marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs

Bush Bull: Troops on the Border

After George W. Bush makes his first major nationwide prime time TV broadcast in five years Monday night, there's going to be a lot of blood on the floor to mop up. While simultaneously trying to appease his own Right and pushing a comprehensive reform program right over their heads, Bush is going to tear that immigration baby right into two. While the details of Bush's speech cannot all be anticipated, what we know in advance is that he's going to satisfy nobody.  It now seems certain he's going to talk tough and announce he's sending 'troops to the border' - National Guard troops.  This part of the speech aims at staunching the political erosion on his right, the ongoing slippage of his own conservative base increasingly convinced that Old George has capitulated to blue-helmeted globalists and is conspiring with Vicente Fox to give back the southwest to Mexico. But Bush will really be engaging in some sleight of hand. Anyone who thinks that as a result of the President's order there are soon going to be U.S. troops with weapons in their hands standing steely guard on la linea is going to be very, very disappointed. The new infusion of Guardsmen, if it happens at all, will mostly mean the "troops" taking over some desk jobs and some technical chores, thereby freeing up more Border Patrol agents to run up and down the ravines of Arizona chasing our future cooks and bottle-washers. Some of the guard but might have an expanded role in surveillance as well; but make no mistake, there will be no phalanx of troops on the border. There's also the question of what sort of deployment takes place if the governors of New Mexico and California -- as they have indicated-- might oppose the measure. So when it comes to the restrictionist right-wing and the hard-liners in the House that the President is now trying to appease, all Bush is going to do is tease them and eventually further tick them off. The second part of his speech, we think, will be some sort of an endorsement of comprehensive immigration reform (a guest worker program and perhaps some sort of path to legalization for the undocumented already here). This is aimed at appeasing more liberalish reformers and at supporting --at least vaguely-- the bill now expected to emerge from the Senate.  Well, Bush might say enough to give cover to the more recalcitrant GOPers in the upper house who are only reluctantly going along with a reform bill but you can also be sure that he's going to further cloud up the sensitive issue of legalization and of expanded legal immigration. At best it's going to be a back-handed endorsement from the president. You can also expect that a large part of the reform coalition -- the liberals, the Democrats, and the unions-- are going to take the Prez at his word and be mighty worked up over the thought of unleashing the military on the border (even if that is not exactly what's going to happen). I can't imagine any lovefest from the left around Bush because of the coming speech. When the dust clears, we might be closer to a Senate bill but I hardly see any resolution of the immigration or border issue coming out of this. Lucky for the President, in many ways, that immigration has been such a back-burner issue until just a handful of weeks ago -- a complex matter to which most people have paid scant attention (at least to the details). Bush's leadership on this has really been grossly incompetent and irresponsible. The irony is that it is he, the President, who pushed this matter to national attention to begin with. Coming into office in 2001, he implied that making a deal with Mexico was his top foreign policy priority. After 9/11 blew that away, Bush came back to the issue a second time, citing a guest worker program as one of his priorities in his 2004 state of the union address. And then, after once igniting the debate -- one that turned quite conflictive this Spring-- Bush ducked and covered, basically going MIA. Now that the debate is simmering, with mass mobilizations of immigrants, a Senate racing to catch up, a House mired in bumper-sticker solutions, Minutemen stealing headlines, and his own Republican Party split right up the middle on the matter, the President --very belatedly-- plans to make this a dramatic prime time issue.  The sure bet is that 24 hours from now, after his speech, the issue will be only more confused. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think so.

68 Responses to “Bush Bull: Troops on the Border”

  1. Rob Grocholski Says:

    Sadly, I’d have to agree. I think you’ve got a solid bet on the Prez’ speech tomorrow. Frustrating world we live in.

  2. Michael Balter Says:

    Can some one tell me where all these National Guard troops would come from anyway? Aren’t most units overstretched with the war in Iraq?

  3. Michael Balter Says:

    The first graphs of story in today’s New York Times. Bush says the deployment would only be “temporary.” In other words, a big publicity stunt going into the midterm elections.

    Plan to Deploy Guard at Border Worries Mexico

    By JIM RUTENBERG
    Published: May 15, 2006
    WASHINGTON, May 14 — President Bush’s plan to send National Guard troops to patrol the southern border of the United States has raised the concern of his longtime ally President Vicente Fox of Mexico, who called Mr. Bush on Sunday to express his worries.

