According to this BBC commentary, Neo-conservatism is gone for at least a generation, and may be dead altogether.

Good news if true IMO, but can the damage be undone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6189793.stm

All of the signatories should be sent to prison. Wait, some of them are headed there already.

Damage? Damage?

You haven't SEEN damage until you watch democrats who loathe the military try to keep us safe.

Herbaroni Nixontoni

C'mon Herb!

Democrats, in general, do not loathe the military. That's BS.

Watch where they DON'T spend the money.

There is a reason why democrats are widely seen by the American public to be less capable in keeping us safe.

I wish that were not true, but in any event it is now up to the democrats to allocate the resources to fight terrorism proactively.

Herbert M.

John Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

My democrat nephew is in Iraq, and my democrat uncles fought in WWII. Someone wanting to say something about democrats loathing the military has to apologize to my family members who help keep non-sacrificing Americans safe.

Well, that's gonna be interesting because almost nobody thinks Iraq is proactive.

Just so you know, the GOP didn't spend the money either. They borrowed a ton of it, then didn't actually apply it to fighting terror for the most part.

We've heard Iraq was self defense, then fighting terror with Condi floating the idea of an investment...

No self-respecting American wants to not fight terror. A whole lotta them don't want to waste any more of our remaining strength in Iraq either.

Just remember that when Bush moves troops somewhere really stupid and a funding battle breaks out.

Herb,
What damages has the Democrats done to the military that even comes close to the damage George W. Bush has done to the military? You are talking out your backside. Bush has our military bogged down in Iraq with rundown equipment and we would be hard pressed to respond to a crisis if one were to breakout someplace in the world.

C'mon, DD, you know what Kerry meant - he was making a bad joke about Bush getting us stuck in Iraq, not about the military, and he completely botched the joke. You're intentionally misunderstanding Kerry just so you can pick on him.

If you take people literally, then you must believe George W. Bush thinks OB/GYNs should be having sex with their patients, too, right? Isn't that disgusting? How could you possible vote for such a man?

Curiously, Democrats did not go out of their way to misunderstand Bush - they just realized he misspoke, because he does all the time. Kerry is considered an intelligent guy who doesn't usually misspeak that way. It was a dumb way to phrase it and he later apologized, and everyone but you has moved on.

As for you, Herb, it's obvious you are still in denial that the American voters voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in part because the American people are finally seeing through all of Bush's false facade about being safe and secure - when his catastrophic war in Iraq has made us less so. But, you are still in denial about Watergate so it's no big surprise.

Andrew

damn, gw bush was so smart he got that democrat/clinton army to whip the pants off the taliban.

The largest buildup of the military in recent times was under the Clinton administration. In fact, there is no way that Bush could have launched his "war on terra" without the work that a Democrat president put into having a "ready to fight" military.

In fact, Rumsfeld consistently worked to keep the size of the military small, and refused calls for a buildup of troops.

rumsfeld "shocked and awed" us all with the ineptness of his leadership.

"rumsfeld "shocked and awed" us all with the ineptness of his leadership."

As the saying goes, s*** rolls downhill. Look at Rummy's boss.

I wonder when Herb is going to get on his battle fatigues????
Chickenhawks are the first to deploy ANYONE!

Earth to Trixter.

We have an all-volunteer army, the best in the world. No one should be sent anywhere unless they want to join.

It's a free country, at least until the democrats take over next month. If Mr. Rangel gets his way we'll re-instate not Pete, but the draft.

What's really bizarre is that Mr. Rangel voted AGAINST his own bill.

Herb

Yes, Herb, and do you understand what Rangel's POINT is in pushing to re-instate the draft? I wonder if you could express it so we know if you get why he is pushing this...

Andrew

He's trying to make a point, but looks very dumb doing it.

Herb

I understand Rangles point, hes trying to politicize the military.

Right now the US has the best professional military in the world, and its a much cheaper military, as you dont have to keep training as many new people, and people that want there are much easier to train, plus much less discipline problems.

The US does not want or need a draft, all a draft would do, is make a political point.

Nwokie writes:
I understand Rangles point, hes trying to politicize the military.

