Ron wrote on Jul 4, 2006 2:41 AM:The extreme left wing in our country, and abroad can not have it both ways. Many have bought this idea, that while I disagree with "this" war, I support the troops. Really? How? The left loves to speak of this war as "illegal", and "immoral." They continually accuse the U.S. of killing innocents, and civilians. In all their self-righteousness, I doubt they have truly considered the destructive impact their words have on men and women in the military. Using the term illegal to describe the Iraq war is a dual pronged sword. It may be aimed at President Bush, but it directly describes the actions taken by the military, as they are the instruments of democratic policy. Illegal by who's definition? It can only be termed illegal, and has been described as illegal by international law, thus making each and every independent actor, a war criminal. Using the term immoral simply throws fuel on top of the fire. War is chaotic, and painful enough for individual soldiers, but to have honorable men and women's actions described as immoral, is another hurtful tool by the left to label these fine people. It directly calls into question their motives, and intentions for fighting this war. We saw the same type of disgust for our soldiers returning from Vietnam, accusing them of being "Baby-Killers", and the like. Venting their rage on the military. We have all seen the letters, we have all heard the sound bites, the aim is clear. Strike at the heart of these honorable people, hurt them, dissuade them, and eventually, they will fail. This is true aim of those who believe America is wrong. They may seek to hurt the head, but in fact, they go after the hands, by their rhetoric. If they truly believe the war is illegal, then why attack the instruments of the policy? Why not go after the leadership, the head of that policy? Because they are seen as one in the same. As Bill Clinton put it in his letter to the ROTC officer, where Clinton tricked him, thus escaping the Vietnam war, ..."he loathed the military", as do these people. In their minds, the military, and the need for a military, is simply out dated. U.N. style conflict resolution, and the psychology of "recognising why we made them do this", is now the preferred, and enlightened way of dealing with any conflict today. While the neanderthal Republicans chose war over talk, we the smart ones, want to love them through it. You see, "we are the reason for their hate", and "what did we do to them, to make them want to hate us?" If any actions taken by these extremists was questionable, it was when they flew to Iraq as Human Shields to protect a brutal dictatorship to prevent our bombing of Baghdad. They were actually willing to lay down their lives, to allow Hussein to continue in power. Have no doubt, they do mean what they say about the military, because they hate the military, and the people who serve in it. Our warriors deserve better, and it is time those who want to criticize this war to understand that President Bush maybe your target, but our soldiers are listening too. They hear and understand your words, and the tone in which you say it. They can read between the lines. Your not fooling anyone with this double-talk. Maybe you should try and get to know some of them next time, before you go shooting your mouth off. They are people who deeply understand "Faithfulness to Duty", "Loyalty", and "Love thy Brother." And why shouldn't they? They learned it right here in America. They are a reflection of us, both good and bad. But above all, they each understand something I think those on the left have forgotten, Love of Country. These men and women are willing to risk their own lives to defend America. It's easy to defend America from your comfy living room, and speak of lofty, high minded ideals. Try doing it from a foxhole, sometime. It might change your perspective.

FLYBOY...... wrote on Jul 4, 2006 7:51 AM:Why are Sanchez and Wood so adamant to close our Oceanside airport in the face of Congressman Issa and the FAA strong support for the airport? If we, the citizens of Oceanside, still have the right under the new lobbyist law that Sanchez and Wood are enacting, maybe we will find out that it is a big developer that wants this valuable land. Once an airport dies, it can never live again!! PS Recall Sanchez!!........

never sovereign wrote on Jul 4, 2006 9:10 AM:I love how Barbara Vickroy makes things up. She says "a nation without border control has no sovereignty". Well, since the U.S. has never had control over it's north or south borders (we do pretty well on east and west borders), I guess the U.S. has never had sovereignty. Many other countries have leaky borders. I guess they aren't sovereign, either. ALSO, notice her thinly-veiled threat "we will have no peace". At the Vista City Council meeting on 6-27-06, some so-called Minutemen talked about "civil war" and "blood flowing in the streets". Barbara, please elaborate. Please tell us how you expect the violence to begin.

Cabbages & kings wrote on Jul 4, 2006 9:11 AM:How to celebrate Independence Day: (1) Hire people to manicure your back yard, cook your barbeque, serve your guests and tend your bar without checking their credentials, filling out a W-2 form, deducting or paying Social Security or unemployment insurance; (2) Sell or shoot-off fireworks without a license: (3) Smoke anything you want, if you are an adult .. especially if you are sick and your doctor recommends it; (4) Refuse to rent to anyone, for what ever reason you like, or charge whatever rent YOU think is fair; (5) Buy a gun and keep it loaded; (6) Hire someone to sweep your shop who is willing to work for less than minimum wage; (7) Make a cell-phone call from your car while not wearing a seat belt; (8) Ride a bike without a helmet; (9) Start a home improvement project without a permit; and, oh yeah, (10) Wednesday morning tell your boss you want to be paid in gold ... no more Federal Reserve Notes.

to Sovereign wrote on Jul 4, 2006 9:38 AM:Great question, Dude(tte). Maybe the Minutemen are getting campaign tips from RoveBush, you know, the mushroom cloud thing? Scare the populace into thinking they are under seige by a demon (calling the immigrants Hitler, which is usually used at this point in the campaign, is too much of stretch for even this group), and you've got their votes and support. Classy!

