Saturday, January 21, 2006

Democrats Die of Dog's Disease

Having spent the better part of the last thirty years defending boys from an ever growing population of grizzly bears, it was with some trepidation I contemplated the arrival of wolves in my “neck of the woods”. Years ago I regularly took my staff members to visit the wildlife museum at Mammoth on the North end of Yellowstone Park. There they had mounted specimens of most of the Park’s fauna. Another favorite was the scat box. A great wooden tray divided into cubicles of different sizes, covered with a sheet of glass, and filled with the dried droppings of every animal in the park. Another highlight was an entire wall of the museum dedicated to a mural and text describing how two men had been eaten by wolves in Yellowstone.

In the mid 80’s the Park closed the facility for remodeling. After some years hiatus we returned, eager to relive the joys of earlier visits. Imagine our disappointment when my guys found all the promised treasures removed. Gone were the taxidermied critters, gone the scat box, and gone the story of man eating wolves. I asked the young “Ranger Girl” behind the new plastic counter where the mural about the “wolves eating those guys” had gone. With a straight face that could have only been molded by ignorance, she looked me in the eye and said, “There has never been a documented case of wolves killing a human.” It is difficult to put one’s faith in such science.

Last spring our staffs’ first walk-around of camp discovered the scant remains of a moose devoured by wolves. As I examined the gnawed chunk of moose femur, about eight inches long, all that remained of “the mightiest beast in the forest”; I began to wonder at the wisdom of returning beasts capable of such destruction to the Garden of Eden.

Now comes news out of Yellowstone; wolves are dieing of a disease called parvo virus. The disease can cause extreme diarrhea and dehydration and kill more vulnerable animals. In fact, John Nielson of NPR reported that, only 16% of last springs litters of pups have survived. Nielson went on to point out that adult wolves are dieing as well. The over all Yellowstone population has dropped by one third, to 118 wolves. What is particularly disgusting is the way in which the wolves are reported to have contracted the virus. It seems they get the infection by sniffing dog droppings infected with the virus. How ironic that a once mighty predator, capable of devouring a giant moose, hide and all, or hunting down and killing hardy mountain men; is dieing out from crap sniffing. As I contemplate what a wolf pack could do to a Boy Scout troop, I cannot pretend that I feel much pain over the dehydration deaths of the mangy, moose murdering mongrels.

Now the parallel to politics becomes too evident. One is literally forced to see the comparison between self-destructive, crap sniffing wolves and the Democrat Party. Once the party of Wilson and FDR, it is now reduced to sniffing up dung and dying of diarrhea. One watches in wonder as the Democrat leadership hang their hope for power on sniffing up stink. Chanting that they have uncovered the culture of corruption the Democrats snuffle through the weekly cycle of crap smelled out in their constant pursuit of scat. There were accusations of Presidential inaction on 9/11, the whole Mike Moore disinformation stink, there were supposed connections to ENRON and Halliburton, there was the Dan Rather “National Guard story”, there were the abandoned arms in Baghdad, and Abu Grahib, twenty five thousand dead due to delayed hurricane response, NSA spying, Princeton clubs, and Abramoff. The Democrat’s stinks of the week, one after another have been revealed to the light and dried by the truth. But still the snouts search on. And in the meantime what does this “once great Party” offer the nation? What is the Democrat plan for energy, or abortion reduction, or winning the war on terror, or reducing the deficit, or protecting the environment, or bringing freedom to Iraq, or peace to Sudan, or ending starvation in North Korea, or ending nuclear weapon proliferation, or . . .? The Democrats have nothing to offer, nothing to hang their hopes on but the crap they sniff out and revel in. The infection is spreading. The Democrats own foulness is revealed by their constant rooting about for filth. Somehow I can’t seem to be able to affect much sympathy for the self-inflicted death of the Democrats by diarrhea and dehydration.

I must admit that I had some hopes for the wolves. Some long ago implanted dream about restoring the balance of nature in America’s wilderness. Now I see that dream threatened by the wolf’s compulsion to sniff crap. I once dreamed of an America where all peoples and all parties could unite for the sake of the nation, now I see the system threatened by dung sniffing Democrats.

I have no doubt that the media and their minions will try to hide the evidence and scrape the shameful mural from the wall, remodel the museum and throw out all the stuffed critters to craft America’s view. But we have our memories, and the manifest destruction that comes to all who are obsessed with crap.

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

The literal filth of your blog has grown exponentially. You have lost all pretensions to an open mind and is my sincere wish that you inherit the wind.

Lysis said...

Flaccid,

What filth are you referring to? I have discussed a science based report on the parvo virus and its devastating effect on the Yellowstone wolf population. The cause of the transmission of the disease is a fact. Would you have preferred me to have substituted the words “#2” or “bombom” for droppings, scat, crap, or dung? As for the comments concerning the Democrats; I’m sure it is the truth of the comparison that hurts. Your attack falls flat; your sputtering is the only wind blowing.

Lysis said...

If you want to consider something real filthy, consider dirty politics.

Consider the vile things that some have said about President Bush. He is accused of being stupid (quizzed by radio talksters and mocked by comedians). He is accused of allowing the people in Louisiana to die because of their race (a ludicrous accusation which was launched by bigots) The President has bee charged with torturing prisoners (though no evidence of torture by anyone following the President’s orders has ever been presented and while the military and all other executive forces are under a strict Presidential order not to torture). President Bush has been held responsible for bombing civilians, (though all know it is the terrorists that are doing the bombing), The President is accused of spying on “innocent “Americans (while everyone knows that al – Qaeda operatives are not innocent). Bush haters claim he is attempting to destroy the Constitution and become a king or dictator (when in truth he came to power democratically, by the will of the vast majority, and follows the Constitution in all his actions), He is blamed for the deaths and injuries of American soldiers fighting for freedom and peace (while it is the terrorists, the Taliban, and Saddamites that are killing and maiming). President Bush was linked by liars to the tsunami that hit Thailand and the deaths of coal miners in West Virginia; Bush is blamed for global warming and the extinction of species (natural occurrences that follow laws of nature and have cycled again and again over billions of years when there were no politics let alone American Presidents). He is charged with the fluctuations of the stock markets and the sweeping waves of the economy (when there is ample evidence that his efforts have reversed a recession and have driven 11 quarters of sustained and substantial economic growth despite war and disaster). He is blamed for the failure of teachers to teach (when it is teacher’s unions that defend bad teachers, and low pay offered by local school districts and state legislatures that fails to attract better ones), and the failure of schools to function (when the major cause of schools failure is University Education programs which produce flawed paradigms and socially indoctrinated educators who clog student learning with politically correct foolishness). President Bush is accused of being a raciest, a liar, a murderer, and a terrorist, a tyrant, and a fool; of being corrupt and corrupting. There is never a shred of evidence offered to support such claims. None of these falsehoods, this politically motivated crap, stick to him, but this filth damages our nation and endangers our lives in time of terrible and protracted war. For a few votes, the muck makers are willing to spatter this filth. The lie stinks. The stench of this waste matter should be traced to its source and purged by the light of truth.

How difficult it must be, to pour you heart and life into the service of your country, only to be squirted with such crap. How grateful we should be that President Bush is strong enough to stand against this flood of filth and continue to do his job. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the filth flingers could be exposed to the light and Americans join, with such great men as Joe Lieberman, in putting the interest of their country before dirty politics?

A_Shadow said...

Lysis, while I always respect your opinions and thought, I think I need to call you on the floor with one of your statements.

I'm curious where constitutionally Bush is allowed to do any sort of spying, legally or illegally?

Would that not mean that he is going against the Constitution? Something he is supposed to protect? I'm mostly calling you out on this because I'd like to explore the idea, and there aren't many better places to do it.

Though I've seen that the "anonymous" posters haven't gotten much brighter, or better behaved.

Lysis said...

Shadow, so good to hear from you. On the President and the Constitution, please check out the string "The Question in Question" first posted on Dec. 18th '05.

Rumpole said...

Shadow,

This will be a little repetitive, as Lysis has already referred you to the proper topic. He sneaked in and posted before I did. However, I spent the time writing this post so I’m going to publish it anyway.

Certainly I’m not as articulate as Lysis, but if I may, let me recap “The Questions in Question” at the Agora. We discussed the President’s Constitutional powers at length during that topic. Certainly there are those at the Agora who may disagree with my perspective on that discussion, and of course that is their prerogative. Perhaps they could post their own perspective. Here is my version of the discussion. You ought to read the entire “thread” and form your own conclusion.

The Constitution is specific in defining the President as “Commander-in-Chief”. It is silent in spelling out exactly what that means. In the “Federalist Papers” (the best resource available in my mind when trying to define “original intent” of the Document)
No. 64, John Jay writes that the President can use whatever means he has at his disposal to gather intelligence when acting as “Commander-in-Chief”.

Alexander Hamilton echoes this sentiment in the “Federalist” No. 69. Both are quoted in the comments section of “The Questions”. The difficulty here lies in interpretation. It is true that these powers are not specifically delineated in the Constitution. So is the proper interpretation of the Constitution to use these powers? There is ample historical precedent. Every President since FDR has claimed the legality of these powers and used them. Again, refer back to “The Questions” for specifics.

Certainly there are those (myself included) who struggle with the use of implied Constitutional powers. And the use of such powers are not limited to just the Executive branch. For example, the Supreme Court has greatly expanded its role in government with the use of “judicial review”. “Judicial Review” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The current review process has ultimately led to the problem conservatives refer to as “judicial activism”.

