Comments Posted By Steve
Displaying 101 To 110 Of 177 Comments
SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES
I'll be curious if Curtis survives. I'm sure Jack would have preferred to hit a non-vital area, but Curtis was using Assad as a shield leaving only the head and neck vulnerable.
Does your body count include the soldier in the bus who was killed by the turncoat?
Comment Posted By Steve On 16.01.2007 @ 16:14
Well, the usual suspects are out in full force I see. No surprise to hear from Evil "Progressive", by far the biggest idiot out here in blogland.
I won't be shocked at all if Reid does a 180 and decides to attend. Hopefully someone from his party with half a brain in their head will get to him and let him know just what a blunder he's making. We'll see. The fact that he's even considering skipping says a lot about the man's character, or lack thereof. To me, he's now on level with the dimwit trolls that have shown up here. No class whatsoever.
I do know one thing...when that dim bulb Carter finally kicks the bucket, we won't be having this discussion.
Comment Posted By Steve On 28.12.2006 @ 13:01
LOOKING INTO THE FACE OF ETERNITY
Here's a quote I heard recently that really puts this in perspective: "The universe is ONE of God's thoughts." Something to remember when we look at these pictures of the immense universe (from our perspective)!
Maybe this is what John was writing about in Revelation when he told of people on earth looking up to see the throne in heaven...
Comment Posted By Steve On 20.12.2006 @ 16:06
WHY HILLARY WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT
I supported the war, but had I known how incompetently it would be handled, I might, in retrospect, not have done so. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, our image throughout the world has declined, and Iraq is a mess. What is so terrible about Hillary Clinton's position?
Comment Posted By steve On 19.12.2006 @ 10:06
A DECLARATION OF (SEMI-AUTONOMOUS) INDEPENDENCE (SORT OF)
Rick,
I wish there were more people like you out there. While I did not agree with many of the current administrations policies, I felt it would irresponsible to constantly be negative. Bush is in office until 2008 and my attitude was let's just through his term.
But as the years go by and the fatalies and failed policies mounted, Bush did not make the changes to right the ship. He is a stubborn mule living in his Dad's shadow. Being American is to be adaptible and flexible. Bush is neither. At this point, the best thing he can do is to make some kind of effort to correct his wrongs in Iraq. Otherwise, the next President will steal all the glory.
Anyway...the reason I posted was to say I live on the Fox River in your neck of the woods. And the economic landscape would tend to favor Republicans. The perception being that they are more fiscally responsible and keep taxes lower. But, as evidenced ny the war in Iraq, economics go way beyond taxes. So much of the Bush's regime has hurt economically by very poor foreign policy (and to some extent, domestic social policy).
The bottom line is that voters can't be selfish. Elderly shouldn't only focus on taxes and medicare. The young have to look to the future if we are to remain the dynamic country we are. Vote for the best person, not just along party lines. Hold our politicians responsible. Keep up the good work and I look forward to reading your blog in the years to come.
PS...I can't believe the best the Repubs could come up with for IL Governor was Judy Baar Topinka. Everyone I know who is younger than 50 yrs old could see what an old "grease the wheels" politician she is. I could imagine her drinking a Scotch and smoking a cigarette during her whole term in office. Pathetic.
Comment Posted By Steve On 9.11.2006 @ 12:31
GOLDBERG ON TORTURE: SOPHISTRY ON A STICK
Bravo for a great analysis. It is good to see someone who both takes a hardline against terrorists and has firm principles of decency. Too many people have one but not the other.
Comment Posted By steve On 28.09.2006 @ 10:05
ONE LITTLE, TWO LITTLE, THREE LITTLE TERRORISTS...
"In other words, it is not the President’s policy of invasion, occupation, and democratization in Iraq that has been wrong, it is the Democrat’s counter strategy of leaving Iraq too soon and abandoning or downgrading democratization efforts that runs counter to the report’s analysis, conclusions, and recommendations.
The President’s policy is correct; it is the implementation of that policy that has been badly botched."Absolutely correct.
Comment Posted By steve On 28.09.2006 @ 10:09
Richard Clarke, fired, demoted, transferred, ignored. Really, who cares?
The 9-11 Commission did not conclude "If only Clinton and Bush had listened to Dick Clarke. If only Condi Rice had not been jealous of Dick Clarke's direct access to the President. Then US policy on UBL and international terrosim would have been a resounding success. It would have terminated Bin Laden with extreme prejuidice, smashed international terror networks, finally released the secret the 3d Fatima prophecy and brought smiles to the faces of millions of toddlers everywhere.
Instead the 9-11 Commission concluded that the entire governmental apparatus of intelligence, law enforcement and decision making was systemically flawed. An effect that the average person could have foretold based on his experience with the DMV, the postal service and the IRS.
History is filled with "if onlys". Sadly, most people tend to believe that there is "only" one chance to get things right. This belief is closely allied to the belief that "the key man" (or woman) has only once chance to influence the course of events. Rarely if ever do the facts bare this out.
I'm stunned at how illogical/unreasonable the Rice-Clarke relationship is portrayed. Richard Clarke did not walk around with a big thougt ballon over his head that read "Listen to this guy, he's got the answer!" We really have no information about how Rice regarded Clarke.
On the one hand, my judgement as an outsider would rate Clarke is ineffective. Here is a man who had an influential position who could not create a compelling reason to take the action that today we know needed to be taken. Clarke for some reason could not make the sale. To be fair, maybe Clarke was fighting a battle that was unwinnable. He was a voice crying out in the wilderness.
Since none of us can hear what goes on inside Condi Rice's head, how can we assume that Clarke was moved based on a bureaucratic motive? For all we know, Condi's predecessor could have noted to her that Clarke needed a change of portfolio. We are not privy to the actual circumstances. And Clarke, the most vocal participant in these cirumstances, could be motivated more by the completely natural desire to protect his own reputation and maintain his viability as a soothsayer/subject matter expert.
I bring this up because I am baffled that Bill Clinton has now begun to wield Clarke and Clarke's book as a shield against criticism of his administration's policy choices. I would accept this line reasoning if Clinton had flatly stated "I should have listened to Dick Clarke." Instead Clinton throws up Clarke's memoir as "proof" of how serious his adminstration was. In my view what Clarke's book shows is how un-serious the Clinton adminstration was.
Sorry Bill, eight years of failure is not much of a defense.
Comment Posted By Steve On 25.09.2006 @ 09:00
DOES CONFRONTING TERRORISM MAKE IT WORSE?
You have created a straw man. There are plenty of people who supported the war in Afghanistan and even wanted to do more there but thought the war in Iraq would have a negative effect on us overall. There is no question here of root causes, and unless I am mistaken, we had the power to veto a lifting of the UN sanctions on Saddam.
Comment Posted By steve On 25.09.2006 @ 13:52
CARTER PROVES EXISTENCE OF A MERCIFUL GOD
In spite of all Carter's faults, the Camp David Treaty was a great achievement, and the Panama Canal Treaty was also a fine accomplishment which was in the national interest.
Comment Posted By steve On 29.08.2006 @ 10:53
