http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY0ZDQ2NzhkMDEyYzAzNzY3MzlmNjczM2EzODI0Mz g=

Herb

Herb, it must be lonely in the minority these days, huh? :-)

Say it with me, once more.

President
Hillary
Clinton


Andrew

Yes Herb, say it: President Hillary Clinton. They you can throw up.

I must say, my biggest reason to support Hillary these days is that I know how much even the utterance of her name drives people like Herb batty. Then again, maybe Herb secretly has a crush on her?

Andrew

Hillary's problem is that Herb isn't the Lone Ranger.

Hillary as president would indeed be a nightmare.

What's interesting is that her negatives are so high, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Given this fact, my hunch is that she's going to gain power through the back door.

Possibly through a nomination of some sort...perhaps as V.P., supreme court or other mechanism.

The GREAT thing about Hillary is that while she's FAR smarter than Mr. Clinton, she has a ton of baggage...and now a voting history...that will follow her around.

Herb

>>>"Given this fact, my hunch is that she's going to gain power through the back door."

Is that similar to Bill and the front door?

Herb, don't you get it yet? Hillary is going to take power through a military coup when we are defeated by the Iraqi insurgents. Then she'll confiscate all the guns and force everyone to marry someone of the same gender. At least, I assume that's what you folks believe is going to happen...

Andrew

"Hillary is going to take power through a military coup when we are defeated by the Iraqi insurgents. Then she'll confiscate all the guns and force everyone to marry someone of the same gender."

I know it seems funny to democrats, but read your history.

The bolsheviks slaughtered many innocents whilst taking over mother Russia.

Germany, too.

And it happened precisely because the people were disarmed.

Herb

Herb, in your twisted fantasies, I have no doubt you believe that Hillary intends to do exactly what the Communists and the Fascists did in Russia and Germany. The rest of us are slightly more grounded in reality.

Andrew

Andrew.

Do you actually believe that people in those other countries weren't caught by surprise?

For example, if the 6 million Jews who were slaughtered by Nazi's thought it could happen, why didn't they leave?

The answer? Like you, they DIDN'T THINK IT COULD HAPPEN. If that's being grounded in reality, no thanks.

True reality is realizing that stuff like 9/ll can happen.

Like Berlin and Moscow, Washington, D.C. is a target for those who would like to overthrow us. Don't be too smug. Look at 9/ll. We are targets indeed.

Herb

I will change my registration to Republican if Hillary even gets the nomination, because even Bush Jr. would still be a better president.

Herb I agree that we are a huge target. You can thank Mr. Bush.

Chris, we became a target when the radicals discovered that we fled the scene in Somalia and did nothing about the attack on our troops. Osama took that as a sign we didn't have the will to resist them.

Look at the history again, Herb, and see WHAT was the underlying reason for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Nazi takeover in Germany.

Both instances, the countries in question were in ruin financially and spiritually. The Russians have had more than enough of the Czarist rule and its damn-near feudalism society. The Weimar Republic was doomed from the start in Germany because the country was so handcuffed with war reparations and the stripping of its industrial might, that it would have never worked.

Desperate people do desperate things. Had Russia and Germany been on solid footing, the Bolsheviks would have never seen the light of day and the Fascists would have been looked at as two-bit screwballs. The masses were in such dire straits that they were willing to listen to other ideas, and become enthralled with them.

Is that the case here in the United States? I highly doubt it. It's obvious that Herb can't see the sarcasm in Andrew's post, yet Andrew has a point. We as Americans ARE fed up, and it might well lead to the election of someone like Hillary Rodham Clinton, someone I don't believe would be the slightest bit electable if someone other than George W. Bush and his ineptness were in the Oval Office right now.

Ronald Reagan took advantage of a horrific economic time in this nation's history, he had the charisma and the right plan of action to get elected, and he won by a landslide twice. Reagan was probably too conservative to be elected had the country been better off economically, but again desperate people do desperate things. Do you really think that FDR would have been elected in 1932 with his whole giant Alphabet Soup social programs that plunged the United States far into debt had Herbert Hoover either A) not been in charge when the stock market crashed or B) been the SLIGHTEST bit proactive about finding a solution rather than the laissez-faire approach he took?

Think about it.

>>>"I will change my registration to Republican if Hillary even gets the nomination, because even Bush Jr. would still be a better president."

Actually, none of the Democrat choices are that great.

Hillary = extreme liberal, divisive
Edwards = empty suit
Obama = inexperienced, unproven
Vilsack = unknown, no charisma
Richardson = nice guy, no chance
Kerry = yesterday's newspaper
Gore = has already left the building
Clark = at best a joke
Sharpton = nice guy, fairly smart, unelectable
Kucinich = nobody could get that desperate

Your only half right about the Weimer republic, another reason for the Nazi success in taking over, the Wehmarcht(sp) germany army felt that it had been betrayed by the politicians at the end of WWI, just like many US military persoanel feel the demos sold us out in Vietnam, and are about to in iraq.

