Democrats versus Republicans

[Freesail99]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

But at least he knows grade school level geography

Ha, he does now, but did he, eight years ago ?

[PBzeer]

Given his age, yeah, he probably did. He's old enough to have gone to school when they actually taught things.

[Joel73]

[SailorMitch]

very interesting clip, joel. i especially enjoyed mccain talking about the gross mismanagement of the war! classic tim russert,too. he will be missed.

[Freesail99]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Given his age, yeah, he probably did. He's old enough to have gone to school when they actually taught things.

Prior to 9/11 I seem to remember that not a day went by, when the press didn't point out the foolish things that Bush said. After 9/11, they seemed to want to help him at least seem presidential.

[PBzeer]

How things change Paul, now we have a presidental candidate who gets a free pass on all of his mistakes.

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

mitch...asif it took a genius to figure out that we needed more boots on the ground there. bush/ mccain could have read that in the paper for years before they came up with that plan.

I am unaware of any democratic geniuses that figured that out. Seems to me what I heard is " we can't win...we can't win...get out now...Bush lied"
And when complaining about the trillions for defense...remember that the single event of 9/11 cost this nation over one trillion $$'s and 3,000 lives. That we haven't had more trillion $$ DAYS is a credit justly claimed by the Bush administration despite their many other flaws. And the % of GNP devoted to the military is well below what we spent during the cold war era.

cam-- you have thrown around similar statements before about the relatively low cost of our defense budget. but FYI you need to add in the fact that the war is funded by supplemental appropriations and is not part of the DOD budget. plus, you need toadd in the VA budget for the cost of caring for all the wounded/ injured. it won't appreciably change the percentage compared to GDP (although that is taking a hit due to bush as well.)

also, a number of key rep. senators spoke out against the nso-called surge. it was not just dems. repub.hagel brownback and warner also opposed itin vivid terms.

[Freesail99]

How things change Paul, now we have a presidental candidate who gets a free pass on all of his mistakes.

I could not agree more.

[camaraderie]

Mitch...my numbers INCLUDE the war costs of suppemental appropriations. I assume VA costs are included in social service costs but cannot imagine this cost being anything but miniscule given the numbers involved.
YES...many RINO's were agaist the surge too since this was a popular position to have and they wanted re-election. McCain put his WHOLE presidential future on the line to take an unpopular position at a time when most believed we could not win. For this he has my respect...even though I disagree with many other positions he takes....at least I know his national security positions will be well thought out and the result of a lifetime of experience and not the result of the latest Gallup poll.

For the record:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bush Administration has requested $483 billion to cover the peacetime costs of theDepartment of Defense (DoD) in fiscal year (FY) 2008. In addition to this funding in DoD’s “base” budget, the administration’s request also includes $141.7 billion to cover the FY 2008 costs of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), including military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Thus, altogether, under the new plan DoD is projected to receive some $624.6
billion in FY 2008.
This would bring total DoD funding to its highest level in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since FY 1946, the last budget to reflect substantial spending related to World War II. Assuming the
administration’s request is approved, total funding for DoD would surpass the peak years of the Korean and Vietnam wars by, respectively, some $36 billion and $126 billion (in FY 2008 dollars). However, as a share of the economy, defense spending would remain well below the
levels sustained in these past wars.
Source: Center for Strategic Budgetary Assessments
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati..._of_the_FY.pdf

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by sck5

sway said "I could give nary a care to the future of the Palestinians."

The only problems with that are

1. They happen also to be human beings

2. Without including them in the deal there will never be peace however much you might wish for it.

Or maybe you just want to kill them all. What a humanitarian!! (and please spare me the nonsense that they are all terrorists)

We're all human beings, Sport! Genghis Khan and the Mongol horde were human beings. So what?

What matters is what quality of human beings we are in fact. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, not the last genocide that the Dem's overlooked while playing at geopolitics, virtually wiped out an entire people. In Palestine the median age is fifteen years. You can't just accomplish that by cutting back on social security pensions.

Golda Mier said that there will never be peace until the Palestinians love their children's lives more than they hate the Jews. And that was a very, very long time ago.

Peace? I don't think you have the foggiest of notions about how peace comes about. Peace is imposed. We have peace in Europe because the allies imposed it. We have peace in Yugoslavia because we imposed it. Heck, we have peace in the USA because the Army of the North imposed it. The only reason that the Palestinians continue to even exist is Israeli humanness and restraint.

Abraham Lincoln said that, "things should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler". I think you're violating that dictum.