I agree with Donald Miller!!! wrote on Jul 4, 2006 9:45 AM:Jim Wood and the Dixie Chicks continue to allow the Oceanside airport to waste away. If the City Council was smart, and that's a big "if," Oceanside would develop the airport property by building additional hangars so that it could then make money off of all the pilots who want to pay money to store their airplanes there. Building another big box retailer, however, will further decimate the city's small businesses and lead to little, if any, additional sales tax revenue.

Oceansidekos wrote on Jul 4, 2006 9:48 AM:Ron- I wish you were directing that last statement to the likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Cheney and Bush - the "architects" of this war (which, by the way, is not a legal war because legally, only Congress can declare war) because, as you know, none of them has come close to a foxhole. Your rant about how the left hates the soldiers is just ridiculous- merely a tactic to get us to be quiet by trying to make us feel guilty. Show me ONE QUOTE I can verify myself, either on line or hard published, where anyone said they hated soldiers or even "the military." One, Ron. You say we should "go after the leaders; the head of that policy" but then say we can't possibly do that withought hurting the troops ("hands") as well. OK- if we should go after the chickenhawk leaders but can't, what do we do, Ron, those of us who think this pre-emptive war is leading us to disaster, both financially and diplomatically, and is actually making the situation worse? There have been more people killed around the world in acts of terrorism since we invaded Iraq than in all of the previous years combined. To say it would have been worse had we not gone in, as some on your side have, is just absurd- there is absolutely no way to quantify something that doesn't exist, i.e. ghost statistics. Why is it so hard for you to believe that I want the war over to save the lives of the troops? How hard is that? It's not double talk, it's compassion. You would allow them to stay there and be blown to bits for a plan for world domination (Project for a New America) written by the above named chicken hawks; maybe you're the one who doesn't care.

Nick wrote on Jul 4, 2006 10:29 AM:Cabbages & Kings: What are you talking about?

Stop Ron! wrote on Jul 4, 2006 10:31 AM:Start your own blog for your long-winded wingnut rants. Keep it short and infrequent or like today's hot air release it is just ignored.

Who cares? wrote on Jul 4, 2006 11:02 AM:There's an article in the Times today about the fate of the leaders of nations who stood with Bush in Iraq. Spain, gone; Italy, gone; Britain, leaving office; Japan, leaving office. Not many left in the coalition of the willing...that's how it goes in democracies. But, whew, good thing Bush doesn't care what anyone thinks. Even Iraq's PM says he wants US troops out on a timetable: no matter.

Mike America wrote on Jul 4, 2006 11:26 AM:To my fellow Americans, who have remained true and loyal to our great country thru the bad times as well as the good, Happy Independence Day to you and God blees Amereica. To you miserable few who are embarassed to be American and never tire of condemning her, God bless you also, you need it.

Barb V. V. wrote on Jul 4, 2006 12:42 PM:In response to "never sovereign" [74910a] The "thinly-veiled threat" is given first by those who protest against immigration laws and carry banners that say "no respect, no peace". You ask "how I expect the violence to begin". IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN. Anti-enforcement protesters have ALWAYS been the ones to use violence against others who peacefully meet to support enforcement of present laws. The most favored weapon is a full soda can thrown with deadly force. Heads and bones have been broken, and peaceful citizens have spent time in the hospital as a result of the "no peace" protesters. The large contingent of police at the Carlsbad forum was there to stop violence from either side, with full knowledge that the violence's ALWAYS comes from those who are against enforcement of immigration laws. How do they know this? Because law enforcement officers share information with each other. They know when rocks are thrown at police, who is doing the throwing. Videos show that when someone has been "hit" by a car attempting to exit private property, when their car is surrounded by "no peace" protesters and rocked as if to overturn, the video shows that the person deliberately "fell" in front of the vehicle. Well, for anyone willing to know the facts there are many such instances of violence directed from the "no peace" protesters toward the pro-enforcement folks. For those not willing, I direct you to the saying about leading a horse to water. About the respect for our sovereign borders. You ask how other nation's with "leaky" borders can be sovereign. Thinking that we are sovereign and actually being sovereign nation are two things. I say the same thing about a future day when our food is produced in other countries because we have paved over [AKA 'developed'] all of our cropland. Any nation that does not feed its own people, may have an illusion of sovereignty left over from the days when it was real, but when push comes to shove, whichever nation [s] provide their food has the power-hand. The real loss of border sovereignty began when our own leaders lost respect for that sovereignty. President Monroe [1817-25] issued the Monroe Doctrine, telling the world to not mess with our hemisphere. President Eisenhower [1953-1961] Deported about 1 million illegal aliens [many more self-deported to avoid the hassle] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback ] Illegal immigration [disrespect for our national sovereignty] did not become a problem for decades, and that lack of respect was led by our own leaders. So that's a long-winded way of saying that we are probably NOT a sovereign nation, no matter what we think. 741242p

RJC wrote on Jul 4, 2006 12:47 PM:Thanks to Don Miller for addressing Mayor Wood's stunted and irrational thought process conserning the airport. One item of correction, the City will have to pay back 12 - 16 million dollars if they close the airport, not 3 million.