You're right, and Hitler made it a point of sticking it to the French especially in retaliation ... that is why he insisted in having France formally surrender in that same railroad car in Versailles that the armistice ending World War I had been signed in.

I don't know how the Democrats "sold us out" in Vietnam when it was the Democrats who got us IN Vietnam, Kennedy with the "advisors" and Johnson with the escalation. We got OUT of Vietnam under Nixon's watch ... so exactly how did the Democrats "sell us out"?? Iraq is simply a mess we should have never got into in the first place.

Deane-
I think Bush was pretty inexperienced as a President, but beyond that, for me he just doesn't have the make up for good decision making. Presidents make mistakes all the time, the good ones learn from them. I don't think GWB has learned from his mistakes and continues to keep making them.

Chris - it's hard for Bush to learn from his mistakes and stop making them if he feels that he never made a mistake in the first place. I believe that's the case here.

He's right and we're all wrong.

So that I'm clear, I am no longer a Bush fan and I think he's done a pretty poor job as President. I also think he will continue to do a poor job.

Deane - join many of us other Republicans who think the same way. Heck lots of Bush's constituents in Congress are running the other way as fast as they can!

"Herb I agree that we are a huge target. You can thank Mr. Bush."

As Mrs. Clinton would say, not so fast.

They hated us BEFORE the Iraq war. Remember 9/11?

Herb

Deane- You made it clear a while back your not a Bush fan and I actually feel kind of bad for those who are coming around to this way of thinking.

I believe Herb really feels Bush is his man and will defend him. But it has to be getting harder and harder with an unpopular war at home grinding on you everyday.

Some of my most conservative friends, who are also very conservative evangelical Christians who would never say a negative word about GW Bush, have found themselves doubting more and more. And again I feel bad for them because they feel let down. These are good people who have been mislead and as we have found out, they have been scoffed at by this administration. It's gotta hurt.

"They hated us BEFORE the Iraq war. Remember 9/11?"

And you thought the Arab world hated us BEFORE Dubya and his blundering ineptitude?

The difference is, before we had the backing of most of the rest of the world, at least our allies, in our dealings with the middle east. Now even our staunchest allies, save Britain, are against most all of our moves.

The United States of America right now is standing in the world, naked. And it's all the fault of ONE MAN.

"I believe Herb really feels Bush is his man and will defend him."

Sorry to disappoint you.

I'm a Nixon man.

The reason I defend Mr. Bush is because #1. He's right on fighting terror and #2. Democrats have no plan to fight terror.

Herbert Milhous

Saddam Hussein fought terrorists too (including many of the same type who attacked us on 9/11/2001), and Saddam apparently had a plan for fighting them. So why don't you defend Saddam? I think Saddam was a terrible person - so I guess that makes me weak on terror?

Democrats in the House just passed the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations, something the Republican Congress failed to do. Now which party actually tougher on terrorism? Oh, wait, it must be the Republicans, because you say so, over and over again.

Andrew

Herb says,

"They hated us BEFORE the Iraq war. Remember 9/11?"

Who's "they"? Al Quaeda? Yes they did hate us, and still do.

If "they" is Iraquis or the Arab world in general, where do you get that? I'm not saying the average Arab loved the USA, but I don't think they *hated* us. And the Arab World did not launch the 9/11 attacks, so what's to "remember" there? Should we remember Pearl Harbor, too? And the Alamo while we're at it? Please keep it relevant.


Herb also says,

"The reason I defend Mr. Bush is because #1. He's right on fighting terror and #2. Democrats have no plan to fight terror."

Herb, I don't know of a single American that is "pro terrorism". We *ALL* want to fight terrorism, so just shut up on that point because it is a stupid thing to say.

Question is, how should we fight terrorism? George Bush's plan is simple: Kill the terrorists. Problem is, now that Iraq is in a civil war you could classify almost everyone as a terrorist. Should we just nuke the country? That'd be good PR.

There are LOTS of other plans to fight terrorism Iraq and around the world, such as

• choke off the movement of terrorism and arms by sealing the borders or Iraq

• negotiation, diplomacy and leverage (such as the real threat of a pullout of US forces, which would get the current Iraqi leaders to wake up, since American forces are the only thing propping up their leadership)

• de-fund terrorism by not purchasing the main export of the middle east - oil - which requires a domestic energy plan based on energy independence. IF we can sacrifice 3000+ soldiers, we should be able to sacrifice an extra dollar or two per gallon at the pump.

• help make Iraq along with the entire middle east a beachhead of capitalism, by pumping money into legitimate Iraqi businesses (NOT Halliburton) and letting them achieve personal prosperity, which is the greatest deterrent to terrorism (it worked in Germany with the Marshall plan)

•etc, etc, etc...

Just because other plans don't sync up with Bush's doesn't mean that they are non-plans. Plus, Bush insists that he's the Decider and he will run the war, then cries about Dems not having other plans. We have the right to tell him that his plan sucks, and that he needs a new plan - and if that one sucks, we'll tell him again. If he wants the advice of the Dems on how to execute this war he should ask them, but it is not their responsibility to be Commander in Chief for him.

