« Richard Pryor Dies Of Heart Attack At 65 | Main | Hot for teacher's money »

The most despicable of political tactics

A lot of people have said that the Democrats of today have very little in common with the Democrats of yesteryear. They point to such notable Democrats of the past as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, and the like, and wonder where their modern-day heirs are.

One of the things I admired about Harry Truman was the origin of his "Give 'em Hell, Harry" nickname. He was told to do so by one of his supporters. Truman replied, "I just told the truth and they thought it was Hell."

It's a good thing the haberdasher from Hannibal isn't around to see what's become of his party.

Last week, the Republican National Committee released an ad on the internet. In it, they didn't toss around any accusations, they just played clips of the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and a leading Democratic senator.

This brought howls of protest from the Democrats, who promptly went digging for honored veterans to hide behind. Senator Inouye of Hawaii, who won the Medal of Honor and lost an arm in service to our nation while his family was interned for being of Japanese origin, led the charge, denouncing the ad and calling for it to be taken down.

Two things immediately spring to mind:

1) I wonder where the Democrats' newfound respect for veterans came from. It was nowhere in evidence in 1992 or 1996, when a draft-dodger who had publicly expressed his "loathing" for the military ran against two men with distinguished war records.

2) It speaks volumes that the Democrats think that it is "shameful and disgusting" to simply repeat the words of their own leadership, and to give those views more publicity.

Perhaps the Democrats ought to tell us when they are speaking publicly whether they are actually speaking for the record, and when we should simply ignore what they say. It'd make it a lot easier for those of us trying to follow their positions...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The most despicable of political tactics:

» The Violence Worker! linked with It's an Insult

» In Search Of Utopia linked with I'm Back and it Means...

» Uncle Sam's Cabin linked with "Retreat and Defeat"

Comments (42)

I believe I will play it sa... (Below threshold)
Smartguy:

I believe I will play it safe and ignore what they say as a general rule.

Also makes you wonder about... (Below threshold)

Also makes you wonder about the unseeming rise of John Murtha to become poster-boy for the Democrats... To the point of Nancy Pelosi dropping his name 6 times in a 7 minute interview... Where did he come from? Suddenly he an important voice? Why?

Great posting. Initially pu... (Below threshold)
Bedrock Guy:

Great posting. Initially pulled down the report by Drudge, then found Jay Tea's note Sunday in Heidelberg.

I'm writing Senator Inouye an email to tell him, very politely and professionally, why his comments are off base. In addition, he should expend his energy asking members of his own party why they continue to utter such defeatist rhetoric.

I'm a veteran of a tank battalion in DESERT STORM, and volunteered for combat for three other campaigns, so, using Democratic Party logic, I have a right to speak out. So does Inouye; however, his anger is misguided. The President and the RNC are finally responding to the ongoing misguided and defeatist atacks by Inouye's fellow Democrats, and it is unfortunate that they are using Inouye's CMH to rationalize their defeatism.

As for Murtha, I'm not impressed by his record or his veteran status since he's allowed his record to be used by his fellow defeatists Pelosi and Dean. I do not doubt his concern for our Soldiers, but his actions are reprehensible and his veteran status should not be allowed to cloud just how damaging his comments could be to the war effort.

r/ Bedrock Guy

You want to 'follow their p... (Below threshold)

You want to 'follow their positions'?

To where?

Insanity?

Republicans hiding behind w... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

Republicans hiding behind war rhetoric and patriotism, while Democrats the GOP ammunition on a silver platter. Looks pretty standard to me.

--|PW|--

Much better to follow <a hr... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Much better to follow the money trail of the Republicans

Power corrupts no doubt, St... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

Power corrupts no doubt, Steve, but your link is rather thin fare. Delay, who will be exonerated, Frist, against whom no charges will be brought, and Michael Scanlon, a lobbyist and FORMER aide to Delay. Cunningham stinks and was quickly staked to the ant hill by his Republican cohorts. Would that Dems, in or out of power, would do the same.