My point here is that if we want to be consistent we ought to either support the implied powers in the Constitution or not support them. Hence, I deal with an expanded Judiciary.

There you have it. The Republican-who-must-be-obeyed tells me that I have gone on long enough!

A_Shadow said...

While I do realize that this has the potential to derail the current topic and re-hash a prior debate, I find it interesting what the Constitution itself brings up about the subject in Ammendment four:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would certainly call privacy and informational documents (written, electronic, or otherwise) to be personal affects unless given to the public.

I'm sorry, but I'm a purest when it comes to documentation. It's great that the Federalist papers say something, but we aren't talking about G.W.'s powers as "so-and-so" puts it, regardless of who that may be. The constitution as the highest law of the land is the one that will be turned to in order to trump all others, and from which all others are derived and checked against.

Is there somewhere in the Constitution that says that anyone can do that? Not that I've found and I feel it quite the opposite.

Keep in mind that I'm bringing up this, likely, long beaten horse as the current topic makes reference to Bush defending the constitution. I want Lysis to defend that point of his and that's why I'm bringing this up.

For give me if I'm repetetive of the past, but it's been a while since I've been here.

Rumpole said...

Shadow,

As I said before, the Constitution is silent on the definition of “Commander-in-Chief”.

Our first disagreement would lie in your definition of “The Federalist Papers”. Your quote, “We aren’t talking about G.W.’s powers as ‘so-and-so’ puts it, regardless of who that may be.”

I view “The Federalist Papers” along with other writings from the framers on virtually the same level as the Constitution itself. As we have seen many times at the Agora, the written word sometimes fails to convey the complete thought and intention of its author. The “crib notes”, if you will, are critical in understanding the original intent of the document. To dismiss those notes because they are not contained in the document itself is, in my estimation, a mistake. But you have to make that decision on your own.

If at this point you still choose to throw out “The Federalist Papers” as to the Constitution’s original intent, understand that you are now arguing contrary to the position of every President since FDR. Each of those Presidents invoked the same “executive privilege” that President Bush has. I can’t speak for President Bush, but I feel quite confident that much of what has been described above moved him to act the way he has in fighting the War.

Further, if you are a “purest”, as you say, then you must dismiss EVERY Supreme Court decision that has been rendered since Marbury vs. Madison that was rendered under the pretense of “judicial review”. “Judicial Review” is mentioned no where as a function of the “Supreme Court” in the Constitution.

At this point my view based on the above is that the President acted within the framework of the Constitution to protect the Union. I would further argue that the FISA Court discussed in “The Questions” topic is unconstitutional. In my estimation, the FISA Court is in conflict with “separation of powers”.

Enough for now! Who knows what the Republican-who-must-be-obeyed might say!

Lysis said...

Shadow,

A short answer to your question can be found in the words – UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. Realize first that the NSA surveillance, in spite of the disingenuous representation of some, dealt with foreign terrorists, enemies attacking our country in acts of war, and relates directly to the President’s national security responsibilities. The FISA specifically gives the President the responsibility to act without court supervision when enabled by statue. That enabling statue was passed soon after 9/11. Remember also that, although some people contacted by al-Queda types MAY be Americans, their direct involvement with known enemies makes any search or seizure of their communications, electronic or otherwise, 100% reasonable. The entire topic was well argued and, I believe, resolved in the string I have referenced above. Also, Shadow, the Federalist Papers are not to be considered as separate from constitutional considerations. They were the arguments by which the nation was convinced to support the Constitution. They are the documents by which the Constitution is illuminated and interpreted, and which still bear special weight in understanding an intentionally ambiguous document. Rumpole has given even better arguments above, please consider them in the light of the entire string.

Reach Upward said...

James Taranto argues that the crazy rantings and railings against the much-hated George W. Bush from the angry Left are a result of being out of power -- see here, here (scroll down to "Bunker Mentality"), and here (scroll down to "Stone Walls do Not a Prison Make").

The "crap sniffing" and carping come cited by Lysis from being out of power. The Republicans spent 40 years in the wilderness during the mid-20th Century doing the same thing. It took a major scandal and a great idea man to shake up the party status quo and break up the old boys' network enough to make the ground fertile enough for the GOP to come back into the mainstream.

Today the shoe is on the other foot. But we don't see any great Democrat messiah in the wings yet that could redeem the party, so the Dem's wandering in the wilderness is likely to continue despite the Republican's incredible and stupid gaffes as of late.

Dan Simpson said...

Well, here we go again.

Since we are getting into it, let me rehash my old objections.

A-Shadow, if you read the previously mentioned thread you will see that 'we' didn't come to a conclusion, all questions were not answered, etc.

I have a few big problems with the majority stance here at the Agora on this topic.

I too am a purist when it comes to the Constitution. And I have specific problems with Rumpole's interpretation of the Constitution. While he is correct that the term 'Judicial Review' is not in the constitution, he is completely wrong about the power of judicial review being in the constitution.

Article III Section 2 states

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; . . .to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; . . ."


In order to decide these cases, the court MUST be able to interpret law. It could not possible be done otherwise. What needs to be understood is that this is not a tradition. A court cannot decide 'cases and controversies' without interpreting law.

It isn't as if the Supreme Court looks over the last session of legislation and says, laws 1, 2, and 5 are unconstitutional. It must have a case brought before it.

As for the presidents power, much information points to the idea that the President does have this power, if not directly given in the Constitution, it has at least become a power that the president uses, and no one argues with.

I take issue with Lysis' interpretation of FISA, as the regulation he is specifically refers to allowing taps without warrants also specifically refers to non-citizens. When we are talking about citizens (which despite Lysis' arguments, that status cannot be unilaterally removed by suspicion of collusion with terrorist groups), there is only dicta, and opinion, there is no settled law in the matter (as far as I have seen.)

The most damaging part of this whole mess, in my opinion, is the feel from the administration and their supporters that the matter is resolved, no more discussion is necessary. I would like to see a more in depth investigation.

No, not because I want to see the administration drawn and quartered, but I see a real question at issue in the law, and I would like it resolved. One way or the other, I think it would be more helpful for our country if the question were settled law.

I do not think it is. My questions have not been answered.

So, it just continues to give Bush-haters ammo, and when the next Democrat president does the same thing, which history tells us will probably happen, it will give Republcan's ammo to attack them back.

Silver Lining said...

Dannyboy, you make a valid point about not considering the issue over, but I don't know that the President has done exactly that as he has welcomed debate and discussion on the topic. However, I do see your point, as this administration does have the tendency to, once they decide something is over, ignore it. During the Presidential election, the commanders in Afghanistan came out and talked about the "out sourcing" in Tora Bora and the likelihood that Osama Bin Laden was there. It seemed rather definative for a moment, but aren't we still hearing repeatedly about loosing Osama at Tora Bora? Aren't we still hearing that we KNEW he was there and outsourced the operation so that we could go to Iraq. I know this is another issue, but I mention it only to point out that the tendency to treat something like it is over is a repeated one for the Bush Whitehouse, and I am not the first to say that I wish they would come out and defend/discuss a bit more often.

On a historical side note, Jefferson was furious with Marshall over Marbury v. Madison and vehemently disagreed with it at least for a time. Interesting isn't it that what we are taking as given now, was arguable back then. Still, Dannyboy seems right to me that you can't do your job as a justice without interpreting the law.

I am sure A Shadow will find his own answers without much more help. There will be a lot more debate before this is over, and with the recent ACLU suit, several court decisions. In the mean time, there seems to be quite a bit of legal precedent backing what was done. The gray area is that non-citizens calls into the country have been "tapped." The other end of that call happened to be a U.S. citizen. Do we scrap listening to those calls if any participant is a U.S. citizen unless there is a warrant or is this another example in the age old debate of national security vs. civil rights and how much power we are willing to let our government have?

I have said nothing in all that typing. How sad.

Dan Simpson said...

SL, you bring up an interesting twist that I have talked about with people before.

If the U.S. was tapping outside the U.S. and a call happened to go into the U.S. there would be no problem whatsoever.

Example: If you have a tap on the Gotti's, you don't have to have a warrant for each person they speak to, only for the Gotti's. So, if you are tapping a foreigner you don't have to have a warrant for each person they speak to. The question comes if the tap is set on a citizen to then listen to every call they make and or get.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Dannyboy,

It is interesting that you are willing to rationalize “judicial Power extend to all Cases” to equal judicial review, but not “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” And “The President shall be Commander in Chief . . .” to the long accepted Presidential authority to administer foreign and national security concerns. Don’t you think that communicating with know al-Qaeda contacts constitutes a “reason” for search and seizure? It isn’t as if (to use Dannyboy’s words) the President were wiretapping personal conversations for even criminal behavior. It is solely acts of war against the United States that are qualified for surveillance.

There will be a more in-depth investigation. If crimes have been committed, they will come out. That any have, has not been established. I am confident as the issue plays out in the “court of public” opinion, the Constitutional interpretation will fall in the Presidents “court”. That is surely the advantage of living in a democratic republic. Not that the majority rules, but that in questions like this, reason tends to prevail.

