Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Snookered, I am just amazed that you deduced that I said anything at all from something McTag wrote. Of course McTag apparently fancies himself as a mind reader so who knows. Maybe exposure to that stuff is catching.

It really is a lovely day, however, though the wind is blowing this afternoon.

. So I replied, I don't know it was McTag's.
So sorry....

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

BUT,when Nancy and the dems were sworn in,they made apoint of saying that they would work a full week every week.
They havent done so yet,andI am wondering why not?

But, MM, your link is to what appears to be a meeting schedule. Are you drawing a conclusion that the House members are not working if they are not meeting on the floor?

I have only two meetings this week, too, both on Thursday, but I come to work every day.

No,that wasnt my conclusion at all.

BUT,with a little bit of research,I could find the comments from some on the left on here complaining that the previous congress was a "do nothing" congress,with the least amount of sessions and the least amount of actual "floor time" of any congress in history.
Then it was congress was not working,now its "they are working,just not having sessions on the house floor".

So,using that same logic,the previous congress,whether they were meeting with constituents,having committee meetings,or meeting on the house floor,were still working,werent they?

Why is it now OK to not have sessions in the house,but it wasnt ok for the repubs to do the same thing?

Oh, it's not just the 'floor time'; the 109 was the do-nothing congress b/c they didn't get anything done.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

From The Times
March 02, 2007

Oh George, what will we do when you're gone?
Our columnist on an easy target for America-bashers - Gerard Baker

Somewhere, deep down, tucked away underneath their loathing for George Bush, in a secret place where the lights of smart dinner-party conversation and clever debating-society repartee never shine, the growing hordes of America-bashers must dread the moment he leaves office.

When President Bush goes into the Texas sunset, and especially if he is replaced by an enlightened, world-embracing Democrat, their one excuse, their sole explanation for all human suffering in the world will disappear too. And they may just find that the world is not as simple as they thought it was.

It's been a great ride for the past six years, hasn't it? George Bush and Dick Cheney and all those pantomime villains that succour him ?- the gay-bashing foot soldiers of the religious Right, the forktailed neoconservatives with their devotion to Israel, the dark titans of American corporate boardrooms spewing their carbon emissions above the pristine European skies. Having those guys around for so long provided a comfortable substitute for thinking hard about global challenges, a kind of intellectual escapism.

When one group of Muslims explodes bombs underneath the school buses of another group of Muslims in Baghdad or cuts the heads off humanitarian workers in Anbar, blame George Bush. When Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, denounces an imbalanced world and growls about the unpleasantness of democracy in eastern Europe, blame George Bush. When the Earth's atmosphere gets a little more clogged with the output of power plants in China, India and elsewhere, blame George Bush.

Some day soon, though, this escapism will run into the dead end of reality. In fact, the most compelling case for the American people to elect a Democrat as president next year is that, in the US, leadership in a time of war requires the inclusion of both political parties, and in the rest of the world, people will have to start thinking about what is really the cause of all our woes.

Take a look at the miserable mess that is unfolding in what is supposed to be the "West's" fight in Afghanistan against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was, remember, unlike Iraq, "the good war". Within days of September 11, 2001, all the European members of Nato readily signed up to assist America in righting the wrongs of international terrorism by defeating the Kabul regime and its allies.

Even after the alliance fell out over the Iraq war, those who opposed that conflict reiterated their dedication to winning the one in Afghanistan. When the Spanish socialists pulled their nation's troops out of Iraq in 2004, they insisted they were fully committed to the war against the Taleban.

But what is the state of that struggle? These days, despite the notional presence of a Nato force involving more than 15 countries, only a handful ?- Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, and plucky Lithuania included ?- are putting anything like the effort required in terms of resources and willingness to take the fight to the enemy.

Others ?- such as the Germans and the French ?- will commit troops and equipment but won't let them fight, preferring noncombatant roles. Last week the Italian Government collapsed because some of its members actually want to make friends with the Taleban. European countries are not failing to fight the war in Afghanistan because they don't like George Bush. They lack either the perception of the threat or the will to deal with it.