Tob

If the money trail were of ... (Below threshold)

If the money trail were of consequence we would have heard you on the sleazy money raising of the Clinton administration and the whole*sale* bending over to agents of the People's Republic.
Wouldn't we?

Steve:You want sle... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Steve:

You want sleaze, here is sleaze. It is called the Clinton administration:

-Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clintons who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47

- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33

- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61

- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

This does not include any convictions or indictments of Democrat Congressman of which there were many,

In contrast, the Bush administration has had 1 indictment and no convictions.

The Democrats have always d... (Below threshold)
Jake:

The Democrats have always depended on the MSM to not report their stupid statements, the statements that contradicted the statements they made a week before, and all treasonous statements.

Then came the alternative media who tracks these statements and never forgets them. The most effective commercials the Republicans have run in the past two campaigns did one thing. It played back Democrats speaking with no other narration.

"Let every nation know, whe... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty. "
John F. Kennedy

I think the GOP needs to run this soundbite over and over against the current nay-sayers and ask the question what happened to these Democrats?

You nailed it Eric. The on... (Below threshold)
epador:

You nailed it Eric. The only thing to fear with such a tactic is that they find someone hiding in the closet of the Democratic Party who can fill those shoes (and not some pretender with the same initials).

I'm not going to be so nice... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I'm not going to be so nice.

When veterans lend their service records for Politicians to use as political tools, its an insult to all those who've served and never sought to exploit it.

When veterans lend their... (Below threshold)

When veterans lend their service records for Politicians to use as political tools, its an insult to all those who've served and never sought to exploit it.

I think of Democrats like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter who served their country in the armed forces honorably and then shut up about it. It never would have occured to these men to use their service for political advantage. They are paragons of virtue compared to that grasping, meretricious whore John Kerry whose incessant refrain "When I served in Vietnam..." became a national joke.

Steve,One name top... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

Steve,

One name tops anything and everything the Socialists/Democrats can ever come up with: Marc Rich.

Until that one's explained (preferably in front of a grand jury), don't ever try to claim the highground for the Surrender Monkeys when it comes to political morality.

The thing that smarts in th... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

The thing that smarts in this ad is Kerry's statement about our own soldiers going into Iraqi homes "in the dead of night 'terrorizing' kids and children"..... I think one of the Sunday talking heads should ask Pelosi, Dean or Kerry directly whether Murtha speaks for the official Democratic Party position. The rest of the conversation would logically follow up with questions regarding Lieberman's and Hillary's conflicting position and the lack of guts of voting for this "official" position in Congress. It would be loads of fun to watch.

I'm having the same 'startl... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I'm having the same 'startled-not-surprised' reaction as to Murtha, who, literally overnight, has become the guy to use daily by Democrats and the Liberal media. Not like he's not on in years, hasn't been around for a long, long while in which, if he'd been all that interesting, couldn't have been on the screen/in print/everywhere mentioned before.

I, too, noticed the multitudes of Murtha mentions by Pelosi, if not Murtha himself.

And now Senator Inouye's calling the RNC White Flag ad "outrageous...a disgrace...(all the usual Democrat retorts)" and I was wondering if maybe Inouye has become confused and said "President Bush" in reference to these ads when he should have said "Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi" and many dozens more from Democrats.

At times when there is a succinct statement made, an effectively accurate one, from Republicans to and about Democrats, they get the veterans among their numbers to speak about "outrage" and such.

It's not like people don't notice the Democrats' insincerity, and that's putting things non outrageously and quite kindly.

Kerry lying (again) on an international broadcast the other night about American military, Dean lying (again) with delusional failure syndrome ("the U.S. won't win...")...and Inouye, Murtha, et al. have the audacity to decry Republicans?!?

Their groveling and usery just knows no bounds. The Democrats are pigs caught in the headlights of truth and they have to try to fly because they have no other place to go.

