. My own trip down the 2.0 rabbit hole began in earnest a few weeks ago after reading an excellent article from Robert Cox, and came to fruition after a post from this blog was picked up by BBC’s “The Reporters.” How could a small political blog in the right blogosphere be picked up by an international news organization (which generated some staggering hit counts, btw)? The answer to that question illuminated the theme of Cox’s article for me. It was truly a “Eureka” moment. […]

Comment posted by nuke
at 11/8/2006 9:10:09 PM

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin— Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Comment posted by no2liberals
at 11/8/2006 9:06:55 PM

Also, Reagan and I were both Democrats for many years, before we wised up, and he was also much kinder.

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Comment posted by no2liberals
at 11/8/2006 7:56:19 PM

Liberal
Tiresome and not interesting.
We haven’t agreed on anything, and I seriously doubt we will.
Perhaps is not an agreement.
We could talk in circles forever, what’s the point?
You don’t understand the military or war, or you would know that it isn’t possible to anticipate everything. The best laid plans, and so forth.
Let’s see first WTC attack, the U.S. Embassies in Africa, Khobar Towers in Riyadh, and the U.S.S. Cole, all under President BJ, and all attacks on us, with little or no response after each. After 9-11 we began attacking them…big effing difference.
Gannett publishes for profit, not for the military, for that you need the Stars and Stripes, but if you really want to know what the troops are saying, which I’m convinced you aren’t, you need to go to the milblogs.

Just got back from Breakfast - Rahm Emanual came on and was talking about the “failure in Iraq” and welcoming the new speaker, Nancy Pelosi - he was booed by the entire chow hall.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/11/chow_hall_react.html
As for the insurgency then and now, it’s not apples and apples, but still shows me, that quitting when the goal is attainable, is unacceptable. Life is full of challenges, some more serious and difficult than others.
What I find most interesting, is how much the mufsidun and the Global Hirabah, wanted the same electoral outcome as the left.
That tells me more than your words ever could.
Just so you know, I have despised the anti-war types for decades. I was called a baby killer at LAX, after arriving home, from the evacuation of Saigon. I had just participated in Operation Babylift, where we were successful in evacuating @3000 orphaned and refugee children, the oldest were maybe six yoa. Do you see the irony? I had just risked my life, along with my bud’s, and had lost a very good friend in a plane crash, as he was sucked out at around 27,000 ft., to save all those babies lives. I and a friend, identified his body, so his wife wouldn’t have to, she had her hands full grieving and caring for their four young daughters. Not much to identify really, traveling at 32ft per sec-squared, at that altitude. It was his personal effects that we identified.
So when I hear someone taking a position against the efforts our troops are involved in, especially when the troops believe in what they are doing, I have a perspective you could never understand, and one that will never be altered by you. I believe our efforts in the GWOT can and have been adapted, and should continue to be adapted to the ever adapting and changing enemies. Cut and Run is not a plan, it’s a quitters approach, which will disgrace our nation, and military once again, while emboldening our enemies.
For what? Political gain for opportunist? *SPIT*

Comment posted by nuke
at 11/8/2006 7:25:27 PM

Liberal.
You’re welcome here any time.

I believe that it is possible for two people to look at an identical set of causes and effects and draw two completely different good faith conclusions.

I don’t think,however, that you are that far from some of the conclusions that I have drawn from the behavior of people like John Kerry. Neither kerry nor any of the winter soldier participants gave sworn testimony before the house and senate. None of them. But, the fact that I’m telling you these things 35 years after the fact goes a long way toward explaining the myth of winter soldier “testimony” and the active participation of the media in perpetuating the myth. Kerry disgusts me.

Frankly, after listening to your opinions on a variety of subjects, and entertaining your questions likewise, it is my opinion that you would find it to be more difficult to reconcile your beliefs with the modern democrat party than with the republican party. You sound much more like a “classic liberal” in the John Kennedy mold than you do in the mold of the modern liberal democrat multicultural PC victimhood crapfest. If my presumption rings true with you, then you will find yourself in good company here.

Again, please feel free to come by any time. My email is listed in the sidebar.
And, it’s not certainly not necessary to stay on this thread. Quite acceptable to go off topic on the newer threads. We don’t get too bent out of shape over stuff like that, unless it comes from trolls, which you are not.
>nuke

Comment posted by Liberal
at 11/8/2006 6:15:38 PM

Nuke,

Kerrys’ testimony. Actually, I have a real simple answer for this. I do not believe anyone in the political arena 100% unless they are under oath (and even then, I have my doubts).

