News-Record.com

"safety and comfort of their homes and offices" is a bunch of bunk. I have served my country and did so in Vietnam. I would gladly go back in if they would let me. I am more afraid of the fools here who believe as you do than I am of the folks with IED's or guns.

You have no idea how sweet you have it nor do you know how much it continues to cost to keep it sweet for you. This is a total volunteer military now. It is their choice to serve. They dont need the protection of cowards who wont serve. I know you are a female, but what is wrong with you serving? Too good here at home to help out???

Bush, Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the Chawks showed so much courage and patriotism during the SE Asian unpleasantness and have shown such an unwavering belief in the current mid-east unpleasantness that I am absolutely amazed that they have 0 family members serving right now.

I suppose they have "other priorities" right now.

In the unlikely scenario that George W. "mas tequila" Bush led a team into a battle, do you suppose anyone would follow?

Does anyone know the highest member of the administration that has a child over there?

NC,

You're awfully free with the word coward.

You would have a better case to point it at the ones that started this enterprise and have no problem with shedding unrelated blood in an open ended fashion, but yet don't deem it important enough for any of their relatives to be serving.

You shouldn't fear folks like Margherita or myself. I will put my life on the line in defense of my country. I will not however put it on the line for this stupid enterprise that has nothing to do with our security which is actually contrary to our security.

When the Bush girls go I'll consider it.

NC, you should consider working for a contractor. There's good money there and you have a good chance to serve your country as you see fit and that should get you around your age limitation.

Maybe ncpatriot, neocon, and Dan should all move to the Iraq theater of operations since they are such gung ho supporters of Bush's foray there.

Ncpatriot sounds as if he just "loves the smell of napalm in the morning"! 30+ years after the end of the Vietnam conflict, sane people admit that war was a mistake. Other than the Montangards, the Vietnamese people never supported the U.S. presence. Some vets really can't come to grips about that being "Mr. Johnson's war" and this being "Bush's War", but we can all understand that.

Why is the Iraq War a lost war from the beginning? It has nothing to do with not being supported by the folks back home. It has nothing to do with the way it is being fought. It has EVERYTHING to do with getting into a war that the natives don't feel is worth fighting. A civil war. Oh yeah, the shills will use the ink stained fingers to point to how they think the Iraqi's are behind us...which is a bunch of crap.
So how's that "Mission Accomplished" thing working out for you? Ncpatriot, if you support Bush's war, then get over there and fight for him! They'll be glad to have a man of your age driving a truck for one of the civilian contractors. Pick up your shirt with a target on the back before you leave Ramstein Air Base.

As to your dissing Ms. Robinson's free and protected speech, maybe you should be fighting with the insurgents---because Bush tells us, they "hate us for our freedoms"!

From a totally logical standpoint, would I support a country that came into the US, disregarded our way of life, caused daily bombings and the destruction of our country, or would I resent them? My take on it is the Iraqi people are really no different than I am in that they are human. It would not be jealousy of another country's freedoms that would make me resent them but rather an intrusion of that country's values imposed on me.

We entered Iraq because of one man, and I'm not talking about Ossama or Saddam. GWB was hell-bent on our intrusion into Iraq. I will never believe his intentions were honorable. I will always believe that intrusion was a personal agenda.

The Bible warns us of false prophets like GWB. It says that they will lead the masses and cause their destruction. When will this nation realize Bush has caused us nothing but heartache and strife? When will they realize the death of this country is being spearheaded by the likes of Bush and his ilk?

OH, the humanity! Now W has ascended to biblical prophecy status. Where are the atheists when you need 'em? (Oh, one of 'their own' has mentioned the bible...my bad)

World traveler, if I were to go to Iraq it would be under the American flag...not cowering under the wuss flag in an attempt to deflect criticism.

Ms. Richardson,

Can we really afford to have all those Democrats overseas at the same time?

"Perhaps the perfect solution would be to have all the politicians who voted for the war go to Iraq and stay."

Ya know, Margherita, I think you're onto something here. That sounds like a SOLID proposal to me. I'll sign a petition, with John Hancock flair, if you'll draw up the document.