Does anyone really think the election of President Hillary Clinton will be greeted with a sudden surge of German and French troops to Kabul and Helmand, routing al-Qaeda militants in the name of multilateralism?

President Barack Obama will find that when he wants to make good on his promise to win the war in Afghanistan, EU leaders will be much happier explaining how their new constitution will enlighten the world.

President John Edwards will discover, when he seeks a united front to tackle an enemy that would happily incinerate every European city and its inhabitants tomorrow, that the Europeans would much rather take urgent action to address the risk that global warming will produce a possible 18cm increase in sea levels by 2100.

This escapism is not confined to President Bush's critics in Europe, as the current battle over Iraq in Congress demonstrates. The Democrats have majorities in both houses. They could, if they wished, move to end the war in Iraq, which most of them ?- having once supported it ?- now oppose. They could vote to cut off funding for US troops and force the Pentagon to bring them home.

But they won't do that. That would involve taking responsibility for a dangerous war. They would much rather, carp and cavil and pass "nonbinding" resolutions that express dissatisfaction with the war but leave the actual job of ending it to the Bush Administration.

This is why it may be a good thing if Americans were to elect a Democrat next year. Certainly, he or she could change the tone of US diplomacy by speaking more contritely about Iraq, by sounding more concerned about climate change, perhaps even by agreeing to hold talks talk with the Iranians to try to persuade them to drop their nuclear programme.

But it's likely that sooner or later a Democrat would have to have his or her "Nixon Goes to China" moment. Just as Bill Clinton discovered in the 1990s, when the Europeans were happy to sit back and let Serbs slaughter Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims, a Democrat will find a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the task.

In the dread modern vernacular of management-speak, the Democrats need to take ownership of American leadership in a turbulent world. Though it can be fairly argued that President Bush's incompetence has made things worse, the challenge of radical Islamism was not invented by the Bush Administration.

Even as some future Democratic president proclaims his commitment to renewing alliances, he is sure to be greeted with all kinds of explanations as to why the Europeans are just not quite ready to make that a joint ownership. When that moment comes, everyone will be urgently wishing they still had George Bush to blame.
SOURCE

For a minute I actually thought that you had an original thought. Didn't see the Tribute to the Times. Since you did post anothers thoughts and words, you must believe them. Anyone can cut and paste. But you disgust me! A person playing intelligent but in actuality so so much. What's worst is that you believe everything you read, especially a fishwrapper.
Let's see what about the past six years that's so great (why not include the past seven to include when the real religious terrorists zealots flew planes into The Twin World Towers. That is a great start to the nest seven years.
There are reasons for labels put on people, racial profiles, and it's interesting how many rumors turn out to be true. It it act's like a moron, talks like one, dismisses suggestions requested, goes to war then tells congress, then this is MORON BUSH.
The President in office usually does take blame sometimes unduely. However, not before Bush has the United States lost respect with so many nations. He is a joke around the world. It's not by happenstance that Bush gets labeled. It's because many of our problems are directly derived by his inadequate understanding of world relations and human relations for that matter.
Reputations are not a fluke. By far reputations are earned and true, wether you like it or not.
Bush and bush alone decided to invade Iraq. He owns this tragedy. I knew and know that this war cannot be won. I have said it before. So why would Bush get into a unwinable war? Because he has traits of a FASCIST PEOPLE! The consequences of his actions, American Troops getting blown apart, innocent Iraquis getting killed by the thousands. Kidnappings, beheadings, terrible bombs tearing heavily armoured tanks and blowing our soldiers apart.
This is Bushs' stupidity and is why HE GETS BLAMED.
I suppose Haliburton and Cheney rings no bell in you mind? There is a reason people get reputations good or bad.

What I find most disgusting in this article, is not one single mention about all the American soldiers killed and maimed.

If your not shamed you might be a Fascist.

Foxfyre wrote:

Snookered, I am just amazed that you deduced that I said anything at all from something McTag wrote. Of course McTag apparently fancies himself as a mind reader so who knows. Maybe exposure to that stuff is catching.

It really is a lovely day, however, though the wind is blowing this afternoon.

