Redstate

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

If you're going to get banned, at LEAST bring up Halliburton, the Bilderbergers, and Salvador Allende.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

The guy waited to get his posting priveleges, and does this?

Banned.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Appearantly, this wasn't the first time Clinton has lost it. Brian Williams made the comment that this was a small triade for Clinton but this one was got on camera.

Folks, Clinton is losing it because he has no legacy and Bush does. The Clinton apologists will be out in force trying to keep history from labeling him asleep at the switch. This reminds me of Custer's wife who fought to keep her husband honor. For fifty years, good research was not done on what happen at the Little Bighorn. I have feeling that good research on 9/11 will not be done until after Clinton's death.

Custer is celebrated for his and his troops' bravery. Just ask why he is specifically mentioned in the [new] Army Song. You'll get an answer along the lines of "Because not a single one of his soldiers was killed running away from battle..."
(for those who don't know, it's Really hard to get killed runing away when you are surrounded...)

I would like to see this sort of glossy finish prevented with Clinton.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

The way they deliberately mislead people who do not listen to Rush. Unfortunately, it does work to a large extent.

As for "professional journalists" if there is such a thing, like Rush says "doing the job the MSM use to do".

It's stand up for what you want people to think you believed in. In reality, John Gotti has more real convictions than Clinton (other than perjury).

Three jubilant GUFFAWS for using a smoke screen in which you call something else a smoke screen.

Before you are banned, I suggest you ask yourself what Howard Kurtz (of all people) asked your hero John Aravosis. In light of the recent controversy over Clinton's record, why wouldn't a reporter ask him about it?

I think you'll all be amused at Aravosis' bumbling response. Except for you, An Army Veteran (and may I say, yeah right). Your answer would obviously be equally inane.

Now go start your "I was banned at Redstate" diary at DailyKos and tearily spout on your conspiracy theories about Fox News with your fellow moonbats.

absentee

And now, thanks to clinton's temper tantrum, neither is his intellectual cowardice.

You get one warning; this is it. This is a conservative website, and while we welcome liberal/"progressive" commenters who are interested in genuine debate, just tossing out knee-jerk opposition won't do. Your comment doesn't cross the line but you are in the neighborhood. The liberal commenters who have survived here have done so by recognizing that this is our house and they are guests here.

Oh, and: is it your position that Clinton's record is irrelevant? Because that may come as a surprise to members of his administration (including one particularly influential unelected and unconfirmed member) who may be running for higher office in the future.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

First of all, the argument you can’t question Clinton on his record is absolute republican talking points B.S. No one ever said you couldn’t ask Clinton. Sorry if you don’t like his answer, but the fact is Fox News is a very right leaning news organization that has given Bush and co. a free pass. I have no problem with Chris Wallace asking Clinton a question like that. But he has failed to ask the tough questions of the people in power when he’s had the opportunity. He’s had Rice, Rumsfeld, et al, but has failed to ask any substantial questions as to what the Bush administration was doing to fight terrorism up to 9/11. Unfortunately he is not the newsman his father was, but just a partisan republican hack.

And don’t forget, the U.S.S. Cole was bombed three months prior to Bush taking office, yet Bush failed to retaliate once he got in to office and could do something. Bush was concerned with missile defense, his dog Barney, and taking a month off after a grueling 7 months on the job of being preznit!

And Dan McLaughlin, your warning to “An Army Veteran” is laughable. His argument is genuine debate. In a debate the other side does not agree with you- remember? That’s debate. And the only way liberal commentators survive on your site is to change their IP address. This site will ban you simply for arguing a liberal point of view. Pure and simple. We are not Allan Colmes.

So, go ahead and show me that wonderful redstate childish behavior and ban me again. It’s oh so much fun. Oh, and if you’re going to the trouble of banning me, at least be a man about it and redirect my browser to a URL that says: “YOU’VE BEEN BANNED FOR BEING A LIBERAL”, and not some chicken sh*t redstate image offline page.