Wrong, you have no idea why Rangel is bring this up, apperently. (Herb - you neither?). Let me help you: today, the people with the least opportunities in America are the lower classes, of which minorities are disproportionally represented. The US Military is an attractive option for 18-year-olds who might not be college material and haw few other prospects, so they join up. Then - guess who gets sent to Iraq? (Hint: not many rich kids are serving in the US armed forces.)

Rangel wants the burden of these military conflicts like Iraq to fall upon ALL classes, not just the lower classes. He wants the sons and daughters of the House and the Senate to have to put their lives at risk just as much as the children of the poor. Rangel is convinced that Iraq would never have happened had Congress's kids been put in harm's way as much as the poor kids - and he's probably right.

I'm not sure a draft is such a hot idea, but at least I understand where Rangel is coming from. Obviously some of you who have no clue why he's pushing for a draft will cricitize him for it anyway.

Andrew

"The US Military is an attractive option for 18-year-olds who might not be college material and haw few other prospects, so they join up."

A classic lefty spin.

You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?

This is the EXACT same line of reasoning that got Mr. Kerry in major trouble and extinguished any chance of his presidential aspirations forever.

I'd tread lightly if I were you. Otherwise, democrats are gonna lose what little they've gained.

Herbert Milhous Nixon V

Herb writes:
This is the EXACT same line of reasoning that got Mr. Kerry in major trouble and extinguished any chance of his presidential aspirations forever.

Right, it was the same type of "reasoning" Bush used to advocate OB/GYNs to have sex with their patients. Herb, do you think Bush was right in suggesting that OB/GYNs be able to sleep with their patients? I think that's disgusting and I can't imagine how you could vote for such a pervert!

You may not like to face the truth, Herb, but it happens to be the reality that enlistments to the military (not officers) are disproportionately from the lower and middle classes. Sorry to be so politically incorrect by stating actual facts.

Andrew

IMHO, everybody should be required to serve this nation for 2 years, right after high school. No deferments, no exceptions.

We should set up various areas of service to address problems we have. Housing, infrastructure, military, education, etc...

Those in service do not pay taxes while they serve, thus allowing them considerable freedom where jobs and living are concerned.

We could get a whole lot done while reinforcing our civics at the same time.

Military service would include some extra rank for those willing to begin their service in this area, if they roll it over to a full enlistment.

We are entering a time where the balance of wealth and debt in this nation are dangerous. We have able bodies, what we don't have is dollars to pay for many of these things that could do us a lot of good.

So we fix that in a way that makes sense, instead of fighting over the resources we have left to us.

Herb, Andrew is spot on BTW. The vast majority of our military comes from the middle to lower class. That's just how the current system works.

"IMHO, everybody should be required to serve this nation for 2 years, right after high school. No deferments, no exceptions."

that would pretty much kill the chances of a GOP congress majority in the future with some these future GOP congressmen actually getting killed in conflicts instead of getting deferred.

Andrew, I know all about the Kerry spin, he botched a joke about President Bush. The problem is that it all speculation. There isn't evidence to back up his claim.

Remember, Kerry compared the American military in Vietnam to the army of Genghis Khan, (raping,pillaging, cutting off arms etc.) It is in his character to defame the American military.

excuse me, the American military's raping, killing of innocent men, women and children, abusement of unarmed prisoners is going on in iraq . . . its getting pretty close to the Khan level of behavior. Are we Americans to sweep it all under the rug in the name of partoitism OR demand better behavior from our leaders and troops?

Perhaps its your character to generalize and sweep things under the rug.

"...the American military's raping, killing of innocent men, women and children, abusement of unarmed prisoners is going on in iraq..."

Where's your proof? Unless it's some rare isolated incident, let's hear it.

Herb

You want to look down on our military, that's your choice. We should admire and respect the difficult job the men and women in our military are doing. You want to fixate on the few bad apples. Why?

The insurgents are the ones massacring innocent men, women and children at funerals, shopping malls, restaurants, buses, etc. Where's your moral outrage there.

herb, check the headlines. those guilty verdicts are piling up.

DD, you're putting words in my mouth a la wayne.

Also, what is the point of bringing up the insurgents? we're not having a "whose worse" race. We're talking about American soldiers doing the unthinkable.

By bringing up the insurgents you open the door to the question why we're there in the first place. Keep that door closed until WMDs are found.

