JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/02/craptastic.html (23 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1202422458-587551  Dennis at Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:14:18 +0000

I agree with you Kevin, McCain's not good, but the alternative is suicidal!

jsid-1202423999-587554  DJ at Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:39:59 +0000

"McCain for President. Or we're really screwed."

I've said as much, but not as well.

"I'm almost 46 years old. The next Presidential election will be 2012 and I will be 50. I'm getting too old for this sh!t."

Did you get the memo when you joined the club? The memo said, "It gets worse." From my point of view, it is.

jsid-1202429525-587556  Markadelphia at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:12:05 +0000

"it will be a horse-race to see which horse's-ass crosses the finish line first."

Agreed but I think that the things either of them will do will make most of you very happy.

"Leftist judges who will be hell to stop, and who are perfectly comfortable wiping their asses with the Constitution."

Or, at least, the way you interpret the Constitution. Arguing about the Constitution is like arguing about the Bible: all sides try, in desperate vanity, to make objective what is subjective. When I hear about "activist judges who legislate from the bench" I laugh and think...hmmm that must mean they don't "legislate" they way the Right wants them to legislate...or interpret.

"If either Hillary or Obama wins, I expect there to be a great exodus from the military."

Ah, yes. Military people are all conservatives..an oldie but a goodie. Consider how many military leaders, as well as grunts, that have come out and said that conservatives, especially the chickenhawks, are the WORST thing to happen to the military. Many bridges have been burned by the burden that has been place on our soldiers these last five years. Also consider that much of the military is made up middle to lower income class people, traditionally Democrats.

"it's past time that the Republican Party went the way of the Whigs"

Yes, I agree. I think the "conservative movement" should form its own party. Let's see how much support they get nationally when they try to shove religion down people's throat..or their warped version of it. Even better, let's see what happens when they try to shove their version of what morality and responsibility is down Americans throats.

Or when they try to prohibit Muslims from practicing their religion. I'm not quite sure why you linked the article from Britain, Kevin. Are you saying that Muslims should not be allowed to live their lives with what they perceive as their individual rights?

jsid-1202440093-587561  Kevin Baker at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:08:13 +0000

No, I'm saying that secular governments shouldn't be replaced with religious ones.

Even Christian ones.

"Honor killings" are still murder, for instance. And abortion - at least in most cases - isn't murder under secular law, for another.

jsid-1202441294-587564  Mastiff at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:28:14 +0000

I'm confused at which point in Mark's mind "conservative" becomes "Christian Democrat."

This still isn't Europe. And any Huckabee-style enthusiast for religious fascism will find a rather large coalition forming against him, fortunately.

jsid-1202441924-587566  Jerry the Geek at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:38:44 +0000

I'm 62 ... my first presidential ballot was in 1968. I was in Army Basic Training, and I voted against Richard "Would you elect a guy you wouldn't buy a used car from?" Nixon.

I voted against Reagan, I voted against Bush 41, I voted against Carter, I voted against Clinton, twice. I voted for Bush 43, twice.

My voting record has been a political Trail of Tears.


I have no idea who to vote against.

I'll put my political angst on the line against anybody!

jsid-1202444462-587569  Robin S. at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:21:02 +0000

I think it's past time that the Republican Party went the way of the Whigs, because if America doesn't get off its collective ass and continue to support individualism, personal responsibility, capitalism, and individual rights, it appears that no one is going to.

That's what scares me more than anything else about the way this election is going. When Bush won, liberals could say, "I'm going to Canada/Europe!" They didn't mean it, of course (though we'd be better off if they had), but they did have that option and many others -- there are a lot of countries out there that are less free than us. But for conservative-leaning individuals who truly love freedom... where can we go?

Our backs are against the wall here, and the more I consider it, the more I despair. I don't think that things will get unspeakably bad very quickly, but the writing on the wall makes me really reconsider my lifelong desire to be a dad -- what sort of world would I be bringing a child into?

jsid-1202451669-587570  anonymous at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:21:09 +0000

"McCain for President. Or we're really screwed."

In my voting life they've said the equivilant in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980.

How many times am I supposed to be stupid?