As for Kerry, I got the feeling that he meant what he said. BUT, and this is important, IMO he was also lining himself up for a political career. And THAT’S where I don’t trust him. To much need for ‘theatrics’ to get noticed.

What are your thoughts on his statement to SCFR on 23 April, 1971?

As for Kerry being the defacto head of the Dems (or anyone who ran for president and failed). I do not agree with that. I don’t know of anyone who thought of Gore as the head of the Dems after 2000, and certainly I don’t know anyone who thought of George Bush Sr that way. Did you think of him that way (GB sr, not Gore).

You say that it’s a mistake to judge ‘W’ on his prosecution of the war based on the press (I’m paraphrasing, sorry). So, how do you judge his prosecution of the war? I, in general only use to press to get to the true documents they are writing about, because I want to read it myself (so far, the 9/11 report was the hardest thing I have ever had to read).

Enemy Combatants. That’s gonna be a long discussion that I, sadly, don’t have time for. If you’d like to discuss it, I’d be up for the challenge. But, I know I’m adding to the basement dwelling.

As for ‘W’ keeping Clarke, I’m not so sure that he would have done things differently. You feel he would. However, we’ll never know because, sadly, we can never turn that clock back.

I know that you’re not happy about the election result, but I will say this again. I’m glad that you are around. I know we don’t agree on a lot and that some here view me with distaste, but I sure as hell am happy that you are helping to keep this country from slipping into an apathetic state.
All the best,

Comment posted by Liberal
at 11/8/2006 5:49:21 PM

N2L,
Tiresome? Maybe. But I find it interesting.
Ok, yep we’re way beyond the cellar in this one, but I digress:

A) Where exactly did you refute the WMD claim? Honestly. There is no hard evidence that WMD’s were moved anywhere. Surely our intelligence agencies would have been able to intercept some of them, no? And why didn’t ‘W’ ever present this as a fact in any of his stump speeches? It would have helped the Republicans enormously, no?

B) So, are you saying the SCI is wrong?

C) I’ll take your ‘perhaps not’ as a sign that you agree with me and maybe, just maybe it wasn’t BS?

D) I said ‘the world is not safer’. You claimed BS yet your rebuttal talks about America and that the world is a dangerous place. Well, it’s now a bit more dangerous.

As an aside:
I never said anything about the US being attacked since 9/11 (that would be a change of subject).
To address that argument, though. You could have said the same thing about Clinton’s policy after the 1993 WTC bombing. It took them 8 years 6 months, and 16 days to do their second attack on the WTC. Show me proof that they’ve stopped attacks. I don’t trust many politicians. Until then, I, and a lot of people, will be skeptical.

E) I honestly dont understand you rebuttal to this one. But, if I understand you, you’re saying that tribal/poverty/political/opium problems were unforseeable and have given us a harder time in Afghanistan than we were expecting. Is that correct?

Werewolves. Well, of all the books I’ve read, only a few have mentioned them and they were never considered a major threat and nothing even comprable to what’s going on in Iraq. But, I’m curious, where did that act of terror (that killed 60 people) occur?

And, finally, the Military Times. You seem to think that because it’s a Gannett publication that means it has no bearing on what the military is saying and or thinking? If that’s so, how does is stay in publication? If no one from the Forces bought it, there would be no ad revenue (no readers, no ads), and it would die as a paper (let alone four seperate papers). So, how is that?
Hope you’ve got your cup of Joe.

Comment posted by no2liberals
at 11/7/2006 10:41:15 AM

Marine Col. Oliver Grant faults the American public on the war:

I think that as a society we’ve become a bunch of weak sisters. We’re not in it for the fight.

On one hand, [the American people] support the troops, but it’s only to a certain extent. They have a misconception that all wars should be fought in three days, no casualties. Declare victory, come home and have a parade. In World War II they sent you to combat and you came back when the war was over. It wasn’t for a seven-month or 13-month tour. And [America] saw you through the duration.

What really hurts is when I see my country torn in half over a political issue. Let’s get behind it regardless of what you think. People are unwilling to see what we’re doing is worthwhile.

It’s a classic good vs. evil battle. And the evil is the terrorists and they can strike us anywhere. They’re not going to go away. We’re in here for the long haul.

Read on.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/weve_become_a_bunch_of_weak_sisters#comment