May 25, 2007

McCain Aide Blasts Obama

"Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

That's going to leave a mark.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at May 25, 2007 03:22 PM

I don't know who that aide to McCain was, but given the rate of service in today's GOP, my guess is he wouldn't know which side of a Claymore to turn toward the enemy (and if you don't get that joke, ask someone who's served).

Bob, I find it ironic that after all your past dismissals of the chickenhawk offense, you now find it amusing.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 25, 2007 09:32 PM

McCains done. The poor cornered dog will bite every time. He get bored with Mitt Romney that quick?

Posted by: Ahenobarbus at May 25, 2007 09:44 PM

"given the rate of service in today's GOP"

And how many years did General Obama spend in uniform?

Posted by: Bill Faith at May 25, 2007 09:58 PM

but given the rate of service in today's GOP

Which is precisely what?

Educate me.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 25, 2007 11:30 PM

I suspect David, like many anti-war leftists, is a charlatan. He has about as much military experience as Bill Clinton. Or John Edwards. Or Obama Whatshisname

In either event, Duncan Hunter served in Vietnam and has a son in Iraq

McCain served.

Who on the Democrat ticket has?

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 08:02 AM

Look, Dave, we understand you are disapointed that your party capitulated to George W. Bush.

We understand that the surrender loving wing of your party (i.e., you) failed, again, to convince the majority of the American people that losing in Iraq is in the interests of this country.

Its demoralizing being a minority. It difficult when your party takes you for granted and uses you as a pawn to gain power, but tosses you under the bus when the going gets tough.

And you'll believe harry and nancy when they talk anti-war and anti-gop and anti-Bush in the coming months. Youll believe them. A sucker is born every minute.

If I were you- Id vote for Kucinich. At least he's honest. At least he isnt a talking out of both sides of his mouth dirtball who tells you one thing and then does another.

You probably think Clinton and Obamas votes were "principled" LOL

But you wont vote for the real anti-war candidates- the honest ones. Because you know that power was all you really cared about. Not the troops. Not America. Not security of this nation. POWER

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 08:08 AM

You all seem to mistake me for a Democrat. Here's a surprise: My favorite candidate would be Chuck Hagel. A conservative Republican.

As for whether I'm a charlatan or not, all I can do is repeat that I enlisted in 1969, was trained at Fort Monmouth, Fort Bragg and Fort Huachuca, spent nearly two years in Central and South America and came home. I was no hero. But I raised my hand and I did what I was expected to do.

(And, as an aside, I use my real name, a name you can Google, a name you can check on Amazon and see some verification as to what I say about my service is true. Can you say the same?)

I also come from a military family and I have family members in theater right now.

Your problem, all of you, is you insist on seeing things as liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat. You carry water for a bunch of men, most of whom ducked their own military obligation, who have through hubris and arrogance gotten this country into a very dangerous mess, one that could last for another decade, cost several trillion dollars and who knows how many lives. And it didn't have to happen.

I'm angry about this. I'm angry as a veteran. I'm angry as a citizen. I'm angry as a human being.

That all of you continute to defend this administration and make lame excuses about the liberal media and those traitorous Dhimmicrats only paint you as suckers, being played.

You can continue to be saps. Me, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I am an American and I'm righteously pi**ed off and if you're not, you've got your head stuck somewhere, and I'll let you decide where that is.

Now go ahead and attack me and call me a liar and a charlatan, because it makes it easier for you to ignore what's really going on.

Partisans, blinded by BS, and I'm fed up with all of it.

And I respect Duncan Hunter's service and that his son and McCain's son are both in uniform is honorable. Hoo-uh. But I dislike Hunter's politics and would have voted for McCain in 2000 but not today.

As for veterans in the GOP, all I can say is that they lost any credibility with this veteran when they put a Purple Heart on a band-aid.

As a joke.

I want you self-styled super patriots to remember that this weekend.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 09:35 AM

Well done, Dave.