    White House officials said Mr. Bush assured Mr. Fox that a permanent National Guard presence on the border was not being considered.

    “The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend,” said Maria Tamburri, a White House spokeswoman.

    Ms. Tamburri said the president told Mr. Fox, “What is being considered is not a militarization of the border, but support of border patrol capabilities, on a temporary basis, by National Guard personnel.”

  4. patrick neid Says:

    while a president always has the power of the ‘bully-pulpit’ i think the horse left the barn on this one a few weeks back. the power is now in the house and the upcoming conference bill with the minutemen providing the cattle prod.

    unless the house members completely reverse their stated demand-a fence- that’s what we are getting without the felon status provision. the only question will be how long. the original bill had 850 miles or so. this link has a picture of the areas where they would build it.

    http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/68466.htm

    bush is just trying to save his butt with this speech. it’s probably too late.

  5. UpTheAnte Says:

    What’s funny is how the rightwingers fail Bush now. He went to Iraq for them, stood up against gay-marriage for them, appointed conservatives to the US supreme court for him, and now, once his ratings have fallen and he actually wants to achieve something that’s broad and comprehensive, they turn their backs on him virtually overnight.

    They used to attack the president’s critics over the war in Iraq. Now they’ve become his critics, but over immigration. Seems that these pricks didn’t value his conservative loyalty in the first place. It was all about them. The wars, the supreme court, the tax-cuts, the gay-marriage, weren’t enough. All that was done will be rendered null if he doesn’t also punish the illegal immigrants.

    So, they took his loyalty for granted. Now, where’s their own loyalty? How much do they want before they’re satisfied? About 50 000 people have died because of their revenge lust, and now they’re going to whine if they don’t see mass deportations happen as well. George; perhaps you better look for real friends, elsewhere, and stop wasting your time.

  6. Samuel Stott Says:

    I definitely agree that this issue will only become more confused. Many pundits and prognosticators are trying to work it up into some sort of wedge issue, but from what I can see, pretty much no one in the US considers immigration from Mexico an emergency. The fact of the matter is that Americans like Mexicans and Mexicans like Americans. All parties understand that the US isn’t Mexico and that Mexico isn’t the US. We are all going to die; this debate will continue.

  7. Gormotha Says:

    Don’t be quick to judge the man. Most democrats tend to judge him on his ability to lead the nation and consider he failed miserably. You have to get to know the man and his real agenda. Saudi friends got richer, halliburton episode made many friends happy, as did the tamiflu vaccine story, tax cuts for rich, and so many more, I pass. If you consider, the guy did a heck of a job! You guys never learn and continue to bash.. does he look like he is ready to abandon? Nay, he never did. And I am sure as always he has something up his sleeve. Stop thinking this guys a failure and bash him, take time to wonder what he is preparing. Next thing you know you will be mouth wide open thinking : “NO, he didnt DARE” and public opinion will turn like a flock of sheep facing a barking dog.

  8. Lynn Says:

    “Bush says the deployment would only be “temporary.” In other words, a big publicity stunt going into the midterm elections.”

    That says it all. He’s already soothed his buddy, Fox. And if there is any angst on either side, politically, we must only remember HE’S the decider. What a sham.

  9. Wall Says:

    Look, there are two words that can always be fallen back on when Marc get’s confused: “Blame Clinton.” That train should role in about a week from now, on time as ever.

  10. La Shawn Barber's Corner Says:

    Live-Blogging Bush’s Illegal Immigration Speech…

    As if it will make any difference in the scheme of things, I’ll be live-blogging President George Bush’s speech tonight, but the thread is open for commenting now.
    Bush knows the majority of Americans oppose amnesty for illegal aliens an…

  11. Woody Says:

    UpYoursAnte went into a nice rant about the right but, as usual, is completely wrong in his analysis. Bush did not go to war for the right. The right supported the President in a military action, consistent with their respect for the office and its responsibilities and to support our soldiers. They did the same for Clinton. All the rest of Up’s comment is also wrong, but typical of people from the left who read their own writings and believe them.