Ron wrote on Jul 4, 2006 2:11 PM:I understand your disdain for Bush, Cheney and the like. I know most did not serve, but neither did Bill Clinton, or Abe Lincoln. A man who serves as President can never send troops, becuase he never served? In that case, we had better consider re-calling the troops still in Bosnia. And this is a legal war, in the American sense. Congress gave that power to the President prior to the invasion. What I was reffering to was the interantioanl side of it, as that would be the only avenue left to try Bush, or any soldier as a war criminal. And that was exactly my point. If you say that Bush is a war criminal, then all who followed his "illegal" order to make war, are by default war criminals. Obeying an order is not a defense for war crimes. It is the duty of each soldier to disobey an unlawful order. Regarding the left's approach to the military, we all saw it during the 90's how the military budget was cut in half. Don't believe me? Check out CBO. And some of that money was used for the targeted Clinton tax cut's. So, we know they didn't want to fund it. Second, when you have lived through the disgusting acts done to, and words said to Vietnam Vet's, you will then understand what I mean when I say they are breaking out the old Vietnam playbook. It was there for all to see and hear. When the Abu Grab story hit, it was said, the corruption goes up through the ranks, and to the top. Were they talking about Gen. Sanchez? Tommy Franks? Gen. Abuzaid? Keep in mind, "all the way up." This is an indictment all the way up, which includes Lt's, Captain's, Cornel's, etc. Might even mean Sargents, or PFC's? My point was, it was a general charge, looking for someone to stick it on. It didn't matter. They may have been angry with Bush, and the other higher up's, but they started with the troops. Were seeing it again with John Murtha declaring the guilt of soldiers before all the facts are out. My belief is, he's doing it to gain favor with the extreme left, giving them the red meat they want, that the present leadership won't give. And why do you care what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S.? They didn't give a rat's ass about the U.S. when we sat through 12 years, and 14 resolutions in the U.N. Further, they were selling illegal items to Hussien on the blackmarket via Oil for Food, breaking the law, violating our trust. Our Friends? and give a rest on the financial burden of the war, we spend enough to feed our poor, provide them with medical care, and most have two color televisions in the studies I've seen. If you want to see poor, go to Mexico, now that is poor. Even better yet, try Africa, tons of aid every year, always grabbed up by some dictator to feed his troops, and leave his "citizens" to die.

D'jever wonder? wrote on Jul 4, 2006 4:24 PM:Watching the news this evening, seeing all the celebrations and parades, I am struck by how celebrating the US seems always to mean celebrating our military might. I understand, of course, that we exist because of the Revolutionary War and that we have persisted against threats a few times in our history when the military did its work. But the military is in many ways the LEAST unique thing about us. It's the Constitution and the two Centuries of working out its meaning and ideas that are so amazing about the US, the reason people come here and dream of our way of life. Wouldn't it be something to have a celebration with, instead of parading rifles and artillery, people (or balloons!) in costume: Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, MLK, and the great artists of America like Dickinson, Whitman, Thoreau, Hemingway, Johns, Pollack, Sousa, Dylan. Talk about evoking pride!

A survey wrote on Jul 4, 2006 4:26 PM:We hear all the time how troops from the VietNam era are "spat" on, called "baby killers" to their faces, etc. I wonder if this is true. I know there are a lot of Viet era vets out there. Tell us, please, if you have actual first hand experience with this kind of terrible treatment; tell us the stories of your bitterness at these things if they actually happened to you. We need a history lesson.

Viet Nam Vet wrote on Jul 4, 2006 5:02 PM:Yes, they are true. My children were met by their teacher each day with "good morning xxxx, class their father is a baby killer in vietnam". My sons had to fight their way to and from class. It got so bad the police escorted them. The cruelties were real. At least today, the anti-war advocates blame Bush, et al and not the youg men an women who serve. Or are they??

To A Survey wrote on Jul 4, 2006 6:30 PM:While I was born in 1970 and obviously not old enough to have participated in the Vietnam war or protests, I have had the opportunity to volunteer in the Veterans hospital local to where I grew up and can tell you that I've heard many first hand accounts of such ridiculous and absolutely uncalled for treatment. I know there are many who can say it is not possible to support the troops while disagreeing with the war, but I believe them to be wrong. Our military personnel are where they are because they chose to provide a service to their (and our) nation ... whatever that service may mean or entail. They did not choose their mission but have carried it out valiantly and are absolutely deserved of the most courteous and highest regard of person & being ... regardless of how you feel about the specifics of the job they were ordered to do.

ridiculous wrote on Jul 4, 2006 6:49 PM:Viet Nam vets spat upon? Never happened. I do not believe what Viet Nam Vet said for one minute - not a bit of it. The only thing I can figure is either you lived 2 blocks from the Berkeley campus or you are plain lying for whatever wierd reason. No where in the whole USA did any disrespect toward the vets exist. In fact, Vietnam vets were admired greatly by the anti-war people. They told the truth about the lies going on in the jungle. All this spit-upon bull is total lies. And I was there on both sides.