It's pitiable.

It reminds me of a scene in... (Below threshold)
merc:

It reminds me of a scene in Liar, Liar when Jim Carrey's character shouts out "Objection!" in the courtroom. When the judge askes why, he states: "Because it's devastating to my case!"

Wow! I didn't know Senator... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Wow! I didn't know Senator Inouye was still around until I saw him on the tube the other day. The Democrats should keep him under a rock: he and his female hairdresser admitted many years ago that he repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

One failed <a href="http://... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

One failed top gun who is proving even embarrassing to the present Republican leadership is Duke Cunningham (as he should have, a long time ago). It is probably not out of character that in 1992 he declared that the Democratic leadership "ought to be lined up and shot. I would have no hesitation about lining them up and shooting them."(which seems to strike a resonant chord with some of the commenters here.). I wonder what Cunningham thinks his appropriate for his own sentence today after pleading guilty for taking lavish bribes from defense contractors. As, the journalist Daniel Strumpf who uncovered Cunningham said,"Before I went into journalism, I worked in psychiatry and I learned there not to listen to what people say but to look at what they do,” he said. “The same is true with politicians. I’ve learned to pay little attention to what the say but watch very closely what they do.”

You won't see George W. Bus... (Below threshold)

You won't see George W. Bush pardoning Duke Cunningham.

Clinton said it was a mista... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Clinton said it was a mistake to pardon Rich, indeed he said he made alot of mistakes in his presidency Bush is just getting started..and the second term is traditionally the one that scandals come to life in..i.e. in Clinton's, Reagan's and Nixon's administrations.

Steve, if you believe the t... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Steve, if you believe the things that come out of Mr. Clinton's mouth, I have a bridge to sell you. He only admits a mistake if he thinks it will make him a "blacker" President, and he can wallow in self-pity about his little problems. He was more interested in his own problems rather than the country's--he kicked the can down the road on Israel/Palestine, Muslim extemism, terror, nuclear proliferation, etc.

One correction to the record re Jimmy Carter: he was, and is, a whore, but of a different stripe--he wears his "moral superiority" on his little sleeves, and not suspecting that he has none, he has done much damage to the world: Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, and Russia, to name a few. Pity the man who has to constantly atone for his poor judgment.

The Democrats of WWII and Korea, as well as Vietnam--they got us into that mess--are dead.

I was criticized earlier fo... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I was criticized earlier for providing rather thin fare on purported Republican sleaze. Well it was a London Times link about the corrupt money trail..so this is something more lurid about Cunningham and Abramoff's enriching schemes from non-existing defense contractors at the taxpayer and Defense budget's expense; that is money out of your pockets for your families ( about 500 million ) which should have gone to real Defense Appropriations, to provide for the safety the nation. If the Democrats are chastised a for offering only newfound respect for Veterans, I would prefer that to the oldfund respect for Veterans, from Cunningham and Abramoff's gang, as judged by their deeds and their sometimes cosy and always self-enriching it would seem, relationship with the Pentagon and Congressional leaders. I must go now.

Admitting one made a mistak... (Below threshold)

Admitting one made a mistake of this magnitude [pardoning Rich] doesn't really mean anything if there are no personal consequences, or at least no consequences that were not already present aside from said mistake.

Clinton claims that he made a mistake and is sorry. So what? It doesn't change what happened, and he can't be hurt politically by admitting his mistake(s). It's too late to make personal political hay, but it's not too late (in some people's minds) to try damage control for his legacy.

I have a feeling that Bill and Hilary don't do anything unless they can turn it to their advantage, think they can turn it to their advantage, or get away with it. The concept of morality for its own sake is completely lost upon them. Even the Lewinsky scandal came in handy in some ways. Of course, I don't think he ever expected to get caught with his pants down, either.