    ————

    I agree with Cooper that the President won’t make anyone happy tonight. It’s like getting something to drink. If you get a hot drink, it’s good. If you get a cold drink, it’s good. If you get a lukewarm drink, then you spit it out. I think the talk tonight will be lukewarm.
    (Taken by permission from Rev 3:15-16–I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

    Afraid to sound like a Democrat, I am thinking, just thinking mind you, about not voting for the Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms. I’m not sure about my options at this point, but I’m exploring them. I don’t want the Republicans to think that they have conservatives in their hip pocket and only have to pay them lip service, like the Democrats do with blacks.

  12. reg Says:

    I know this is a fools errand, but Woody made the claim that the right supported Clinton when he went to war in Kosovo – this is, of course, not a factual statement. (And, of course, he proves “Antes” point that there is no loyalty among this crowd when the chips are down and they’re feeling cornered by the failure of everything they’d told us was good and true about this guy a couple of years ago. True to form, Woody even tries to distance his wing of the Bush-Love “right” from the Iraq war, as though they weren’t avid cheerleaders spreading the faith and arguing the imperatives and confirming the evidence and trumpeting the “mission accomplished” with all of the gusto of the most feverish believers. What nonsense. More to the point, what cowardice and inability to take responsibility for where one has stood on fundamental issues.)

    Anyway – here are some examples of the support Clinton got from his right during Kosovo (Irony alert!) :

    “You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
    -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

    “Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
    -Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

    “I’m on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we’re running out of cruise missles. I can’t tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we’re almost out of cruise missles.”
    -Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

    “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
    -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

    “I don’t know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag”
    -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

    “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
    -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

  13. reg Says:

    Randy – please remind me why it’s pointless to argue with this guy using evidence. I keep forgetting.

  14. reg Says:

    Department of Deep Thinkers:

    Some guy said: “All parties understand that the US isn’t Mexico and that Mexico isn’t the US. We are all going to die; this debate will continue.”

    Same guy elsewhere: “Feel free to make sense. Feel free to make an argument.”

    Trivial pursuits aside, I’ve made my own arguments on the substance of the immigration issue “ad boredom” if not nauseum, but to the question of this speech, it’s obvious that Bush has abdicated any leadership on this one. He’s putting the “r” at the end of “decider”.

  15. Randy Paul Says:

    Reg,

    Just write this: a falsehood gains no additional credence through repetition.

  16. David Says:

    The debate here is not soley over illegal immigration. The larger debate is whether America can still act in the interests of Americans. More import matters like alternative fuels and trade deficits cannot be explored so long as Democrats fail to work for the working class. As a Democrat I am outraged that my party is supporting Bush on cheap labor for big business. With poverty on the rise in our country we cannot afford to support Bush on anything.

  17. Michael Balter Says:

    Revelation 3:17 (King James Version)
    King James Version (KJV)
    Public Domain
    Woody says he might not vote Republican this time. It would be too much to hope for that it’s because, while looking up Revelations, he also saw the next lines:

    Rev 17: Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.

  18. Lynn Says:

    What David said.
    Except I’m no longer claiming Democrats as MY party, until I see something to party for. Indie am I, forthwith.

  19. GM Roper Says:

    I have no grand expectations of Bush having anything good to say tonight. I have even less expectations of the Democrats “response” following Bush’s speech.

    Reg, you are so wrong on so many counts. There were a large number of righties that supported Clinton’s Kosovo operations, just as there were many lefties that did not. Posting a few quotes does not an argument make. Further, It would appear that at least Joe Scarborough was right: “What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”

    There is a reality in the immigration issue that both sides seem to ignore. One is the right of any country to secure it’s borders. Two, is the right of any country to decide what to do with people who come to that country without permission. And three, how do you deal with an obvious problem – no one seriously believes that we can suddenly export 12-20 million people without causing a massive personal and economic disruption.

    It makes sense that the border that is causing the problem be sealed, if for no other reason than security in a time of war (which this is whether you like it or not). It also makes sense that if we are dealing with illegal aliens that we include ALL illegal aliens in that mix regardless of where they come from. Just because the majority of illegals are Mexican does not mean that there is not a problem with other groups.

    There is also all the “hype” surrounding this issue. The left loves to blame Bush, but the reality is that this has been a problem for some time under both Democratic and Republican administrations and none of them have done diddly about it. So pointing your finger at Bush is not only dishonest, but hypocritical as well.

    Some form of amnesty may indeed be necessary however, that issue should not be taken until the border issue has been taken care of. And does it really matter if it is a fence, an electronic barrier, a presense of increased patrols or some combination of these or as yet undescribed measures?

