Perot Linked To McCain Smear?

So I suppose it's just a coincidence that Ross Perot calls Jonathan Alter at Newsweek to discuss Viet Nam and McCain - at the same time this flyer hits in South Carolina? I think I liked the crazy old coot better when he was just pushing charts and talking to Larry King.

The Texas billionaire, now 77, still has some scores to settle from the Vietnam era, and his timing is exquisite. Just days before the South Carolina GOP primary, he wants me to know that McCain "is the classic opportunist--he's always reaching for attention and glory. Other POWs won't even sit at the same table with him."

Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

:p I wonder if Perot will be voting for Ron Paul?

[TheSpartan]

I'm not a big John McCain fan, but you guys do realize that Perot is batsh%t crazy right?

[rwilymz]

There's crazy and then there's crazy.

He's a form of self-important that doesn't lend itself to politics well, and when he went nanners in '92 it was simply the public exposure of that form of self-importance.

His ideas [the ones he's qualified to have] are sound enough as far as they go, but he isn't the kind of personality that would work well in public office.

That said, I voted for him twice, mainly because I knew he'd lose and he wasn't the tweedledum or the tweedledummer from the two major parties -- which I haven't voted for since '80.

[joeb]

Perot IS Ron Paul.
Or as we used to say: Perot is Ron Paul ring 2.

[joeb]

Does anyone dispute the fact that it was Perot that caused us to have Bill Clinton 2 times.
I voted for Perot twice also but it was Perot that caused Bush's daddy to lose in 1992. Perot took 17 or 19 per cent of the vote in 92 that would have gone to Bush,Sr. It cost Bush,Sr. the election. I was under the impression that Perot dislikes the Bushes very much and that is why Perot entered and stayed in that race which he knew he couldnt win.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

Oh boy, here we go with this BS about McCain collaberating (sp) and being given special treatment for being a congressman's kid, ambassador, whatever. When one reads the accounts of what McCain and his fellow POWs went through, it's a much different picture and McCain has nothing to be ashamed of...none of them do. Only one was unbroken not because he wasn't tortured (oh and this was REAL torture, not having water thrown in your face) but because he was a 17 year old kid and he was ordered to cooperate.

I dont care much for McCain politically, but a guy who never wore the uniform has no right to besmirch the man.

[Brainster]

It took me five minutes of Googling to find the late Admiral Stockdale's comments on John McCain from a NY Times OpEd he wrote in 1999:

"In fact, a few weeks ago I received a call from an old friend who is also close to the George W. Bush campaign soliciting comments on Mr. McCain's "weaknesses." As I told that caller, I think John McCain is solid as a rock."

Of course, the beauty of this is that Stockdale was a POW with McCain and Perot's own former running mate.

[rwilymz]

"it was Perot that caused Bush's daddy to lose in 1992."

I think that a lot of folks who voted for Pea-Rot would have voted for Clinton instead of Bush ... not that they were necessarily Ds, but that they were righteously indignant over "Read my lips! No! New! Taxes!"

I know that's what set me off. Even if I wasn't a third party prez-voter, I'd have blown off voting for Elder just on that. Without Ears McPouty, it would just have been closer.

That, in fact, was the last time a politician has lied to me. They can't lie to you if you don't believe what they say. Takes two to complete a lie: a liar and the idiot who believes him lie.

...which means, anti-war weenies, that if you think Bush the Younger lied to you presaging this oh-so-horrible war, that you are the idiot.

[Emma]

McCain dug his own grave in South Carolina for a variety of reasons. Goober Graham is regarded by many as a hopeless sycophant. I don't think a smear campaign was necessary because these two fools do plenty of damage to themselves.

We'll see what happens next week.

[IslamoLlama]

"Does anyone dispute the fact that it was Perot that caused us to have Bill Clinton 2 times."

*snicker* Yeah, what a horror. 8 years of intelligent fiscal policy, bipartisan legislative reforms, booming job growth, a $40 billion budget surplus, and peace. I cry myself to sleep every night thinking about it.

Damn you to the pits of hell, Ross Perot. We never would have had to invade Iraq a second time if you'd just given us more years of Bush.