Spoken like a true partisan posing as a non partisan

Your a good charlatan- an eloquent one- possibly even sincere about your opposition to the policies of this administration-but a charlatan and a partisan nonetheless.

And we who support the efforts of the troops- and General Petraeus- and President Bush and his Vice President- are not "carrying water" for anyone other than the country that we love and the security that it's continued greatness depends on.

If you think the security of this country is not inextricably linked to how things turn out in Iraq- then you are the fool.

If you think "ending this war" (obama) and "bringing home the troops" (clinton) will do anything other than destroy this nations credibility, and make its citizens far, far less secure than they are now, then it is you who has his head where the sun never shines, not us.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 10:40 AM


I'll assume you haven't read what I've posted here before, so I'll try to keep it short.

I agree with you that what happens in Iraq is of the utmost consequence. I sincerely hope Patreaus can pull this off and if anyone can, I believe he's the right man to do it.

Where we disagree is here. I believe this war is so important that at the very least we should do these three things:

1. Put in another 200,000 troops to secure the country, rebuild the infrastructure and train the Iraqis. If this means reinstating the draft, let's do it.

2. Pay for this war. That means higher taxes. It's shameful that we're asking our grandchildren to shoulder the debt of this war.

3. Level with the American people. Tell us that stabilizing this region may take a serious commitment of ten or more years. Right now, only McCain is saying anything close to this. Give us your best estimate as to the cost. Remember, Wolfowitz promised this war would cost us nothing, zero, sip. A half trillion dollars later we know he was wrong, but I'd like to know how wrong. Wouldn't you?

That's a minimum.

But you and I both know these things are not going to happen. So, it's my opinion that if we're not taking this war seriously, how can I ask another man to fight? How can I ask another man to die in a conflict we don't even think is important enough to pay for? Are we so enamored of our SUVs and cell phones and all the crap of our consumer culture that we're not willing to pony up a few hundred more bucks a year in taxes to pay the freight?

Are we so afraid to ask Americans to stand up and do their duty, to actually serve their country in a time of war?

Apparently, we are. So if we're not willing to do those things, make these small sacrifices, how can we ask other men and their families to make the big sacrifices?

That's why I don't support this administration. Not because they're Republicans. Because I don't think they seriously considered the consequences of this war and I don't think they're competent enough to pull off a win. It's that simple.

You can call me a charlatan and question my motives all you like. That's fine. I'm not about to lose sleep over the opinion of an anonymous poster on a blog, believe me.

But you're still backing people who have been wrong about everything, and if that record doesn't make you angry, I don't know what will.

As I said before, you can look me up. Because if men were brave enough to fight for my right to speak out, I'm at least brave enough to attach my name to that speech.

Too bad not all of us feel that strongly about exercising our liberty.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 12:06 PM

Which Presidential hopeful are you supporting, Dave?

Please list 3 reasons why you believe he/she has the best plan for dealing with Iraq.

You're answer will reveal more than any number of your rambling, faux passionate, self congratulatory diatribes.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 01:07 PM


I am not supporting any presidential hopeful. It's a long way to the election.

And I wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominen attacks. I've addressed you with respect, gave you nothing but honest answers, and you feel obliged to call me names and label my opinions "self-congratulatory diatribes."

I don't expect you to agree with me. But please, let's elevate this beyond childish schoolyard taunts because, frankly, it's pretty easy to be brave on the Internet.

You want honest, I'll give you honest. I'm a liberal, that's true, and proud of it. Do you know what that means? It means I believe there is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. It means I believe we all have an obligation to this country as opposed to the self-promoting policies of Milton Friedman and his political offspring. I believe in equal treatment under the law. And I fear the influence of fundamentalists on this democracy. Fundamentalist don't compromise because they believe their opinions are shared by God, and that's dangerous in a governing priniple that works on compromise.

However, I live my life as a conservative. I pay my way, work hard in a very tough business, believe my father was right when he said the only thing a man has is his word, and have had the same wife, my first, for 27 years.

When I find a presidential candidate who echoes these values and beliefs, I'll support that man or woman.