I'm a victim! Look at me! LOOK AT ME, I SAID!

By the way, nice, cogent, calm points, completely backed up by facts. You make Clinton look sane.

Maybe you should lighten up, Francis.

Anybody here want to hold Bush accountable for anything? Or does he have to strangle a puppy on the White House lawn and register as a Democrat to get any of you to notice?

Make fun of me all you want, but you're not relevant unless you're criticizing Bush too.

You're not a real American unless you hold your current government accountable.

Might as well move to Cuba. They don't question their government either.

and 50,000,000 new, free voters? And, the only reason to move to Cuba to get a better government was gone after GWB kicked Kerry's sorry, scrawny, yellow shorted a**.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

50,000,000 new, free voters? Are you talking about fixed ballot boxes in Ohio? Great economy? Have you bought a gallon of gas lately?

So I guess by your argument, as long as Bush kicks some Democrat's ass, either fairly or by cheating, everything's all right with you. Bush doesn't actually have to govern or anything. He can say any stupid thing that comes into his brain. He doesn't have to be competent, or even follow the laws of the United States. In fact, he can tread all over the Bill of Rights, but as long as he kicks a Democrat's ass and bombs a Middle Eastern Country and clears some brush on his make believe ranch, everything's hunky dory with you.

50,000,000 new, free voters? Are you talking about fixed ballot boxes in Ohio?

There aren't that many people in Ohio. There are no fixed ballot boxes in Ohio.

Great economy? Have you bought a gallon of gas lately?

I drive about 3,000 miles a month. It used to cost me $240/month in gas, at $2/gal or so. Now, with the increase in my income over the last several years, I bought a diesel Jetta, in many ways a nicer car than I had before. I pay about $200/month for diesel fuel. My fuel costs are lower than they have been for several years, because with the Bush economy I am able to afford a nicer car.

So I guess by your argument, as long as Bush kicks some Democrat's [redacted], either fairly or by cheating, everything's all right with you.

He didn't cheat. He won. Get over it, already.

Bush doesn't actually have to govern or anything. He can say any stupid thing that comes into his brain. He doesn't have to be competent, or even follow the laws of the United States. In fact, he can tread all over the Bill of Rights, but as long as he kicks a Democrat's ass and bombs a Middle Eastern Country and clears some brush on his make believe ranch, everything's hunky dory with you.

In the first place, insulting the President is obnoxious and uncalled for. GWB may not be a scholar, but he is not stupid. Do you have any idea how difficult that job is? It's easy to criticize, but much more difficult to be the guy. And he's a whole lot smarter than you think.

Name a law of the United States that he has broken.

Which of the first ten Amendments has he tread upon?

As for his ranch, what else would you call it?

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

In less than 130 words, you managed the following left-wing cliches:

1. Fixed Ohio ballot boxes.
2. Rigged elections generally.
3. The economy is bad.
4. Gas prices are high. Well, maybe before November.
5. Bush is blindly followed.
6. Bush cheats.
7. Bush is stupid.
8. Bush has no brain.
9. Bush is incompetent.
10. Bush is a fascist.
11. Bush kills for kicks.
12. Bush isn't a real man.

There are others, but I don't have time.

I can only conclude you are an absolutely brilliant right-of-center type who has entered a contest to parody Democrats and leftists in 150 words or less. Again, your effort was impressive.

Are you talking about the Democrat Commissioners in my own Cuyahoga County or Franklin County that are too incompetent to run an election, like their counterparts in Broward, Palm Beach and Dade County?

Would one of you losers explain to me once and for all why the ballot boxes that can never be properly counted or are supposedly “fixed” are the ones in your own backyards, controlled by your own politicians?

Your ignorance is boundless, and pathetic.

weeks.

Have you bought a gallon of gas lately?

Again, thanks for the hyperventilation. I'm sure it serves you well as you bring crowds of non-believers to your way of thinking.