Among the bi-partisan names that will be included on the travel vouchers are:

Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator Tom Daschle
Senator John Edwards
Senator Chuck Hagel
Senator John Kerry
Senator Harry Reid
Senator Arlen Specter

and last, but not least,

Congressman John Murtha

Hey! Here's an idea to get this effort off to a roaring start! Every movement needs a prominent name to serve as Honorary Chairman. Someone "who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," right? I'll bet Senator Barack Obama would jump at the chance to serve. What better way to spruce up an otherwise puny and lackluster resume that to be the honorary chairman of a feel-good, do-nothing nationwide political action committee, hmmm?

I'd be happy if, as a start, "they" put the "this will last for decades" and "[No cut and run] on my watch" War ON the budget.

Jeeze.

Wow, because someone believes the Bush Middle East Boondoogle is a farce automatically equates that person being a coward is asinine!

I abhor ALL war! Does that make me a coward? No, rather it says that I seek peacable measures to end conflict. I prefer to follow the teachings of a person whom I admire and strive to emulate in my daily life (sadly not always succeeding). If that makes me a coward, then so is the one whom I seek to emulate. Who is that one some may wonder? It is Jesus the Christ!

So, if I am equated as a coward for seeking peacable ends to conflict, then I believe that by having others do that; that those who seek to do so have called Jesus the Christ a coward also.

I would rather not do the aforementioned as I have a greater respect for Jesus the Christ than that. (Sorry for the brief sermon, I felt it necessary to make my point.)

Shalom

uhhh, Jack ... she specifically said "all the politicians who voted for the war go to Iraq .. " You selected nine to poke with special criticism, and left off 264 others.

Are you just playing with words, you silly boy?

Actually I'm OK with that - as an this example:

“In reality, language proves itself to be less than a perfect taxonomy, lending to
interesting explorations. There are times when an adjective is used in "its original substantive character" as a full functioning noun.”

Examples of adjectives turned into nouns:

physician's assistant
the lead
serious arrogant

See also:
http://www.isba.org/association/feb07bn/Language.htm

So, it stands to reason anyone who supported WW2 should have been shipped over to Omaha Beach during DDay, or if you thought the Revolution was a good idea, you should have propped up a lean-to outside Guilford Courthouse on the morning of March 15, 1781.

I'm for withdrawing our troops, but I don't see the logic in not being able to support a cause of conflict unless a family member's in it or you're actually living in the war zone.

uhhh, James D. Rockefeller ... did you YET AGAIN fail to read the post, or am I going to have to define "AMONG" for you? As in:

"Among the bi-partisan names that will be included on the travel vouchers are:"

Now, I know that attention to detail is an arena where you are woefully deficient, but there were 373 "yea" votes in Congress: 77 in the Senate and 296 in the House. Subtracting the nine I listed, the remainder is 364, James D. Rockefeller.

You say I am "a serious arrogant," lending your considerable expertise and gravitas in the field of "Dumbing Down the King's (Queen's) English" to the discussion, citing some half-baked source you spent hours finding. (I knew you would be unable to resist getting in the last word, James D. Rockefeller, even if you had to jump threads in an effort to make it look good)!

You know, perhaps you are right on this point. When dealing with James D. Rockefeller, I think even Mahatma Gandhi would struggle with the suppression of arrogance. You make it so ... EFFORTLESS ... so much FUN ... for one to be arrogant in your presence.

uhhh Jack .. she said ALL .. key word ALL

You selected nine. The 9 you picked were among the 373 .. hey you found a typo you powerful hunk of manhood you. Now deny you picked those nine for specific criticism ... make that 8 plus "last, but not least, Congressman John Murtha".

While your playing with yourself - here's another word to play with:

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/images/fword.mp3

Last words? Here they are: You're a flaming asshole adding nothing to the conversation except criticism of others. Prove me wrong.

I maintain "a serious arrogant" is communicative language .. you obviously know what it meant, yet you need to criticize from the third grade. What is it, Jack - jealousy? Grudge? Poor self-image? Self-righteousness? Did I mention arrogance? Go you.