It seems that I need to understand better: the post came to me the same as above quote="Foxfyre". So I replied, I don't know it was McTag's.
So sorry....

snookered wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Snookered, I am just amazed that you deduced that I said anything at all from something McTag wrote. Of course McTag apparently fancies himself as a mind reader so who knows. Maybe exposure to that stuff is catching.

It really is a lovely day, however, though the wind is blowing this afternoon.

It seems that I need to understand better: the post came to me the same as above quote="Foxfyre". So I replied, I don't know it was McTag's.
So sorry....

Again no harm no foul Snookered. The quote within a quote and especially when you have quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes, it can be confusing.

Bush supporters do not champion anybody when the person is clearly wrong and I don't know a one of us who mindlessly follows the party line or the talking points of the day. But we can understand that both good and bad stuff can exist in the same box.

Satan's Chambermaid Strikes Again

by Steve Soto
The last time I checked, you and the event you spoke at could be fined for public, broadcast comments like these.

Ann Coulter today, at the CPAC conference, right after Mitt Romney endorsed her and she endorsed him:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ?'faggot,' so I ?- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

Look, we all know she loves the attention. But if two bloggers for John Edwards can be forced out of their jobs for their own opinions about the Catholic Church by fascists operating a pro-Catholic lynch mob, and if Al Gore can be smeared by Matt Drudge for having a big house and electric bill, then I think a little pushback pressure at Mitt Romney and towards the FCC for an indecency fine is in order here.

Update: Howard Dean nails her for it.

There is some history behind that comment, Revel--an inside joke-- and while I do not at all approve of that kind of humor, it was intended as a humorous remark when placed within that history. But I'll also thump Coulter. She shouldn't have used the word at CPAC even if it didn't have the meaning one might think if it was taken at face value.

I wish, however, that there was the same kind of indignation aimed at ALL people who use such unkind or inappropriate humor. The indignation, outrage, and judgmentalism seems to be aimed only at conservatives who make unkind remarks. Probably folks would take it more to heart if the criticism was uniformly applied.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ?'faggot,' so I ?- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

Foxfyre wrote:

There is some history behind that comment, Revel--an inside joke-- and while I do not at all approve of that kind of humor, it was intended as a humorous remark when placed within that history. But I'll also thump Coulter. She shouldn't have used the word at CPAC even if it didn't have the meaning one might think if it was taken at face value.

I wish, however, that there was the same kind of indignation aimed at ALL people who use such unkind or inappropriate humor. The indignation, outrage, and judgmentalism seems to be aimed only at conservatives who make unkind remarks. Probably folks would take it more to heart if the criticism was uniformly applied.

Is this the history?

Taken at face value, Ok.

Quote:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ?'faggot,' so I ?- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

She was going to talk about Edwards but since she didn't want to go into rehab for using the word "faggot" (which btw-she used it) she couldn't really talk about Edwards. In other words the face value of her comments is she thinks Edwards is gay but she was going to use the slur word "faggot". I guess because he combs his hair. I agree with one of the other commenters, Obama is hotter.

John Edwards Feeling Pretty

Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.

A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army's top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.

Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, said he ran into Kiley in the foyer of the command headquarters at Walter Reed shortly after the Iraq war began and told him that "there are people in the barracks who are drinking themselves to death and people who are sharing drugs and people not getting the care they need."

"I met guys who weren't going to appointments because the hospital didn't even know they were there," Robinson said. Kiley told him to speak to a sergeant major, a top enlisted officer.

A recent Washington Post series detailed conditions at Walter Reed, including those at Building 18, a dingy former hotel on Georgia Avenue where the wounded were housed among mice, mold, rot and cockroaches.

Kiley lives across the street from Building 18. From his quarters, he can see the scrappy building and busy traffic the soldiers must cross to get to the 113-acre post. At a news conference last week, Kiley, who declined several requests for interviews for this article, said that the problems of Building 18 "weren't serious and there weren't a lot of them." He also said they were not "emblematic of a process of Walter Reed that has abandoned soldiers and their families."