And as I said before, if you doubt my honesty, you can look me up.

What about you, T? Where are you?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 01:50 PM

I'm still waiting for a number...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 26, 2007 02:12 PM

TMF and Purple: BANG! the leff hook BANG! then the right you two are a dinamic duo for TRUTH

How do you feel now Film Noire??? Ha, ha ha, ha!!!!

Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2007 03:30 PM

Mr. Avenger, I'll give you a number. Here, how many fingers am I holding up? No. Wrong again.

Now, Karl, I've been meaning to ask you, and I don't want to insult you if it's true, but is English a second language? Because if it is, I won't make fun of your semi-literacy because that would be cruel.

You all have a good Memorial Day.

I am outta here.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 04:17 PM

A right to privacy "implicit" in the constitution?

Yeah- that right was so sacred to the founders they forgot to mention it.

That right is so deep a part of liberal political thought it had to be invented- in the 1970s!!!- by a few Supreme Court Justices.


Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 05:47 PM



Some leftys at the supreme court invented it. Its a gift wrap for the TERRORISTS is what it is

Anwyway why dont you want your neighbors to know what your doing??? Its the leftys that are MUSLIMS and PERVERTS and TRAITORS!!!

If you want to live in SECRESSY then GO TO CUBA OR IRAN!!!! Your not wanted here leftys

Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2007 06:44 PM

Ive got no problem with a "right" to privacy being legislated by congress

I just dont think it's in the constitution.

I dont like unelected Judges deciding issues of morality. Thats not what democracy is about.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 09:46 PM


For me, this is the pertinent line of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

I believe that conveys a right to privacy. Others can disagree but then, as I said, that's what makes me a liberal.

Now, if you want to live in a country where your right to be secure from government scrutiny in your house is at the mercy of Congress, then I think you should take your illiterate ally Karl's uneducated advice and find a country that freely violates the security of your "persons, houses, papers, and effects," without probable cause.

If you want to go back to the days when the state had the right tell you and your wife whether you could buy condoms for birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut), then that's where you and I part company.

Don't get me wrong, you have plenty of august legal company on your side but at the end of the day I prefer more privacy rather than less.

I'm funny that way.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 26, 2007 10:15 PM

I see.

This language

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Gives rise to an inalienable right to abort an unborn fetus.

If you say so. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I personally think deeply moral issues like the issue of abortion were not meant to be legislated by unelected Judges, but rather, by elected members of congress.

I think there are strong arguments cutting both ways on the abortion issue. I just dont want some appointed authority telling me whats right and wrong. I want to decide that myself- through my elected officials.

Im funny that way.

Posted by: TMF at May 26, 2007 11:42 PM

"I think there are strong arguments cutting both ways on the abortion issue."

Finally, something we agree on.

You have a solid Memorial Day. It's already been a somber morning here, but I intend to enjoy the rest of the day outside in this beautiful weather we've been given.

Respectfully disagreeable,

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 27, 2007 08:16 AM

You do the same.

And Karl- be sure to up the dosage on those meds.

Your gonna need it.

Posted by: TMF at May 27, 2007 10:16 AM

Late to the party as usual.

David T. - You and I have agreed and disagreed on quite a few things. For what it is worth - (and don't flame me TMF - LOL) - I believe that you are being honest and sincere in your arguments. I know that you are not a troll here - you thoughtfully present your side of any argument, and rarely, if ever, stoop to name calling. And even though some of your posts are rather long, you would be missed around here if you left. We need the opposing, or maybe better, contrasting, POV.

When 911 happened, President Bush told us in numerous speeches that this would NOT be a short war. He intimated it might take decades, and anyone honest enough would realize that. We are dealing with ideologies - those don't change in a few short months, or in a few years. It's more like over a generation. I know you know this - and your solution of putting in more troops has merit, but I agree is not likely.