I could apply the same general comments on a host of other politicians, Democrat and Republican. I do see more on the former side than the latter, however, and I suppose that is the whole point.

Steve, what was the House P... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Steve, what was the House Post Office Scandal?

If memory serves, Rosti, one of the leaders of the Dems in the House, was sent home packing for the corruption he was a part of in the very administration of the House, not in the dealings of one congressman on the sly.

What about all the dollars dumped down the rat hole of the 40 year old welfare society, and the education departments, state and federal. Who do we lay that one on??? How many up-armored Humvees would that have bought, Steve? How much economic growth would that have brought, and added jobs in the slow-grown '70's that resulted.

You people kept people as in slavery, but under different means. Your lack of shame is famous, but not forgiveable.

Actually, Harry Truman was ... (Below threshold)
Jim Armstrong:

Actually, Harry Truman was from Independence, MO., a suburb of Kansas City. Hannibal is where Mark Twain was from.

Once again, the intellectua... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Once again, the intellectual dishonesty is mind-boggling. First, the Republicans run an ad with a white flag waving, implying that the Democrats are emboldening our enemies, and Jay Tea portrays the Democrats objections as being based only on the fact that their words were used against them, as if there were no problems with context. "they didn't toss around any accusations," indeed. All the did was "simply repeat the words of their own leadership." I guess accusing the Democrats of cowardice and calling their plan "retreat and defeat" is just an impartial obervation.

And the Democrats showed their contempt for the military by running a "draft dodger" in the 90s against two veterans? So when the Republicans nominated veterans, the Democrats should have just conceded the election? And what does the presence of Cheney and a host of others in the Administration say about the contempt for veterans in the current White House? Could it be that we're seeing a generational change? Look at the number of veterans in the Congress. In 2004, only 33 out of 100 Senators were veterans. I gues that means the Senate has only contempt for veterans.

And I think it's amusing that the Republicans keep patting themselves on the back for the way they condemned Duke Cunningham. The guy stood there blubbering as he told the world he was completely guilty. How courageous of the Republicans to jump on that bandwagon. What the hell else could anyone say? Please show me the quotes from the Republicans who were condemning him before he confessed. Funny how the implication is that since the Republicans condemned him, his incredible record of thievery doesn't count as a black mark against the party, as if it turns out he wasn't really a Republican after all. Hey, Scanlon copped a plea, too. Let's make sure we step up and take a principle stand against him, especially now that he's no longer good for a handout. I don't know what's going to come from the Abramoff investigation, but I think there's enough blood in the water that the Republicans shouldn't be crowing just yet.

And Jake, your list of the "Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clintons who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes," assuming it's the same list that's been circulating on the rightr wing blogs, is just as accurate as the rest of this post. A quick examination of the list shows that "Clinton associates" are basically anyone in Arkansas who's ever been convicted of a crime. If someone who knew the Clintons was involved in illegal activity, then everyone they ever knew or worked with becomes a "Clinton associate." That list is bogus.

Chris, if you had to answer... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Chris, if you had to answer your own questions honestly, several would go against you.

We disavowed Cunningham, sure. Have you guys done the same with, say, Sharpton, a notorious liar and tax-cheat?

You boys have "hid behind the military" as you understand it as personified in Murtha and Kerry. And then there is Cindy S.

I don't think the Dems have much credibility in the post-Vietnam era to discuss Defense without a chuckle or two from our side. Oh, and thanks for gutting the CIA with the Church Commission in the 70's. It probably is so dysfunctional now that we won't catch the next stunt the Islamic radicals pull against us here.

Thanks for the memories.

Steve,Chris try th... (Below threshold)
David:

Steve,Chris
try this on:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January 2005.

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, We Can state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost . an average
of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From
1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .. an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed
the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without
firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick
with his secretary (lover) inside.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

(Just a note I'm not taking... (Below threshold)
David:

(Just a note I'm not taking credit for writing the above post.) I don't know the original author/speaker.

