GOP Diplomats and Military

[1549]

The Reagan sight thing was purposefully overlooked by cwsox as are countless other facts about the Gipper because he was an evil crazy ignorant cowboy who lead us down a path of ruin etc...etc....  Everybody in the leftist intelligentsia (sp) , to which cwsox is a card carrying member, said Reagan was not fit to be president, said we couldn never beat stagflation with supply side policies, said we could not stop the spread of communisim and that the best we could was to contain and coexist with it and pray they didnt come over here and "bury us" like Khruschev once said.  They said America's best days were behind us and that we were going down the s***ter faster than a wad of toilet paper.

 

Reagan proved them wrong on all counts and they can't stand it.  It burns them up that this cowboy, this "B" movie actor went to Washington and made things happen and that America loved him for it.  I understand why people like cwsox hate Reagan so much.  I'd be pretty perturbed if my whole ideology was crushed and discredited in 8 short years & I'd be pretty pissed off as well if I had crow shoved down my throat for an equal amount of time.

People will always hate presidents that come from the opposite party.

 

Democrats pick on Reagan even though our country completely turned around under his watch.

 

Republicans love to pick on Clinton, even though half of them became 10 times richer under his watch.

 

Frankly I don't care if Reagan didn't fight in a war. He restored some pride in america. Something that had been lacking since Lyndon Johnson started throwing around the word 'escelate'.

 

And I also don't care if Clinton got head in the oval office. I can say it was great to be an american in the 90's

[cwsox]

But, the problem I have is you attack first! You don't know everyone's stories. You don't know that I cut a toe off in a lawnmower and am "not fit" for service. In a previous post you attacked Reagan for "convientently getting out of serving." But, the truth is, he did. He just didn't go to war. Do you want to know why? Do you care to know why? His eyesight was so incredibly bad that he was just about leagally blind. That's why he had such a photographic memory. He couldn't read anything that was more than a few inches from his face. That's the fact! You know what those are, right?

That's the fact! You know what those are, right?

 

a fact: I never, ever once commented on Reagan being in the military or not being. I never ever once commented on that.

 

In a previous post you attacked Reagan for "convientently getting out of serving."

 

The above is just plain wrong. I never, ever, here or anywhere, criticised Reagan for his service or lack thereof, or commented in any way whatsoever on that.

 

That's the fact! You know what those are, right?

I do. Do you? I await the next post or PM that says I talk down to people and insult others.

[cwsox]

The Reagan sight thing was purposefully overlooked by cwsox as are countless other facts about the Gipper because he was an evil crazy ignorant cowboy who lead us down a path of ruin etc...etc....  Everybody in the leftist intelligentsia (sp) , to which cwsox is a card carrying member, said Reagan was not fit to be president, said we couldn never beat stagflation with supply side policies, said we could not stop the spread of communisim and that the best we could was to contain and coexist with it and pray they didnt come over here and "bury us" like Khruschev once said.  They said America's best days were behind us and that we were going down the s***ter faster than a wad of toilet paper.

 

Reagan proved them wrong on all counts and they can't stand it.  It burns them up that this cowboy, this "B" movie actor went to Washington and made things happen and that America loved him for it.  I understand why people like cwsox hate Reagan so much.  I'd be pretty perturbed if my whole ideology was crushed and discredited in 8 short years & I'd be pretty pissed off as well if I had crow shoved down my throat for an equal amount of time.

The Reagan sight thing was purposefully overlooked by cwsox as are countless other facts about the Gipper

 

You are wrong, Nuke, I never said anything about Reagan being in the service nor his eyesight.

 

You have taken a false statement as face value and attacked me thereby.

 

You should check these things out first.

 

As a matter of fact, this is my first time ever commenting on Reagans WW2 service: he made training and morale shorts for the armed forces. I have never ever questioned his military record.

 

But you took a false statement and ran with it Nuke and when you build a house on a foundation of sand, it falls.