Silver Lining,

You said a lot. On the Tora Bora point: I don’t buy the Dem’s line that everything possible wasn’t done. I refer you to Joe Biden’s complaint during the battle that we were using to much power against al – Qaeda, “in danger of being seen as technological bullies”. The truth is that the battle was not out-sourced. That battle still goes no, and bin Laden’s fate is assured. It is particularly vexing to hear Gore and Kerry complain about not going hard enough after bin Laden, when they wouldn’t have gone after him at all. We have proof of that from the Clinton/Gore years; when murders of Americans we answered with bombings of empty buildings.

As for the “law suit” against the NSA, I hear the ACLU – grandstanding as usual – will have trouble with this suit; no one knows if they have been survailed or not. It will be interesting if bin Laden volunteers to let the ACLU represent him. In a way, they already are!

Dan Simpson said...

Lysis, I am curious. What is it that you understand Judicial Review to be.

And what do you think the Supreme Court is supposed to do under the wording of the Constitution.

Commander in Chief, is a nebulous term. And Executive Power, is clearly dileneated in the Constitution.

The powers claimed right now are not clearly dileneated under executive power. And someone's interpretation of a nebulous term comes in conflict with specific language in the constitution, your interpretation loses.

It is possible that the president does have this power, my point is that it is not at all clear.

You quote things that imply, or may suggest, and you claim your point is proven. It is mostly because it is the point you want to prove that you see such 'proof'.

As I have said for quite a while, there is strong evidence to suggest the President has such authority. But it is neither overwhelming nor question resolving.

I would love to hear what either Lysis, or Rumpole believe the Constitutionally granted power is that the Judiciary has.

Lysis said...

Dannyboy,

While the Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all other courts, it does not specifically provide for the idea of allowing ANY COURT to check laws passed by legislatures against some “constitutionality” test. The Bill or Rights was not even originally part of the Constitution – and that the Supreme Court has some right to overturn rulings on appeal, not because of mistakes in procedure (law) or fact, but because the Supreme Court decides it disagrees with the Legislative Branch’s interpretation of the Constitution; is wholly invented by the Court. The Supreme Court’s intended purpose was to deal with “federal” cases, those between states or citizens of different states or between citizens of the U.S. and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.

The Supreme Court has establishment a “check” on the legislative branch, or on the states, by asserting some power to determine the Constitutionality of acts of Congress or of the State’s. This power was invented in 1803 by John Marshall. This was just someone’s (John Marshall’s) interpretation of a nebulous term and comes in conflict with specific language in the Constitution. Congress is given explicit power to place exceptions on any law or fact considered by the Courts, but surely the Supreme Court does not recognize that Congressional authority.

Executive Power is not clearly delineated in the Constitution. As with the Court’s assumption of powers not delineated, the President, by long tradition and accepted interpretation of “nebulous” constitutional language, has maintained independent authority in national security and military concerns. The knee jerk reactionary restrictions placed on Presidential power at the end of the Vietnam War and Watergate are no more constitutional than would be a law passed by Congress regulated the Supreme Court to dealing only with issues of foreign trade. This power of Congress may seem to be “in there”; (Article 3: Section 2: Paragraph 2) but the traditional checks and balances of the Three Coequal Branches of Government would no longer tolerate such Legislative supremacy.

It comes down to this, you are willing to accept the traditional powers of the Supreme Court to rule on the “Constitutionality” of laws passed by the legislative branch because you accept the traditions supporting those powers. The President stands on the same ground as the court in defending his power to conduct surveillance in time of war based on his traditional role within the Constitution. Rumple and I merely suggest that if you throw out “our” bathwater, you must throw out the “your” baby as well.

To sum up on your question, “What do I think the Constitution directs the Supreme Court to do?” To rule on specific cases that come under its jurisdiction, based on laws crafted and signed by the other two branches and to consider the facts of those specific cases. It should leave the Constitutionality of laws to the Congress. That is not the limit that I WANT to place on the Supreme Court – that is simply the” non ambiguous” wording of the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates (All Lysis "topic postings") whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The swiftboating is particularly vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a Presidnet who connived to serve stateside (Kerry signed the document to serve in VietNam -- Bushed refused to sign) and a Vice President who "had other priorities" during VietNam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic VietNam resumes: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, Richard Clark, Joseph Wilson, John Murtha, Thomas Wilson, et al.

Karl Rove Bio:

1965-68 Attended Olympus High School. Debater and Student Council President. (sorry Dan, no head hall monitor)

1969
-entered University of Utah
-Roves "father" walks out on marriage.

1970
-Used a FALSE ID and stole Campaign property to "falsify" campaign literature.

1971
-Dropped out of the University of Utah when he no longer needed the 2S (student) deferment he had barely clung to that kept him from being drafted and out of Viet Nam. Never graduated from a college or University -- Never served in the United States Armed Services!!!!

1981
-Mother commits suicide

1991
Meets "Biological" father

2006
Probable Indictment for traiterously leaking "top secret" information.

This is the kind of person Lysis thinks is a "HEROIC" seeker of "TRUTH"!!!!

Lysis said...

Boy that was random! First, Anonymous, what do you mean by Swiftboating? To me Swiftboating means revealing the truth about someone who is misrepresenting themselves, as Kerry did concerning his war record, and his very destructive anti-war activities after his questionable discharge from the Navy. I think we would all like to see if Kerry got an honorable discharge, but he won’t release those records. Bush did! Realize that millions died because of America’s failure in Vietnam. Realize that John Kerry’s picture hangs on the wall of the “victory museum” in Vietnam, and he has been credited by the communists as one of the reasons the communists won the war, in other words, why the US and the millions who died lost. If this is the type of thing that Swiftboating reveals, I am glad to be involved in it.

As for John Murtha, it is not his Vietnam record that I challenge; it is his constantly calling American troops, under fire in Iraq, cowards and liars that angers me!

As for Carl Rove’s academic record: Anonymous, if and when you get a college degree you will see that it really doesn’t amount to much. Rove’s success should not be measured by how far he went in college, but by how much he has accomplished in life. I do admire Carl Rove for helping get President Bush elected. That his father ran out on his family or his mother committed suicide do not diminish the wonderful gift his efforts gave to America and the world. As for “PROBABLE INDICTMENTS”, I’ll stick to “innocent until proven guilty”, one of those sticky Constitutional principles that the Anonymy are so willing to ignore.

As for the courage and sacrifice of President and Vice President; Cheney was the Secretary of Defense while Kerry was getting votes by lying about the actions of American servicemen in Vietnam. Both President Bush and President Cheney have placed themselves in harms way for the duration of their lives. They not only have to put up with the petty character assassinations of the “Anonymy” but have sacrificed the their safety, and that of their families for as long as terrorist murderers dream of defeating American by secret combinations to kill. Few have the right to claim the level of courage and sacrifice that President Bush has reached, nor demonstrated the humility he has shown in his courageous service to us all.

A_Shadow said...

I think I would like to leave a few final comments before I let this topic pass as it seems to have digressed further then I intended.

Lysis, another of your comments bothers me in a response of yours as it gives the tone of the belief that you believe "executive power" means that the president should not be checked.

While I don't believe it's the exact statement you make, I believe when you say "It is interesting that you are willing to rationalize “judicial Power extend to all Cases” to equal judicial review, but not “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” And “The President shall be Commander in Chief . . .” to the long accepted Presidential authority to administer foreign and national security concerns."

I don't mean to pull it out of context, if I did it is unintentional, but the tone that I inherited when reading that comment was that you believe that as the "Commander in Cheif" owns that title, he is the supreme authority when in situations as I quoted you outlining before.

It struck me as a little more dictatorial and a little less "balance of power" than I believe you intended it to be, but I do believe that is an opinion that needs to be tackled.

Regardless of title, I don't believe the president to fill those "shoes". No one, not even the president is above the law, though the president is the only one with certain "executive powers" they are always limited by circumstance.

I just believe that the un-limited circumstance of him wire-tapping individuals leaves much room for abuse. While I personally don't believe he is currently abusing it, we've also heard many of you talk of how past presidents set precedence for the future and future leaders.

With a war that will "last the rest of our lives" and a power that has the potential for abuse whether currently or in the future, I don't think you can blame the American people for not wanting him to have that power regardless the cost.

Rumpole said...

DannyBoy,

I take no issue with your disagreement. I do take issue over who you disagree with. Please reread the topic. Thomas Jefferson proposed the view that I set out in “The Questions”. While I respect your views, Thomas Jefferson carries more weight with me. Maybe he is wrong. I’ll take that risk.

I do not suggest that Silver Lining agrees with Jefferson or me. Nevertheless, as she points out, what was once arguable has, with simply time, now become accepted. Is that true of Presidential powers also? Maybe. I see the connection. Dismiss it if you will, but in my estimation you accept “tradition” in both instances, or you reject “tradition” in both instances.

Lysis has explained to you the intended role of the Supreme Court. I believe it to be an accurate depiction based on what I have read from Jefferson, Madison, and others. The Supreme Court’s intended role was to “rule” on cases, not to determine their constitutionality. Further, Jefferson’s predictions (that have come true) for the potential for despotism in the Judiciary reinforce Jefferson’s view in my mind. What ultimately troubles me most about the Supreme Court it that it has apparently SET UP ITSELF (i.e. Marbury) as the “court of last resort”.

Shadow,

I’m sure Lysis will respond to you most recent questions. However, I would absolutely agree with you that “Commander-in-Chief” is more dictatorial. It was so intended! Read Federalist No. 69. It has to be so when prosecuting a war!