To all wrote on Jul 4, 2006 7:14 PM:I spent 6 years in Vietnam. All wars bring terrible things, hatred, prejudices and anger all come into play everyday. During those years I spent all on the ground as a grunt. I was the guy in the field, thinking I was doing all for my comrades in the field. Little, did I spend time worrying what people were saying at home, nor WHY I was there. There was no time. I was young, scared every second. I killed and it got easy and it was almost like todays video games. I looked at the carnage around me and all I cared about was keeping myself and my friends and fellow soldiers alive. That was all that mattered. To me, as a soldier on the ground, I was scared and angry everyday and so were all of the guys in my platoon. At times it was like I was in a football game and if the other side gained an advantage or hurt some of the players, they needed to be paid back. We paid them back on a daily basis. It was survival, but it was wrong. Today communication is so much better, our overall power so strong. They can call in airpower and strike down a single insurgent. Being at war is just that. You will have abuse, you will have torture, its the price of doing business....the war business. The soldiers that were caught, were certainly caught doing something drastically wrong and someone told someone outside the military because the military goes to great lengths at hiding abuses and illegal kills. If ten soldiers are in the brig today, 1000 more have committed abuses and it will never be known. But, it will be known. They will carry that burden in their minds for the rest of their lives. So to reinforce what we can to the troops that have been lucky enough to not overstep the line, it is good for some to be prosecuted. You that defend them for these abuses are only protecting your conservative ideology, you don't have the mind set to know that your comments are NOT supporting our brave boys. Stop trying to protect Bush's political moves. Help the boys understand the burden. I know that burden and live with it everyday.

off subject... wrote on Jul 4, 2006 7:29 PM:i read this in san marcos code enforcement...and see this alot...what does "KUDOS" mean??

Barb V. V. wrote on Jul 4, 2006 10:36 PM:In response to "off subject" [74729p] thanks for asking the meaning of the word KUDOS. I sort of knew just from the way it is used, but learned some after looking it up. Main Entry: ku·do Pronunciation: 'kü-(")dO, 'kyü- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural kudos /-(")dOz/ Etymology: back-formation from kudos (taken as a plural) 1 : AWARD, HONOR 2 : COMPLIMENT, PRAISE usage Some commentators hold that since kudos is a singular word it cannot be used as a plural and that the word kudo is impossible. But kudo does exist; it is simply one of the most recent words created by back-formation from another word misunderstood as a plural. Kudos was introduced into English in the 19th century; it was used in contexts where a reader unfamiliar with Greek could not be sure whether it was singular or plural. By the 1920s it began to appear as a plural, and about 25 years later kudo began to appear. It may have begun as a misunderstanding, but then so did cherry and pea." Now it's my turn to ask. Does anyone know what that last sentence about the cherry and peas means?

Viet Nam Vet wrote on Jul 5, 2006 12:25 AM:My family was living in New Yourk City at the time. You can say my personal experiences were isolated but you can not deny them. You are truly living up to your pen name--ridicuous.

MB wrote on Jul 5, 2006 7:00 AM:Boy, does Mayor Wood have an authority complex or what! Ya think he'd get the message when the FAA, Issa' Reps. OAPA (pilots national organization)and the OAA (local pilots association) show up and give the FACTS about the Oceanside airport. Mayor Wood would atleast keep his mouth shut! I wouldn't be surprised to see him at a council meeting in his police uniform, firearm, cuffs, and batton! If you want to change the direction that Oceanside is rapidly spiraling downward to, replace Macken this November. It will only take that one council seat to change the direction. Oceanside voters should re-elect Rocky Chavez. He is good for ALL Oceanside. He is not a "Me person".

