Post-Election Analysis

[Elfhelm]

I really don't think Republicans know how Democrats think. It must baffle them that so many of us are vets. It must baffle them that a vet would be against war. But I can't say I understand how Republicans think either.

I just know that I am proud of Kerry for his service, proud that he spoke against the war after serving, proud of his years of championing liberal causes, and I wanted him to be the next President. I would have been proud to serve on his swiftboat, but I don't think they were big enough to need a Commisaryman. I believe if I had served on his boat, I would have had the fortune of serving under a brilliant lieutenant who devised the idea of turning the bow to face into the gunfire, making the boat narrower, and then charging straight at them, forcing them to abandon their gunposts. And I would have also been proud to march with him in the anti-war protests. I only got one medal, and I'm not likely to throw it to Bush (he has it already anyway). But I can understand why many of my fellow vets did throw them over the White House fence. They thought it was the right thing to do. I did march in my own town, and I marched against funding the Contras in Washington. So maybe I did march with him. And when he took down BCCI and conducted hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, I was performing politically charged pieces towards the same ends in my hometown.

As Humphrey Bogart said, "What do you mean? I've been a Democrat all my life!"

So it is not true to characterize all Democrats as having a silly anybody but Bush campaign. It is not true that I was more motivated by anti-Bush sentiments. I wanted Kerry because I thought he was more moral in ways that I am afraid the other side will never see. I voted for a fellow Navy man, although he was an officer and I enlisted.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

This is what keeps getting deleted out. If you and I are going to have a chat we are supposed to do it in PMs. Same with calling each other things like "elitist". It's a waste of time for me to reply to these statements since SGH will just delete the statements and the replies.

Sorry - it is an elitist attitude to say that people who watch Fox news are misinformed and that the democrats have to "educate" them. You can take it as you will. If it gets deleted out - it gets deleted out. I will state my opinion though and continue to do so.

I was very careful to word my reply.

yeah and it has shown.

I think the American public is misinformed. I blame the news media. I did not point at specific people in specific parties.

So if you don't blame anyone specific - then why did you point out FOX as being the problem? You can't deduce that FOX had anything to do with the perception of the role of Hussein on 9/11. The only thing you can deduce is that more people who watch FOX believe that Hussein had a role in 9/11 - not that they believe that BECAUSE they watch FOX. There were also high percentages in the other news outlets too.

Also - you have to look at who watches the various media outlets. NPR for instance - if you look at the demographics - will show you that many of the people who listen to that hate Bush. So they won't believe anything when it comes to that. I bet many of the people who listen to NPR would NOT support the war in Iraq - even if it was 100% certain that Hussein had WMD, and was about to use them. I have heard MANY liberals say that even if hussein was ready to attack us - we should still wait until afterward to respond. Now if that is the majority of listeners of NPR - then that just shows the other extreme in the demographic - not that it shows that they are more "enlightened" and "educated".

The 15 page PDF, however, does line up those who were planning to vote one way or the other with their perceptions.

Still doesn't mean that that was why they voted for Bush, why they support the war in Iraq or that it is FOX's fault as you want to claim. You are trying to draw conclusions when there isn't enough information provided to draw your conclusions.

In any case, I think the survey is sufficient to show why we on the left feel the public in general is misinformed about Iraq. For the record, the Ba'ath Party are secular socialists and al Qaeda is theocratic, as is Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers originated. Al Qaeda and the Ba'athists have long held one another in contempt.

I am perfectly aware of that - you might recall that during World War II both the US and Great Britain hated Stalin - but we managed to work together also to defeat a common enemy (after the war was over - we went back to the old fight). So the fact that they have contempt for each other is meaningless and I'm sure you know that. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Just to note - so you don't think I'm full of **** here.

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have recieved a significant reponse. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation was reversed: it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afganistan to met first with the Taliban and then with bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis...

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afganistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.

Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report

There are other instances in the 9/11 Commision Report which show other contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also - including right before the Iraq War. Now I know you can attack the terms "reportedly" but the commission was not there - they were going off of interviews and intelligence documents - so they use that type of phrasing a lot throughout the report. Contrary to you, I find the education of the left lacking and I think they need to be educated. The fact that very few people even know that this is in the 9/11 Commission Report shows me that they don't go much further than what they are told by the media.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So it is not true to characterize all Democrats as having a silly anybody but Bush campaign. It is not true that I was more motivated by anti-Bush sentiments. I wanted Kerry because I thought he was more moral in ways that I am afraid the other side will never see. I voted for a fellow Navy man, although he was an officer and I enlisted.

I didn't say ALL - nor did i say all of them were doing the "anything but Bush" campaign - again you exagerate my statement and misquote me.

Let me quote it for you again...

most democrats weren't voting FOR Kerry - but AGAINST Bush

If you deny that - then you truly have your head in the sand. I hardly heard ANY democrat who stood firmly behind Kerry - it was mostly about their hatred of Bush.

BTW - my brother is fellow navy - my father was navy. It doesn't mean that any of them agreed with kerry - and my brother is currently in Afganistan. I also don't think it's surprising that there are democrats in the military - that's why when people drag out military supporters - it doesn't matter to me. I'm not voting for someone because someone ELSE feels the person is better - I'm voting because I feel the person is better.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Sorry - it is an elitist attitude to say that people who watch Fox news are misinformed and that the democrats have to "educate" them. You can take it as you will. If it gets deleted out - it gets deleted out. I will state my opinion though and continue to do so.

...

Contrary to you, I find the education of the left lacking and I think they need to be educated. The fact that very few people even know that this is in the 9/11 Commission Report shows me that they don't go much further than what they are told by the media.

I'm highlighting these two statements because I don't see how one attitude is elitist but the other is not.

Yes, I've seen that part of the 9/11 Report before. It's inconclusive. Bush met with the Taliban when he was Governor. His father and bin Laden's step-brother were business partners. Surely you agree that this is also inconclusive. Some things are done out of diplomacy. There is not enough evidence to draw parallels to Stalin and Hitler in either relationship.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I also don't think it's surprising that there are democrats in the military - that's why when people drag out military supporters - it doesn't matter to me.

Many thanks to your brother! And to your father, I hope he had a great Veteran's Day, but I know it is a sad day for most of us.

Actually, many of the kids in the service do not lilke whoever is Commander-in-Chief at the time of their service, especially enlisted men and women. War is Hell and it's usual the brass who gets the blame from the ranks.

What about that lack of military service on the part of ranking Republicans? Does that matter to you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I'm highlighting these two statements because I don't see how one attitude is elitist but the other is not.

I'm merely responding to your accusations and Michael Moore's comments that basically the people who voted for Bush are misinformed and need to be educated. You can take them however you want. But I've already stated that both sides have people who are misinformed.

Yes, I've seen that part of the 9/11 Report before. It's inconclusive. Bush met with the Taliban when he was Governor. His father and bin Laden's step-brother were business partners. Surely you agree that this is also inconclusive. Some things are done out of diplomacy.

Wait - Bush met with the Taliban in 1998 and 1999? Were we at war with the Taliban at that time? or were we at war with anyone at that time that had associations with the Talban? I don't get the point of that. The time that bin Ladin and Hussein were trying to make contact with each other - we were not on good terms with either one.

And I'm perfectly aware of diplomacy. So I guess it was a nice diplomatic - "let's get to know each other" type of thing that Bin Ladin and Hussein were just doing? A nice handshake - right? As for Bin Ladin's step-brother - which one out the many he has are you talking about? You do realize that a lot of the family had cut off all ties with Bin Ladin because of his fanaticism - right?

BTW - I love how you just write it all off as just "it's inconclusive" - you know - most of the things in the report can be considered inconclusive - because the people on the commission were not actually there. Based on the evidence - they feel that it is accurate though.

There is not enough evidence to draw parallels to Stalin and Hitler in either relationship.

Who mentioned Hitler and Stalin?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Actually, many of the kids in the service do not lilke whoever is Commander-in-Chief at the time of their service, especially enlisted men and women. War is Hell and it's usual the brass who gets the blame from the ranks.

Hmmm - that's surprising - because from the information I have gotten from my brother who is in the navy, my cousin who is in the marines and beor who is in the 1st infantry (and was in Iraq) - they all fully supported Bush and have said that the majority of military personnel do support Bush. My cousin even went against his family completely - while they all voted Kerry - he voted for Bush.