That's why the Republican party deserves to die. I'm not stupid.

jsid-1202485013-587577  Matt at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:36:53 +0000

We're screwed either way. This country no longer cares about liberty. They either care about war, or socialism, or both. And both are bad, both are pro-government, and both and anti-liberty. This blog is a perfect example. Despite all the writings about liberty, war is still number one, still above protecting liberty. That's why the only hope, Ron Paul, its denigrated.

All we can do is delay the inevitable- and teach enough youngsters to believe.

jsid-1202489010-587586  Markadelphia at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:43:30 +0000

"what sort of world would I be bringing a child into?"

Actually, a really shitty one....although I think we disagree about why that is? :)

jsid-1202499357-587587  randy at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:35:57 +0000


The exodus from the military if The Stalinist or the Pretty Boy get elected will have nothing to do the party the troops support. Based on partially on previous personal experience (Carter and Clinton), the reasons will be:

1. The troops ain't stupid, they know when someone holds them in contempt, and if you have a CinC you can't respect, the honorable thing to do is to get out.

2. The cut and run being advocated by the Dems is spitting on the grave of those that have died so far, and making their deaths in vain. Why sacrifice and risk your lives for an administration that's going to throw away any gains you make to suck up to the DU/Kos crowd? And again, how can you respect a CinC that shows such contempt for your fallen comrades?

3. Major cuts in training and equipment, possibly in personnell. If you can't train enough in peace time, and your gear is wearing out, then you and your troops will take heavier casualties in combat and may likely fail because of it. Many (mostly the ones you need when it hits the fan) will bail rather than lead troops into battle under those contitions. This is a vicious cycle, as more get out, those left are pushed to do "more with less", until the stress forces them out, until you get left with Hackworths "Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon" and other politicians in uniform (Wesley Clark, call your ofice)

4. Being used and put at risk for politically motivated military ops that have little to do with national interests (Bosnia), not being given the tools to do the job, and hampered with media friendly ROE's that prevent mission accomplisment while increasing the risk to the troops.

5.Any military operations you do have will be micro-managed from far above. Why spend years building your professional skills when they are over ridden by someone who's entire qualification for the job is how many superiors/voters they've ass kissed?

The military, especially the Senior NCOs and Junior Officers that do the real heavy lifting, basically want to know that they are appreciated, supported, respected as the professionals they are, given the tools to do their assigned missions properly, allowed to do those jobs, and not to be thrown away for trivial reasons. The Clinton and Carter adminstrations met none of those critiera. There's no indication that either of the 2 current Dem canidates would be any different.

jsid-1202501474-587589  Rich at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:11:14 +0000


re: "Leftist judges who will be hell to stop, and who are perfectly comfortable wiping their asses with the Constitution."

Or, at least, the way you interpret the Constitution. Arguing about the Constitution is like arguing about the Bible: all sides try, in desperate vanity, to make objective what is subjective. When I hear about "activist judges who legislate from the bench" I laugh and think...hmmm that must mean they don't "legislate" they way the Right wants them to legislate...or interpret.

It is not just the right that complains about activist judges, both the NY Times and The Washington Post compalined about activist Judges after the first decisions by the Roberts court. Those on the left are just as upset when their sacred cows are gored as the right is.

I have noticed that you are pretty much always against the positions of many of the readers of this blog so I am curious where are you here? What does this blog provide you?

just curious

jsid-1202514750-587592  Kevin Baker at Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:52:30 +0000


jsid-1202527057-587604  Markadelphia at Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:17:37 +0000

Rich, I suppose I am trying to really understand how the conservative mind thinks. I guess I am not one of those people that believe we will always be divided. I also think that reflecting upon one's own views, through the eyes of someone who thinks in contrast, is vital to true understanding.

Randy, point by point.

1. Yeah, that's right. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hold the troops in contempt. What a crock of shit. Please stop believing the Goebbels-esque propaganda that's out there. And people wonder why the right is compared to Nazis...the only people that Hillary and Obama hold in contempt are the civilian leadership who have wasted young men and women's lives to make their corporate pals richer, which, if you truly support the troops, you should make you feel the same way.

2. Cut and Run. More bullshit. What both Democratic candidates want to do is attack and destroy the people that actually attacked us on 9-11. You know who I am talking about? The ones that are still alive and operating freely in Pakistan and Afghanistan? The troops I know want to know why they are dicking around in Iraq when our real enemy is in another country. So, why don't you tell me...how strong does CinC Bush look when he can't or won't decimate the two principal leaders of Al Qaeda? Pretty fucking weak if you ask me...