Okay, James D. Rockefeller, here's how the words "all" and "among" work together:

When one uses "all," as did Margherita, and that is followed by the use of "among," the meaning is "AMONG ALL ... of the politicians ...." See, now? "Among" indicates a subset of "all." If you need to see all of the politicians who supported the action in Iraq, I'm sure a master Internet search technician such as you will be able to find the list. And when you do, you will notice that AMONG ALL 373 are the nine mentioned above. Well, MAYBE you will. It will require a modicum of attention to detail ... a significant deficiency in your nature.

Furthermore, I didn't offer ANY "specific criticism" of the nine listees. I mentioned a few folks ... from both parties, I might add ... who qualified for Margherita's plan. YOU inferred the criticism, James D. Rockefeller

And, yes, I found a typographical error in your posting. I must admit, that's not much of an accomplishment. Finding errors in James D. Rockefeller's postings is about as tough as finding Easter eggs on a putting green for the kindergarten class.

So now I'm a flaming? (Notice how I used only the adjective there, James D. Rockefeller? Neat, huh?) Well, it certainly didn't take very long for you to descend into vulgarity did it James D. Rockefeller? Did you run out of fourth grade vocabulary and find it necessary to reach for your day-to-day vernacular?

As to "adding nothing to the conversation except criticism of others," James D. Rockefeller, you should glance in your rear view mirror ... you know, the one that says "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear." There you will see the pot that denigrates the kettle.

Note to self: Must work on suppressing arrogance when dealing with fools ... nah, it's too much fun!

like I said .. you add no value.

Feel free to say the same of me .. but you'll be wrong .. ask around. Many may disagree with my positions - but they are usually with some documented bases, like ..

... I dunno, pick the first on in today's LTEs - mentioned only because it was posted before I read your - Which Meow dismisses because says Bush did everything "legal" .. which may be true: The Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether in the cause of "Terrorism" an Admistration can bypass the Advise and Consent clause.

Dance away.

Must ... resist ... tormenting the ... poor fool ... for his ... assiduous neglect ... in using ... a spelling checker.

He says ... he cannot ... afford one. That's a little ... strange ... for a Rockefeller!

But when ... a FREE one ... has been provided ... for him, ... one ... must ... suppress ... ARROGANCE!

I believe, James D. Rockefeller, you will be an eternal font of arrogance fodder. Resistance may prove futile!

Prag,

Thanks for being the voice of reason in a pool of bias or some other 4-letter word.

This argument made about as much sense when folks said that those AGAINST the war should go to Iraq.

James,

I don't want to get into the middle of a chest banging but I think you're right that Jack picked out certain names from both parties to make a point. Have no problem with that. It was a good point.

The insinuation was that the letter writer probably did not consider that she was advocating that most democratic politicians would be sent to Iraq. We'll never know for sure that.

NP:

Agreed - Jack picked out certain names from both parties to make a point. But what was the point? The folks getting the most media coverage? The folks he agrees with less? Whhoo Hoo. My mind is expanding with the new found wisdom.

I only said he had selected nine (actually ten) for special criticism - that is true, and Whhoo Hoo again - no added wisdom there either ... but really I was looking for a semi-legit place to pop this gem: “In reality, language proves itself to be less than a perfect taxonomy, lending to interesting explorations. There are times when an adjective is used in "its original substantive character" as a full functioning noun.”

... worst case it's another grammar lesson!

No grammar lesson, James D. Rockefeller. Just a quick definition ... definition #1, by the way, so you won't have to read very much ... from the site you cited some time ago:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant

REDUNDANT:

1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix

Observe your post on this thread of April 1 at 2:23 PM.

Then, less than 24 hours later, you ONCE AGAIN drag out the same baloney "saying" from that great authority on the English language ... the Illinois State Bar Association! How long did it take you to dig that one up, oh, Grand Panjandrum of Internet Search Technique?

Have you no SHAME, sir? No shred of self respect? You are quoting an illegitimate authority, not once, but TWICE in less than a day!

Now, if your memory is failing you, James D. Rockefeller, then I guess that would go a long way in explaining your postings. Perhaps you should pass the baton, old fellow. Find a "young squirt" who can wage better battle in this arena.