But then again - Beor said that the war in Iraq is nothing like the war it's being portrayed on TV and he's shocked how they don't show any of the many good things going on there.

What about that lack of military service on the part of ranking Republicans? Does that matter to you?

Nope. Why should it? Is it a requirement now?

Btw - thanks. But my brother likes the armed forces and is planning on staying in and is working to be an officer. He really enjoys it.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Nope. Why should it? Is it a requirement now?

Well, there does seem to be a parallel in which ranking Democrats have military expeience and ranking Republicans do not. And even though it hasn't been stated verbally, there seems to be some unspoken sentiment that we are not as patriotic - which you'll understand just burns us up!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Well, there does seem to be a parallel in which ranking Democrats have military expeience and ranking Republicans do not. And even though it hasn't been stated verbally, there seems to be some unspoken sentiment that we are not as patriotic - which you'll understand just burns us up!

yeah - I guess Dole didn't have military experience, bush 41 didn't have military experience, McCain doesn't have military experience. See I don;t really care about someone's military experience - John Adams had no military experience, and neither did Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln. So what does it matter?

I think patriotism is relative - I do not think that it has much to do with the military aspects - but with other aspects. Was it right for Kerry to go and make those statements concerning his fellow soldiers - giving fodder to the north vietnamese - I don't think so. I'm not saying that he's unpatriotic - just stupid to make those statements. It's like the stupidity of CBS to air the photos of Abu Ghraib. It wasn't necessary and just gave fodder to Al Qaeda - they could have reported it with out the photos. It would soldiers who had NOTHING to do with that - including my brother - in harms way.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Of course go back to exagerating my statement as you usually do.

hey im just following the logic of your argument. And anyway it keeps you on your toes.

I'm not a "obsessive republican"

sorry… an obsessive “independent”

Michael Moore is far far more out there than Rush Limbaugh. Which - I'm sure you'll disagree with.

of course I disagree with that. Rush Limbaugh has just become part of the landscape at this point. And has been kind of marginalized by his hypocritical drug addictions and acting like an ass and getting caught. But he certainly was everywhere for YEARS with his loud mouth and his books and what not. And conservatives thought it was just GREAT! Tell me everything I should think rush! Then when after the right dominated the ideology spewing side of the media spectrum for over a decade with Limbaugh and jokers of his ilk, Michael Moore makes a movie and suddenly it’s the end of the world. Hypocrisy I say. Its one guy doing what right wing fanatics have been doing for years only from the opposite side of the isle.

Michael Moore's movie was shoved in people's faces wherever you turned

did you see it?

Do you really think it's any different to vote for Bush because of Michael Moore than the ridiculous democrat position of "anyone but Bush".

Oh my yes its quite different. You see, many many people realized Bush was SUCH bad news that just about any level headed politician would be a better choice then him. That’s why that attitude prevailed. It wasn’t so much about hating him as it was about remedying a critical situation. Because so many democrats felt that not only was Bush incompetent but he was steering our national ship straight for the rocks. So of course yer gonna want to get him out of there at all costs. On the simple logic that statistically speaking most democratic candidates who made it as far as the primaries would certainly be less of a nightmare at the helm then bush. Would you consider voting for Hillary if your choice of competitor was mediocre? Ha ha! I amuse myself just thinking about your response to this question.

I don’t see the travesty of picking one of a whopping TWO candidates based on not wanting the other one in office at all. Nor do I see anything wrong with being critical of your own candidate that you support and not worshiping him without question just because he has a big R in front of his name. You say you are insulted by the attitude of democrats thinking of conservatives as yee haws and brainless and then you turn around and say it’s a joke that they would not fully and completely support their candidate without question? Please. There were a lot of things about Kerry that I had issues with many of which REPUBLICANS had issues with TOO believe it or not. But head to head between the two of them I would have taken him 1000 times in a 1000 choices. No doubt. Im glad its apparently ok for liberals to be openly critical of things about their candidate while republicans are aghast at the concept. Makes me feel more… American…

[jerseydevil]

You know what IR - you can imply that I'm not really American or that you're a better American and make the snide comment at the end of your post. In the past you have said i really don't support democracy - and freedom of speech - so I have nothing really to say to your post whatsoever. You want to imply that crap - go ahead.