 

You lie when you you say that I and "everybody" ever said that America's best days are behind us.

You lie when you say that I and "everybody" did not think we could defeat communism.

 

And I could continue to list the lies in your rhetoric overblown bulls*** flung based on lies. A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But time does not allow.

[cwsox]

1549 wrote:

 

However the ability to have an opinion comes with responsibility.

 

 

 

Thank you.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Couldn't agree more.  Their are other ways to serve your country.  I have the uptmost respect for Nuke and every other that go out and fight though.  I wish them all the very best and I hope they stay safe.  I appreciate what they do and I never take it for granted. 

 

At the same time, just becasue I'm not in the military, doesn't mean I don't have an opinion or can't be in favor of some type of military action.

Here we go.

 

My problem isint with people who are hawks but dont choose to serve in the military themselves. The Military is not for everybody and with all the crap I have to deal with on a daily basis I sometimes wonder what in the hell I'm doing here.

 

My problem is with sanctimonious leftists like cwsox and who say they support the troops then turn around and criticize our missions, criticize our methods, criticize our leaders and criticize President Bush for sending us off to do our job.

 

My problem is with people who say they support the troops but then whine and cry about how many civillians , on the OTHER side, get hurt and killed. They complain about it and make it sound like the troops are doing it on purpose, which is just a flat out lie. I have a news flash for you. Innocent people always die in conflict. That's just a fact of life that is unavoidable. If they had any integrity they'd go back to what they said in Vietnam calling us baby killers and such like they know they want to but being the spineless slugs they are they dont because they know this aint 1969 anymore and the backlash would be more than they could handle.

 

You on the left say you support the troops but I dont buy it. Your parents are the same ones who 30 years ago were waiting for troops returning from Vietnam not with flowers and waving flags but with crude insults, burning flags and spit. It was so bad that even the most highly decorated soldiers, heroes of countless engagements, were made to feel like common criminal scum. If you truly wish to express support for our troops we prefer you just said "thank you" and nothing more. Your "support" followed by criticisims of everything we say and why we say it, your criticisms of how we feel and why we feel that way and your criticisims of what we do and why we do it are simply not welcome

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

a fact: I never, ever once commented on Reagan being in the military or not being.  I never ever once commented on that.

 

 

 

The above is just plain wrong.  I never, ever, here or anywhere, criticised Reagan for his service or lack thereof, or commented in any way whatsoever on that.

You got balls calling me and mreye liars. You know damn well you criticized Reagan for not serving in WW2 and you lack the integrity to admit it. I've come to expect that from you lately though.

[cwsox]

You got balls calling me and mreye liars.  You know damn well you criticized Reagan for not serving in WW2 and you lack the integrity to admit it.  I've come to expect that from you lately though.

I never criticised Reagan for his military record or in fact in any way commented on Reagan's military record, other than as I just did a few posts ago, that he made training and morale shorts.

 

That you coninue to accuse falsely is interesting.

 

In fact, I never called Mr Eye a liar.

 

you lack the integrity to admit it.  I've come to expect that from you lately though.

 

back at you. in spades.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I never criticised Reagan for his military record or in fact in any way commented on Reagan's military record, other than as I just did a few posts ago, that he made training and morale shorts.

 

That you coninue to accuse falsely is interesting.

 

In fact, I never called Mr Eye a liar.

 

 

 

back at you.  in spades.

Deny, Deny, Deny, You got caught by 2 different posters in a lie and you act like it never happened. Whatever.

[cwsox]

Show me where I said it then.

 

You can't.

 

I never said it.

 

You refuse to accept the truth and the truth is you and Mr Eye are wrong on that accusation. Very and totally wrong.

 

As far as you are concerned, this dead horse has been beaten enough.

 

Stay safe and Go Sox!

 

Over and out.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Show me where I said it then.

 

You can't.

 

I never said it.

 

You refuse to accept the truth and the truth is you and Mr Eye are wrong on that accusation.  Very and totally wrong.

