I get a bit annoyed when people make sweeping generalizations about what I think or would do and I let it goad me. I am a Republican who is not too disappointed with the party because I have rarely had much respect for the party. When they fell in behind Reagan or Newt I was with them as I am strongly conservative but the Republican leadership rarely is. When Reagan was elected I thought it a disaster, but the speed with with he restored America from the Carter debacle showed what a great man he was. He was the first politician to earn my personal admiration and respect for his intelligence and character.

No wonder the gentleman hates Republicans. I first thought it a typo but he refers to the single (D) in the series. I guess Hitler (R) and Stalin (R) account for some of his sweeping condemnations as well? Good thing Lincoln (D) stood up to those nasty Republicans in the South.

Re: “You are presupposing what conservatives think.”

I was not calling for his death, which is what you lied about when you accused me of wishing so.

No, Steve. I was using YOUR WORDS, not mine; just turning them around on you, to point out the ridiculousness of your constant sweeping, broad generalizations and caricatures of “conservatives according to the fantasy world of Philly Steve”.

Re: “Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations.”

I was commenting ont he fac that we had Nixon (R), Ford (R), Carter (R), Reagan (R) and Bush I (R), and you chose, for some “unknown” reaso to choose the single (D) in that series.

You fail to comprehend the substance of the rebuttals to your original argument and do nothing but fish for ways to “save face”, Steve.

I was not calling for his death, which is what you lied about when you accused me of wishing so.

Re: “Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations.”

I was commenting ont he fac that we had Nixon (R), Ford (R), Carter (R), Reagan (R) and Bush I (R), and you chose, for some “unknown” reaso to choose the single (D) in that series.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch

Re: “Because that is what YOU want, since he has the “R” beside his name.”

I have never called for the death of anyone. To even imply so is to be a liar.

Oh, that is just too rich! My God, man! Let’s look back at what I was responding to:

I repeat, for the umteenth time. Had Donald Rumsfeld had a “D” after his name, instead of Conservatives saying, “Oh well, too bad”, they would be screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.

You are presupposing what conservatives think. Would it do your hurt feelings better, if I flipped your comment around and said “Since Donald Rumsfeld has an “R” after his name, liberals (not Philly Steve) are screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.”?

Re: “We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration”

Convenient that you are not willing to admit that we might be dealing with any aftermaths of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Does that have anything to do with the (R) after their names?

Of course we deal with “the aftermath” of prior Administrations. You don’t just start with a clean slate and bill of goods, on day one of a new president’s tenure. You don’t start over. It’s important to have a certain “consistency” in how we conduct ourselves and honor past agreements. It matters that the succeeding Administration can recognize where we are at in the world today, and then go from there, responsibly. Not simply ignore the last 7-8 years and what’s occurred. You build upon what has come before. If you wish to change the direction of the country, you do so responsibly.

The Bush Administration didn’t just drum up “regime change” from scratch. They built upon prior history, under the Clinton Administration.

My point, Steve, is that life is one continuous flow. Simply because a U.S. presidential Administration’s tenure comes to an end, it doesn’t mean that the rest of the world stops; that everything comes to a nice, neat, tidy end. I’m sure Jimmy Carter would have liked to have resolved the hostage crisis, under his watch. But he did not have that luxury of time. Administrations have expiration dates. Life’s constant flow doesn’t pay attention to that. The war we find ourselves in will end when it ends, and not a day sooner. Perhaps, in future wars, you would prefer we announce a timetable before it begins? We can say, “We’ll go to war with our enemies for 6 months. You soldiers have 6 months to win this thing, after which time, irregardless of whether we have the enemy on the ropes or are getting our butts kicked, we will pack it in, and go home.”

Essentially, that is the logic you are taking, Steve. And it is a completely accurate characterization.

Re: “Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess’”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.”

Something I beleive every single Conservative here would do in a heartbeat, solely for the sake of retaining George W. Bush in office.

You are sooooooo predictable with your sweeping statements and grandiose generalities. ALL conservatives this, ALL conservatives that.

I have never called for the death of anyone. To even imply so is to be a liar.

Re: “We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration”

Convenient that you are not willing to admit that we might be dealing with any aftermaths of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Does that have anything to do with the (R) after their names?

Re: “Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess’”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.”

Something I beleive every single Conservative here would do in a heartbeat, solely for the sake of retaining George W. Bush in office.

I recall posts on this very site from Conservatives excoriating John McCain, and promoting everyone EXCEPT John McCain for president. However, now that Senator McCain has sufficient votes to be the nominee, every single Conservative here has fallen in line and loves John McCain as their candidate for President (another prediction I made, which was greeted with mountains of denials and derision)

You have serious, serious reading comprehension issues if you think support of McCain for the general election, now that the Republican primaries have decided the GOP nominee, equates to falling in love with McCain.