[Insidious Rex]

oh relax already. im simply making a point about free thinking and what you had said earlier. do you think im really seriously accusing you of being unamerican. allow me to use your signature response of:

[Elfhelm]

I know about Dole. Didn't he get a purple heart for a self-inflicted wound? At least, that's what his biography says. So maybe that little band-aid the Republicans had at their convention was really for old Bob.

I assume you've seen this list, then?

Here's a little scorecard checklist for you regarding some of our leaders, advisors and their military experience:


Democrats:

Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, purple Hearts.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but
received #311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul
Wallenberg.

Republicans - these are the guys sending people to war:
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max
Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard
Ronald Reagan: non-combat role making movies.
B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and distinguished Flying Cross.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8
years.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
John Engler: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers
Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
John Wayne: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
Ralph Reed: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.

It was going around the internet for the last month.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh relax already. im simply making a point about free thinking and what you had said earlier. do you think im really seriously accusing you of being unamerican. allow me to use your signature response of:

If you go back two years ago - you will see that I picked up my signature response from people using it against me - some of those people you know very well. And I rather like using it now.

BTW - I'm glad that Bush got a second term - it let's him follow through on his policy and plan. I think he will redeem himself - just like Reagan proved to his many detractors. I find it so funny to hear the democrats in speeches routinely speeking Reagans name when talking about great presidents of the 20th century. It'd great.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I know about Dole. Didn't he get a purple heart for a self-inflicted wound? At least, that's what his biography says. So maybe that little band-aid the Republicans had at their convention was really for old Bob.

Who knows. I can care less about Kerry's war record. or about the band-aid thing. Or how Dole got his war wound.

I assume you've seen this list, then?

It was going around the internet for the last month.

NO - I haven't seen the list - I have spam blocker. Nor do I think it matters actually at all. Just like I did not care one single bit about Kerry's war record. The only thing I cared about was how he voted in the Senate and that was it.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Who knows. I can care less about Kerry's war record. or about the band-aid thing. Or how Dole got his war wound.

NO - I haven't seen the list - I have spam blocker. Nor do I think it matters actually at all. Just like I did not care one single bit about Kerry's war record. The only thing I cared about was how he voted in the Senate and that was it.

First of all the purple heart band-aid was offensive. We would never have done any such thing at the Dem's Convention. Never! I was sitting in the Veterans for Kerry headquarters and we were watching the Rep's Convention and that came on. We booed. We did not understand why John McCain didn't speak up. ome of my fellow vets said some nasty things after that. I defended McCain. As far as I am concerned, he is a hero. I said, and others backed me, that we had no business questioning his decisions. But we certainly felt betrayed by the Republicans that day.

I'm sorry you don't care about the service of so many fine men. I think it is obvious from the list who did not serve and what they are asking of servicemen today. That does seem rather hypocritical to me. And I see that they were very smug about their little purple heart band-aid. Well, they should be because that's the closest they'll ever get to one!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

First of all the purple heart band-aid was offensive. We would never have done any such thing at the Dem's Convention. Never! I was sitting in the Veterans for Kerry headquarters and we were watching the Rep's Convention and that came on. We booed. We did not understand why John McCain didn't speak up. ome of my fellow vets said some nasty things after that. I defended McCain. As far as I am concerned, he is a hero. I said, and others backed me, that we had no business questioning his decisions. But we certainly felt betrayed by the Republicans that day.

The band-aid thing was started by a delegate and was NOT endorsed by the republican. But hey - if you want to lump everyone all together - that's fine. let's see - what were you say several pages back to me about lumping all democrats together? I guess this doesn't matter - here it's you talking about republicans.

For your information - I think it was in bad taste and shouldn't have been done either. I think it was partially overblown too - because as soon as the republican party knew about it - they told the person to stop.

I'm sorry you don't care about the service of so many fine men.

Please tell me - where did I say I didn't care about "the service of so many fine men"? I only stated that I think it has no bearing on the election or whether a person is a demoncrat or not.