But according to interviews, Kiley, his successive commanders at Walter Reed and various top noncommissioned officers in charge of soldiers' lives have heard a stream of complaints about outpatient treatment over the past several years. The complaints have surfaced at town hall meetings for staff and soldiers, at commanders' "sensing sessions" in which soldiers or officers are encouraged to speak freely, and in several inspector general's reports detailing building conditions, safety issues and other matters.

Retired Maj. Gen. Kenneth L. Farmer Jr., who commanded Walter Reed for two years until last August, said that he was aware of outpatient problems and that there were "ongoing reviews and discussions" about how to fix them when he left. He said he shared many of those issues with Kiley, his immediate commander. Last summer when he turned over command to Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, Farmer said, "there were a variety of things we identified as opportunities for continued improvement."

In 2004, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and his wife stopped visiting the wounded at Walter Reed out of frustration. Young said he voiced concerns to commanders over troubling incidents he witnessed but was rebuffed or ignored. "When Bev or I would bring problems to the attention of authorities of Walter Reed, we were made to feel very uncomfortable," said Young, who began visiting the wounded recuperating at other facilities.

Beverly Young said she complained to Kiley several times. She once visited a soldier who was lying in urine on his mattress pad in the hospital. When a nurse ignored her, Young said, "I went flying down to Kevin Kiley's office again, and got nowhere. He has skirted this stuff for five years and blamed everyone else."

Quote:

Young said that even after Kiley left Walter Reed to become the Army's surgeon general, "if anything could have been done to correct problems, he could have done it."

Soldiers and family members say their complaints have been ignored by commanders at many levels.

More than a year ago, Chief Warrant Officer Jayson Kendrick, an outpatient, attended a sensing session, the Army's version of a town hall meeting where concerns are raised in front of the chain of command. Kendrick spoke about the deterioration and crowded conditions of the outpatient administrative building, which had secondhand computers and office furniture shoved into cubicles, creating chaos for family members. An inspector general attending the meeting "chuckled and said, 'What do you want, pool tables and Ping-Pong tables in there?' " Kendrick recalled.

Army officials have been at other meetings in which outpatient problems were detailed.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Kiley sat in a congressional hearing room as Sgt. 1st Class John Allen, injured in Afghanistan in 2002, described what he called a "dysfunctional system" at Walter Reed in which "soldiers go months without pay, nowhere to live, their medical appointments canceled." Allen added: "The result is a massive stress and mental pain causing further harm. It would be very easy to correct the situation if the command element climate supported it. The command staff at Walter Reed needs to show their care."

In 2006, Joe Wilson, a clinical social worker in the department of psychiatry, briefed several colonels at Walter Reed about problems and steps that could be taken to improve living conditions at Building 18. Last March, he also shared the findings of a survey his department had conducted.

It found that 75 percent of outpatients said their experience at Walter Reed had been "stressful" and that there was a "significant population of unsatisfied, frustrated, disenfranchised patients." Military commanders played down the findings.

"These people knew about it," Wilson said. "The bottom line is, people knew about it but the culture of the Army didn't allow it to be addressed."

Last October, Joyce Rumsfeld, the wife of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was taken to Walter Reed by a friend concerned about outpatient treatment. She attended a weekly meeting, called Girls Time Out, at which wives, girlfriends and mothers of soldiers exchange stories and offer support.

According to three people who attended the gathering, Rumsfeld listened quietly. Some of the women did not know who she was. At the end of the meeting, Rumsfeld asked one of the staff members whether she thought that the soldiers her husband was meeting on his visits had been handpicked to paint a rosy picture of their time there. The answer was yes.

When Walter Reed officials found out that Rumsfeld had visited, they told the friend who brought her -- a woman who had volunteered there many times -- that she was no longer welcome on the grounds.

Last week, the Army relieved of duty several low-ranking soldiers who managed outpatients. This week, in a move that some soldiers viewed as reprisal for speaking to the media, the wounded troops were told that early-morning room inspections would be held and that further contact with reporters is prohibited.

Yesterday, Walter Reed received an unscheduled inspection by a hospital accreditation agency. Members of the Joint Commission, formerly the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, began a two-day visit "for cause" to examine discharge practices that have allowed soldiers to go missing or unaccounted for after they are released from the hospital.