    The reason that the border issue needs to be delt with first is simple, if you reward a behavior you get more of it. As when the Reagan administration and the Democrats first gave an amnesty in the mid ’80s and did nothing about the border, the rush to come in was significant over the last twenty years. Denying that is not only stupid, it flies in the face of any rational discussion.

    Lastly, I’m not sure how many here believe that the invective leveled at Marc Cooper, reg, Michael, Woody, me or anyone else of a differing opinion is designed to “convince” anyone else of the rightness of the cause being argued. Though I have called others a dips**t here on occasion (as well as less profane words) often it is out of ire and frustration at the total lack of argument. I’ve been commenting on Marc’s blog since he started the blog and have hardly ever seen a righty here treated with any degree of respect. That is not a universal statement, but it is a valid one none-the-less. I have also seen the invective hurled by the righties. Dumb? Yes, but what can I say.

    Perhaps if the invective slowed, discussions in this blog might actually be productive. Hmm, what a concept!

  20. Jake Elmore Says:

    There’s little to like in any of this.

  21. Randy Paul Says:

    GM,

    If you’ll notice, I haven’t hurled insults your way.

  22. UpTheAnte Says:

    Woody’s like a dinasour who looks at something with details in it, but can’t decipher any of the details and scoffs them off as one solid lump and then walks away thinking there was only a lump. Or say a mouse that spots a cheese but would never figure out what the components were.

    The conservative base has turned their backs. Are you blind? Bush’s ratings are the lowest ever, and the fierce pseudo loyalty you saw around 2003 when your crowd derided anyone who as much as uttered a word of criticism regarding the invasion of Iraq for being “traitors”, and “anti-American”, is virtually gone. All the words about Bushs “firmness”, “belief in God”, “leadership”, are almost faded. That’s the type of loyalty that others were blamed for lacking.

    And Kosovo and Iraq are two very different missions. The first was mulitlaterally done by a president who was popular around the world which you arrogantos condescendingly look down upon. Probably, if say France was on his side you loonies would flame him as a “communist”.

  23. Bill Bradley Says:

    It was inevitable that the issue would become confused.

  24. Jcummings Says:

    Kosovo was as stupid, illegal and counterproductive, if not more, than the Iraq war. To think otherwise is willfully blind.

  25. Bill Bradley Says:

    Antonio Villaraigosa’s newfound caution on the immigration issue, from yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle profile.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/BAGVFIRORG1.DTL&hw=villaraigosa&sn=001&sc=1000

    As I blogged in near real time during the May Day Boycott, it was not clear until late in the day that Antonio would appear at all at the late afternoon/early evening rally sponsored by the very activist LA County Labor Fed and others. During the earlier march on City Hall, he remained in his office this time, unlike his performance during the first wave of demonstrations.

  26. NeoDude Says:

    Oh WOODY, here’s some scripture for you:

    Among the things Jesus suffered, was the indignity of Peter’s
    denial…
    a. Three times, with increasing intensity, Peter denied knowing
    Jesus – Mt 26:69-75
    b. Peter denied knowing Jesus, despite being with Jesus:
    1) From the beginning of His earthly ministry – Mt 4:17-19
    2) At the healing of his own mother-in-law – Mt 8:14-15
    3) On the Sea of Galilee, walking on the water – Mt 14:22-33
    4) On the mount, seeing Jesus with Moses and Elijah – Mt 17:1-13

    2. How did Peter come to deny his Lord and Savior?
    a. What forces were at work, that led to his cowardly deed?
    b. Might they be forces we face today, encouraging us to do the
    same?

    I. PETER WAS BETRAYED BY PRIDE

    A. HE BOASTED HE WOULD NEVER DENY JESUS…
    1. Proudly proclaiming that even if all left Jesus, not him!
    – Mt 26:31-33
    2. In so doing, Peter took the first step in falling away – Pro
    16:18
    3. We can also be overconfident in our service to God – cf. 1 Co
    10:12

    B. PETER LATER COMMANDED HUMILITY…
    1. To be clothed with humility – 1 Pe 5:5
    2. To humble ourselves before God – 1 Pe 5:6

    [Peter learned the hard way about the danger of pride. Will we learn
    from the mistake of Peter, and value the importance of humility? Next,
    notice that...]