Guiseppi = wrote on Jul 5, 2006 8:22 AM:==Hey Ron, look at this list of patriotic Democrats who served in the military. Can you come up with a similar list of Republican politicians? Do You See A Pattern Here? Democrats: the REAL MEN: * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71. == * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72. == * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72. == * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.== * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. == * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, WWII. == * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts. * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. == * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star,Vietnam.== * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953. == * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. == * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. == * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. == * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal. == * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.== * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart. == * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V. == * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star. == * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57 == * Chuck Robb: Vietnam == * Howell Heflin: Silver Star == * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII. * BILL CLINTON: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received 311. == * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. == * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953 == * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters. == * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg. ==== REPUBLICANS: the “girlie men”: ==* Rep. Dennis Hastert: did not serve. ==* Rep. Tom Delay: did not serve.== * Roy Blunt: did not serve. == * Sen. Bill Frist: did not serve. == * Sen. Mitch McConnell: did not serve. == * Sen. Rick Santorum: did not serve.== Sen. Trent Lott: did not serve. * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. == * Atty. Gen, former Sen. John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business. == * Gov. JEB BUSH: did not serve. == Karl Rove: did not serve. * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Cleland's patriotism. == * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. == * Vin Weber: did not serve. * Richard Perle: did not serve.== * Douglas Feith: did not serve. == * Eliot Abrams: did not serve. == * Sen. Richard Shelby: did not serve. == * Sen. Jon Kyl: did not serve.== * Tim Hutchison: did not serve. == * Christopher Cox: did not serve. == * Newt Gingrich: did not serve. == * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as aviator and flight instructor. == * G.W. Bush: six-year Nat'l Guard commitment (in four - AWOL 2YRS). == * RONALD REAGAN: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies. == * Rep. B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea. == * Sen. Phil Gramm: did not serve. == * Sen. John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, PurpleHeart and Distinguished Fly ing Cross. == * Sen. Bob Dole: an honorable veteran. == * Sen. Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.== * Rep. Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts. == * Sen. Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986 == * Colin Powell: Long career in military manager. * Wayne Gilchrest: USMC in Vietnam; wounded in action.== * Don Nickles: Biography does not list military service. * Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.== * John M. McHugh: did not serve.== * JC Watts: did not serve.== Jack Kemp: did not serve. Knee, although continued in NFL for 8 years. == * Vice Pres. Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.== * Mayor Rudy GUILIANA: did not serve.== * Gov. George Pataki: did not serve. == * Spencer Abraham: did not serve. == John Engler: did not serve. == * Rep. Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.== * Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base. == * G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.== * Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam. * Sam Johnson: Combat in Korea and Vietnam, POW in Hanoi. == * Sen. Ted Stevens: WWII pilot, DFCs, two Air Medals. == * Sen.John Warner: Served in the Navy during WWII as a RM3 * Heather Wilson: Air Force 1978-1989 * President Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII Pundits & Preachers == * Sean Hannity: did not serve. == * RUSH LIMBAUGH: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.') * Bill O'Reilly: did not serve. == * Michael Savage: did not serve. == * George Will: did not serve. == * Chris Matthews: did not serve. == * Paul Gigot: did not serve.== * Bill Bennett: did not serve. == * Pat Buchanan: did not serve. == * Bill Kristol: did not serve. == * Kenneth Starr: did not serve. == * Antonin Scalia: did not serve. == * Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas: did not serve.== * Ralph Reed: did not serve. == * Michael Medved: did not serve. == * Charlie Daniels: did not serve. == * Ted Nugent: did not serve.

What's it? wrote on Jul 5, 2006 8:44 AM:The NY Times reports today that President Bush is signalling a change in his stance on immigration, towards the House, towards enforcement-first. Does this make him a flip-flopper? Does this mean he bends to the polls? I think it means that he is listening to what people want and taking new information into account...you know, like Kerry did. It's what an elected representative should do.

But Guiseppi wrote on Jul 5, 2006 9:23 AM:The Republicans TALK so tough! They will attack anyone who opposes them, in any way, no matter how nasty, contrived, false, whatever. That's a real man these days, someone who will have others wiped out without risking anything themselves.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2006 9:27 AM:Many people fail to belief that Vietnam Vet's were spat on, although many individual Vet's have said just that. Why the Vet's aren't believed is the myth regarding who they were after their return from Vietnam. They were protrayed in the press, and in front of Congress as drug crazed, pyschopaths. Hence, they weren't believed. Yet, none of the men could have ever been ready for what they were soon to encounter in the "real world" when it was time to get off of the plane in their own country. Protesters stood outside of the airport with their signs decrying that the veterans were "Baby killers" and "Murderers" - to the soldiers disembarking their planes on their own home turf! Vietnam Veterans were spit on by hippies and humiliated in the open for having been drafted and gone to war. Most of the animosity to the returning soldiers was caused by, oddly enough, the false testimony of and accusations by anti-war organizations such as the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War). These "veterans" created and nurtured an environment of hatred, disrespect, and hostility towards all men in uniform. Men who were never deployed to Vietnam and wearing their GI uniforms in public were also publicly condemned. Men who gave their lives because their country asked them were not commemorated, but instead defiled. There were few signs of any appreciation at home, much less the parades as was given for their fathers who were welcomed home from their war as hero's. But the combat in Vietnam was just as real as any war before it. The dying was just as real, the sacrifices and the pain of war were real for those who fought in it. The amount of combat the American soldiers experienced in one year was unprecedented. The statistics of this war are not well known and have been kept under wraps for decades and after investigation Vietnam showed to be one of the harshest combat experiences of our history. …. ….The war in south-east Asia was grueling and harsh. The return home was anguishing. There was no chance for the soldiers to tell their tales, after all - who wanted to know about triumphs in a war that everyone was against? But there are stories to tell and they are just as riveting and heroic as the best of WW II or Korean tales. Stories of brave men helping other brave men. We see this same tact being taken with the Iraq war. It is truly sad we have those who will again begin their attack on the President, by moving up the food chain. Unlike the victorious warriors of World War II, both Vietnam and Iraqi Vet's understand that if the war they fight is unpopular, it is only a matter of time, before they are.