American soldiers are PAID to put up with crap from people who hate them (also known as fighting a war). A "few" bad apples does FAR MORE DAMAGE to moral among other soldiers and also here among U.S. citizens than a boatload of john kerries.

I agree with DD:

"You want to look down on our military, that's your choice. We should admire and respect the difficult job the men and women in our military are doing. You want to fixate on the few bad apples. Why?

The insurgents are the ones massacring innocent men, women and children at funerals, shopping malls, restaurants, buses, etc. Where's your moral outrage there."


To DD's comment I would only add:

The left's disgusting Schadenfreude only helps the terrorists, who would love nothing more than to cut all of our heads off---without regard to our political affiliation. They hated us before, during and now after 9/11.

Herb

We are Americans. We have high standards for our military. Those who care the most about high stardards for our military are generally those inside the military.

To put down that striving to uphold standards as "the left's disgusting Schadenfreude" is insulting to all Americans.

DD: "Remember, Kerry compared the American military in Vietnam to the army of Genghis Khan, (raping,pillaging, cutting off arms etc.)"

DD,

Could you please provide a source for that?
I've been looking around and all I can find is where Kerry was giving testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971.

In that testimony he related stories told to him by others.

Is that where your assertion comes from?

He won't provide a source, because it's bogus.

Aside from a handful of bad apples, the US military strives to weed them out as best as humanly possible.

To deny recognizing the democrats' glee when the Iraq war has had downturns is to deny reality.

Herb

Conservatives love to go out of their way to misunderstand Kerry in particular, it seems. Kerry most certainly wasn't criticizing soldiers in his "Winter Soldier" testimony in the Senate in the early 70s - he was relating testimony from other soldiers who had testified at the Winter Soldier hearings. His point wasn't that soldiers are bad people but that war drives good men to do terrible things. That is just the nature of war. Unfortunately, this same thing has been happening in Iraq - certainly not a surprise. The American soldiers who commit these crimes in Iraq are not just a few bad apples - they are basically good people who crack under the pressure cooker of a wartime environment.

If you don't believe these awful, atrocious things actually happen in wartime, you are hopelessly naive, I'm afraid. The testimony of soldiers in pretty much every American war has been overwhelming and as a whole, irrefutable. The real fault lies with American leaders who put our people in these terrible situations in the first place, waving off these awful consequences of war with empty patriotic statements that disregard the horrible human consequences our soldiers are paying. War eats people up, even the ones who don't get killed.

Andrew

DD, show me evidence that Bush wasn't really advocating for OB/GYNs to have sex with their patients.

Andrew

Andrew,

So DD was either misinformed, or itentionally spreading misinformation then.

Which is it DD?

Herb,

Thanks for confiriming that DD's assertions about Kerry were bogus.

Amus, John Kerry got his information from his bogus Winter Soldier investigation. In your words “he related stories told to him by others.” So what. He believed it and said it in in his 1971 U.S. Senate Testimony. Why was he so willing to believe these horror stories at face value?

Andrew, What Bush said was so ridiculous we know he obviously misspoke. On the other hand, what Kerry said sounded plausible, knowing his disdain for the military.

From Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony:

... [W]e had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command ...

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam ..."

OK..

So, are you saying categorically that the stories that Kerry related are outright false, and that he lied under oath to the Senate?

If so, back it up.

Or are you saying that if, in fact, the stories he repeated were true, he should have kept quiet about it?

DD has repeatedly claimed here in the past that the Winter Soldier investigations were "bogus" when in fact there was overwhelming testimony from the soldiers themselves about the atrocities THEY committed in Vietnam. At worst, a few of the soldiers exaggerated or lied, but that doesn't mean the whole investigation was "bogus." That's just wishful thinking on DD's part, not something he can backup with evidence.

Again, the fact that American solders committed atrocities in Vietnam (and Korea, and World War II, and Iraq, etc.) doesn't mean Americans are bad people, it means they are normal human beings, some of whom will simply crack under the pressure of war and do horrible things. (The evidence also shows that on average, American soldiers behave far more humanely than soldiers from other armies - but that doesn't make them immune from cracking under the pressures of war.)

Kerry's point, to repeat, was that war causes good men to do these awful things, of which the Winter Soldier investigations were just one example. To focus merely on the Winter Soldier investigations is to miss this point completely.