3. Oh, so only military personnel that are Republican have it right? Clark and Hackworth are...what...traitors? You have just summed up, perfectly, why the "conservative movement" is failing.

4 and 5. Agreed and Agreed. That is what has happened with Bush 43.

Jimmy Carter was in the Navy, wasn't he? And Clinton...well, he wasn't allowed to attack anyone, right? When he attacked Saddam Hussein for breaking treaty violations or tried to kill bin Laden, conservatives shouted and screamed "Wag the Dog." But now, it's ok to attack as long as it is a conservative with the gun.

jsid-1202568291-587623  Randy at Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:44:51 +0000


1. Hillary's contempt for the military,down to her attitude on an individual level has been documented many times during the first Clinton administrations, some of which I have had confirmed by people who were on the scene. But it's their position on the War, specifically Iraq, that shows of their contempt for the Military IMHO. I didn't but that class warfare "fighting for capitalists" BS when I was on active duty, and I don't buy it now.

2. Yes. Cut and run. Cede the battlefield to the enemy. That's the way that I see the Dem's plans in Iraq.

Iraq is one campaign in this war. Afghanistan is another. Each theater is different in many ways, and the massive influx of heavy units used in Iraq would only have been a repeat of the Soviet tactics. And that worked out SO well for them, eh?

We're not going to solve our disagreement on the conduct of the war (which has NOT been perfect) here.

3. If you re-read what I wrote, I was quoting Hackworth, not using him as an example. I may not always have agreed with him, but I had total respect for him, and he always had the welfare of the troops at heart.

I used Clark (who was apparently a great military officer as a company grade, and didn't turn Political Officer unitl later) as someone who I had knowledge of as being more political than professional as a general, not because of his politics afterwards.

Although, I do admit, whenever a former General officer does come out for the Dems side of a case, it is often one who I had little respect for while on active Duty (McPeak is another one, but I had no idea of his political leanings when I formed my opinon of him while he was PACAF CO and later as AF Chief of Staff.)

4&5. I don't see near the micro-managing and politcally/media based driven ops under Bush 43. Oh, I forgot, you buy into that whole class warfare "blood for oil" BS, so I see why you think that.

Jimmy Carter served time in the Navy, but the military really does represent a cross section of US society, including clueless yahoos. He was probably a competent Nuke officer, techincally proficcent, but his Presidency was a disaster, and every time he opens his mouth he re-confirms his place as worst Ex-President in US history.

He was right to send in the Troops of EAGLE CLAW in Iran, but his excessive dilly dallying and delay, and micromanagement set up the strike team for the disaster at DESERT ONE (but did not cause it). I know that troops and plans were in place to extract the hostages within days of the Embassy take over, but he would not give authorization.

I had not problems with Clinton hitting Iraq. The timing was suspicious because there were almost daily violations by the Iraqi's that justified those strikes, but I did not criticise him then, nor do I know. It may have been the right thing for (I suspect) the wrong reasons, but it was the right thing to do. My major problem with Clinton on that was he didn't hit Iraq early enough, often enough, or hard enough.

My specific issue was Bosinia and the strikes on Serbia (which Clark helped Washington micro-manage in a way not seen since McNamara). No direct US national intersts at stake, a lot less than other places we went in with you and your side screaming "Imperialism!", and should have been a European responsibity.

jsid-1202575145-587631  Markadelphia at Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:39:05 +0000

Randy, we are rapidly approaching the point of where we HAVE to draw down troops in Iraq. Take a look at this. Curious as to what you think..


The Democrats are arguing, and now they have the backing of Pentagon report, that we have to leave so we can be ready to fight in other areas. We will not be ceding the battlefield to anyone. We can bring the fight to the area that it should be fought in...Afghanistan and Pakistan...and every Democrat supports that. Obama has gone on record and stated that he will continue and possibly increase bombing campaigns inside of Pakistan.

jsid-1202581176-587642  Kevin Baker at Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:19:36 +0000

We will not be ceding the battlefield to anyone.

Horse. Shit.