    [From "Peter's Denial Of Jesus", there are important lessons to be gleaned. Indeed, Peter himself can help us to avoid making the mistakes he made when he writes as one who knows the dangers before us. For
    example, we note first of all that...]

    More:
    http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/matt/mt26_69.htm

    Is Bush the Messiah, after all?

  27. Michael Balter Says:

    Oh shit, what have I started, a Bible study group.

  28. GM Roper Says:

    I would hope that everyone would believe that you can prove virtually anything from the bible, pro or con.

    Randy, it is appreciated. :-)

    One would hope that everyone would stop hurling invective and insults. Then and only then will rational discussion ensue.

  29. Jussi Hämäläinen Says:

    Well, there is one conservative who understood the Bush-Fox relationship from the get-go:

    July 11, 2000:

    “…I have no idea what Señor Fox’s personal character is. But then, who does? The American press routinely portrays new Presidentes as models of honesty and modernism. Six years later, Presidentes just as routinely exit to catcalls and rotten tomatoes, salving their hurt feelings with the billions they’ve stolen. Whether changing the party label will change this time-honored tradition remains to be seen.

    What we can understand with some confidence is that Fox is highly unlikely to change Mexico’s racial structure. His attitude toward emigration to America resembles that of his predecessors. Like the rest of Mexico’s white power elite, Fox wants to funnel as many hungry mestizos and Indians into the U.S. as possible. By getting us to take Mexico’s angriest young brown men, Mexico’s white ruling class has been able to forestall the kind of brown vs. white race wars that were a recurrent feature in 19th and early 20th century Mexico…”

    and:”…Fox is likely to become the next American President’s very own Boris Yeltsin: a glamorous symbol of democracy, free markets and pro-Americanism that we will feel compelled to bail out over and over again. The two most likely ways we’ll bail out Fox: financial rescues – and more legal and illegal immigration. You heard it here first.”

    Regardless of what you think of Steve,that was pretty damn sharp.

  30. Jake Elmore Says:

    “To think otherwise is willfully blind.”

    It has so been decreed!

  31. Jcummings Says:

    Going to war outside of security council resolutions, making a bad situation worse – something that even “Waco” Wesley Clark admitted, siding with Al Qaeda, bombing bridges and TV stations….

    All objectively wrong.

  32. NeoDude Says:

    GM Roper,

    I thought the thoughts of God are objectively true?

    I was taught that only liberals believed in the subjective metaphors of scripture.

    You mean the pastors have been lying?

  33. Rev. Woody Says:

    It’s nice to see everyone studying and referencing the Bible. Bless you all. We will pass the offering plates while the choir sings the Mexican National Anthem.

    —–

    reg, do you know why we were running out of cruise missiles under Clinton?

    —–

    To provide another spiritual reference on immigration….

    The Bush Immigration Drinking Game from Pursuing Holiness

    I know a lot of Christians believe drinking is strictly out of bounds. That’s not my understanding, although I believe drunkenness is sinful. …I probably won’t do it, but I’m seriously considering having a drink each time the President uses the following terms (from John Derbyshire, with a hat tip to Polipundit):

    jobs Americans won’t do
    nation of immigrants
    compassionate
    family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande
    good-hearted people
    path to citizenship
    my good friend Vicente Fox
    this is not amnesty

    ————

    May the Lord bless you and keep you. Amen.

  34. Jake Elmore Says:

    I’m afraid even as an experienced drinker I couldn’t last a page without breaking my limit. It looks remarkably like the global warming bingo though.

  35. GM Roper Says:

    Neodude: “I thought the thoughts of God are objectively true?” and “I was taught that only liberals believed in the subjective metaphors of scripture.” and “You mean the pastors have been lying?”

    Why would you want to make an article of faith (which is believed in but not provable) a penny ante arguing point? I could argue that the thoughts of God are objectively true, but the bible was written down by men, and men are likely to be in error. In the days of Moses when Genesis was given, how could God explain billions of years, the big bang or even a partial explanation of evolution. How would he have explained an internal combustion engine?

    Mocking peoples faith Neodude is pointless and rather plebian. Why go there?

    This is what I was refering to earlier in which peoples arguments are subjected to ridicule rather than looked at and discussed. It is childish and I refuse to take part in it in this forum. Neodude, if you wish to, that is your issue and I suggest you find a way of dealing with it.