Chris,

Do you really believe your statment; Herb I agree that we are a huge target. You can thank Mr. Bush.?

The radical Muslims (the key word is radical) hated us before this President Bush, before his father and before Nixon.

They will continue to hate us after this President is out of office and the next and next and next presidents are out of office too.

They hate me, my family, you and your family, everybody associated with this board and all Americans.

They won't be happy until they kill us all.

That being said, I think we should pull all our troops out and negotiate peacefully with the terrorists.

Yeah, right.

"Herb, I don't know of a single American that is 'pro terrorism'."

The net effect of the democrats' non-strategy is so dangerous for the U.S. that even the terrorists wanted the democrats to win. Doesn't that tell you something?

Maybe democrats are anti-terror. Fine. Then how about coming up with a program for starters [some of your points are actually pretty good and far more than I've heard from the democrat party], and then how about making sure they aren't ones the real bad guys want?

That's just common sense.

Herb

I don't know anyone who thinks we should negotiate with "terrorists" in the way Reagan did in the 80s when he sold weapons to the Ayatollah, but one man's terrorist is another person's insurgent, dig? Contrary to what Bush wants you to think, not everyone fighting the US in Iraq and killing other Iraqis is a member of al Qaeda.

Of course we shouldn't negotiate with al Qaeda. We should negotiate with the Sunnis in Iraq, though - the ones who will be kicking al Qaeda out of Iraq the day the American troops leave. We should stop pretending that we have more of a right to decide Iraq's future than the people who live there and stop labeling any native Iraqi who opposes American occupation as a "terrorist."

Andrew

One thing that has not been mentioned here (or reported in the liberal media) is how the people of Iraq feel about us being there.

I'm talking about the "regular" people, not the ones building the IED's, car bombs shooting at our soldiers, etc.

A few weeks ago I was on a business trip and met 8 or 10 Marines that had just come back from Iraq.

To a man, every one of them was pissed at the media for how the war was being reported.

They were upset because all the media shows is the people being blown up, shot and being terrorized.

They said that daily the citizens of Iraq were coming up to them and thanking them, inviting them into their homes for meals etc.

Why doesn't the media report this kind of stuff too? Because then it would show that yes, we are doing some good over there.

It's not a breeze over there. Yes, our soldiers are being wounded and killed, but contrary to the liberal biased media we are doing some good.

Is it worth it? I don't think that is for us to decide. Ask the people of Iraq.

Herb said>>>>
Democrats have no plan to fight terror.

And Iraq is a plan????

"And Iraq is a plan????"

Yeah, when a bad guy is shooting at our planes, you take him out.

It was even backed by your UN and your guy Kerry, good buddy.

Herb

Of course, you come into the discussion with a huge bias of your own - the "liberal media" notion that the right wing just keeps repeating over and over again, even though it is easy to disprove. Actually, someone parroting basically the same line as you ("liberal media doesn't report the 'truth' in Iraq) was countered with, "When's the last time the arch-Conservative 'Washington Times' reported anything positive about Iraq? and the person did not have an answer.

But the idea that a "conservative" paper like the Washington Times doesn't report good news about Iraq either doesn't fit into your "liberal media" conspiracy - so you just ignore it. The fact that a pro-military journalist named Thomas Ricks wrote a devasting book about the military conduct of the Iraq war apparently isn't relevant. The fact that Republican Senators are now some of the loudest voices calling for the US to get out of Iraq doesn't seem to be relevant, either. It's all the damned liberal media's fault.

Actually, I have little respect for the mainstream media myself - but it has nothing to do with some supposed "liberal bias." The media are mostly whores who will go wherever the ratings are (explosions, blood) and will do whatever it takes to further their own personal ambitions, which have little to do in most cases with pushing a "liberal agenda." When Bush was popular, the media kissed his ass. They blindly supported the lead-up to the Iraq war. Only when Bush's popularity fell ,when it became obvious what a catastrophe Iraq was, did they turn on him - because that's where they saw the ratings and didn't want to be beat out by their rivals.

Andrew

Herb IGNORANTLY said>>>>
It was even backed by your UN and your guy Kerry.

WTF??? WHEN did I say Kerry was my guy???? NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PULL IT OUT!

Get back to me when your done with your Castro/Ill party.

Trixter...YOU'RE the one who is silent on what to do about Mr. Castro.

I'm for a free Cuba.

And you?

[silence]

Get back to us when you decide to help our Cuban friends fight an evil dictator.

Herb

YOU just want to take it by force like any neo-CONer would. BOMBS AWAY!!! KILL EM ALL!!!!

So Castro is YOUR guy??? Better get there and visit before he's dead. Your hero won't be alive for long.....

What's YOUR plan on North Korea? There building NUKES and your just sitting there on your hands??? Ill must really be your buddy!!!!

Herb- I would prefer helping our own citizens first. With over 35 million in poverty I think the priority should be here.

But there isn't any money in it for the neo-CONers.....