 

As far as you are concerned, this dead horse has been beaten enough. 

 

Stay safe and Go Sox!

 

Over and out.

You are absolutely right, I can't show where you said it. That little "edit" button is the reason why. You might have gotten away with it had you not been caught by more than 1 of us.

[cwsox]

You are absolutely right,  I can't show where you said it.  That little "edit" button is the reason why.  You might have gotten away with it had you not been caught by more than 1 of us.

You are so very, very wrong.

 

I never said that about Reagan. Never. Ever. Here or anywhere. Never. Ever. Not in my life.

 

Now you add more false and baseless accusations. I wasn't going to respond any more in this thread but then you made one more false accusation. I am done with you and this thread. Your lack of integrity defines why.

 

I have pity for you, pure pity. It must suck to be you, to be so wrong and unable to admit it and lack the integrity to apologise but just make more false accusations.

[mreye]

I can't find it either. I know what I read, and I wish I would have commented on it before. I guess I'll have to start chronicaling all posts that piss me off before they are able to be deleted or edited.

[EvilMonkey]

1)  In fact, no one in the diplomatic service is anti war because war is and always be a state that does occur.  It is the needless war, it is the case for war built on lies, that is objectionable because if you haven't noticed, lots of people die and other bad  things happen in war.  The decision to go to war must be based on last resort need, not for ideology or any other reason.

 

2) Out of curiousty, my son is a Marine; when might you be enlisting to put yourself in a place where your body will be where your words are?

 

3) No, there is not. He has been substantiated by every measure. Every measure. Substantiated.

OK, first, I was referring to Novak being against the war. However, giving his political leanings, it would not be a stretch to say that the diplomat is also against the war.

 

OK, for #1, going back to the original question I asked, how can you say diplomats are non, or quasi-political? They have even formed a PAC! http://www.hillnews.com/news/112702/pac.aspx

Sure, they say that they will give 'equally', but only time will tell. And just how diplomatic is it to publicly say that you don't agree with your President's actions? How can you then go do your job, when the whole world knows your heart isn't in it, because what your bosses asked you to do is not what YOU want to do? Good thing they are all RETIRED or FORMER appointees. Could they possibly be out of the loop? Maybe angered that they are now EX-diplomats? I would be interested in knowing what specific intelligence they have been made privy to which would allow them to express informed opinions.

 

#2) I tried to enlist in the Navy back in 1984, but was rejected because of my very bad knees. Years of trying to be a jock, and 3 surgeries, rendered them very unstable. The fact that I did not or am not serving does not diminish my opinion in any way, and I am pissed that you feel that way. You sound like a cut-rate version of the idiot on the MLB boards who repeats his catch phrases over and over. If your son is serving in the armed forces, he has my sincere gratitude and prayers for a safe return. However, because he is there, does not make your insight any more important or correct than mine. Please don't ever question my patriotism.

 

3) Novak himself disputes that his wife was 'outed'. "'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this,' Novak said, saying the information was disclosed to him while he was interviewing a senior Bush administration official.... Novak said the administration official told him in July that Wilson's trip was 'inspired by his wife,' and that the CIA confirmed her 'involvement in the mission for her husband.' ... 'They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else,' he said, adding that a source at the CIA told him Plame was 'an analyst -- not a covert operator and not in charge of undercover operators.' In a Time article, it points out how he contradicts himself in his reporting. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,465270,00.html

 

"...Bush Administration officials said that Wilson's report reinforced the president's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. They say that when Wilson returned from Africa in Feb. 2002, he included in his report to the CIA an encounter with a former Nigerien government official who told him that Iraq had approached him in June 1999, expressing interest in expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The Administration claims Wilson reported that the former Nigerien official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

 

"This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters last week, a few days before he left his post to join the private sector. "Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it...reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales."

 

of course, he has his own spin on what happened, and the really sad thing is that we will probably never really know, and it will all just be one big he said/she said.