With my apologies to Brian, do you think a body like the Senate could be collectively trusted to prosecute a war? The Anonymy will love this, but Senator Hatch has already demonstrated it can’t be done! President Bush had to reprimand him previously for leaking intercepted phone calls immediately after 9-11 (Chicago Tribune, 9-14-2001)!

Anonymy,

Where did the Karl Rove commentary come from? Seriously, if you want to develop a topic, start a blog and ask for some input! I’ll be the first to comment if you’ll have me!

I’m not clear as to why you would point out some of the information you listed on Karl Rove. Is it troubling to you that his “father” left him? Is his judgment impaired because his mother committed suicide? Are you angry that he ultimately had the opportunity to meet his biological father?

Can any of those emotions, by themselves, or together, stunt any kind of heroism?
I feel none of those emotions. I only feel gratitude for your courage in pointing out all the obstacles Mr. Rove has overcome! What a true American Hero!

Also, if you would, please give us specifics on Karl Roves “tactic of choice”. The names you have all listed are interesting, but what has Mr. Rove actually said about those people?

I’m anxiously waiting! So are all of my little Republicans!

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Simpson said...

I still maintain that you are both ignoring the first portion of the powers dileneated to Congress. Cases arising under this constitution.

If a man were arrested, and the laws as set forth by the legislature allowed him to be tried twice, and he took that case to court, what would the Supreme Court have to decide. The constitutionality of the law.

This is of course a very cut and dry example, but there are laws all the time that raise constitutional questions. If the legislature were the decider as to whether or not their own legislation were constitutional, were would the check be?

You have espoused checks and balances during this whole argument, yet it seems there is no check on the legislature. They cannot be allowed to decide if their own actions are constitutional. That 'judgement' is rightly spelled out in the constitution.

The term case arising under this Constitution.

Notice the comma in the article. Three separate areas the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in. First cases arising under the constitution, Second, cases arising under laws passed by Congress, Third, cases arising under treaties. (There are others but they are maritime, etc.)

Their jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution is not implied, or suggested, but spelled out.

With all due respect to Jefferson, (a man I admire greatly, whose intelligence is not in question) he wasn't there when it was written, and if he was he probably wouldn't have agreed with everything that was in the Constitution, no one else did. It was a compromise, no one got everything they wanted.

And as far as the Federalist Papers, they are exactly what they say, the papers, thoughts and opinions of the Federalists, who, while they got much of what they wanted in the Constitution, did not write it by themselves.

Madison is, without a doubt, the best source for Constitutional philosophy, but where something is unambiguous, as is the exact wording I quoted from the text of the document itself, Madison, Hamilton, or any of the others who may have wanted a less powerful Judiciary cannot change the fact that this is what was put to paper and adopted.

Oh, and Lysis, the Bill of Rights was in it before it was ratified, so saying it wasn't originally part of the Constitution is a little misleading, and you know it.

Lysis said...

Here is what President Bush said today as he explained what he was doing to protect America. To misconstrue these actions as any kind of abuse of power or grab for a dictatorship is disingenuous.

“. . . there’s an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I’m talking about is the interception of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they’re making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why. . . you hear the words.” domestic spying,” these are not phone calls within the United States. It’s a phone call of an al Qaeda, know al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the Untied States . . . Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies . . . Congress passed a piece of legislation. And the Court. . . Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President additional authority to use what it called “the fundamental incidents of waging war” against al Qaeda. . . (there is some dicta for you Dannyboy) It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, But it didn’t prescribe the tactics. It’s an - - you’ve got the power to protect us, but we’re not going to tell you how”

Rumpole said...

DannyBoy,

I hope you understand that I mean no offense. I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. In all three cases you set forth I believe the Supreme Court was put in place to "rule", not to determine constitutionality.

While I certainly respect your right to your opinion, as I said before, if I am to error, I will error on the side of Jefferson and Madison.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Dannyboy, The Constitution was ratified by the requisite nine states in 1788. Rhode Island held back its vote the longest, but even Rhode Island joined the Union by voting to ratify in May of 1790. The Bill of Rights did not become part of the Constitution until 1791.

As for the Supreme Court’s power to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, I think that I can safely agree with both you and Rumpole. The words, “rule on the Constitutionality of . . .” are not in to be found in Article 3 of the Constitution. That the Supreme Court, and other federal courts for that matter, have claimed that power can also not be disputed. [It is my understanding that in Britain the “right to review” is claimed by the House of Lords, part of Parliament, the legislative branch of British government. Parliament also appoints judges and chooses the government.] Our distinctly American Constitutional System has also evolved over time. Which brings us back to the original position; tradition as well as text defines the powers of the three separate but equal branches of American government. The President also claims powers under the Constitution which tradition and commonsense support. Your baby, our bathwater. Shall we throw? I think not!

Silver Lining said...

Poor Jefferson, in France while the Constitution was written, and, as a result, so easily dismissed. James Madison consulted with him in detail, and he was definately in the know if not an active participant. Still, as history has proven, his disagreement with Marbury v. Madison, is one man's disagreement.

Lysis, I agree about outsourcing in Tora Bora. I used that example only to point out that the information on it from the commanders at the time was so definative on the subject and yet Gore and Kerry and many others, including particpants on this blog, are still talking about KNOWING Osama was there and missing him due to outsourcing. I brought this up only to illustrate Dannyboy's point in my mind that the Bush Administration does have a chronic tendency to fail to communicate. They see something as finished and then choose to ignore the Gores and Kerrys etc. because in their mind it is a done deal. I am simply of the opinion that the Bush Admin. would better serve themselves, and frankly the nation, if they were better communicators and more willing to defend themselves even though, admittedly, there is so much petty stuff out there to defend against.

That being said, let's be done with this side note if that is o.k. This has been one of the best threads in a long time. I am thoroughly enjoying reading the postings and thinking about the powers of each branch and the checks on those branches. Save the Karl Rove side show, this has been great!

Anonymous said...

Silver line

I don't have a problem with ANY topic at the Agora -- I can actually speed through and skip over redundancies as I choose. Also, I can CHOOSE to comment OR NOT!!!!

Learn "muli-tasking" like Lysis says HE does and save your "stomach-lining" -- or put on a pout and be anal retentive about THAT which you cannot control --
THAT was the intent of your snide "side show" comment!!!!

Reach Upward said...

Brendan Miniter has written here about the topic of executive authority in wiretapping. His article is cogent and brings up some important sides of the issue that seem to have been ignored here. I admonish all agorites to read it.

Lysis said...

Silver Lining, thanks for the comments. You are making me into a Jefferson fan! As for the obvious tender feelings of our Anonymous friend: well he had his say. To all you are interested in this judicial review idea let me suggest you read the Judiciary Act of 1789, “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States”. My good friend Cicero put me on to it. I think it might hold some keys to understanding about the Constitution. Cicero claims that the justification for continuality claims for the Supreme Court are to be found here. This is one of the first laws enacted by Congress. As I pointed out above, it predates the Bill of Rights. I will be eager to hear all your comments.

Silver Lining said...

Anonymous,

Calm down. I wasn't taking aim at you. I was simply noting that I (no reference to anyone else) am particularly enjoying this thread of discussion. I pointed out as well, and am not the only one to have done so, that in a rarely streamlined thread, the Karl Rove arguments were out of place and distracting. They aren't worthless, they just are an out of nowhere topic given the larger discussion at the moment. Not that you care, Anonymous, but I read everything (well I do skim redundancies as there are often many) and comment rarely, so I get your point. I am trusting it made you feel better to name call. I do hope so. You certainly put my snide little self in my place. Good grief.

mostly just listening said...

Anonymous,

How amusing that you got your pride hurt, seemingly inadvertantly, because Silver Lining thinks your Karl Rove comment was a side show. He/She basically accused him/herself of the same thing in discussing Tora Bora and appologized for it.

It is amusing, because you (well, I suppose it might not have been you as we can't know which anonymous posted what) termed one of Silver Lining's comments worthless for all intents and purposes back on the post Two Ways of Rewriting History. You, who are so quick to call so many ideas worthless or lies, are stung because someone said your comments were off topic? I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Vegimatic here,

I drop by to recommend a (don't laugh) PBS show that I saw last night. "The American Experience" on John Addams.

It was very well done and quite enlightening as to the politics of our founding fathers.

It shows what happens when you put "party" over the good of the country.

I really am disappointed in Jefferson. He hired a PR person to smear his old friend Addams while he was the Vice President, just so he could be the President.

Ah Jeffersonian Ethics!

It provides insight into todays's partisan politics.

Anonymous, you still make me laugh. You get your knickers in a twist when someone says something that you don't like.

Lysis, your post brought back memories. Only not of wolves. While on the Bechler hike I woke up one morning to a terrible smell. When my eyes opened mamma moose was 2 inches from my nose breathing on me. So when someone calls you moose breath, it is not a compliment.

Anonymous: I have a new name for you all. MOOSE BREATH!

Reach Upward said...

Vegimatic, that does bring back memories. I'm just grateful that it was mama moose breathing on you on the Bechler hike and not *papa* moose. I never got closer than 10 yards to any of the critters on those hikes -- except for some of those woods women, of course.

Anonymous said...

Lyis Posted on the "TOPIC":

"Once the party of Wilson and FDR, it (Democratic Party) is now reduced to sniffing up dung and dying of diarrhea. . . . and ALL WHO ARE OBSESSED WITH CRAP."

and later:

"If you want to consider something really filthy consider filthy politics."