[joeb]

It really wasnt "read my lips...etc" so much as the economy was Stagnant. After the Gulf War ended the economy went in a tailspin and so did Bush Sr's approval rating.
Bill Clinton and his gang said "It's the economy stupid". And that got him elected as much as anything. The economy was simply dead in the water. Something had to change. Do you have any spare change? A change is gonna come. Everybody loves change until it arrives and they find out it is the same old same old. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
It is obvious people are nervous as hell over the economy at present. So much so that terrorism has fallen off the charts.

[joeb]

IslamO: I hope you are right. I have heard that before. I thought it was all smoke and mirrors and lying cheating stealing Democrats like the guy who was in the National Archives stuffing documents down his pants. When you turn the nut house over to the nuts you get Dr. Elders. Remember her? And lets kill some of those Branch Davidians this morning Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.
I cant wait till Hillary gets her hands on the economy.
But will she close her eyes to terrorism like slick willie did? Remember the first World Trade Center attack?????

[IslamoLlama]

"McCain dug his own grave in South Carolina for a variety of reasons."

You're kidding, right? How did McCain did his own grave? Because he had that illegitimate black child or because his wife was a crack whore? Would he have won without the smear-jokeying enacted by the Bush campaign? We'll never know, I suppose.

"...which means, anti-war weenies, that if you think Bush the Younger lied to you presaging this oh-so-horrible war, that you are the idiot."

If it makes you feel better, Colin Powell was the big liar. I guess I'm a damned fool for believing a 4-star general when he reveals via PowerPoint that we've got satellite images of roving chemical weapons labs. But brave men like rwilywmz saw right through the canard, as can be seen by his stirring performance in anti-war protest marches.

*rolls eyes*

I'm not sure if cynically calling everyone a liar all the time makes you less foolish or just generally more uninformed.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"I'm not sure if cynically calling everyone a liar all the time makes you less foolish or just generally more uninformed."

LameLama we HAVE to get you an agent!! You're a comedic genius dude. I wish I had five bucks for everytime YOU have accused people of lying yet you've the courage to make a statement like that. You are the best

[IslamoLlama]

"I cant wait till Hillary gets her hands on the economy.
But will she close her eyes to terrorism like slick willie did? Remember the first World Trade Center attack?"

I do. A truck bomb that got rammed into the first floor of the WTC, where the city emergency office was. I remember how we hunted down and captured the guys responsible, we traced the whole thing back to Al-Qaeda and bin Laden, and we prosecuted every one of the terrorists we caught to the full extent of the law. Then, when Clinton had bin Laden in his sights again, we were launching tomahawk cruise missiles into his backyard.

I remember how Guiliani relocated the emergency office from the WTC to... the WTC. How the Republicans lambasted Clinton for going after bin Laden in retaliation for the '93 attack and the bombing of the Cole. And how, 9 months into office, Bush tossed his copy of "Bin Laden Determined to Strike America" in the wood chipper because he was too busy clearing brush on the ranch to be bothered.

Of course, how you can give Reneo a hard time for coming down on the Branch Dividians and yet give "Slick Willie" a hard time for being soft on terrorism... The least you could have done was point out the biggest terrorist attack on American Soil under President Blowjob - the bombing of the Oklahoma City FBI building - an attack that was in direct retaliation for the Waco fire. If anything, Waco seems to teach how tanks and guns will just get you more dead Americans, while a more finessed approach - a law enforcement approach - actually nets you safe citizens.

[joeb]

I would think the real liars were the people that gave Colin Powell that false information. People like Slam Dunk Tenet.

[joeb]

Yes I remember Clinton treated the first World Trade Center attack as a police matter.
And I think it is clear that lobbing a few missiles at Bin Laden was not effective. It just pissed him off.
Bush Cheney get up every morning trying to figure out how to kill some terrorists. Hillary and Bill will do what? Ask them to be nice?

[Lala]

Janet Reno was great, she did it to save the children.

[rwilymz]

"8 years of intelligent fiscal policy, bipartisan legislative reforms, booming job growth, a $40 billion budget surplus, and peace."

You're kidding, right?