And if you don't think posters here hold Bush accountable for quite a number of things, you either can't read or can't think.

Your source of irritation is the inescapable fact that Bill Clinton has a legacy, and it is 9/11/01. Maybe you should take some time to deal with that.

All the best.

Make fun of me all you want, but you're not relevant unless you're criticizing Bush too.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is irrelevant?

Watch out -- better head back to DKos. Y"ou wouldn't want to stray too far away from the herd.

You're not a real American unless you hold your current government accountable.

Guess what: I like what the current government does, except for the whole spendaholic thing.

Whether it is patriotic to dissent is debatable, but dissent for its own sake is neither truly dissent nor patriotism.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

So you're fine with the whole nation building thing.

And when we invade Iran and overthrow their government, let them loot what's left after we’ve bombed them back to the stone age, you're fine spending more money our country does not have to rebuild Iran as well. Is that right?

And when Iran becomes a festering pool of terrorists, you're fine with that too. Right?

Fine with Nation Building? No, I'm uncomfortable with it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done. Ignoring the dictator who harbored terrorists wasn't working at all. What Bush is doing now may be messy, but at least it is moving in the right direction, despite the efforts of leftists (aka the MSM and "professional" journalists) to spin it otherwise. I'm open to ideas that will move it forward faster so the killing of our troops and Iraqi civilians decreases. Running home with our tail between our legs (aka redeploying over the horizon, scheduled withdrawls, or timetables) won't do that.

Invading Iran and overthrowing their government? Yep, I'm all for it. Following the same strategy that led to the N Korea/S Korea and Vietnam debacles seems stupid to me. It is clear that Iran is funding, supporting, and otherwise running much of the action being taken against the Iraqi government and our troops. Moving the fight into their territory and putting them on the defensive makes sense to me. I suspect after they've been dislodged, rebuilding them and Iraq will be able to be accomplished, as opposed to the guaranteed human meat grinder we have now. (The only real questions here are: How much effort are Russia and China putting into supporting Iran and its terrorist attacks in Iraq? If the effort is substantial, are we willing to go to the mat against them to secure our freedom?) A lot of people think the GWoT started on 9/11. Others think it started with the Kohl bombing, or maybe in Sudaan. Personally, I think it started when another feckless Democrat allowed a bunch of terrorists to slaughter duely appointed government agents and hold US diplomats hostage for over a year (484 days I think, but don't have the exact number handy). I also think it won't be over until that mistake is corrected.

Oh, and once that mistake has been corrected, there will be at least one fewer festering pools of terrorists.

from central casting, playing the part of 'ignorant lefty hack, unable to engage in critical thinking'?

I've never posted to DKos, or Crooks and Liars or AmericaBlog, or Huffington Post. It's much more productive arguing with people I think are fundamentally wrong, rather than arguing with people I agree with.

Oh wait, that's what ya'll do around here isn't it? Argue with each other about evil liberals instead of holding your government accountable.

for what? Doing its job?

I think you'll find us to be quite hard on the people we don't like, and on the people we do like when they get out of line.

I'd go into detail, but you would be unable to understand in your current state of mind.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

you're fine with nation building in Iraq and it's okay with you if we end up rebuilding Iran as well with our blood and our money. That's okay, right?

You're fine with all the dead people in Iraq and OBL is still a free man and held unacountable for killing 3,000 of our citizens, and our President has publically stated he doesn't spend that much time worrying about him.

You're fine with that, right?

OBL did not kill 3000 of our citizens. The people who did died in the attack. The man who masterminded the attack, KSM, is in our jail.

OBL had nothing to do with 9/11!

Who knew?

Yes, facts are indeed awkward things.

Can I live in your fantasy world? It makes everything so much easier.

I'll be slightly sorry to see you go. Or are you Moe, pulling our legs?

If you, or Socrates, or anyone else who professes to love all that is good and conservative would grow a pair and tell me why they think nation building in the middle east is okay with them.