Andrew

If you do a little research, you will find that the various service investigatve organzations, investigated all of the Winter commission claims, and found none of them true, most of the claiments were never in the service, or served in non combat arms positions.

Practically everything they claimed, was second hand info or out right lies.

Including kerrys claim to have spent Christmas Eve in Cambodia.

Sources, please? Last time I looked into this, all I found was some right-wing blogger with some unsubstantiated claims.

Andrew

http://johnkerry-08.com/war/unfit_for_command_06.php

Dense, but after spending a few minutes reading it, all I can find that supposedly refutes the Winter Soldier investigation is the book "Stolen Valor" which claims eleven people (out of more than one hundred) who testfied at WS could not be found by the national archives as having a military record. I suppose it never occurred to anyone that people testifying that they committed such atrocities might use a false name? If they couldn't find the records of 11, does that mean all 100+ people who testified were lying? Is it remotely possible that the US Military simply lost some of the records of these veterans? Has the US Military ever lost anything before?

How about some real evidence? What you've provided (from John O'Neil and the same people who participated in the 2004 smears against Kerry) isn't convincing at all.

Andrew

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

Many of these guys were over there.

Next time, ask us a hard question.

Herb

"Many" were over there??? So the ones who aren't should have some credibility to talk about John Kerry's service there??? The people who actually SERVED with Kerry - not just the Swift Boat Liars whose claims were later debunked - tell the real stories including how Kerry saved a man's life while risking his own.

Herb, I've met the guy he saved - he's a modest guy who served in Vietnam with Kerry on his boat. I'd love to see you confront him and tell him what a coward John Kerry was. Do you have the guts? How about you, DD?

Next time, post something truthful!

Andrew

"I've met the guy he saved..."

Of course he's grateful. Good for him.

And I'm grateful Kerry didn't win the election.

Here's why:

http://www.civicsandpolitics.com/KerryLiar.html
Herb

Herb, you're a hypocrite to claim Kerry lied yet support the liar currently occupying the White House. Then again, you had no problem with Nixon lying - it only bothers you when you think Democrats are lying, apparently. Not sure where in your Good Book it says that you should hold people you like to one sort of moral standard and people you dislike to another, but I'd call that H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Andrew

Of course, what they dont say, is why the guy fell off the boat in the first place.

Its the commmanders responsibility to make sure everyone the boat is briefed on safety.

"...Herb, you're a hypocrite to claim Kerry lied yet support the liar currently occupying the White House. Then again, you had no problem with Nixon lying..."

Please show me where Mr. Bush and Mr. Nixon lied.

And regarding Mr. Nixon, I'm a HUGE FAN but also clear-headed about this fine American President.

I realize Mr. Nixon swore and made anti-semitic remarks, but he also literally saved Israel in 1973. From Wikipedia:

"Israel, a powerful but unofficial American ally in the Middle East was supported by the Nixon administration during the Yom Kippur War. When an Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria --allies to the Soviets--attacked in October 1973, Israel suffered initial losses. On the brink of defeat, Israel pleaded with European powers for help but was ignored for fear of Arab retaliation.

Not so Nixon, who, cutting through inter-departmental squabbles and bureaucracy, initiated an air lift of arms that saved Israel from possible defeat. By the time the U.S. and the Soviet Union negotiated a truce, Israel had penetrated deep into enemy territory. A long term effect was the movement of Egypt away from the Soviets toward the U.S."

I don't condone bad behavior from anyone, even Mr. Nixon.

To paraphrase Dennis Prager, Mr. Nixon may have made anti-Jewish statements, yet had Jews high up in his cabinet--including Mr. Kissinger--and did not let his flaws get in the way of doing the right thing regarding Israel.

Herb

I really think times have changed since the 1950s, although there are people, some right here on this site who still want to live in the 50s and shove that thinking on the rest of us. The point is, no matter how happy I am to see the dems back in control, I will be the first one to say there is no way they will hold congress for another 40 years. The country has changed as has the world and the media. You have Rush and his cronies out there to put the doubt in people's minds and they will continue to do that AND if the dems don't do something significant about Iraq, they will lose seats again. That's the trump card, success in Iraq will keep them in control.......for a while. I really think 1994 needed to happen just for the simple reason the dems did indeed get a little too cocky and power happy and the change in control made them realize their errors. The republicans will have the same realizations because they basically made all the same mistakes which resulted in their ouster. It's nice to see democracy work when it really needs to.