When touting the D in the leather chair during the 90s it's called these fine and wonderful things, but when whining and wailing about the Rs during those years these are called, in succession:
"8 years of intelligent fiscal policy" == "domineering fed control of the money supply"
"bipartisan legislative reforms" == "Newt's Contract ON America"
"booming job growth" == "Y2K 'fixes'";"corporate rapacity";"US energy profligacy"; et cetera [consult your local luddite for more current terms]
"a $40 billion budget surplus" == more of that "Contract ON America"
"and peace" == "Republican quibbling with the administration's conduct of wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and 'Desert Fox' and responses to embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, a half a hundred belligerent Iraqi cease fire violations" et-friggin-cetera

We all understand that you consider Ds to be great, honorable, noble and selfless, and Rs to be as corrupt as the day is long, but buddy-boy, you are a novice, neophyte and a hack compared to those who actually work in some of these fields. You'd think that the sheer embarrassment of having to be corrected so often would put you off your game.

But maybe your game is to advertise exactly how much of a delusional drip you can be?

"If it makes you feel better, Colin Powell was the big liar."

He didn't lie much. He put forth what was -- and still is -- the most plausible explanation tying together the known facts: 6,500 missing chemical artillery shells from the warehouses in Iraq that the UN had placed them in; notable truck traffic to/from those warehouses and other known/suspected contraband sites, et al.

"brave men like rwilywmz saw right through the canard"

You meant to say "subject-area knowledgeable people" like me, who knew how to tell the difference between the political bluster, the scare tactics meant to frighten the imbeciles [like, um ... you] and those parts which were actually accurate.

And there were, and are, many.

The answer isn't going to change simply because you wax sneering and petulant on a different day: I work in this field; you do not. I have the appropriate filters to place on what I hear and see and read; you do not. Hence, I can filter out the noise, while you filter out those pieces which you personally dislike whether or not they are accurate.

Which is why you continue, to this day, to tilt your windmill.

"as can be seen by his stirring performance in anti-war protest marches"

My job, and therefore my life, is based on war. That would be like you protesting lobotomies.

You can roll your eyes all you want and the only thing you'll get is more disoriented than you already are.

"How the Republicans lambasted Clinton for going after bin Laden in retaliation for ... the bombing of the Cole."

They did WHAT?

Clinton didn't do a single thing in response to the Hole in the Cole.

Squat.

Zip.

Nada.

It was one month from him leaving office. Leave it for the next guy. He had pardons to sell and political landmines to lay ... such as the new EPA reg that had been sitting on his desk since mid '93 that would have imposed a huge cost-of-compliance cost onto American businesses and municipalities to measure trace arsenic in drinking and industrial water sources, even in those areas in which there is no measurable arsenic in ground or surface water. For a guy elected on "It's the economy, stupid" he could hardly sign that one while the economy was on his watch! So he signed it on his last day, so that when his successor rescinded it a week later, it would be his successor who'd be accused of trying to poison the nation's children by subjecting them all to 50ppm arsenic -- even in those areas of the country in which arsenic is measurable only in the ppB.

...which is virtually the whole continental US except for the southern Rockies.

"If anything, Waco seems to teach how tanks and guns will just get you more dead Americans, while a more finessed approach - a law enforcement approach - actually nets you safe citizens."

There's a family up in Montanner who'd disagree.

Not to mention a family in Miami.

Now, for what it's worth, I'd generally agree with you on this particular thing, but the reality is: the ATF *is* "police", and some of the tools they have are tanks. And the tools that all forms of police have are guns.

If you try to "finesse" your way with folks who are stockpiling military grade weaponry, and you do not have military grade weaponry yourself, you are an idiot.

You cannot "finesse" unless you are on equal footing in all other ways -- or can bluff it.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

""If anything, Waco seems to teach how tanks and guns will just get you more dead Americans, while a more finessed approach - a law enforcement approach - actually nets you safe citizens."

Huh??? Sport do you not realize that it was LE tanks that burned the babies to death? Finesse would have been to let the local sheriff walk up and knock on the freekin' door. Not busting through windows in the wee hours.

[IslamoLlama]

"My job, and therefore my life, is based on war. That would be like you protesting lobotomies."