Oh, but didn't you know, wh... (Below threshold)

Oh, but didn't you know, when a demo(n)crat speaks, the world is to only listen and obey without question or thought. When a republican speaks, the world is to ignore it, twist it, and assume it is only a lie to convince a nation to go to war (and subsequently liberate TWO COUNTRIES).

"I wonder where the Democra... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"I wonder where the Democrats' newfound respect for veterans came from"

This is fundamentally dishonest. You should retract.

Democrats constantly vote for more Veteran benefits than Republicans. Check the last few years of votes, and these as well.
S.AMDT.2616
S.AMDT.2634

"There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January 2005."

Now, does that include bombings of civilians? Does it count the Iraqi murder rate? Does it count Americans and other allies? Does it count accidental deaths?

My guess is that it doesn't. Put in the Iraqi murder rate, then compare it to Detroit. You'll find a staggering difference.

VOting for Veteran entitlem... (Below threshold)
RYan:

VOting for Veteran entitlement programs is meaningless - democrats vote for any entitleent program they can get their hands on. Its reflexive. If there was an entitlement program for death row inmates, Democrats would vote for it. YOu show real respect for veterans by respecting the causes that they respect - and I daresay that on that front Democrats are, to use their own terminology, a 'Dismal failiure'.


OK, for you anal moon bats ... (Below threshold)
epador:

OK, for you anal moon bats who live and die on numbers (this damn death count in Iraq thing you promulgate is just plain hideous), how about comparing both absolute numbers and the death rate monthly in the US from MVA's to US soldier death rate in all overseas action. Remember to use total US forces overseas receiving combat pay as the denominator for the troops death rate. Then ask how much time even Ralph Nadar still spends talking about preventing MVA carnage.

Gotta go to work for Dept Homeland Defense. Will check back 2nite for your answers.

DavidIf you had wr... (Below threshold)
Chris:

David

If you had written what you posted, I would hope you would have spent a little more time researching it. Generally, these kind of lists are full of holes, and this is no exception. First, Roosevelt didn't "lead us into war." We were attacked by Japan, followed by a declaration of war from Germany. No Germany didn't "attack" us, but they did declare war on us first. In his response to Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt specifically asked Congress to declare war on Japan, and never mentioned Germany. By your line of thinking (excuse me, the line of thinking of the person who wrote your post for you), Bush led us into being attacked on 9/11.

Nuclear inspectors first went into North Korea in 1993 (who was President then?) They were kicked out in 2003 (who was President then?) Now they're back in, and you're giving Bush credit for getting inspectors into North Korea. Oh, brother.

And Libya had been trying to rehabilitate its international reputation for years, because it was suffering under UN and US sanctions, and Kadaffi is trying to lessen tensions before he hands power to his son. Paying reparations for the Lockerbie bombing was part of that, as was giving up on its basically uselss nuclear program. I know it's hard to comprehend when you deal in a black and white, this-causes-that line of thinking, but Bush invading Iraq isn't necessarily the cause of everything that subsequently happens in the world.

As for your ridiculous timelines, we can play that game all day. I'm sure if I was interested enough, I could find some event that took about the same time as it took the corrupt Nixon to admit his crimes and resign in disgrace. But it still wouldn't be relevant.

You really ought to try writing your own stuff. It might be more accurate.

Ryan:Voting for ve... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Ryan:

Voting for veterans entitlements is meaningless? Yes, I'm sure the veterans would much rather have stirring messages of support from the Republicans than healthcare for themselves and their families. How misguided of those Democrats. Have you read how Hilary Clinton gets big ovations from the troops? I'm not necessarily a big Hilary fan, but she fights for veterans benefits, and they clearly appreciate it.

And I think it's humorous how much criticism I see of the Democrats trotting out veterans to act as if they care about the military. When's the last time you saw Bush speak before anything but a militay crowd? How transparent is that? Maybe someday he'll remember that he's the President of the entire country, and actually deign to appear before actual non-military citizens. Oh, I forgot. He might get criticized. What a man.