I repeat, for the umteenth time. Had Donald Rumsfeld had a “D” after his name, instead of Conservatives saying, “Oh well, too bad”, they would be screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.

Because that is what YOU want, since he has the “R” beside his name.

And that, I assert, is the real objective of Conservatives: to make sure that the Bush Administration does not run out of alibis, until January 2009, when George W. Bush will “get out of Dodge” and let someone else (whether named Obama, Hillary or John) to clean up his mess.

How can anyone take you seriously?! If you don’t want G.W.B. to leave the next Administration to “clean up after his ‘mess’”, let’s abolish the 22nd Amendment.

The fact is, events in life don’t operate on a timeline with an expiration date, based conveniently upon when U.S. elections are scheduled to take place. There’s never any neat, tidy ending, simply because one Administration leaves office. Succeeding Administrations pick up where its predecessors left off. We’re still dealing with the “aftermaths” of the Carter Administration, and every Administration that’s ever been; they’ve all led us to where we stand, in this moment in history. Grow up.

What was that “sabateur’s” name? Such an action appears to be very serious and the person should be exposed for what he/she has done. What is the name?

“persons“. Go pick up and read Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors”. I bet you won’t. And so you’ll just remain stuck like a frog at the bottom of a well.

Probably not. Till you do, the joke is clearly on you.

No.

This Conservative demand that I put the occupation of Iraq into some sort of “historical context” that is acceptable to Conservatives is nothing more than a red herring argument, meant to imply that somehow, the Bush Administation’s management of the occupation of Iraq was some sort of brilliant operation and in exactly in line with what should have been expected.

America occupied Japan and Germany after WW II, with an insurgency in Germany (the “Werewolves”) that lasted only weeks. But that example was not good enough for Conservatives.

America occupied the Dominican Republic in the 1960’s. But that was in this hemisphere, and not good enough for Conservatives.

America invaded and occupied Grenada in the 1980’s. But that was not good enough either.

There is no example of an occupation that Conservatives will agree meets their “historical context” because all of the examples I gave were examples where the occupation was actually planned, rather than assumed. That enables Conservatives to let the Bush Administration (whichever cabinet secretary they choose as their “fall guy”) off the hook.

And that, I assert, is the real objective of Conservatives: to make sure that the Bush Administration does not run out of alibis, until January 2009, when George W. Bush will “get out of Dodge” and let someone else (whether named Obama, Hillary or John) to clean up his mess.

Re: “The “Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office” which nominated John McCain, Rumsfeld’s chief and persistant critic for President.”

??????

I recall posts on this very site from Conservatives excoriating John McCain, and promoting everyone EXCEPT John McCain for president. However, now that Senator McCain has sufficient votes to be the nominee, every single Conservative here has fallen in line and loves John McCain as their candidate for President (another prediction I made, which was greeted with mountains of denials and derision)

Re: “As in all cases in life, things could always have been done better.”

No.

Again, it is the kind of gentle criticism that echoed Donald Rumsfeld’s own words about “stuff happens” when the looting of Baghdad took place that irritates me. The looting went beyond the antiquities of the Iraqi museam. It went to weapons depots that were unsecured, enabling an insurgency made up of fired soldiers to have the werewithal to establish the insurgency to begin with. But Conservatrives insistance that this was just a minor “oops”, as though men and women of the aremd forces were not dying, to this day, for such a blunder (going in light and unprepared, against which Donald Rumsfeld was warned and fired the man who warned him against doing it).

I repeat, for the umteenth time. Had Donald Rumsfeld had a “D” after his name, instead of Conservatives saying, “Oh well, too bad”, they would be screaming for a criminal trial and the death penalty for the man.

Re: “I wonder what Steve would be typing out, during the aftermath of Normandy and Iwo Jima.”

That, FIVE YEARS LATER, American troops would not still be getting killed by enemy troops on those very same beaches, as they were today in Baghdad.

You are continuing the Conservative alibi machine that worked to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office far past the time his disasterous decisions were evident.

Why isn’t it that, “You are continuing the liberal blame gaming armchair 20/20 hindsight quarterbacking?” This goes back to Scott’s repeated challenge to you:

You have yet to prove that the occupation has been incompetent by comparing the occupation to similar scenario in military history.

Until you do, the claim of incompetence is nothing more than an opinion of an incredibly biased and openly, admittedly partisan person; not a genuine claim based on historical comparison.

I wonder what Steve would be typing out, during the aftermath of Normandy and Iwo Jima.

Would you like to reduce it so zero? And have an entirely military government?

No Steve, I am not a socialist. Really, your statement there was asinine even for your typical drivel. I would like government greatly reduced to the minimum needed for the nation. Also, if the government was reduced to “zero” there would BE no military as our Constitution puts the military under civilian control. All there would be is armed civilian militias and armed individuals (per the 2nd Ammendment) not under government control.

Again, that outlandish asinine statement was idiotic even for you.