And please, try to be sincere and honest. I know that's difficult. But you can do it. Give it a try.

The middle east is a region of dysfunctional countries, populated by dysfunctional people. For a couple of generations now these countries and people have been making a nuisance of themselves, with terrorist attacks and with oil embargos.

The combination of countries like this and WMD is not one we can allow to occur. Sooner or later they will move from being a potential threat to being an iminent threat. It's simply not feasible to just ignore them any longer.

Once you accept that then our options are limited. One option is to use overwhelming military force to crush them all, then relocate all the Arabs somewhere out of the way, Say, Antartica. A less bloody solution may be to change the culture of the reason, what you call "nation building". Thats not a sure thing and it will take a long time to work if it does work. But I'd prefer us to try it before we knock off a few hundred million people.

Does that answer your question?

However, it's a disastrous path to take. Because soon, and very soon, after we bomb the next country we will be fighting this all by ourselves and the entire world will really be against us, and to win this battle we will have to give up every value we hold good and true as Americans.

And then OBL will win because he would have been right. We did exactly as he said we would.

Why will the entire world really be against us? And why will we have to give up every value, etc.

But perhaps I'm the sillier one for feeding it.

As I said, nation building is the least bad of several bad alternatives. We toppled Hussein, and now we have to clean up or what replaces him will be even worse.

I've said it before: it may be that going after Iraq isn't the theoretically perfect action to best combat terror. But it is an action, it's necessary, and we should all just get behind it.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

I'd have done a much better job. ;)

Moe

PS: libber's already gone.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I'm not particularly happy with nation-building. It is the least bad alternative.

As for Iran, I'd be just as happy if it were a radioactive parking lot, except the fallout might reach India, which would be unfortunate.

Iran's leader Abbadabbadjinni (or whatever, I'm too tired to look it up) has imperialist written all over him. If he continues with his support of terrorism, I hope we wipe him out.

The war on terror is not about Bin Laden. He's just the guy who tipped their hand. It's about a radical faction of Islam trying to radicalize the entire religion, get us to buy in, and set itself up as the ruling party of the entire world. If you don't think that's a problem to be dealt with, just say so.

One man's nation-building is another man's Marshall Plan.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

"The war on terror is not about Bin Laden. He's just the guy who tipped their hand. It's about a radical faction of Islam trying to radicalize the entire religion, get us to buy in, and set itself up as the ruling party of the entire world. If you don't think that's a problem to be dealt with, just say so". - Socrates

So why are we playing into their hands by helping them send the middle-east into chaos? Why are we allowing us to become the number one recruitment tool of al Qaeda by bombing innocent women and children, and men, who were at first on our side, but saw how the great United States couldn't even get the power and the water to work 24/7. Heck, at least Sadam could do that! We are doing everything OBL said we would do, but we are not weaning ourselves of middle eastern oil. Where's the leadership?

And honestly, you don't care if Iran becomes a radioactive parking lot? I hope you don't mean that, because the majority of Iranians want a free and democratic society just like you and I do. If we pound our chests and show "I Need a Dinner Jacket", or whatever the hell the Iranian nut-job president's name is, and bomb Iran into the stone-age, then we've got millions more terrorists where there weren't any before.

We are not fighting this war smart or effectively. Chaos is exactly what OBL and al Qaeda need and want. Coincidentally, so do neo-cons, idealogs, and religious who think they can bomb the middle-east into democracy while thinking it will make us safer. There’s good money in war and chaos.

There's no money in peace. Only peace.

If it did, Japan and Germany circa 1946 would have been crawling with terrorists.

We are not fighting this war smart or effectively. Chaos is exactly what OBL and al Qaeda need and want. Coincidentally, so do neo-cons, idealogs, and religious who think they can bomb the middle-east into democracy while thinking it will make us safer. There’s good money in war and chaos.

You can't say things like that and expect to be answered. Good night.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

an

idealog(sic)

let's try (/i) two (/i) closes...