Are you calling me a brain surgeon?

"Now, for what it's worth, I'd generally agree with you on this particular thing, but the reality is: the ATF *is* "police", and some of the tools they have are tanks. And the tools that all forms of police have are guns.

If you try to "finesse" your way with folks who are stockpiling military grade weaponry, and you do not have military grade weaponry yourself, you are an idiot.

You cannot "finesse" unless you are on equal footing in all other ways -- or can bluff it."

And the US was in full possession of said military grade weaponry. But the trigger pullers currently inhabiting the White House don't know how to send a diplomat in when they've got a bomber still in the bay. That's why we're horribly over committed in a country we never should have invaded.

The Clintons - for all their flaws, and there were many - managed to keep Bosnia and Kosovo to very minor engagements that involved the full international community. The Bushs had to invade Iraq twice just so they could screw it up one more time than necessary.

As a military man, I would think you'd have read enough books on everything from Korea to Vietnam to the current mess to teach you how NOT to use military might. The US has time and again blown its wad on senseless boondoggles, or gotten greedy and tried to bomb off more than it could actually control.

Run the numbers on spending. You can tip your hat to Gingrich all you want. But when it comes the White House, no one turns big spender like a Republican. http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indicators/bush_deficit_graphic.gif
The numbers don't lie. Bush Sr was looking at national bankruptcy if he didn't raise taxes. Reagen managed to punch a pretty nasty hole in the budget himself.

As for the environmental rest, you may sneer at measuring arsenic in drinking water, but then you've never been rushed to the ER because the river off the back of your house turned into a dumping ground when no one was looking. You've never watched loved ones hack a lung because the smoke stack a few dozen miles west didn't have a filter. Or got to see a rain of dead birds because the stack gave a particularly nasty belch.

Look, I don't think Democrats are saints by any means. I could rattle off a dozen Dems I'm disgusted with - Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, Karl Levin just to name a few. But the Republican Party passed up "unethical" miles back on the road. The last seven years have been the very definition of insane, with rhetoric and policy standing so far apart (culture of life? fiscal responsibility? government reform? my ass!) it would almost seem a joke. We've got Dems with problems and honestly I'd love to see a Green Party or a Libertarian Party with more of a hand in races. But the entire Republican infrastructure is rotten to the core. At this point pulling the lever for Robert Byrd or Robert Menendez is just taking the lesser of two evil. But it is undeniably the LESSER of two evils. Dems have learned to do the right thing at least some of the time.

[tally]

it's that same old group of pow families (sampley? and crew) still pissed that we gave up looking. i really do feel sorry for them, but for pete's sake the missing weren't ever going to be found. i have to side with bud day on this one.

[Jack Bauer's Evil Brother]

Perot is crazy, but he's not to blame for Bush losing in 1992. The people who voted for Perot knew exactly what they were doing. They were voting Bush out of office.

[nom de guerre]

"(someone) who never wore the uniform has no right to besmirch the man (mccain)".

1) like hell. having once worn a uniform doesn't exempt ANYone from criticism of his public political statements and actions.
2) perot's bashing mccain for his political actions. some of those actions, as noted by some families of still-missing POW's, certainly ought to be looked into. god forbid, if mccain gets the nomination, you can bet the dems have a whole set of commercials on "why did senator mcccain take steps to abandon our men?" all ready to go.
3) in point of fact, perot DID wear the uniform. perot's naval career was not as illustrious, but then his daddy wasn't CinCPAC, either.

[rwilymz]

"And the US was in full possession of said military grade weaponry"

Yet you criticize them for it. Do you understand what that's called? It's called "Desperately Seeking Angle".

"the White House don't know how to send a diplomat in when they've got a bomber still in the bay"

Certainly they "know how"; and they've done it bunches.

But this is the thing with dishonest selection of convenient portions of history, dishonest selection of convenient portions of the knowledge-base, dishonest selections of blah-blah and yadda:::

There is a benefit to sometimes using the bomber in the bay AS a diplomat.