Herb, if you are going to quote someone, could you please pick someone besides a talk show host? Also, please remember the party in charge when they ramped up the war in Vietnam, the democrats. That's just another fixation of the conservative imagination.

"Herb, if you are going to quote someone, could you please pick someone besides a talk show host?"

The reason I chose Mr. Prager is that he has a reasoned view of Mr. Nixon and he also happens to be Jewish.

Herb

Isn't he the "America only respects one book" nutjob?

Schadenfreude.

Ham-fisted.

I have to admit, they are fun words to say.

ChickenJuggler-Then just wait until you use 'lily-livered' or 'a little pink around the gills.'

But be careful. You may send Trixter into fits of "NEO-CON!!!!!!"

Herb

IMHO, "a little pink around the gills" is my fave of these!

Andrew, I wouldn’t call James Rassman a liar. He recalled what he believes to be true. A convoy of swiftboats were patrolling the Mekong River Delta. One them exploded in a land mine. Kerry’s swiftboat fled the scene (some heroism), while the other swiftboats mounted a rescue operation. Rassman had fallen off one of the swiftboats and was underwater. While he was underwater, the crews of the swiftboats opened fire across the shoreline as a precaution. Kerry’s swiftboat finally came back and pulled Rassman out of the water.

From Rassman’s perspective he thought he heard enemy fire. It is understandable that Rassman believes Kerry’s act of cowardice was heroic.

"Isn't he the "America only respects one book" nutjob?"

Oh. I see.

Our founding Fathers were Muslims.

Got it.

So who's the 'nutjob' here?

Herb

C'mon Herb, this guy went from "we only swear in people on the bible", to "it's ok as long as the good book is in the room."

I've listened to a coupla his programs. He's a nut-job. Our law, crafted by our founders, specifically disallows any religious test for office.

Muslim, Christian, whatever has nothing to do with anything.

Anyway, his opinions are contradictory and not well aligned with facts. That's my support for nut job. His inability to accept his gross error, on this one topic alone, disqualifies him as any sort of real authority.

Entertainer? Yes. Has theraputic value? Yes.

"He's a nut-job. Our law, crafted by our founders, specifically disallows any religious test for office."

Your information is incorrect. Mr. Prager said nothing about a religious test. He simply thought it was a bad idea to omit the Holy Bible during a swearing in. No test. His opinion.

Anyway, until January, it's still a free country. After that, if Christophobic democrats begin to take over, all bets are off.

And lest you think Mr. Prager is out of the mainstream, you are way, way, off. Those aligned against him are in the distinct minority of Americans.

That's the real deal.

Herb

Just don't expect a lot of credence attached to Praeger references...

Hey, it's a (largely) free country right now. I would say just free, but W and the GOP kind of put the hammer down on that one.

After Jan, we might see some of our freedoms restored! That can only be a good thing. Too much power at the top tends to make for trouble in the ranks.

Can you tell me how it's not a test to require the bible at a swearing in? In particular, detail how this requirement makes any sense, given it's not a part of the legal proceedings?

Personally, I like this arrangement. People get to swear on their higher authority, whatever it may be. This means the Christians can use the bible all they want, with no worries! This also means our elected representatives are free to be who they are. This really matters to me. I don't want anyone in office living a lie.

We've seen the kinds of messes that makes. No thanks. Honest people, no matter their faith, are better people for office period.

What's the harm in that?

Getting back to the topic of this thread, statements like Praeger's, really do more to marginalize the neo-cons than they do to help. I think you are right about the majority of Americans believing the Bible matters. However, of that majority, a majority of those also recognize freedom of religion for the gift that it is too.

The only ones worried about a Muslim holding office are those few that want their religion in particular to stand above the others somehow. The rest of us are perfectly happy believing as we will and are thankful for it.

The neo-cons as a group have gone too far in their leveraging of religion in their politics. That's the end of the neo-con dream.

Y'all forgot my favorite Herbism that's also been beaten to death:

Ad Hominem

"Can you tell me how it's not a test to require the bible at a swearing in?"

