I see that you almost made it halfway through paragraph two. Good on you!
Would you care to come up with things that I've said about the military that haven't been said by the military itself? I'd like you to show me, in context, five or six things that I've said against the troops, with appropriate references: I support the troops and feel they've been cynically used by the politicians. I wanted them to get appropriate weapons and supplies so that they could at least defend themselves well while Rumsfeld was prevaricating on the matter. That I thought was a betrayal of the troops.
Where was your voice on that matter, Mike? Are you going to cite your comments on that matter for us? Or did you give that one a pass?
When the President was giving orders about treatment of prisoners that the JAG was saying weren't in the best interest of the troops, where were you, Mike? On the side of the troops or on the side of the folks who were making things more difficult for them, The Pols?
Sorry, Bob, your chickens are coming home to roost. You have set a world record in using the phrase "the past eight years". Your blame-laying on Bush has been relentless and constant. I could easily list your accusations and insults here but why bother? You know them. Whenever you have said anything against a democrat, it has been a handslap or with the tone of disappointment, nothing even similar to what you have used in your republican accusations.
Chickens? I wasn't asking you to go light on Democrats Mike. If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd know that. If you actually read this, you'll know that. My hopes aren't high. I was asking that everybody consider what we should have considered about Iraq when we went in originally. What we were going to do, why we were going to do it, etc. In the unlikely even that you want some more details, I laid them out in the previous postings here.
I'm not asking for forgiveness. I said what I thought about Bush and the Republican administration. There is no difficulty at all in using the phrase “the last eight years” as frequently as I have. The events that have occurred in that time frame have, from my point of view, not been happy ones, and they’ve had considerable effects on current events. Work on a parachute makes no sense unless you’re willing to admit that you’re in free fall. It also helps to understand how you got there in the first place, so you don’t cut the chute cords when the thing’s opened.
That’s why I talk about the last eight years. I’ve spoken about other reasons at other times as well. They haven’t gone away either. I’d better be relentless and constant. There are guys around who are in a hurry to pretend it didn’t happen, and who want people to look other places. If I shut up, I have no assurances that somebody will take my place. You won’t. You don’t even appreciate that I call our last President “President Bush” instead of some dismissive or obscene excuse for a nickname. You routinely use that sort of language around Presidents Carter and Clinton.
I don’t feel the need to make you happy with the amount of abuse I heap on my own party members. I do feel the need to acknowledge responsibility for having done stuff wrong, where and what. When Rep. Washington was caught with his money in his freezer, I said that he should be tried like anybody else. I wasn’t in a hurry to see him railroaded, nor did I wish to stick up for him. Sorry, I figure that justice is okay with me: Same with Abramoff — trial, the man didn’t need to be crucified, but a trial definitely.
I thought that a really active prosecution might well have reached into the White House. I didn’t need that.
I would have liked to see some actual action on some of the mess around the Vice-President’s office. I think there was some actual extra-legal stuff going on there. It might have, though, turned into a case where the guys would have “gotten off on technicalities.” I think that’s a decent outcome. I think it’s a constitutional outcome. If I think that it should be available to people who are poor and underprivileged and who may occasionally be snakes and guilty in addition, then I have to say that it should apply to people who are rich and very privileged and who are occasionally snakes and guilty in addition. The constitution is a document that should have stuff in it that offends everybody. It not there to be popular, it’s there to give a set of decent guidelines.
I think there are as many snakes who are Republicans as there are Democrats. I simply feel more comfortable with the Democratic snakes. At least thats the way its been for a lot longer than the last eight years.
When I say “I’ve had about enough of you suggesting otherwise,” it’s about this assertion of yours —
Translated, that means that if there's a chance a Democrat is to blame, figuring it out is grubby. On the other hand, should a Republican be at blame, they are fair game to be castrated...like Iraq, the economy, Hurricane Katrina, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, all of which Democrats (and, yes, you, Bob) showed no hesitation in placing blame.
Please show me where I’ve said that when a Democrat is to blame that figuring it out is grubby. I have blamed Democrats and even myself as a Democrat for things here in the past. And I have praised Republicans. Nor have you been able to show otherwise. I have been critical of President Obama on those issues where I have disagreements with him. I have done that in discussion with you, I believe, in reference to Obama’s position on torture and on his lack of action on the Patriot Act. I have frequently called the man “Republican Lite.” This is a criticism of his lack of political liberalism.
My criticisms of the man and of my party don’t have to meet the Mike Mack political correctness test. I actually reserve the right to have my own differences with the people of my own party.
What is grubby for either of us to pursue partisan politics to the exclusion of getting the important questions answered. Partisan away, Guy, so long as there’s enough time left for discussion of how to protect the troops. You know, the people you say are important and whom you are now throwing under the bus to score some points? Those folks. Unless we get some real answers to these questions, we’re going to get extra troop killed.
Where do we want our troops?
What purpose will they serve there? No feel-good answers allowed. No “world peace” or “better over there than over here” vagueness. Unless we have a clear answer that ends in troops can do this and investment can’t or bombing can’t or blockade can’t or tractors can’t, then we need to do the things that don’t involve troops.
How badly do we want them there? Are we willing to pay for them to be there, and support them with money, goods, and a supply of fresh soldiers, or are we simply running our mouths until the debt burden and the loss of life gets too high? Are we really serious?
How will we know that we’ve done the thing that we said we wanted to do, and that we’re done. We can’t do that now. We don’t have any actual clear markers that will tell us that we’re done. There’s nothing that says, “finished!” There’s no quitting bell, there’s no time clock with the big hand on 12 and the little hand on six, there’s no specific amount of oil flowing into the tanks of any single country, there are no particular towns that have fallen to any particular set of troops. We don’t know.
That means that there are yahoos that can drag this thing out forever so that you can’t change horses in the middle of the stream.
And there are many more. Don’t you think that the troops deserve to have those dealt with?
Sincerely, Bob Kaven