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

John E.

Almost makes me wish you had the guts to actually moe there.
Certainly you have been too distracted to pay attention to the various fights from within the Republican party over borders, ports, stem cells, etc.
Certainly you have been too distracted to see the President admit mistakes were made in important issues like the war, Katrina, etc.
The only question is what you ahve been too distracted with? From your commenting depth, it seems you have been too distracted memorizing dem talking points instead of thinking about things or paying attention.

"Peace had a chance"

where was your buddy Clinton, who WAS IN OFFICE? Oh, I forgot, working to get his bud and protoge Al Bore in office so he could sit on his hands.

You know, if you had an argument I'd be happy to listen to it. But, you do not, and you violated one cardinal rule here - you used profanity.

Clean up, please, on this aisle.

So I guess you must have really hated it when Cheney told a senator to go "f" himself on the Senate floor.

I'm sure you were shocked and appalled.

Spare me with the profanity business.

Spare me with the profanity business.

Let's see....this site has clearly stated rules. You have violated those rules, multiple times, knowingly. Why? Because you don't like the rule and don't think it's important. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, because YOU are better, smarter, and gosh darn it, people like you.

When called on the rule, you redirect and blame others.

No wonder Clinton's actions during his administration don't bother you.

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

You know, all I ever hear when debating the Iraq war with anyone is that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. It's the same tired broken record every time about "where are the WMD's? Bush lied, people died! Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11!Blah blah blah" They never want to debate the substance of the situation, all they want to do is complain about how we got there.

Interesting isn't it, that now the americabloggers want us to move on and let go of the past and "deal with the NOW."

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations....

De Opresso Liber

is important to the eyes of history. Are you suggesting all historians are Republicans or that all journalists should ask questions through the prism of politics?

Get "Real".

and bully blowhard.
I used to think he was a great speaker. Now I see him as an intelelctual coward.

How typical of you to lash out at ME versus solely my opinions or comments

Interesting.

... unless you are a Republican politician and you are looking to call attention elsewhere so your true motives or past mistakes are down-played.

How typical of you to lash out at Republican politicians versus solely the issue at hand.

You're funny.

absentee

to expose our skeletons and get our closets clean. But why are you afraid to have your swept out? What other secrets is Clinton hiding? Why is he so afraid? Why can he not just say "We didn"t do it right now that we look back"?
Libs, They can't handle the truth.
"Peace had a chance"

What I saw in clinton's performance reminded me of Dorian Gray.
After the painting was destroyed.

Hip: World Trade Center 1993

Hip: Khobar Towers 1996

Hooray: USS Cole 2000

and that's only three cheers.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

one of the manifestations of Bolton's "temper" was that, while speaking to a staffer, he put his hands on his hips!

Can you believe it? And somehow the man is still wandering the streets freely instead of locked up and wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask.

absentee, I am a liberal who agrees with your statement above. There is a double standard and both sides use it. It's like the old "irregular verb" jokes: 'I am firm-minded, You are obstinate, He is a pig-headed fool.'When it's in joke form we can see the irrationality easily, but in our current political discourse we seem to truly believe that we are semi-angelic and The Other Side is the devil incarnate. (In fact, didn't Mr. Swaggart recently say just that about Bill's wife -- that Lucifer himself would be better?)

I think part of the reason we do this is because it's fun. And as long as we just rant to our buddies in cyberspace, it's pretty harmless. But I wonder if long-term it poisons us, poisons the "body politic," so that no one can really work anything out. We just stand in our chimp cages and shriek at each other.

For instance, I heard on NPR (not exactly a bastion of conservative opinion) that a large number of Americans believe that falling gas prices are a Republican ploy to make the current administration look good just before the November elections. The NPR reporter went on to interview a number of experts who agreed that the "Republican ploy" was false, that no such right-wing conspiracy exists, and that the White House really can't do very much about gas prices. Nevertheless, because we in America are so polarized now, lots of people will believe anything evil about The Other Side.