Again.

One man's opinion.

Not a law.

One man's opinion, which many Americans obviously share. This is a lightning rod issue.

Herb

A whole lot of people don't like the speed limits either, but the law is clear.

I'm not gonna discuss this further.

Herb writes:
Please show me where Mr. Bush and Mr. Nixon lied.

Herb, you are probably the only one here who would ask about when Nixon lied. If you need an example of where Nixon lied at this point, here's no possible source I could quote to prove to you. The rest of us know that he said publically many times that he had nothing to do with Watergate when in fact he was the crisis manager for the coverup ("Watergate" meant not just the break-in). Almost all other Republicans understand that Nixon lied repeatedly and were digusted with him at the time.

As for Bush: here are just two examples:

Late in the 2000 campaign, it came out that Bush had been arrested for drunk driving when he had in fact told a reporter he had never been arrested.

In 2004, Bush said at a campaign stop that any wiretapping of Americans would require a FISA warrant when in fact Bush knew well that he had authorized wiretapping of Americans without FISA years ago.

Again, I have no doubt that real evidence and facts hold no interest for you. Most likely you still probably think Bush is the most honest president (except for Nixon) we've ever had.

Andrew

"The rest of us know that he said publically many times that he had nothing to do with Watergate when in fact he was the crisis manager for the coverup..."

One more time.

There is no solid evidence that Mr. Nixon knew of the break in.

You wanna talk about coverup, fine.

Otherwise, if you're gonna mix the two, I'm gonna talk about the Iraqi terrorists on 9/11.

Herbert M.

I'm not trying to mix the Watergate Break-in with the coverup, you are. Nixon said repeatedly he had nothing to do with any of it, that he was trying to find out who did it, yet he was micromanaging the coverup the whole time. Sure, I accept that he probably didn't know about the break-in, but that's irrelevant. Point is, Nixon lied about his role in the whole mess.

Andrew

Mr. Nixon did try to cover up.

I don't blame him, as he was mercilessly hounded throughout his presidency by a leftist press who hated him because of his anti-communist views.

Mr. Nixon did not enter us into the Vietnam War, but he got us out. I can mention the EPA, opening the door to China and standing toe-to-toe with the Russkies, but I don't want Trixter to fall asleep. It's gettting late.

Herb Milhous

"Mr. Nixon did try to cover up.

I don't blame him, as he was mercilessly hounded throughout his presidency by a leftist press who hated him because of his anti-communist views."

Well thank God for the press then, eh? Otherwise we'd never know the full story.

My personal belief is that you use the term " ham-fisted " as a pre-emptive strike because you know that you, yourself, do it to such a degree ( assigning motive where there is very little proof of such, so you feel like your conclusion leaps will go unchecked. Like trying to prove a negative. Or answering " Have you stopped beating your wife? " You'd make Clinton proud! ) that it's raised to an art form.

But yes, it is late. I may change my mind ( or have it changed ) by tomorrow.

Look.

The guy was flawed.

But he was a great American and for a variety of reasons.

If the left is gonna cut the flawed Mr. Clinton some slack, and they do, then they darn well better be consistent and do the same for the flawed Mr. Nixon.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

clinton eventually admitted to having sex with monica. this is gonna go a long way in the history slacking business.

I do, however, wish Nixon was still alive so we could have his input on the whole "w" adventure we've been through.

I feel like I gotta stand with Herb on this one.

What Nixon did to abuse the constitution and our government of laws was terrible. He fully earned his ignoble exit from the world stage.

On the other hand, there's no telling how many American servicemen and servicewomen would be alive now, if Nixon had been handling the current international situation. President Nixon would not have gotten us stuck in a breathtakingly incompetent war in Iraq.

I agree that Nixon would NOT have been so stupid as to get the US stuck in Iraq!

Andrew

Mr. Nixon indeed had a unique grasp on world politics.

It would have been interesting to see how he would have handled Iraq and 9/11.

The guy was a veteran, an attorney and very intelligent.

Herb

. . . And paranoid. RMN RIP

Nixon played a mean piano.

Oops so sorry....that was too political.

" . . And paranoid."

Nice ham-fisted, lily-livered, ad hominem attack on a fine president.

Herbert M.

...who was mentally ill.