Barb V. V. 2nd post wrote on Jul 5, 2006 9:49 AM:I first sent this on 741103p There have been 6 blogs posted since then. It's certainly not too long, so what's the problem? I'll try again Hey bloggers .. an article found in today's Beyond Borders blog furnishes an answer to the question from one blogger, asking where and when the violence will start. This is from KTLA and LA Times. From the Los Angeles Times GANG ACCUSED OF CONSPIRING TO KILL BLACKS. Federal prosecutors allege that members of the Avenues in L.A. plotted to commit violence against African Americans. .... SNIP... Men, women and children were harassed, terrorized, assaulted and slain as gang members sought to force black residents out of Latino neighborhoods, prosecutors said.... SNIP .... Attorneys for the defendants have asserted that the federal government has no power to involve itself in a common street crime..... SNIP....Defense attorney Reuven L. Cohen told jurors last week that one of the slayings cited in the charges — the 1999 shooting of Kenneth Wilson — was not a hate crime but "a simple gang killing committed out of boredom." ....SNIP....The first of three former gang members, each in custody and hoping for leniency, testified Monday. Jesse Diaz, who described himself as a tagger from age 12, told jurors the Avenues decided to fight the "infestation" of blacks in Highland Park with a systematic terror campaign designed to run them out of the neighborhood....SNIP.... One told the FBI in interviews that the gang got an order in 1998 from the Mexican Mafia prison gang to "kill any blacks … on sight." ... SNIP.... "When you have gang members standing out on the street corners, they intimidate people," he said. "They may commit a minor offense, like vandalism, but people are so afraid of them they won't call in. It diminishes the quality of life in the community." ... SNIP ..... Bustamante offered a chilling view of the mentality of the Avenues as the trial opened in U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson's courtroom. Martinez was driving a van carrying five fellow Avenues members when he spotted Wilson. "Anybody want to kill a n-----?" Bustamante said. "Those are not my words, ladies and gentlemen," Bustamante added, gesturing across the room to Martinez. "They are his." Illegal immigration has many layers. Some seem benign, and others are deadly. But all the layers are a part of the same corrupt and corrupting system. 741103p \\75948a

Experts wrote on Jul 5, 2006 10:27 AM:The journal Foreign Policy recently sought the opinions of experts in this field on the US management of the "war on terror". Here are some results, reported in Agence France: Eighty-four percent believe the United States is losing the "war on terror," 86 percent that the world has become a more dangerous place in the past five years, and 80 percent that a major new attack on their country was likely within the next decade. "We are losing the 'war on terror' because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause," argued Anne-Marie Slaughter, head of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. "Our insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time feeds Al-Qaeda's vision of the world," boosting support for the Islamic radical cause, she said. For Leslie Gelb, president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, the unity of views expressed by those questioned reflects a deeply critical attitude towards the administration of President George W. Bush. "It's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force," he said. Other experts questioned the very nature of the US campaign. "It was a doomed enterprise from the very start: a 'war on terror' -- it's as ridiculous as a 'war on anger'. You do not wage a war on terror, you wage a war against people," said Alain Chouet, a former senior officer of France's DGSE foreign intelligence service. "The Americans have been stuck inside this idea of a 'war on terror' since September 11, they are not asking the right questions." "You can always slaughter terrorists -- there are endless reserves of them. We should not be attacking the effects of terrorism but its causes: Wahhabite ideology, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. But no one will touch any of those," Chouet argued. Instead he said US policy in the Middle East, which had "turned Iraq into a new Afghanistan," was acting as a powerful recruiting agent for a generation of Islamic radicals." But hey, who cares what 80+% of the experts say? I bet a lot are in academia, the hotbed of leftists, Bush-bashers, and their ilk. How does someone support the troops when they are told to participate in this folly and madness, all so the President could become a "war president", thereby expanding his powers.

Barb V. V. wrote on Jul 5, 2006 11:31 AM:In response to "To all" [74714p] Thank you for your description of how it feels to be in combat. I know what you said about "carrying the burden in their minds for the rest of their lives" is true. Not because I've personally experienced it, but because of changes I've seen in my male relatives who have been in line of fire. Though a lot has been said about the effects on Vietnam vets, I think that may be because that was was politicized, just as our present war is being. I know that vets of other wars have carried that burden, but perhaps it was easier to carry when they had a sense that the general population were proud of them and supportive. It is the differences between the reception and perception given to returning vets, that is fueling the "we support" talk today. Your statement that it helps the troops not to "step over the line" if we prosecute "some of those" who have ... make me wonder. Sort of the luck of the draw? Like getting hit by friendly fire? I won't argue with you, but I am in great sympathy with the fellows who are in the Pendleton brig. I have a nephew and grandson in Iraq now. Knowing that there are worse things than death, I pray not only for their safety, but first and foremost to protect their spirit .. by that I mean their mental and spiritual health. It is a trite saying one often hears "Thank you for your service". but I say it from my heart.