Did Bush and his advisers bungle the planning? The answer is yes. They set proper strategic goals, but the tactical side was a mess. Remember though, that any tactical plan is only good until the first shot is fired. On the other hand, are we making progress in Iraq? The answer is yes. It is much slower than anybody would like, but it is happening. While I strongly oppose Congress's attempt to micromanage the war (i.e. timetables), I do agree that we need to hold the Iraqi government to standards - Don't misunderstand - they are making progress, but very slowly.

I'd like to see your comments about this NYT article. Here is a nugget:

The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the collapse of the Iraqi government.

“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.

“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”

Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,” said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully and methodically when conditions permit.”

So it seems we are caught between a rock and a hard place. We can't abandon the Iraqi's like we did Viet Nam. There may be strategic reasons to be there anyways. Even though we messed up to begin with, now we have to finish the job.

Posted by: Specter at May 27, 2007 11:50 AM

We are Not leaving

We are putting the finshing touches on the World Largest Embassy

So longs we keep a PATRIOT in office we will keep that SNAKES NEST in line

TMF::you talk the talk but turns our your FAIRY PANTS

Posted by: Karl at May 27, 2007 03:31 PM


Between a rock and a hard place is a remarkably accurate sitrep, and I couldn't agree more.

That's why I'm angry, not as a Democrat or Republican, but as an American.

Thanks for the kind words. I am indeed sincere, just trying to add an alternate POV to people who may not be exposed to another side very often.

And my first draft of this comment was a good 100 words longer, but out of respect for your time, I've cut it. :)

Enjoy the day. On Memorial Day of all days, we are all Americans.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 27, 2007 03:41 PM

I actually thought there was some intelligent discussion going on here untill I saw some one say,

"A right to privacy "implicit" in the constitution? Yeah- that right was so sacred to the founders they forgot to mention it. That right is so deep a part of liberal political thought it had to be invented- in the 1970s!!!- by a few Supreme Court Justices."

Looks like they never read much of the constitution they're preaching about:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There is a right to privacy. It's a part of that whole, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," thing. I still can't figure out how people who love to call themselves "small government" Conservatives will invite the Government in their door at every opportunity.

Posted by: Ahenobarbus at May 28, 2007 04:25 PM

The Right to Privacy must be balanced with Common Good. What one person may consider a reasonable search or seizure, another would consider an invasion of privacy. There is a balancing point there and that is what the courts are (should be) watching. I get upset when I see them tip it one way or the other (in MY opinion, of course).

To me, David sounds reasonable, even though I don't agree with everything he says. I still don't agree with everything our President says. (Of course I don't trust many politicians, they ALL lie).

I actually got a kick out of the Claymore joke, I almost sort of agree to a point. I think we need more people in office that have military experience as well.

Specter covered the rest of my thoughs very well.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 29, 2007 05:39 AM


Yeah, I thought there was some intelligent discussion going on as well. Just, not from you apparently.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"

Didnt know that was in the constitution. Oh yeah- because it ISNT.

If your going to talk about something you know nothing about, try to at least get a few facts straight.

Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 08:10 AM

...David sounds reasonable, even though I don't agree with everything he says.

Ret. Navy,

I had to laugh. Even I don't agree with everything I say.

And I'm glad you liked the Claymore joke.

I'm happy we've moved beyond vitriol and can actually swap ideas around here.

Disagreeably yours,

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 29, 2007 08:46 AM

"Lefty" Terrenoire said: "I'm happy we've moved beyond vitriol and can actually swap ideas around here."


Heres where Im coming from:
But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

Either we GET TOUGH and GIT ER DONE or shoar our defenses here in the homeland


Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 12:34 PM


Still a moron I see?

(And Im not talking about your fake persona, but your real one)

Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 02:23 PM

TMF::like I said talk the talk but scratch the surface and RINO

Move to syria or take the TOWL off your heaad and SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!!

Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 04:04 PM


Posted by: TMF at May 29, 2007 04:14 PM

I see the cats got your toung FAIRY PANTS I wonder why ((NOT))

Some of us remember a day called 911...

Posted by: Karl at May 29, 2007 04:20 PM