Let's see solid evidence of your attack on Mr. Nixon.

Herbert M.

Nixon: Very intelligent
Clinton: Very Intelligent

Nixon: Lied-attempted cover up
Clinton: Lied- was caught and fessed up

Nixon: Result of lying and cover up-Loss of job
Clinton: Result of lying-Impeached in congress-no loss of job and completed his term

Nixon obstructed justice. Clinton slepted on the couch for two months.

Ha!

Bet that couch was brutal!

Nixon: Lied-attempted cover up.
Oh, you mean just like great democrats such as LBJ, JFK & Mr. Clinton?

Clinton: Lied- was caught and fessed up
NOT INITIALLY. HE WAGGED HIS FINGER AND DENIED!
ONLY AFTER THE BLUE DRESS WAS LOCATED DID HE 'COME CLEAN.'

Herb

Yeah, but the end result was the couch!

Given the dollars spent getting him there, it's a shame.

The other lies?

Lots worse.

"The other lies?

Lots worse."

IN YOUR DREAMS.

Mr. Nixon NEVER PERJURED HIMSELF. NOR WAS MR. NIXON IMPEACHED.

Mr. Clinton did both.

Herbert Milhous Nixon II

That's because he stepped down before it was forced!

Again, call it what you want. The end result with Clinton was the couch. No biggie in the overall scope of things.

The same cannot be said for your boys.

You know that guy, who did the study I linked to earlier? The one that associated mental defects with a strong preference for leaders? Sorry Herb, but Nixon was the most cited example of similar leaders of character!

Back to the original topic,
We still have the Presidency, supreme court, and the demos only have the senate by 1 vote, and under double digits in the house.

This election was a fluke, wont happen again for a while, next election will be back to the basics, taxes, killing unborn babies, and special rights for gays.

Maybe, maybe.

A lot of it depends on W. If he stays the course, the GOP could take another big hit in 08. If that happens, it will be ugly for a good long time.

It's hard to call it a fluke too. A whole lotta people, on all sides of this mess, are not happy with the GOP in general. Lots of spit and polish are gonna be needed to remain competetive, particularly with W being as stubborn as he is.

"...The end result with Clinton was..."

NOT the couch.

It was perjury, which Mr. Nixon did not commit.

Lying under oath is obviously no big deal to the left.

Herb

Oh it's a big deal. Just wait until some of the current lies and manupulations see some actual investigation.

My point all along is at the end of the day, the Clinton lie did not do much past him ending up on the couch! If it was a bigger deal than that, he would have actually been removed from office.

By contrast, look at the current wiretapping gaffe from Bush. It's in clear violation of the law, he totally lied about it, continues to lie about it, and refuses to do anything to rectify it.

...and the Iraq war. Just as messy.

At the end of the day for Bush, history is going to record a far greater impact from the lies and manupulations then anything Clinton did.

Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Nixon was no saint. Frankly, I could care less what he did and didn't do. None of it has any serious relevance today, unless you consider where the current theories of executive power came from.

We all know you love the guy. No biggie Herb. Just don't expect anyone to seriously share it, nor transfer it to the current administration.

Both parties have equal ability to screw up everything they touch. Instead of attacking the other side, both Repubs and Dems would do well to get their own houses in order.

You can have talking points, spin, and constant attacks on the other side, or... you can actually try and solve problems. I'm with Vic Atiyeh on this one. Ideology doesn't solve problems.

"If it was a bigger deal than that, he would have actually been removed from office."

Look, the guy was impeached.

And I agree with Wobboh. Vic Atiyeh remains among our best governors.

Too bad the only time democrats praise republicans is when they're out of office like Mr. Atiyeh, or deceased, like President Ford.

Any other time, conservatives are bashed all day long.

The left likes any republican that isn't in office, it seems.

Herb

I come from a long line of moderate New England Republicans. Gerald Ford vetoed more spending bills in 2.5 years than any other president. He avoided major nation-building projects. Sounds like a good guy to me.

Bush is not a problem because he's conservative; he's a problem because he's incompetent.

If Bush is the CEO and congress is the board of directors and we're the stockholders, we have just decided in the last election to make sure that the board of directors keeps a better eye on the company, since we have a CEO with (at best) questionable abilities.