Silver lining and MJL:

I have responded "IN KIND" (but not as graphically) with my post about Karl Rove. (REPUBLICAN Party of Lincoln "Dung Sniffer" and brown noser without peer)

Silver lining complains that postings about Rove constitute a "side-show".

Answer:
Lysis et al wandered off on the "Presidential Powers" topic because of a Shadow challenge and a Dan follow-up.(That's sometimes the way of things at the Agora) But, Lysis DID respond to the "Rove" posting (along with a few others) That's OK by me.

I do not want to be the Agora Monitor of TOPICS!!!! nor be chastized by ANYONE'S convoluted expectations of what the topic IS or SHOULD BE.

If you do not like cheap shots and name calling . . . make none of your own!!!!

Note to Lysis:
After all the "wild-life" analogies -- dog fecal matter sniffing, Camel feces, foul/fowl and grizzly disgorgements, I'm starting to feel like a Veterinarian proctologist.

I get the point -- you don't like Democrats.

At a certain point execrable analogies reflect more on YOU than others!!!!

Anonymous said...

MJL:
I posted NOTHING on Two WAYS of ReWriting History.

I guarantee you've never read anything that I've written after my "pride has been hurt". That's not possible at the Agora!

Good ol' veg -- still fascinated with twisted knickers and stinking Moose Breath -- please, please, please don't make ANOTHER analogy!!!!

Anonymous said...

Lysis:
Someday we'll have to compare "University Degrees"

I agree, they're worth nothing if you learned nothing.

I value MINE!!!!

Anonymous said...

Vegimatic Back

My Dear Moose Breath(s)

#1. You are still cracking me up. I did not use twists and breath as an analogy. I meant it literally.

#2. The "MINE is bigger than YOURS" argument is a bit infantile for a person of your great "position" in life. You crack me up as well.

Watch the Addams movie. You may get a kick out of it.

P.S. Alito (as predicted) was approved by the Judiciary Committee along party lines.

Isn't it amazing. The American Bar Association picked a winner!

Silver Lining said...

Anonymous,

I am infamous for using the not quite right term. Tangent or side note are more appropriate to what I meant. Still, I am not going to apologize for having an opinion on the topic.

Didn't complain about the name calling and didn't intentionally throw any out.

A_Shadow said...

Rumpole,

I find only you to respond to right now, I am a bit shocked actually...

I find the fact that you support a "dictatorial" leader in a republic to be a rather shocking idea. Not in the sense that there shouldn't be someone with similar abilities, but that I feel that it flies in the face of why we are where we are in the first place.

I just see that as being a contrary idea of why we split from England in the beginning of all of this wonderful history.

Now, to clarify, "dictitorial" decision making has it's purpose. Even in a position of consultation and where there is a "group" leadership, I feel that there needs to be someone that can make a "command decision" or to break a tie.

But when you say those words in the manner you do, it sounds to me more that he should be the supreme commander and that the other branches of the government are simply there as tools for HIS use, to rule the country in his plan and design.

He is ("he" being the commander and chief, regardless of the person in office at the time) a singular, leadership figure, but he is not there to "run" the country or to "dictate" how someone else will assist him in that endeavor.

If that's not what you meant to imply, then I will withdraw and appologize, but I do want to make it clear that I feel he is part of a whole, not that he is the whole of himself and that it is all there is.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

This has to be one of the most fascinating sentences I have ever read. I’m sure it would have set Hemingway spinning in his grave; if he had been in his grave when it was written. Still, I offer this from the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Sec. 25. That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favour of such their validity, or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or judge or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations, and the writ shall have the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit court, and the proceedings upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decision as before provided, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution.

The second and only other sentence of Sec 25 doesn’t clear things up much:

But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute.

I believe that the purpose of this Section was to explain how the federal courts sould support Article VI of the Constitution. However I would remind Dannyboy, that what the Congress “giveth” the Congress can “taketh” away. I am inclined to believe that the Power to “check” the Constitutionality of Acts of Congress is a power that the Court claimed directly from the Constitution by interpretation of the ambiguities it offers. Once again the Court and the President are representative of separate but equal branches of the government and have the right to perform their offices without being accused of dictatorial propensities.

I highly recommend the article recommended by Reach Upward above. I think, Shadow; you might understand my position better by considering it.

As for getting back on topic; I want to thank the Anonomy for reminding us, BY EXAMPLE, of the original theme, filth sniffing and diseased wolves. Anonomy, as Vegimatic has pointed out, your howling is enjoyable.

Anonymous; as for comparing our college degrees; I don’t think it’s necessary. How all of the participants in our discussions have benefited from, and been able to apply, whatever education they have accumulated, is amply demonstrated by the quality of their respective comments posted here in the Agora.

Rumpole said...

Shadow,

Never in a civil disagreement is there the need to withdraw and apologize! Though we may differ, I can still respect your view without accepting it, as I hope you will mine. The disagreement is what brings discussion. We surely can discuss like adults and have a little fun at the same time!

I directed you to Federalist No. 69. I don’t know if you read it or not, but I made a mistake. It was Federalist No. 74 that I quoted in “The Questions”. It should clarify my view for you. Hamilton is far more articulate than I am on the subject. Read below for what I think most applicable to our current conversation:

“The President of the United States is to be ‘Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.’ The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself; and it is at the same time so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them, which have in other respects coupled the Chief Magistrate with a Council, have for the most part CONCENTRED THE MILITARY AUTHORITY IN HIM ALONE. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which DISTINGUISH THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY A SINGLE HAND (caps added). The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms an usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.” (end of quote)

Remember that we are talking specifically about war. This does not apply, nor was it intended to apply to the President’s other duties in “running the country”. As Hamiliton has suggested, and as I pointed out earlier with the “Hatch” example, a war is difficult to be prosecuted “by committee.” Further, the framework for the Executive to prosecute that war exists within the Constitution.

By no means do I mean to imply that the President is greater than the Constitution; it is the antithesis of that implication that I firmly believe, the thesis that the CONSTUTION GRANTS the President such power to prosecute the war as “Commander-in-Chief”

Until continued thought, study, and input from those like yourself change my perspective on the subject, this is what I intend to teach all my little Republicans!

Dan Simpson said...

To clarify, my previous comments should not be understood as to dismiss Jefferson or his input, or understanding of the Constitution. They are, however, to point out that one man's opinion is not the end of the line on a document that was written by committee, wherein no one man, or political position, got everything they wanted or believed.

Dan Simpson said...

Lysis was of course right about the history.

Thats what you get when you post from memory from work.

Anonymous said...

Veg:
Lysis posted:
"if and when you (anon) get a college degree you will see that it really doesn't amount to much."

I don't pretend to know about Lysis' college degree/s, asside from the obvious -- also, obviously, Lysis DOES presume about MY lack of degrees and how I VALUE them.

His comment is inaccurate, objectionable and preposterous!

"Bigger is Better" are your words and mis-characterization.

However, I have enjoyed the postings on executive power and balance of power!!!!

Anonymous said...

Swift boat veterans and Lysis claim Kerry was in cahoots with communist VietNam based on a photo of his that hangs in a Vietnam War Remnants Museum. Lysis actually claims that this picture proves Kerry's complicity in the loss of the war.

This egregious lie is based on Lysis ignoring the facts and CHOOSING to believe ANY lie as long as it supports his partisan politics.

Kerry's picture in Vietnam relates to his 1993 meetings (as Senator) with Vietnamese leaders on the POW/MIA issue which Senators KERRY AND McCAIN were then pursuing for Congress -- even SBV aknowledged that the meetings were "reasonable".

Kerry has no contol over what pictures the Vietnamese choose to put in their own museum nor how THEY choose to label them, nor the purpose of the pictures.
Perhaps it was put there because the the Vietnamese wanted to damage Kerry politically when he was running for President against Bush!!!! (fearing medal wearing Kerry and supporting the Viet Nam evading Bush)

Pictures of other Americans are in the museum also, ie, Asst. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and various Veteran groups.

Lysis says, "To me swiftboating means revealing the truth about someone who is misrepresenting themselves."

Bunk

Lysis favors "Swiftboating" because the tactic appeals to the "poop-sniffing paranoia" that HE, the Bushes and Roves like to expoit.

The REAL critical thinker Lysis wouldn't believe that kind of crap in a million years -- he's just being "Company" man.

Leave a little extra shaving foam on around the jowls and Lysis will be a RABID SNARLING supporter, and in the approved MINDLESS and CRAZED Rove fashion attack all Bush enemies!!!!

To get rabid you've got to get bit by another infected RABID dog --

Bark Bark Bark Bite Bite Snif Snif

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Flaccid,

I watched Kerry’s complicity with the Communists first hand. I saw how the liars and propagandists he lead tore America apart; destroying our resolve. I took in a “boat person” who had fled the slaughter of innocence perpetrated on the people of Southeast Asia by those enabled into power so Kerry could get into Congress. The Commanding General of the North Vietnamese gave credit to the anti-war movement, lead by Kerry and his ilk, as the Communists only hope for victory.

Kerry had absolute control over the lies he chose to tell about the actions of our soldiers in Vietnam. He told them for purely political reasons, just like the lies he tells today.

Anonymous, now you not only pretend to tell us what Kerry’s anti-war actions meant to North Vietnamese Communists but you pretend to know what the word Swiftboating means to me. It takes shaving foal to fake my being rabid, all it takes to reveal your truly diseased state is to read your barking, and sniffing, and watch your sickly attempts to bite.