Independant Jeff wrote on Jul 5, 2006 12:38 PM:Im (to all) in the above post, Vietnam Vet, Ron, you just copied a fairy tale. Again, I was not spit on and travelled regularly enough to Chicago and Hawaii and California during my two tours. Your descriptions may have happened but I only read about it and never saw it. They were isolated instances Ron, not the mainstream. The war was not a happy time or place. Like I said, I didn't know one man who could tell me what we were fighting for. It wasn't patriotism, we were mostly drafted. It was our duty to be there. We didn't give our lives for a cause, we didn't know the cause, and unless you were there you have absolutely no idea and are just defending your LOST ideology. There was bravery and good things, but there are none I remember. Yes, there are stories of buddies saving buddies, but thats not what the troops came home with. I can tell you all about black market corruption which ran rampant Ron. They came home in mental anguish, suffering many thousands from real wounds and many more thousands from mental wounds. I hate those conservatives like Ron, who have never served but beat their chests and say send those boys, how brave and proud we are of them. They have not sacrificed and to them it's like playing a video game with someone elses son, daughter or husband. Ron, grow up, if you want to talk about bravery, go serve as an aid at a vet hospital. Go ask if you can volunteer at Camp Pendelton and then come back to me with your newly gained 1% knowledge of the stresses our boys have and the feeling they have. It's not like it appears on Bush's 4th of July speech. The attendees are told what to do there and when to clap and when to nod their heads. Get the families of all the slain boys, the thousands of people and have Bush tell them we need to stay the course. Stay the course to what???????? Whats our goal Ron????? When is it done???? You have no clue and neither does anyone else. We won the war but are losing an occupation that we can never win.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2006 2:25 PM:As a matter of fact, I did serve. I enlisted on July 15th, 1975 at 17. I was not old enough to go to Vietnam. I never served in an "active" war, your right. I did serve 13 months in Korea, as a grunt, on the 38th Parallel. All my choice. I was willing. But, I was in right after Vietnam, knew many soldiers who served. I was one of those who wore the uniform during that time, so I know first hand, how many felt about Army soldiers, in particular. I know from what I was told, from men I believed then, and believe today, how they were treated when they came home. You were stupid for going, joining, or being a part. You were part of the "criminal conspiracy", by your service, and you were hated for it. Their idea of true patriotism was going to Canada, protesting in the streets, or burning a draft card. I would submit to you Sir, that while your experience may have been slightly different, your reluctance to believe your fellow soldiers is interesting. And your insistance that we didn't know what we were fighting for in Vietnam is simply not believable. We all know the fallout after the war when millions of refugees came from Southeast Asia. Do you think Ho Che Min was a compassionate leader to those in the South? Quite the opposite. They fled for their lives after we abandoned them. My previous point was, we are beginning to see the same tact taken during the Vietnam conflict towards the war in Iraq. The lastest stories of Marines killing innocents are readily believed as true, before all the facts are out. The aim is clear, some people want to make the comparision. Between Lt. Callie, a convicted war criminal, and these recent stories of Marines killing innocents. The terms used, like Quagmire. And talk of losing. All with the intended result of turning Americans against the war. And I'll repeat it: Once the war is deemed unpopular, the participants will soon follow. I am truly sorry you were dragged away from your life to serve in a war you didn't believe in. I thank you for serving, even though you thought it a lost cause. That must have been some kind of hell. While I may not know precisely your feelings and experiences during your tours, I think I do have a little more knowledge than most about this subject. My father also served two tours in Vietnam, and he's the kind of man, who mostly choses to never discuss it. It was a hard time, and a crazy time for all those who served. I just don't want these soldiers to get mistreated like the last group of Vet's who supposedly lost a war. I hope you feel the same.

Another Rontradiction wrote on Jul 5, 2006 3:09 PM:From his 2:25 post to a fellow vet: "...your reluctance to believe your fellow soldiers is interesting. And your insistance that we didn't know what we were fighting for in Vietnam is simply not believable." Does Ron or Mike America have any comments on the "experts" blog today? Surely they must have a clearer view of the Middle east than these nutjobs, right?