Chris the original speaker ... (Below threshold)
David:

Chris the original speaker I believe may have been Sen.John Glenn(D-Ohio).I'll try to find out for you.
What the hell do you mean Bush "led" us into being attacked on 9/11?!

DavidI said "By yo... (Below threshold)
Chris:

David

I said "By your line of thinking" Bush led us into being attacked. In other words, if the US being attacked at Pearl Harbor and subsequently having Germany declare war on us amounts to "FDR led us into World War II" then how are Bush and 9/11 any different?

Chris'The point the ... (Below threshold)
David:

Chris'
The point the writer was making is by comparison Dems. have gotten us into more conflict than Republicans, and the ridiculous Democratic mantra "Iraq never attacked us" is ludicrous considering the examples given in the post in which other countries that did not attack us also. Yet we were drawn into conflict anyway by Democratic Presidents. We also suffered much worse in these conflicts than the casualties we have endured in Irag/Afganistan.I don't like it either but war has never been without cost of human life and the noble sacrifice of those brave enough to endure it to it's end. The point of Iraq is to prevent another base from which terrorists to operate, free the people of Iraq from the genocidal bastard (and his sons) that ran that country. Fight them in their own area of the world instead of ours. And Yes we hoped for the WMD's that intelligence said was there. We have found some but not in the quanities we (Democrats and Republicans) thought. Timelines-that hurt, right? Sorry 'bout that but truth hurts sometimes.Nixon got us out of his 2 predecessors quaqmire of Vietnam.The only reason Moamar is behaving is because a Republican pres.(Reagan I think) parked a bomb out his tent door and scared the shi-ite out of him, he's never forgotten it. Noth Korea -we're back in right?

It's too much of a pain to ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

It's too much of a pain to respond to comments that are a mish-mosh of a hundred different points, especially since I try to actually do a little research and make sure my responses aren't just a rehashing of conventional wisdom. So I'm not going to respond point by point, especially since I've responded to a lot of this stuff on multiple occasions. But a couple of things:

Since when is "Saddam didn't attack us" a Democratic mantra? A lot of Dems supported invading Iraq when presented with the rigged White House evidence that Saddam had WMDs. There was no demand that he attack us first. This is a classic example of something that gets repeated here a lot. Stating an opposition position that doesn't really exist, then arguing against it.

And please support your contention that Sudan offered us bin Laden "on a silver platter" but Clinton wouldn't take him. And as a side note, please tell me what we would have done with bin Laden if we had taken him. Remember, this was before 9/11, and the administration wasn't so arrogant as to believe that they could just snatch anyone they want, anywhere they want, and do whatever they want with them without answering to anyone.

And "Fight them in their own area of the world instead of ours"? Are you contending that Saddam would have sent terrorists to attack the US if we hadn't invaded? Because if so, you're one of the last people in the world who believes that.

And you're crediting Nixon for getting us out of the quagmire of Viet Nam? I thought you folks referred to that as cutting and running? And by the way, Viet Nam no doubt got bad under Democratic presidents, but since we're talking about origins, it was Eisenhower who first sent military personnel into the country.

And you're giving credit to Reagan for Kadaffi's capitulation? I thought it was Bush. Make up your mind.

And finally, Clinton and the UN gets inspectors into N. Korea, they get kicked out under Bush, and now they're back in, and you want to give Bush credit for getting inspectors into N. Korea? That's being a little selective, don't you think?

Funny you should link to th... (Below threshold)
cat:

Funny you should link to that ad. Not so long ago Kevin rightly mocked MoveOn.org's pathetic latest effort. But it turns out the RNC isn't so squeaky clean either. The soldier in the ad was real, but he was actually watching The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Surely that should be part of an argument over a whole different "war".




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy