Comments Posted By Richard Bottoms
Displaying 341 To 350 Of 362 Comments
Might I point out that all this is occuring with a Repiblican president and control of both houses of congress by his party.
And further, let me take this opporunity as a vet to say I told you so.
There aren't enough troops and all that is happening is the Army I love is being ground down. He's the leader of your party, notmine so perhaps you can find out what he plans to do as the macaca seems to be hitting the fan.
Oh yeah, and we are losing Afghanistan as well. A country we should totally dominate by now.
Short of a draft where will these troops come from. Now that the age of enlistment is 41 perhaps Rich Lowery can spare couple of years.
And for the record,two years ago at 49 I tried to reenlist. Too old unfortunately. Who knows they might even take me now.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 14.09.2006 @ 20:09
I'm did I miss something?
What I saw was Democrats rejecting someone who got too cozy with the opposition. McGovern is long gone and that peacnik crap is mostly from old fogoy's who remember the 60's.
Voters who were born around the time of George Bush v1.0 are probely wondering what all these old hippies and cranks are arguing about.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 21.08.2006 @ 20:10
Hi, I'm what you'd call a Shinseki Democrat. You us, the ones who thought the war was a mistake but when it became clear it was going to happen anyway said, better send enough troops to do the job.
George Bush as suckered you all and he hasn't the balls to do what it takes to win. Some of us have been saying send enough troops to do the job or leave for two years.
You just caught up to the reality of how pigheaded and wrong the man you voted for is. He'll keep smirking that smirk and you'll wonder just what it will take to save the troops left in Hell.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 21.08.2006 @ 04:43
/sick gloating on/
Ha, ha.
/sick gloating off/
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 24.03.2006 @ 22:27
WILL THIS BE THE IRAQ WAR'S "MY LAI?"
Another family liberated.
Mission Accomplished.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 16.03.2006 @ 09:25
>Perhaps it is time to stop talking about >“small government†and begin speaking of >“good government.â€
First John Cole gets a wakeup call courtesy of Terri Schiavo.
William F. Buckley lets loose with the truth about Iraq.
Now this bit of reality facing about the role of government.
Amazing.
Here's an even shorter version of your post from P.J. O'Rourke:
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 2.03.2006 @ 00:43
IRAQ CRISIS: FORT SUMTER OR BLEEDING KANSAS?
Why does Bill Buckley hate America?
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 24.02.2006 @ 17:50
My comments have always been that someday Rick and John and the rest of the Bush supporters will have to live with what has been done on their name.
You can't sacrifice the ideals of America and still be America.
We were hurt gravely on 9/11 at last the rage to retaliate is giving way to a realization the the ends do not justify the means.
Good. Now maybe we have a chance of winning without losing our souls.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 5.08.2005 @ 01:25
BTW, you are right about this being timed to coincide with the G8 rather than the a rsponse to the Olympics annoucement. Just luck on the bad quys part to have it come the next day.
And I thought of a simpler answer to your question:
“Where would these terrorists be if they weren’t in Iraq?â€
London.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 7.07.2005 @ 07:56
“Where would these terrorists be if they weren’t in Iraq?â€
Uh, the point of my post is these terrorists AREN'T in Iraq are they?
There is no finite supply of terrorists, such that you could engage 100, 1000, or 100,000 and not have more ready to strike.
Michael Moore's opinion of the nature of terror is irrelevant. The reality is there are plenty to go around.
To turn you question around, why weren't the terrorists who did this brutal act in Iraq?
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 7.07.2005 @ 07:41