Independant Jeff wrote on Jul 5, 2006 5:33 PM:Ron, you know as well as I do that if the military is prosecuting one of it's own, admissions of guilt or actual proof is needed by someone the military fears will expose the incident. If these illegal killings are being prosecuted, then they are afraid of it hitting the streets first. I know this from years of dealing with this, because I have killed in this way. It is a terrible burden, one no one needs to have, yet many live with every day. You are wrong when you state I didn't believe in the war in fought in. I at 19 didn't understand why, but went as it was my duty. I reupped twice. I did it out of a commitment with the rest of my platoon and the men that served with me. But I didn't fight there for an agenda. I actually feared that without me, one might die. I didn't hate anyone until the killing started. These weren't Communist politicians I was fighting. They were just fear driven men, fighting to keep an occupying military away. Does that remind you of something thats happening today. Today instead of small villages and the jungle, its houses and buildings they surprise us from. The news in 1970 didn't expose what was happening, the news I got was that we were kicking butt and until the end I didn't realize we were losing. Ron, I truly believe reading your posts that you are so deep into protecting your ideology you dont have the ability to reason without the ideology getting in the way. As an example, if the President was to kill his wife on national TV, you would turn and blame her because she must have been a liberal and that makes it her fault. I'm telling you for a fact, as a 19 year old, I didn't have any idea what a Communist was except I was suppose to hate him. I didn't know what the goal was except to kill. The boys today, have more information but must still ask WHY? So Ron you missed the questions I asked at the end. Want to try and answer. I too am proud that you are a brother in arms.

Ron wrote on Jul 5, 2006 9:35 PM:I find your words to be more than true, they are real. You describe yourself the same way many soldier I knew, that returned from Vietnam. On the Marines, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just find it disgusting that a politician like John Murtha is prejudging this out in the open. If their guilt, they should hang, but please at least wait for the jury, is all I'm saying. Plus he is suspect, because he has voiced a desire to be a party leader. So, you believe we intended to occupy Vietnam? I'd like to know for what reason? I never heard of the U.S. wanting to occupy. My understanding was we had a treaty with South Vietnam, and they asked for our help because the North wanted to two joined, under Ho Che Min, and the South didn't want it. The ideology I live by, is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe all men desire to live free, and it is our obligation to the world to spread freedom to those who want it. At times, we are the one's required to pay with blood, because we desire the world to know what we so freely enjoy. The only way to preserve our freedom is to demolish those who would try to take it from us. On 9/11 those men who flew those planes into those buildings were sending a message, and the message was you are no longer safe in America. We lived the dream, had never been attacked in the Continental U.S., until that day. Even if we had not gone into Iraq, and only pursued Al-Qaeda in Afganistan, I guarntee you that it would only be a matter of time before they would be calling that engagement a quagmire too. And according to everyone, we had every right to invade and occupy Afganistan until their Army and police were stood up. The end game is, and has always been to prevent more attacks from American soil, and our Allies. This war is not like Vietnam, or any other war in that, there are not defined lines, or actors. They are shadowy figuires, armed with an ideology. Like I've said before, they understand that we are evil, and their ideology says they must, by the will of God, destory each and everyone of us. We are infedils, non-believers, and we bring sin to their world. We don't even have to be in their country, we send it to them via TV, magazines, and movies. We infect their society from afar, and because of this, they hate us. So, what do you do with someone who hates you to the point of wanting to kill you? Reason with them. Can't we'all just get along? Kinda stuff. Bunker up? Change our way of living to not become a victim? Kinda like wearing a flak jacket on your way down to the grocery store? Looking over your shoulder, jumping at the sound of a car back firing? Like they do in Israel? The end comes when they are not coming for you, or your kids. It's a long hard slog. Maybe, never. How long does it take to change the mind of person who thinks the world would be better off with you? I don't know. I might ask you the same. We pull out, and go back to our lives? Are you sure they won't come again? Next time, with a chemical to put in San Diego's water supply. Or highjack a gas tanker, and drive it into North County Fair? I truly would like to believe that you are right. We quit, pack up, go home, and they leave us alone. But what if they don't?

Ron's war wrote on Jul 6, 2006 1:28 PM:I totally understand Ron's feelings about those who hate us, feel that we are evil, and should be hurt or killed. I believe that it is crucial that we protect ourselves and go after those that would do these things to us. But as so many have said, Iraq has never had much to do with this issue. Even Bush is nowhere near Ron on this matter. Bush says that as the Iraqis can manage their own security, we will leave. Ron says, No, stay until every terrorist is killed or jailed. It's very confusing. Ron seems to say that all the terrorists are in Iraq, and that it is mainly terrorists that we are fighting there. Both these ideas are wrong. Only a small minority of the "enemy" in Iraq is non-Iraqi radical islamist. The vast majority are people either fighting for their country and/or fighting for control of their country. If all the Al Qaida were killed in Iraq, the "war on terror" would not be over...it wouldn't be much changed at all. We need to treat terrorists as the criminals they are, and use an international police/intelligence operation of massive scale to arrest them, while more broadly we attend to the causes of the appearance of ever more of them. But I don't think we will do this, because Bush wants more than anything to have a "war" so that, as commander in chief, he can vastly expand his powers. A police action won't do that. I know that Ron simply will not give up the idea that the war on terror is being fought in Iraq, and that the idea of leaving equals giving up on the fight against terrorists, even though not even Bush acts as though this were true. But maybe readers can understand the error in Ron's logic.

off subject wrote on Jul 7, 2006 10:59 AM:thanks barb V. V. for the definition on kudos. really appreciate it. now its easier to understand. thanks again.

Agree with jan Murphy wrote on Jul 8, 2006 10:50 AM:It is sad that Mr. Thompson is teaching our high school kids.