Hussein's Iraq belligerently violated the '91 Gulf War Cease Fire a half a hundred times during Clinton's watch. I don't see you whining and mewling because Clinton used the bomber in the bay each time as the diplomat who reminded Hussein that he can't do that.

Hussein's Iraq **nominally** violated the '91 Gulf War Cease Fire in late '98 when they "ceased guaranteeing the safety of the UN inspectors" [otherwise known as coordinating assaults upon them and compelling the UN to leave the country], and I don't see you wailing and gnashing your teeth over Clinton's use of the bomber in the bay, and several of them, as the diplomat to remind Hussein that he can very easily be reduced to dust.

"That's why we're horribly over committed in a country we never should have invaded."

We were alREADY "over-committed" to Iraq. Why in the hell do you think Clinton could use that "bomber in the bay" so many times? We were already there ... and so were those sleek metal diplomats, fueled up and loaded with ordnance. We were furthermore GOING to be there until the UN said we could leave ... which the UN had no intention of doing.

You are a novice; you are, in fact, a fairly unknowledgeable novice. You pay attention to the sexy details that are presented to you in semi-pre-digested bites, and you select from those the ones you can use to kludge together a spiteful, petulant snipe against the administration of your country that you have no ideological use for.

Well, congratulations. Your lobotomy scars hardly show.

"Clintons ... managed to keep Bosnia and Kosovo to very minor engagements that involved the full international community"

Bullshit. Several times over.

Unless you're going to say that Iraq is a "very minor engagement", that is.

We're still committed to Bosnia, and we aren't even talking about what to do in order to de-commit there. Maybe my grandchildren will finally do it.

We're still committed to Kosovo, and ditto. Give that one to your grandchildren.

The "full involvement" re: Bosnia was a procedural pass by the uninterested nations in the UNSC to those who were keenly interested. Find nations still involved in Bonsia that are not European in origin. I'll wait, but not for long.

The "full involvement" of that "international community" [oh, dig the planet! just small-town politics!] was non-existent. Russia is, in case you don't know, historical BFF to Serbia, and you don't go asking permission to kick Serbia's ass without a great big NYET coming from Big Bear.

And Gentle Ben's "NYET" duplicates as "VETO".

The "minor engagement that involved the full international community" in Kosovo did not exist as you describe it. It involved only those portions of the world which did not want to have *yet another* petty ethnic squabble on the south-east doorstep of Mall Europe.

And that's pretty much the woeful wailing that goes on about our imperiousness toward Iraq. In other words: both sides do it. So if you are giving one said a pass while finding fault with the other, you are dishonest.

For myself, all of it keeps me employed. I have no horse in the race. I'm just the timekeeper.

"As a military man, I would think you'd have read enough books on everything from Korea to Vietnam to the current mess to teach you how NOT to use military might."

None of the books that are pertinent and relevant discuss Korea, Vietnam or any "current mess". I've read "On War" and "The Art of War", not to mention a handful of docrintal analyses made by various theoreticians comparing modern examples to the classics -- which you haven't even heard of. I have not read any of the navel-gazing mental masturbations by any bar-stool nitpickers. Nor am I likely to. "Popular" war theory that can be found in books at amazon and BDalton is a superificial gloss for war hobbyists and other bar stool experts.

But you should probably know right now that the "current mess" is probably as far from a "mess" as you can get. But you wouldn't know that if the only thing you know about war is what mental masturbators gazed into their own navels to divine.

Again. The answer isn't going to change because you wish to be petulant *yet again*. You cannot find any time in history that a force of 1% the size of a foreign population, and 50% the size of its standing army invaded a nation of 25M and conquered that nation in 7 weeks with as few casualties -- friendly and enemy, soldier and civilian -- as the US did in 2003 in Iraq.

You cannot do it.

You are comparing the portion of current reality that you choose to see against some fairy-tale ideal that exists nowhere but in the fevered imaginations of English teacher pacifists-cum-military doctrinaires. It is a textbook example of dragon-slaying.

Dragons don't exist, boy. But enough paper-mache and piano wire, you can make something close enough that you can fool the gullible twits who don't know better.

You. Are. A. Novice.

You pay attention only to what you want, what can serve your ideological purposes, and you discard all the rest.