Anonymous said...

Lysis Posted:

"I watched Kerry's complicity with the Communists first hand."

What does THAT
mean?

Was Lysis in Vietnam during the war? Did he personally know and see high ranking communists conspiring with Kerry? -- was he privy to their conversations? -- Did Lysis know Kerry during the war? After the war? -- when did he know him? How did he know him? When Lysis was watching (whatever he watched) how did he know it was complicity?

How would Lysis' "eye witness" evidence hold up as testimony in a court, or as evidence documenting even an historical fact? Or even evidence in a high school lecture?

"I took in a boat person"
gives Lysis' arguments/conclusions exactly what kind of credibility? -- what did the boat person say? Who was the boat person? What was the reliability of the boat person's testimonial. Do ALL boat persons agree? some, few, many, most majority, all? -- about everything????

Count up the Lysis FACTS and ARGUMENTS in his last posting. There are NONE!!!!

The "arguments" ARE over-the-top maliciousness and a pusilanimous avidity to despoil a decorated fellow American's reputation for no other reason than *partisanship* -- NO OTHER REASON

Thank you Lysis for providing so apt an example of "Swiftboating" --your actions speak much "truer" than your definitions.

In a previous post Lysis had referred to a Kerry "photograph in a museum" as his "factual" proof.
Well, the "TRUTH" made that argument go BOOM -- what now? More bogus PERSONAL EYE WITNESS accounts?

To continue Lysis theme for this week -- It is sometimes necessary, in order to discipline a recalcitrant puppy, to take it back to its mess and rub its nose vigorously in what it truly thought was its gift to humanity. Maybe it will learn. Every dog has its day!!!!

I was alive during Vietnam too, and, got closer to the frey than talking to phantom boatmen and the Huntley Brinkley Report on the tube for MY evidence.

NO ONE who wasn't there spiritually or physically or morally should EVER spit on John Kerry's efforts in VietNam.
Likewise, those in Iraq or elsewhere . . . "There but for the grace of God go I."!!!!

Lysis said...

Flaccid,

Some wolves sniff dung, some hunt. I run with the pack that hunts the truth, Flaccid has got the disease.

Flaccid asks what it means when I say that, “I watched Kerry’s complicity with the Communists first hand.” I will tell you. Kerry was all over the T.V. and press, proudly proclaimed his opposition to American involvement in maintaining the freedom of South Vietnam. My friends and I saw the dangers and evils of Communism and supported the war. We did not believe Kerry and his cheering squad then or now. Kerry spoke before the Congress, and dropped his lies there for the nation to see, and read. Those who understood the deceitful nature of Communism knew he was lying and watched as fools, like our flaccid Anonymous, bought Kerry’s crap and used his lies to push and pressure politicians to desert our Vietnamese allies. I was very close to my ROTC instructors who explained the extent of the untruths pushed by “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” An organization were Kerry shared leadership with a proven and admitted liar, Al Hubbard.

Flaccid asked if I “knew Kerry during the war?” Everyone paying attention knew Kerry during the war, and everyone knew he was a liar. “How did I know him?” He was all over T.V. and all over the media, telling us all about himself, and lying all about our troops in Vietnam.

As for Katemon, my Laotian boat person. He told me of the thousands who suffered for years in refugee camps where they fled to escape the extermination camps of the Communists; where they dreamed of freedom. Flaccid may have lived through the war, but his memory is selective. He has chosen to forget the tens of thousands who died at sea rather than live under Communism. And the millions murdered by the Communists. Kerry wants to forget them too. How their ghosts must haunt his nights!!! Among the many refugee from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam with whom I spoke, one told me how he was called to the prison; were his father had been taken; to search through garbage bags full of human body parts in an attempt to find and identify his father’s remains. Flaccid was too busy listening to leftwing propaganda and the misinformation of his college professors to hunt up the truth.

Flaccid next limply attacks my reference to Kerry’s picture on the wall of the “War Crimes Museum” in “Ho Chi Minh City”.

Let me describe the museum where Kerry’s picture hangs. The sign that hangs at the entrance reads, “THE WORLD SUPPORTS VIETNAM IN ITS RESISTANCE”. Here is what the plaque on the wall that displays Kerry’s photo reads, “We would like to thank the communist parties and working class of the countries of the world national liberation movements, nationalist countries, peace-loving countries, international democratic organizations, and progressive human beings for their wholehearted support, and strong encouragement to our people’s patriotic resistance against the U.S. for national salvation.” Other photos in the display include; David Miller burning his draft notice in 1965. Another “woman’s” museum proudly displays a photo of Jane Fonda. The truth of this photo displays is evident to all who would visit. You can tell what kind of dog Kerry is by the pack he runs with. My argument stands; the only thing that goes boom is Flaccid’s bubble.

Flaccid questions my “facts” and says my evidence is lacking. He does this without eveidence. As testimony in support of my “facts concerning John Kerry” let me quote a letter signed by almost 200 Swift Boat Veterans, some of whom were captains and Admirals in the U.S. Navy. They were all “there spiritually and physically and morally”. They do not spit on Kerry’s Vietnam record, they tell the truth about it. Quote:


“Senator Kerry,

“We write from our common heritage as veterans of duty aboard Swift Boats in the Vietnam War. Indeed, you should note that a substantial number of those men who served directly with you during your four month tour in Vietnam have signed this letter.

“It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. . .

“Senator Kerry, we were there. We know the truth. We have been silent long enough. The stakes are too great, not only for America in general but, most importantly, for those who have followed us into service in Iraq and Afghanistan. We call upon you to provide a full, accurate accounting of your conduct in Vietnam.”



Kerry’s response was to call these heroes liars and continue to hide his records and burry the truth.

Flaccid, in a limp attempt to prop up his “professors” sniveling, may also call these heroes liars. He can’t even remain consistent to his own admonition to avoid over-the-top, maliciousness, and pusillanimous despoiling of decorated Americans.

Flaccid’s limp puppy has sniffed its own; while the real hunters have cornered the truth. I am honored to provide examples of “Swiftboating” and proud of the truths my actions define.

Lysis said...

Oh yah! I just remembered Kerry did meet directly with Communist leaders from North Vietnam during the war. He flew to Paris and met with them before he had given up his commission in the Navel Reserve. Some people would call that treason. Pointing out that kind of behavior in a “fellow American” isn’t partisanship, it’s patriotism. And this is the guy the Democrats chose to lead their Party??????

If you don’t like the smell of Kerry’s past, Flaccid, don’t stir the stink!

A_Shadow said...

Rumpole,

I appreciate your candor and also the fact that you narrowed down for me what it is that I had read from you.

I can definately agree on his powers as commander in chief of the military forces as I almost made that comment myself, but I was hesitant as I read a tone that you were taking "commander and chief" to include all things, which I feel we both feel is an error.

While I agree that he is commander in chief of the armed forces (is this where I argue that the airforce is sepperate as it's not included in the constitution? heh) I believe that it is folly that he be able to command them to war as I believe is in the constitution as well.

Precents aside and who did what, and when, I don't believe that having your supreme commander of the armed forces being directly able to call for war a very bright idea.

I fully agree that there should be one person making the "tough decisions" of war, but with a machine like ours, he's hardly going to do it himself. And personally I'd rather see him not, as he's a civillian and not a soldier.

A_Shadow said...

Lysis, to avoid derailing this one further, is it safe to assume that we'll be seeing a reaction to the Hamas victory from you? Or is that presuming too much?

Lysis said...

Shadow – I have never suggested that Bush was Commander-in-Chief of anything but the Military. Bush did not call for this war, the Islamic fascist did. The Congress gave him authority to do “everything necessary” to defend the country. That’s the way it works in our republic.

As for Hamas; realize that the PLO is/was just as much a terrorist organization as Hamas is/was. The world worked with or around Arafat for decades. Let’s wait for Hamas to act or not act before we call for an assessment.

a quiet listener said...

my my my.... i feel like the kid in the back of the math class who struggles to grasp the concept and after a long while finds to his elation the answer and blurts it out only to realize the others have long since solved the puzzle and moved on...
oh well. some are analytical... others are philosophical.
luckily i never had trouble with the "hard sciences" though if you ask me political science is a much more difficult field.
i thought i'd mention that somebody somewhere decided that it was necessary for nerds like me to "broaden my horizons" and "diversify" my education by being forced to take upper level courses in humanities.
so it is that once a week for three hours on tuesday night i sit through my racial and ethnic minorities class (soc 3365) which as of late has been focused on the evils of ethnocentrism. one girl in particular made me mad by claiming our war in iraq is purely to prove to the world that our nation, culture, way of life and race are better in every way than any found in the middle east. she claims our conquest of the world is driven to spread a democracy and captilism.
this was too much. there was once a time when america was praised for having stepped up to the plate and defending what we knew was right ie; democracy and freedom. where would the world be had the united states not said no to evil in world war II?
how can we forget the past so quickly?
in the same class the teacher ascerted that no victorious group has EVER treated the conquested group as anything better than subordinate and second rate, that in every case they are exploited. she cited the anglo american conquest over the indians and blacks. while i agree that many groups are guilty of this crime i again refer to world war II when under the marshall plan germany and japan were not exploited by a "power hungry US" but rather built up. in a true embodiment of the "bless those who curse you" beattitude we rebuilt at our own great cost those nations who would have destroyed us. now they have benefitted immensely from it. in my particular field it's common knowledge that japan is lightyears ahead of the US in R and D and production efficiency engineering. i don't hold a grudge to my generous forefathers for having put my nation at a "disadvantage" to the japanese. all the contrary, i respect greatly people of coniviction and truth who stand up for what's right and pay for it with their reputation, time, means and maybe even the greatest sacrifice- their lives.
as christ said "greater love hath no man than this; that a man giveth up his life for his friends" i feel priveleged that my fellow country men would esteem me their friends and lay down this ultimate sacrifice for me.
i am saddened by those who seeking to advance their agendas. as lysis has shown... the modern democratic party truly has become as gandalf said a lesser son of greater sires.

Rumpole said...

Shadow,

I must first apologize in advance. Though I am happy to provide for Lysis’ wallowing at the public trough, it was a long day at work. In addition, I can’t find my copy of “The Federalist Papers”. My youngest Republican seems to have made off with it! I am gratified that she wants to read it before she can talk, but that won’t help me find the book any quicker! So if I lack a little clarity, I hope you’ll forgive me.

I got a great kick out of your “air force” comment. I’m glad to see you had some fun with it! We can also agree that it would be folly for one man to command a nation to war, and the Constitution has guarded against that.

Congress has that responsibility, per the Constitution, to declare war. I would submit to you that they have. The post 9-11 resolution giving the President the “means necessary” to pursue our enemies was ample declaration. Further, Congress has regularly appropriated (which they alone have the power to do) the funding to prosecute the war.

As to a single “civilian” making the tough decisions of war, I’ll side with Hamilton. It’s one of the most important reasons (along with filling Supreme Court vacancies) the electorate must so carefully choose its “Commander-in-Chief”. For the Anonymy, in both cases of Bush 43’s elections, I think the electorate chose wisely. Otherwise we could have either had the man who “claimed” to invent the internet as President (MAROON!), or the man who openly admitted to committing war atrocities running the show!

The littlest Republican still hasn’t confessed, and she’s off to bed. Got to go!

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Quiet Listener, as I am aware of you genius, I find your humility refreshing. It is always a joy to a teacher to grapple with young minds of greater ability than one’s own. To see such minds reach toward their potential goes beyond pleasure to gratification.

As someone who has been attending those dubious college humanities classes for a good deal longer than you have been alive, let me tell you, the theme has hardly changed since my instructors railed against everything American, from Manifest Destiny to Richard Nixon, and paid worshiped to the imagined glories of the Soviet Union and dreams of Marx and Mao. There were always wise and level heads, but one had to wade through so much agenda!

It has always amazed me how right Shakespeare was when he had Marc Antony intone: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones;”. It has always troubled me that so many entrusted with educating, seem duty bound to dig for evil; perhaps it truly is a habit inherited from canine ancestors. I am often amazed that they fail to realize that all they are and all they praise, is made possible by the very bones they desecrate. Laying aside the enormous atrocities committed by black Africans on black Africans, and red Indians on red Indians, wouldn’t it be wise to see the commonality of human potential to do evil, and seek to avoid it in a better present rather than allow past wrongs to “color” present rights.

It should not surprise us that college instructors, whose positions and pensions depend on concocted courses, fail to recognize the “good deeds of the past.” Realize that few of us recognize the sacrifice and service that make our lives livable. We never think of the policeman until our life is in danger or property at stake, the sheriff until our child is lost in the woods. I often think of the Coastguardsmen who risk life and limb to keep us safe from the evils that come over the sea, or rescue those lost on it. This is because I know a Coastguardsman . Until I did, I never thought that, twenty four/seven, thousands live their lives so I can live mine. When the lights go out, we curse the “company” ; when the computer goes down, we hate the Internet. But when all is “right” we never think to thank those whose services makes our lives so pleasant.

Next time your college professor “goes off on America”; remember than someone she does not even comprehend gave his all so she could speak. I choose to give that hero
honor by rejecting her deceit.

Rumpole, it comforts me to think of those good Republicans you are training.

Anonymous said...

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is a group didicated to attacking Senator John Kerr's record during and after his service in Vietnam.

In an August 5 interview with the Associated Press, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), "a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called the ads criticizing John Kerry's military service 'dishonest and dishonorable' (He has more guts and patriotic loyalty than Bush who did not support SVB but would not disavow these dispicable critters)and urged the White House to condemn it as well"

In the new ad, members of SWB claim that they "served with John Kerry." Lysis implies that these are the peoople that know him best and has e4ven referred to them as fellow crewmates -- many mindless conservatives beliee that hey "served with John Kerry in Vietnam."

While the vetrans attacking Kerry in the ad are vetrans of Vietnam and may have served at the same time as Kerry, "NONE of the men had actually served on the Swift boats that Mr. Kerry commanded! Adm. Roy F. Hoffman, one of the vetrans in the ad, has even "acknowledged he had NO first-hand knowledge to dicredit Kerry's claims to valor," the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."

IN contrast, many of the vetrans who have appeared on the campaign trail with Kerry DID serve along side him. "Indeed 10 of the ll men who served on his two swift boats all have sworn by John Kerry; nine living members were in Boston for the Convention.

SVB has noted ties to the Republican Party. In addition to pointing out that the group's founder, John O'Neill, has long-standing ties to the GOP athat can be traced back to the Nixon administration, Conason also reported that among the people behind Swift Boat eters is corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is likst as the group's media contact."

Dr. Louis Letson, who featured the ad claiming to have treated Kerry for the wound that earned him his first Purple Heart and claiming that it was undeserved, was NOT the medical official who signed Kerry's medical records for the wound.

In criticizing the ad, McCain told the AP "IT WAS THE SAME KIND OF DEAL THAT WAS PULLED ON ME." REFERRING TO HIS (MCcAIN'S) BITTER REPUBLICAN PRIMARY FIGHT WITH PRESIDENT BUSH." (Roves finger- prints are all over these "dirty tricks) The 'swift boat' veterans attacking John Kerry's war record are led by veteran right-wing operatives using the SAME vivious techniques they used against John McCain four years ago!!!!

When was Lysis at the Museum in Vietnam? I didn't know he could read Vietnamese?

Are all the museum signs in English? I wonder WHY?

Maybe plaques at the Iwo Jima monument in Washington should celebrate the great victory in Japanese????

Duh!

I am NOT a Communist sympathizer. Save the drivel for the boneheads.

SVB has been found to be liars in detail. There are plenty of ilk who will lie for partisan reasons Lysis, I am sure you will find some more. Warn them that there is a special place in HELL for those guilty of false testimony!!!!

Lysis said...

Flaccid, you’re squealing like an unbound balloon. Let’s look at your “evidence” point by point:


Paragraph 1 - I agree with you, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are a group dedicated to attacking Kerry’s record in Vietnam. All they had to do to attack it was tell the truth!

Paragraph 2 – John McCain, a political himself, pandering for political points, called the Swift Boat ads dishonest. Yes he did, but he gives no evidence for saying such, while the Swift Boat Vets give ample evidence of everything they say. I dare you or John McCain to show one single dishonest statement by the Swift Boat Vets. The dishonor is Kerry’s

Paragraph 3 & 4 – Kerry himself claimed that those who served with him can best assess his service. Flaccid, you are not telling the truth when you that only those who were on Kerry’s boat count as having served with him. Kerry himself ran campaign ads showing his comrades in arms. Five of those in the pictures of 22 officers serving with john Kerry signed the letter I quoted above, eleven called for Kerry to quit misrepresenting their support during his campaign. Van Odell, a gunner from Kerry’s unit in An Thoi sent an email to the Swift Boat Vets saying, “ I was there the entire time Kerry was and witnessed two of his war “wounds” I was also present during the action [in which] he received his Bronze Star, I know what a fraud he is. How can I help?” These are the men who know Kerry best, (his words, not mine) and they have told their truth.


Paragraph 5 - Taking advantage of a trip to the Democrat Convention doesn’t equal an endorsement of Kerry’s military record. Give us a quote from one of his ship boat buddies, or give up on this flat defense.

Paragraph 6 – On Swift Boat Vets having ties to the Republican Party. John Kerry had ties to the Democrat party, what’s your point. Most mature Republicans have ties to the Party back to Nixon, I for one am proud of it. Again, what’s your point? You have none! They are to dangerous to you!

Paragraph 7 – Of course the Doctor who treated Kerry was not the one who signed his medical papers. That’s the point; Dr. Letson did not think the wound merited a purple heart, so Kerry got someone else to sign the application.

Paragraph 8 – I’ll bet McCain is bitter over his loss to Bush in the Primary. McCain was never a real candidate for the Republican nominating. He was invented whole cloth by the Media as an attack dog against Governor Bush. That is still the only way McCain can grab headlines. What a pity!

Paragraph 9 – Is your limp reply to the fact that the signs are posted on the Vietnamese museum that Lysis hasn’t been there himself. I wasn’t in New York on 9/11 either; are you going to tell us I can’t talk about that either. As for the signs; you bet they are in English. Communists know were their supporters are, and what languages they read.

Paragraph 10 – I never intended to call Flaccid anything but limp. Flaccid, if your words brand your position - so be it. I do believe Kerry was a Communist sympathizer, but his real motivation for being one was not to help the Communists, but to help himself. Unfortunately he helped the Communists; fortunately, thanks to the Swift Boat Vets he only hurt himself.

Paragraph 10 – Give one lie from the Swift Boat Vets, give us the detail you think entitles you to call 200 Vietnam Vets and American war heroes liars. I have pointed out your lies, can’t you please do the same. Otherwise your arguments are so much blow! (By the way a favorite Kerry lie was his claim to have been sent into Cambodia by President Nixon a month before Nixon became President! There are plenty of Kerry lies out there. Kerry is lying about judge Alito right now. Again Flaccid, show us some lies by the Swift Vets, to fail to do so will be a true statement from you at last.)

The facts above are wasted on Flaccid; I hope they will be of some value to others. As for Flaccid, there is no convincing such a relativist. Facts mean nothing, evidence is discounted. It is impossible to disprove lies (like Flaccid’s) when only liars (like John Kerry) are acceptable witnesses to Flaccid.

Flip Flopping Flaccid won’t stand the test; instead he will flop or flip to some other argument, or hide out all together. My earlier arguments were not good enough for Flaccid because I wasn’t “there”. When I gave the arguments of 200 men who were there, they were not good enough for Flaccid because they still do not agree with what he wanted to hear. If the truth does not match his opinions, he lets out a little more bad smelling air to foul the discussion, and reduce the presure. I think he’s gone flat this time.

Anonymous said...

Actually, none of them were "there" and neither were you, I think that was Anon's point. The people who were "there" - the men who did serve with John Kerry on his swift boat and were commanded by him - all called him a hero. The only people with the political bent were those who ran the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign, who, not coincidentally, were first put together and funded by Richard Nixon, another President who was stuck fighting a corrupt war. Of course, this President chose this corrupt war and to corruptly fight it.

Just wanted to make sure everyone got to see the economic growth figures today. The slowest in three years and FAR lower than anyone could have possibly predicted, 1.1 percent. The BBC suggested Bush rexamine his claims that the U.S. economy was the "envy of the world." Even Europe, with its sluggish growth, outpaced the U.S. Nice job Bush! Your tax cuts are really doing to the trick! And they only cost 400 BILLION more than America made last year. "Oh well, call Congress, raise the debt ceiling, again. (Am I setting a record for the most amount of debt incurred by one President? No, that was that other Great Republican.) Now, let's see how fast we can get more money back into the Armani suit pockets of all those nice people Jack introduced me to last time he was here at the White House."

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

You really crack me up on the SBV. I’m sure you know this, but the whole issue could be solved with one signature of the pen, with one signature of JOHN KERRY:’S pen, with one signature of JOHN KERRY’S pen that Kerry refuses to stroke!

George W. Bush signed to release his war records and now look at him! He is the President of the United States! He is the envy of both Al Gore and John Kerry. Could the same thing happen for Kerry? Only if he isn’t hiding anything!

Here is one other quick note. Murtha was defended by the Anonymy as a man beyond reproach because of his stellar war record. Don’t the 200 SVB deserve that same defense? Can you explain that inconsistency?

Anonymous said...

First, don't ever confuse envy of the office with the President with envy of the man, or respect for him.

Second, John Murtha's wartime service in Korea and marine core service IS beyond reproach as is the service of most if not all SBV for Truth's military service and the vast majority of those who served the U.S. in the military INCLUDING John Kerry. There is no inconsistency except in Liesis who always takes care to honor those hallowed dead and current sacred serving heros in the military UNLESS they say anything critical. Then they are communists, want to help the enemies, and are actually agents trying to destroy America. What a screwed embittered view of the United States.

Lysis said...

Rumpole, you have really hit this one. The neo-libs will never give facts to back up their claims because they have none. The double standard of the Anonomy is so predictable. They will question the just actions and smear the honor of anyone who disagrees with their opinions, and overlook the atrocities of any who espouse their views. To them truth is not only relative, it is irrelevant. To support this claim allow me to dissect the ramblings of the latest Anonymous post.

Anonymous – who I will call the Child; and I don’t mean for innocence. Child – in your first paragraph you 1) make an unsupportable claim that; the only men who “served with Kerry were the ones he commanded”. That is like saying the only students in your high school are the ones in on your kick ball team. Silly as it is, you do not give one quote, one reference, one documented snippet of anyone who was on Kerry’s boat who called him a hero. Just give us some evidence! That is the way proving your point works. 2) To my knowledge, Richard Nixon was dead long before there was any Swift Boat Vets got together. Give your evidence that he ever funded them!! Until you do, I call this ridiculous claim a downright lie! 3) Tell me what was corrupt about “Nixon’s war”. Ask your history teacher, not even he will be able to come up with anything at all!

As for your second paragraph – the one on the economy, 1) you pick and choose the information you give. Such disingenuous representation is a form of lying. The over all growth for 2005 was 3.5% the highest among any nation with an “advanced economy” and way ahead of Europe. That the fourth quarter growth, (and I emphasize growth) was less robust that past performance is because the third quarter growth was a near record. 2) We can all only pray that Bush’s economic polices are as successful as the “last great Republican”. Reagan’s genius still drives the world economy today. The nations that went the Democrat route are all in recession! 3) See if your friend Jack can’t introduce you to someone who understands economics. Bush’s economic policies have put money in all our pockets. That’s how good economics really work.

Child, give us some facts, don’t just spout the tripe the “coach” crams down your throat between finger painting projects.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Flaccid, is that your best response to my devastatingly dissection of your ten paragraphs of dodo? Not even one fact, not one quote, just a specious claim that I dishonor “past” Vets for pointing out their “present” misbehaviors. Some Vets murder people, does the fact they served in the military give them a pass? I call Kerry to account because he lied about our troops in Vietnam and gave aid and comfort to Communists by being a leader of an anti-War movement that helped destroy American resolve to honor their treaties with our South Vietnamese Allies and led to the death of millions. I call Murtha to account for repeatedly calling our heroes in Iraq cowards and liars; thus giving hope and strength to terrorists.

Show me were I am wrong the two charges I make above, and quit hiding behind the – “once a veteran never able to do wrong - defense. It’s too limp even for you!

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

Wow, I’m really confused! Only those who say nothing critical are honored? I thought that the SBV HAVE been critical! I guess I haven’t been paying attention. Thank you, though, for pointing out that their collective record is beyond reproach, and therefore the depiction that they give of John Kerry must be accurate. I’m glad we agree!

I note also that you make no response as to the release of Kerry’s war records by Kerry himself. I take it, then, that we have found another point of agreement! It’s too bad that Kerry doesn’t “respect” himself enough to come out from behind the shadows, as did George W. Bush.

Fortunately, Kerry seems to have shaken any ill-effects from that lack of self-respect. Why just today he made time while on his Alps skiing vacation to plead to the leadership back home to lead a filibuster against Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. I’ll make sure not to confuse that “envy of office” for “respect for him”!

Anonymous said...

Lysis Posts:
"Give one lie from the swift boat Vets."

Strange you should ask; "One is the loneliest number!"

How many SBV's does it take to tell a lie?

Well, one to claim he was NOT in Cambodia.
One to claim he was NOT within 50 miles or so of Cambodia.
One to claim there is NO "water border" between VietNam and Cambodia.
One to claim that there IS a "water border."
One to claim that his swiftboat could NOT have entered Cambodia.
One to claim that they did!

And ALL these ones are Steve Gardner, the ONLY ONE of ELEVEN who actually served with Kerry -- a demonstrated liar in detail!!!!

Gardner has conceded NOW that he had NOT actually served with Kerry at the time Kerry won his purple hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star -- but Gardner has lied and falsely witnessed that he HAD been there. Gardner has previously said "That boat never left the dock that I wasn't aboard it with John Kerry, never."

Steven Hatch and Drew Whitlow have also disputed Gardner's recollections of Kerry's service. Gardner, who describes himself as "someone who had no trouble shooting Gooks" in Viet Nam asserted that "Kerry always tried to park it (the PFC 44 Swiftboat) away from action and hide." Whitlow (a member of the crew) said Gardner's claim was "false"! Hatch (another crew member) told a reporter that he joined the Kerry campaign "because people were saying things about him that we (11 out of 12)knew weren't true. Wagner, Hatch, Whitlow all appeared on stage supporting Kerry when nominated.

Jim Rassman is a Republican whose life Kery saved -- he is setting the record straight by speaking out against the SBV's.

Former U.S. Senator Chic Hecht of Nevada (R) is another And he thanks Kerry to this day. (Look up his testimony and endorsement for Kerry's Silver Star)

Lysis finds phantom "boat people" and obvious lies more credible than his own government who has acknowledged "Bravery and Honor" in the service of SO MANY VietNam heroes. (Lysis is mad 'cuz they lost)

Final example.
I made a point about the language on the "Memorial Museum" being in English and not Vietnamese.
Lysis responded:
As for the sign; you bet they (the words) are in English. Communists know where their supportes are and what language they read.

Oh, I agree! Unless Lysis now chooses to be a "Communist Synmpathizer" by BELIEVING that this Musuem is not ALL LIES AND A COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA DEVICE AGAINST ITS ENEMIES.

When did the Communists start telling the TRUTH Lysis??? Just because you credulously choose to believe them, doesn't make it true -- Sympathizer!!!!

Also, your "eye witness" accounts against Kerry makes you guilty of False Witness, Lysis.

About Medicine Blog said...

Now comes news out of Yellowstone; wolves
are dieing of a disease called parvo virus.