So what's the answer? Just keep on shrieking at each other from our cyberspace chimp cages? Pass me a banana.

Debate is dead. So is compromise. What remains is winning.

For example: It wasn't Swaggart, it was Falwell. What he said was that Lucifer couldn't polarize the base to any greater extent than Hillary.

The blame lies with the left. Specifically, the hollywood left. It is years of propaganda, not politics, that have driven debate out the door. Propaganda has so polluted liberal thought that the phrase is practically an oxymoron.

So the voices will keep shrieking, yes. And the voters will keep defying media "wisdom", as was the case in the last two elections. And liberals will continue to marginalize themselves. And conservatives will win. And the new democrats will all be Joe Liebermans.

Face it. Embrace it.

You're right. That is fun!
absentee

Well, at least you admit it.

Be careful about dissing Hollywood -- didn't it give us our late revered Bonzo, not to mention Ahnold?

Yes, and there's no profile for hijackers either, because exceptions prove rules are false.

absentee

...but I'm not in the mood this morning to forgive slams against Ronald Reagan.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

That he really Was bashing Reagan. After all, isn't "Bonzo" a rather old nickname for him? I know it was never meant as a friendly nickname, but neither was "ahnold." Anyway, I read a lot of sarcasm in that last post of his...

As libs go, this guy was pretty decent and seemed pretty rationale. A 2nd chance, perhaps?

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

My second son Reagan. So thankyou.
"Peace had a chance"

on Dkos, not here. The Left seeks to destroy this society. That isn't fun.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I heard on NPR that a large number of Americans believe that falling gas prices are a Republican ploy to make the current administration look good just before the November elections.

I think we can safely assume that the large number are mostly Democrats. And the reason that they believe it, and all sorts of other conspiracy theories such as that the government was behind 911, is that they have been encouraged to think this way by the people who run the Democratic party.

If Clinton was worth anything he would come right out and debunk the whole insane "Bush Lied" lie. But the Democrats have spent the last several years carefully fostering that lie and poisoning the minds of their followers. The country is suffering for it already and I suspect that the full effects of this mischief are still not upon us. I get the distinct impression that the Democrats would rather be rulers of a few states spun off from the union than accept a long term role as a second place party in a united America.

I've never been close to satified with any of the explanations offered for Berger's theft (Seems to me the best explanation offered was something along the lines of "Oh, that Sandy, he's always stuffing things in his pants."). And I'm mystified as to why the Bush Justice Department didn't vigorously prosecute him. Clinton's tyrade to the contrary, the Bush administations has been peculiarly gentle with the Clintonistas.

The criticism was that he missed Bin Laden by a mile and the "chemical weapons plant" he bombed was a pharmaceutical company in the middle of the night and the only result was some dead janitors.

Furthermore, given that he did NOTHING other than in the time period that the scandal took place (nothing before OR after) it's not too much of a stretch to claim that he was trying to distract the public and influence the top story.

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations....

Look Phantom, you're either sincere - meaning that you actually are who you say you are and are greatly un/mis-informed, or you are perhaps the worst Moby I've seen in nearly 2-years of RedStatery.

Let's start with "criticism from many Republican elected officials". RCP is as good a place to start as anywhere. Have at it.

And come now - are you going to tell me that the timing of Clinton's strikes wasn't, shall I say, convenient for him?

Finishing:

We don't deserve to retain power unless we can face this issue.

All I'll ask is, "What you mean we, Kemosabe?"

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

And come now - are you going to tell me that the timing of Clinton's strikes wasn't, shall I say, convenient for him?
Your honor, I rest my case.
("When Clinton tried to do something, more than a few Republicans criticized him for it." )

The Phantom
Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NYC ( red neighborhood in a blue town )
Bay Ridge Blog ( www.bayridgebrooklyn.blogspot.com )

I should know better by now.

Bye.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

and was going to post this link in defense of the GOP response to the missle strikes in Afghanistan. I decided to follow your link first, and it seems Sheppard cross-posted the same article at RCP and The American Thinker.

After reading The Phantom's reply, I agree. "Ugh"

Both of us should know better by now.

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

... I'll happily give you the benefit of the doubt. I know what it's like to be a red dot in a sea of blue.

But I sincerely think you may be recalling a little different from what the record indicates. Read the RCP piece and let me know...

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

They wanted to bring Clinton down more than they wanted to bring Osama down.

Don't project the Democrats' current conduct onto what Republicans did during the Clinton administration, because the historical record refutes that canard. You can only reach that confusion if you didn't know that Clinton was lying in the interview when he claimed that Republicans generally opposed his attack on Usama bin Laden. (What, you assumed Clinton's factual assertions were true, without checking them out?)

Most congressional Republicans and conservatives in the media supported Clinton's missile strikes in Afghanistan. That includes the Wall Street Journal editorial which also worried "We only hope that there is some follow-through." You cite an exception, the watermelon shooting Dan Burton who was also a gadfly nuisance to the Bush administration; but House and Senate leaders Gingrich and Lott were far more typical of Republicans, both offering statements supporting Clinton's attack.

You wouldn't have made such ridiculous claims if you had bothered to look at the examples of Republican support for Clinton in the ABC news blog link already supplied by hunter. There's also some interesting info in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web column.

The ABC news blog link is very interesting. Its possible that I gave too much credence to what Burton and Arlen Specter said and to what blowhard Rush Limbaa and other talk-radio shouters said at the time. Heard it from more than a few Republicans too at the time. Sort of heard it on this thread tonight, too.

Anyway, good night.

The Phantom
Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NYC ( red neighborhood in a blue town )
Bay Ridge Blog ( www.bayridgebrooklyn.blogspot.com )

the response by many of us on the right to the missile strikes Clinton ordered on Afghanistan. While I supported the action taken against Afghanistan and thought it was entirely justified, I questioned the timing and limited use of military force.

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

The completely non-existent results. That was the worst part. Blowing up empty tents with million dollar missiles (after issuing a warning a few hours ahead of time, so they can clear out) comes off as a temper tantrum, not a serious act of retaliation.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

-- got Bush on the brain?--
Evidently so! My bad.

--They wanted to bring Clinton down more than they wanted to bring Osama down. True.--And you know this is true how?--
Speculation. Many Republicans were in a crazy mental state, just foaming at the mouth over Clinton. Sort of how lots of Democrats are about GWB now. They can't think straight now, and lots of us could not think straight then.

The Phantom
Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NYC ( red neighborhood in a blue town )
Bay Ridge Blog ( www.bayridgebrooklyn.blogspot.com )

"We" couldn't think straight ay? Let me ask you something. Do you think that it was appropriate for Clinton to waste millions of tax payer dollars on an investigation for which he could have ended simply by telling the truth? Do you think that it is appropriate for the President to sexually harrass a 20 yr old intern? Do you believe that it is right to watch a President make empty gestures with missles to distract people from his actions? Do you think it's ok for Clinton to claim a right-wing conspiracy was taking place when he knew full well that he was guilty of the charge?

Guess what...that's what the repulicans that were "foaming at the mouth" were thinking back then. If you think that isn't thinking straight, then you might have problems here.

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations....

Get to just about everyone in Clinton's business circle in Arkansas that was sent to prison. I guess all those juries couldn't think straight either?

"Maybe I'm naive,"

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

After reviewing, most of the people that needed banning were already banned. I got maybe one, and that one could be debated, truth be told. So why 'immediate'?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I posted my comment at the bottom of the thread, I thought the timing was relevant. The direction the debate had taken was beneath Redstate's standard, IMHO.

That said, it seems one or more of the editors were also aware of the problem and decisive action was taken.

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

lolololololol
Thanks for the yucks.