"Gerald Ford vetoed more spending bills in 2.5 years than any other president. He avoided major nation-building projects. Sounds like a good guy to me."

I liked him a lot before.

From what you wrote, I love the guy now.

Herb

Herb, I need to make something really clear:

Bush is a neo-conservative, and an incompetent one at that. He is a poor leader, whose deeds do not embody all that makes this nation great. That is the basis for my rejection of his leadership period. He has earned no respect or credence and shall receive none from me.

Secondly, he has done real conservatives great harm in that they have been caught up in some stuff that is un-American at best, criminal at worst.

I do fully and completely reject the neo-conservative ideology. It has nothing to recommend it, we are worse for having granted any measure of acceptance to it. It's a redefinition of what America is, and the harm in that is totally obvious after having seen it in action here.

I do not reject more traditional conservative ideologies. I share some common ground with them in many areas, fiscal responsibility being a primary one. State rights are another one. Both of these have not been embodied in the GOP as of late. What happened with that? We need that back.

I do not reject Republicans in general. However, given the GOP support for Bush and all that comes with that, they will not get a vote for me pretty much ever again. Sadly, that's harmful because it takes actual conservatives down too, but I cannot again take the chance of strengthening the GOP in it's current form.

The damage was too great. It's not worth it.

The Dems are no prize, but they just have not engaged in such a full and complete rejection of our nations founding values, nor have they engaged in abuse of the law and policy in the blatent and self-serving way seen from the GOP, over the last few years.

Clinton fucked up in his sex scandal. Factor that out and the rest of the story is not anywhere near the horror we are currently seeing. That has been and always will be my primary point. All these comparisons of presidents past are fun and all, but they really don't mean much when put into the context of the present day issues.

I really don't like what happened with Clinton. It cost us a lot in that it opened the door pretty wide for the mess we have now. Had he not done that, the discussion today would be a lot different than it currently is. He's a bastard for that and he knows it too.

He probably hosed Hilary as well, we just don't know it yet. Bet she suspects though. I'll bet those conversations are pretty ugly.

Truth is, I will grant new faces considerable weight over existing ones going forward. The established players are a bit too comfortable for my blood.

That's the biggest victory in these recent elections. Lots of new faces, many without strong establishment ties. This will be good for us longer term.

The GOP really should consider doing the same thing, would do the country and the party good.

You know, I could almost buy your line if there was a Neo-Con 'playbook' or a self-identified wing of conservative 'neo-cons.'

From what I can tell, there isn't and there aren't.

It seems like the term neo-con was simply contrived to bash Republicans.

Herb

Here's a two-page piece about neoconservatives from Irving Kristol of the Weekly Standard, one of the "grandfathers" of neoconservatism:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?p g=1

(Just helping to define what we're talking about ... not that I agree with neoconservatives, which I don't)

Well, having been a registered Republican for nearly 20 years, somethings have changed. Those things that lost me, I've identified roughly above.

Perhaps neo-con is too vague of a label. I do know this, PNAC is scary ugly. If there is a playbook, that is the closest and easiest thing I can point to.

Bring me some American Conservatives and I'll consider bringing a vote.

. . . Some of you are wondering if your president is a crook . . . Well, I'm not a crook.
---RMN circa 1974

Well, its reassuring to know that according to herb, nixon was telling the truth there.

(NOT)

Herb,

Me saying Nixon was "mentally ill" is an attack?


That's a pretty ham-fisted coming from you.

Herb you are certainly entertaining me with your posts here. CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED!!! HE LIED UNDER OATH!!! My goodness how many more times are you going to keep yelling like the little kid in the corner with the dunce hat on!!!

I believe we have all agreed with you about Clinton's lies. However-Clinton stayed in office. Something your boy didn't. Geez.

As you have said many times....get a grip!

And Herb, are you channeling Wayne or something?

I certainly don't need to provide proof to YOU, of all people, about Nixon's well-documented paranoia, depression, alcohol and prescription (Dilantin, wasn't it?) drug abuse.

It's like asking you to discuss/prove facts on Jerry Garcia's life with me. Duh.

You already know the Nixon facts (I'm sure you own/have read the Haldeman Diaries).

Nice try, as you loooooove to write.

Herb....
When ya getting on your battle fatigues and going to Iraq???