That's the only reason you can sit there, presumably with a straight face, and posit that Clinton's contravention of world opinion in choosing sides between Badguy A and Badguy B in a Balkan alley-fight [which was strictly irrelevant to US interests, and only served the interests of our friends in Europe to the degree that wars on their doorstep are bad for their business] is any more moral than Bush acting in contravention of world opinion in undertaking other military action that DID serve US interests.

You seriously need to stick to discussing subjects in public that you know anything about -- which might be limited to American Idol.

"As for the environmental rest, you may sneer at measuring arsenic in drinking water, but then you've never been ..."

And neither have you.

I doubt you can find more than 0.000001% of anyone in the country who has, either.

But congratulations on once again advertising zero knowledge of the issue. Arsenic was already being monitored in the US -- polluters to 50ppm and users in arsenic-prone areas to 10ppm. Limited government regulation upon only those to whom the regulation pertains costs fa-a-a-ar less to accomplish, and inspires fewer criticisms of government intrusion.

However, it was being accomplished by no less than [I recall] 5 different Agencies from 3 or maybe 4 different Departments. And none was the EPA, whose mandate is pollution monitoring.

So the EPA came up with a rule in 1993 that they would confiscate this regulatory authority from the others. Streamline government. Another good idea. And the EPA rule would maintain the same guideline levels: 50ppm for polluters, 10ppm for users. But the EPA rule would not merely apply to polluters who actually discharged arsenic, but *all* industrial point-sources irrespective of reality. And it wouldn't simply apply to those who had previous arsenic intake problems, but even to those who live nowhere near arsenic-disgorging industry nor ambient arsenic geography.

I.e., it would be universal.

And it would probably help here if you knew anything about government regulation: the government doesn't come in and measure squat. The government checks paperwork. Those who are being regulated have to hire a company licensed by the government to perform the regulation to come in and measure, and then fill out the paperwork to send in to the government regulator, who checks the paperwork and marks it "pass" or "fail".

Which means that the city of Whatsit ND, where they have no "industry", and ambient arsenic in the parts-per-trillion, have to hire an environmental engineering firm from Minneapolis twice each year to spend three weeks taking water samples back to their labs so that they can determine, yet again, what everyone already knew, just so this environmental engineering firm can spend another two months filling out the 763-page EPA form from which there are only two pertinent values:
1] the license number of the firm doing the auditing [on page 12]; and
2] the arsenic level of the city water supply [on page 528]

And Whatsit SD gets to spend $28,000 of its property tax-generated budget twice each year for this privilege!

And to prove what?

Short answer: nothing.

Longer answer: not a goddammed thing that wasn't already known, and which didn't add a collective $300B dead weight around the neck of the national economy.

Once again: Clinton had this rule on his desk from late '93 until his last day in office, and he refused to sign in until his last day in office. He refused to sign it because it would not have done anything for safe water that wasn't already being done, and it would have killed whatever economic recovery we were seeing. "It's the economy, stupid."

Yet, when Bush rescinded the new EPA rule a week later which didn't do anything that wasn't already being done, and only added regulatory cost-of-proving-compliance to folks who were complaint by definition, it becomes a matter of anti-intellectual charlatans crying about being "rushed to the ER because the river off the back of your house turned into a dumping ground when no one was looking".

Once again, Bush does what Clinton did, but Bush = bad and Clinton = good for it.

Wars. I've had to scramble twice since Bush was elected to get onto another contract in the war-planning branch of the DoD. During Clinton ... none. Clinton used the military fa-a-a-ar more often than Bush and kept us very very busy and me employed. But Bush is the war-monger, and Clinton had "peace".

SocSec: Bush proposed investing "excess" "reciepts" in widely diversified funds. Bad. But Clinton proposed investing "excess" "reciepts" in widely diversified funds. Good.

Arsenic regulation: already covered.

Roads cut into national forest: when Clinton did it, they were called "fire roads" and the environmentalists cheered [YAAAAAAAY! He's saving the forest by cutting a few trees!], even though the roads were also used by thousands of federally-permitted loggers to clear cut [shhhh! we won't mention that!]. And that was all good. When Bush did it, they were called "logging roads", even though fewer loggers had federal permits and they paid more for them in the first place [huh! I wonder if that was a coincidence?], and the roads were also used for fire mitigation. Yet that was all bad.

You **do** understand that you are twisting yourself into quite intricate pretzels in order to maintain this partisan farce, doncha?

It's all just politics. Idiots who read more into it than that, who presume that "our" wars are moral while "their" wars are grasping attempts at world domination, that "our" civil rights infractions are for protection and safety while "their" civil rights infractions are grasping attempts at quasi-fascist dictatorship, are mental masturbators.

As if to punctuate your self-delusion:
"the entire Republican infrastructure is rotten to the core"

There's no substantive difference between Ds and Rs. The finger you point runs in both directions.

Now go wash the lubrication from your hands and smoke your post-coital ciggy.

[rwilymz]

"like hell. having once worn a uniform doesn't exempt ANYone from criticism"

That wasn't the premise. The premise was that because YOU didn't wear a uniform you can't criticize someone who did for what they did *in* that uniform under extreme duress.

Please read for comprehension.

[IslamoLlama]

rwilymz, I'm not going to go into all your inaccuracies, but the Bosnian one is particularly telling.

From the WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11164-2004Nov24.html
We're keeping 150 US troops in Bosnia for peacekeeping and to hunt down some last hold-outs. 150 troops compared to the 150,000 troops in Iraq. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

The NATO forces in Bosnia - at their peak - numbered 60,000. Of that contingent, the US provided 20,000. That's one third of the force. In Iraq, we compose 9/10ths of the "Allied" forces.

Your ignorance on Bosnia alone is more than telling. The rest of your rant is belly-aching and rank bullshit. Clinton used the military more than Bush? That would explain $100 billion+ supplemental bills Congress had to pass ever six months under Clinton. Shit! I can't find any record of those.

An EPA requirement that was supposed to cripple the industry, but only saw action for a week between Bush and Clinton terms? Yeah, that really hamstrung the industry. And Bush's commitment to the environment and safety has given us higher numbers of coal miner deaths, higher carbon emissions, massive cuts to public land, an elongated list of endangered species, more air pollution, more water pollution... my god the list goes on.

This "Democrats do it too" was old four years ago, rwilymz. That you can't tell the difference between "100 years in Iraq" McCain and "150 soldiers left in Bosnia" Clinton screams of your intellectual dishonesty, so I won't bother arguing with you further. Needless to say, you've got your own opinions that all the facts in the world won't change.

[rwilymz]

"rwilymz, I'm not going to go into all your inaccuracies"

You couldn't.

There are none.

"We're keeping 150 US troops in Bosnia for peacekeeping..."

That's not exactly accurate.

The US presence IN Bosnia is virtually nil. The US presences AROUND Bosnia, and for the SAKE of Bosnia ... add a significant digit. The US military devoted to servicing the US Bosnia presence IN and AROUND Bosnia ... add another significant digit. ...roughly.

Again, simpleton, you are selecting out the pre-screened, pre-digested nuggets selected by others, and then presuming that these few bits are the complete picture.

They are not.

"If you can't see the difference, I can't help you."

You couldn't help me. You don't know what you're talking about. You only pay attention when and if the fancy strikes you, and to only those things you can weild like a club to bludgeon whichever person who knows more than you do and lets you know it.

Reality: we are maintaining a force in Bosnia; we are maintaining a force in Kosovo. We are doing nothing about removing those forces, and indeed most Americans do not even understand we have military left there.

Hell, we even have military devoted to Korea 55 years after the fact.

Here's the thing: 2+2=4. 2,000,000+2,000,000=4,000,000

Same principle. Different scale.

If your principles don't hold across variations of scale, then your principles are garbage.

Are we still in Bosnia? yes.
Are we still in Kosovo? yes.
Are we still in Korea? yes.
Are we still in Iraq? yes.

Which one[s] of those are outrageous to most citizens today?

Only being in Iraq.

Why? Because, as you so deftly rationalize, because the deployments to non-Iraq conflict zones is a fraction of the size of Iraq. Meaining: your principles are garbage.