If we, under a President Obama, withdraw wholly from Iraq, I want you to remember these words, because I will make every effort to carve them (rhetorically) into your flesh.

jsid-1202587739-587646  Markadelphia at Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:08:59 +0000

What's with all of the carving of flesh images lately and/or storing said flesh in freezers?

First of all, I don't think he is going to withdraw us wholly from Iraq. He has stated that there will be 20-30 thousand troops either there or in Kuwait to keep Al Qaeda in check.

Second, if we re-deploy and/or bomb Afghanistan/Pakistan areas successfully, don't you think that is going to help our effort in Iraq?

Third, who, and I mean exactly, are we ceding the battlefield to?

jsid-1202593078-587654  Kevin Baker at Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:37:58 +0000

Third, who, and I mean exactly, are we ceding the battlefield to?

The people who strap bombs onto women with Down's Syndrome and detonate them remotely.

No, Mark, I don't think re-deploying to Afghanistan and/or Pakistan is going to help the Iraqis that much. Not until their military and police forces are able to do the job by themselves. They're coming along, but having "20-30 thousand troops" in Kuwait ain't going to help.

Besides, isn't the lunatic Left demanding a complete withdrawal?

As to the "carving and/or storing flesh," perhaps you can blame it on Silence of the Lambs.

jsid-1202606191-587668  Markadelphia at Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:16:31 +0000

I never really understood the appeal of Silence of the Lambs. As long as we are on the topic, is there any way you would consider watching this film?


And, no, the left is not saying a complete withdrawal. If Hillary is elected, rest assured, no one is going anywhere.

jsid-1202742102-587731  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:01:42 +0000

How might you do on this quiz, Kev?

Who's Quote Is That?.

I managed about 80%.

jsid-1202745286-587734  randy at Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:54:46 +0000


There's a huge difference between drawing down deployed troop levels due to operational factors (such as resource allocation, or even achieving mission goals) and doing so due to idelogical platitudes, which is what the Dem's, particularly the canidates (and to be fair, one R canidate, Paul), are advocating.

The fact that the Dems timetable, based entirely on picking an arbritary date on a calendar, might happen to coincide with a drawdown for operational reasons, puts them in the stopped clock category.

And I predict that once we pulled out of Iraq under their plan ("Run Away!"), they'd start coming up with reasons to pull out of Afghanistan and disengage from Pakistan. Their support for those ops are pure smoke screen IHMO.

The Iraqi campaign IS part of the wider war effort. Abandoning them before they can stand on their own cedes the battlefield to AQ (the controversy over whether they were there prior to the invasion is moot, they are there now) and Iranian proxies.

Even if we clear out Afghanistan and the Tribal areas, we'd just give them a new sanctuary in Iraq, and would have to end up going back in again, this time with less cooperation from the Iraqis due to our earlier betrayal, paying in blood for the same ground again.

Quite frankly, I don't trust Obama or Clinton, or anyone on the Dem side (except perhaps Liberman) to allow a competent "bombing campaign". Again, based on the Carter and Clinton 1 experience, I expect micromanaging ala' MacNamara, with partisan political and media objectives to take priority over legitimate combat objectives.

jsid-1202746096-587735  randy at Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:08:16 +0000

As for the article you linked: part of the correct answer is to increase funding for maintenance, upgraded or replacement systems, troop funding (including bonuses to keep current mind level NCO's and Officers in).

Congress (both sides) needs to quit micromanging the basing and retirement of aging equipment, overriding Pentagon planning to buy votes in their districts.

(current example, AF not being allowed to retire F-15's due to ANG basing impact, not being allowed to buy enough F-22's to replace them).

I do not for a second believe that either Dem canidate is going to sacrifice their bread and circus and socialized approach to build a nanny state to help the issues raised in that article.

Once they are in power, and no longer need them as "victims" to beat up on a Republican adminstration, they are going to forget the troops, and return to their more visible contempt they have for the military and the people who serve.

The Clintons in particular, have demonstrated that to them, the military does not exist to protect the US as a nation, but simply to shut up and be tools for whatever the President needs done to support the trivialites of their personal political power.

The article raises very good points and issues that need to be dealt with. Those issues will not be dealt with in a serious way by a President Obama or HR Clinton.

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>