I think it is obvious from the list who did not serve and what they are asking of servicemen today. That does seem rather hypocritical to me. And I see that they were very smug about their little purple heart band-aid. Well, they should be because that's the closest they'll ever get to one!!!

Who are "they" who was smug? You mean the delegate who passed them out? Isn't that a bit a VERY general statement you made there?

You know something else YOU ARE NOT in the military now. MY BROTHER IS. I think I should have MORE of a concern over what my brother is being asked to do than you. I don't care if they served or not. I don't think it matters who served and who didn't. We're at war - my brother is in the military - he's in Afganistan. They aren't doing anything that they didn't sign up for.

[Elfhelm]

Cool. Many thanks to your brother and all the people who put their lives on the line for us!

And thanks for saying you think the purple-heart band-aid was wrong. It was totally offensive! The delegates who returned to my state a few days later were laughing about it and they held it up (AGAIN!) for the local news. So don't tell me the party put a stop to it. They should have made a public statement and instructed their delegates that it did not represent the party. They did not. The delegates were smug about it. The Oregon Veterans for Kerry were unable to get them to stop. Free speech and all that. So all I can assume is that the Republican Party did not care.

What does my service have to do with this? patriotism

The only patriotism I see from most of the outspoken Republicans on that like, like Hannity and Rush and O'Reilly, is the desire to shut up anyone who questions the decisions of the rulers of the country. When that is what the guys on the other list swore to defend. Can you not see my point? It couldn't be more obvious. The loudmouths and windbags are all talk no action. They were not willing to defend you and me. They are only willing to spew venom for seven figure contracts. Isn't that obvious?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And thanks for saying you think the purple-heart band-aid was wrong. It was totally offensive! The delegates who returned to my state a few days later were laughing about it and they held it up (AGAIN!) for the local news. So don't tell me the party put a stop to it. They should have made a public statement and instructed their delegates that it did not represent the party. They did not. The delegates were smug about it. The Oregon Veterans for Kerry were unable to get them to stop. Free speech and all that. So all I can assume is that the Republican Party did not care.

I watched ABC coverage and the republican party said that they did not support the "band-aid" thing. I can't help what happened in Oregon and neither can you blame the whole republican party. I think it might depend on what broadcast you were watching as to what was shown. I should remind you also that the convention was held just 45 minutes from me - so we got far more coverage on the local news even - and that was discussed.

What does my service have to do with this? patriotism

It doesn't - so why you asking? Patriotism deals with far more than whether you fight or not for the country - but also whether you uphold the principles the country was founded on. I should add - and I'm not saying this makes you unpatriotic - but the country was founded on self-responsibility - not government handouts.

[edit] You do seem to think that if you are in the military that that somehow makes you a BETTER American though - which I think is a bunch of bull. I'm getting ready for you to say that Amnerica should become like "Star Troopers" where the only "true citizens" were ones who were in the military.

The only patriotism I see from most of the outspoken Republicans on that like, like Hannity and Rush and O'Reilly, is the desire to shut up anyone who questions the decisions of the rulers of the country. When that is what the guys on the other list swore to defend. Can you not see my point? It couldn't be more obvious. The loudmouths and windbags are all talk no action. They were not willing to defend you and me. They are only willing to spew venom for seven figure contracts. Isn't that obvious?

*yawn* You mean like the many liberals who held up signs while marching through NY comparing Bush to Hitler? and the ones who want to shut up any republican voices? Give me a break.

[Elfhelm]

Gee, they're not being paid seven figures a year to do it. Doesn't that make a difference? Yes I do think they are patriotic. And I think my own brother's conscientous objections (instead of running to Canada) was also patriotic.

But it is beyond obvious to me that some people are willing to use our troops to make themselves wealthy, and they pay loudmouths to call anyone who points out their war profiteering unpatriotic. It's happening every day. And that is the reason so many of us fear for the future of the country.

This country was founded on certain principles. I agree. Those guys do not uphold them! They uphold the principles of those we have always fought. I love it when Bogie says in Key Largo "I thought we got rid of your kind in the war". But no, they are always cropping up, and we always have to root them out. We will eventually. I have hope.

Well, I am done with the moot until Monday. If anyone wants to continue anything, email me. My name is Pete.