The only other option that I've ever run across is that you don't want the country to be deployed to a Bush-inspired conflict zone -- which would advertise a similar anti-intellectualism, but one based on knee-jerk denunciation instead.

"The rest of your rant is belly-aching and rank bullshit."

Only in that it outranks yours.

It's still correct.

"Clinton used the military more than Bush?"

Correct.

Now please do not advertise your phenomenal lack of comprehension by trying to equate "fewer-but-more-expensive" with "more"; they are not the same.

"Yeah, that really hamstrung the industry"

Y'know, sparky, your inability to read for comprehension is fairly cliche. I said nothing about what it DID. Only what was there to begin with, what it was going to be changed TO, and the stated reasons given for not implementing it in '93.

You mewling equivocation is all your doing.

"And Bush's commitment to the environment and safety..."

You make the same petty and infantile mistake that every other brain-dead partisan hack makes: "if you criticize my guy, it can only be because you support the other guy".

Wanna criticize Bush? Do it. Do it twice for all I care.

But do it accurately.

"higher numbers of coal miner deaths" -- hardly the responsibility of the office of Prez.

"higher carbon emissions" -- ditto. It is a function of the health of the economy.

"massive cuts to public land" -- false. Federalized land ["public" to imbeciles like you] have increased since '01.

"elongated list of endangered species" -- ?? extremely circumstantial, if true, and due in no small part to the folks in charge of it redefining what it takes to be on the list from time to time. I got another in a series of donation requests from the environmental groups whose stickers are all over my car [SUV. Shhhhh!] exclaiming how the got the rules pursuant to the Endangered Species Act altered to get more critters on the list. These are the same groups who have consistently claimed victory by gaining more federalized lands.

Are you just making this up as you go along?

"This "Democrats do it too" was old four years ago"

Doesn't matter if it's "old", buddy boy. Just matters if it's accurate. And it is. You remove the names and designations from policy created or inspired by certain politicians, and you'd be hard pressed to tell me if it was a D policy or an R policy without knowing it beforehand.

Why? Because there's essentially no difference.

Why haven't those rights-lovin' Ds obliterated the D-despised Patriot Act?

Because they don't despise it.

Patriot increases the power of the federal guvmint, which is what both Ds and Rs want to do; the only outstanding issue is gaining control of the federal guvmint by a preponderance of Ds in order to use the mechanisms of patriot for D-desired purposes.

Come on, boy, don't be a putz.

"Needless to say, you've got your own opinions ..."

Don't recall giving my opinion. Just recall reciting timelines.

"I won't bother arguing with you further"

Oh, was *that* what you were doing? I thought you were wetting your pants in public.

Again.

[nom de guerre]

see, twits like wilymz are why i gave up internetting. the *premise* was exactly what it seemed to be, not what rwilymz decrees it. work on your own damn comprehension, o king of verbiage.

and consider hiring an editor. you surely don't think anyone actually READS those 3000-word screeds of yours, no?

[Fred Beloit]

Well, well, nom, if I were you and didn't want a different but informed view of the current situation, I'd give it up again. Con Dios.

[rwilymz]

"the *premise* was exactly what it seemed to be, not what rwilymz decrees it."

You'd be right except for one thing: you're wrong.

You're assertion:
===================
having once worn a uniform doesn't exempt ANYone from criticism.
===================

The original statement:
===================
I dont care much for McCain politically, but a guy who never wore the uniform has no right to besmirch the man.
===================

YOU are talking about *McCain's* uniform exempting him from criticism.

THE ORIGINAL PREMISE is talking about the uniform of the *critic* validating the criticism.

It's probably good that you gave up internetting if you can't hold an intellectual construct in your head the way it was presented. This instantaneous disingenuity makes for righteous indignation, but it's inherently dishonest.

And if people don't read my 3,000 word 'screeds' [I prefer 'polemics'] then they're the kind who are satisfied with bumper stickers -- and they tend to be vapid. I love pointing that out, and in detail.

I have known for years that I appeal to a fairly limited subset of those who claim to be 'aware'. Mostly those with an attention span greater than an upbringing on Sesame Street creates.