  36. Jake Elmore Says:

    “In the days of Moses when Genesis was given, how could God explain billions of years, the big bang or even a partial explanation of evolution. How would he have explained an internal combustion engine?”

    I agree with this much anyway. He?

  37. NeoDude Says:

    This is wierd, I thought you were making lite of our literalist brothers by making this comment:

    ————I would hope that everyone would believe that you can prove virtually anything from the bible, pro or con. ———————-

    A comment like that sure doesn’t take fundamentlist very seriously.

    Speaking of Fundies!
    ___________________
    Rev. Woody Says:

    May 15th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
    ___________________
    That was classic.

  38. Marc Cooper » Blog Archive » Reaction To Bush Immigration Speech Says:

    [...] Bush Bull: Troops on the Border [...]

  39. reg Says:

    “Reg, you are so wrong on so many counts.”

    Your stupid friend made a patently false generalization. And it’s obvious the list of “righties” I quoted isn’t anomolous or of no consequence. By and large, the hard-core hawkish neocon intellectuals supported Clinton. The more opportunistic pols and pundits tended not to. I didn’t make a generalization about the everyone on the right – I just countered Woody’s.

    Don’t give me shit about being wrong when I prove a point with evidence. You’re buddy is the master of baseless generalizations. And you’re an enabler of his incredibly asinine performances. You make yourselof look foolish jumping to his defense. So shove the sanctimony. You guys aren’t even close to being taken seriously by anyone with their head even half screwed on.

  40. reg Says:

    Roper here: “One would hope that everyone would stop hurling invective and insults. Then and only then will rational discussion ensue.”

    Roper elsewhere on this blog: “reg, you are a certified dip s**t. … Stick your oppobrium up your a**.” (In response to a general comment of mine that expressed a very low opinion of typical right-wing blogs but contained not one bit of ad hominem or personal insult.)

  41. GM Roper Says:

    “Your stupid friend made a patently false generalization.”

    You prove my point, I was talking less about woody than I was anyone from the right. Your visciousness is patently proof of who’s head isn’t screwed on right. Yours is the real sanctimony in this blog and you denegrate anyone on the left with your childish antics.

  42. reg Says:

    Woody said “the right” supported Clinton. That is a baseless generaliztion.

    Can you undersrtand simple English and plain analysis of either Woody’s general statement, my response disproving his generalization or my explanation in response to you. I’m beginning to think not. You really come across like an idiot on this one.

    And are there anymore accusations you’d like to make about my “viciousnesss” etc, while your in a tantrum mood. Get it out of your system. We wouldn’t want insults to spoil the high quality of argument.

  43. reg Says:

    The Good GMR: “peoples arguments are subjected to ridicule rather than looked at and discussed. It is childish and I refuse to take part in it in this forum”

    The Bad GMR (having failed to counter either my argument or my evidence disproving Woody’s false statement.) “Your visciousness is patently proof of who’s head isn’t screwed on right. Yours is the real sanctimony in this blog and you denegrate anyone on the left with your childish antics.”

    This is one of the first times I’ve seen someone carry on a a bitterly fought argument with his alter-ego on one of these threads.

    Oh, and while I’m at it, here’s another quote from the GOP crowd that “supported Clinton” during wartime:

    “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” – Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

  44. GM Roper Says:

    Guilty as charged. You just bring out the worst in me. (and practically everyone else)

  45. reg Says:

    I think you’ve got me confused with Woody…

  46. Bill Bradley Says:

    All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  47. reg Says:

    Bill…you’re right on the money. I keep trying to tell myself that, but it never quite works. Pity…

    And, dare I say it, you’ve got a real knack for turning a phrase.

  48. Jake Elmore Says:

    Certainly nailed it.

  49. Michael Balter Says:

    From the LA Times:

    COLUMN ONE
    God’s Call Comes by Cellphone
    Bible verses on a BlackBerry, sermons on an MP3 — an explosion in digitalized spirituality is making true believers of online e-vangelists.
    By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
    May 16, 2006

    A recent national poll found just 17% of adults view the local church as essential for developing faith.

    Small wonder.

    Sitting in a pew on Sunday morning seems almost embarrassingly old-fashioned in an era when you can watch a video recreation of the Last Supper on your Palm or get God’s word text-messaged to your cellphone.

    Bored with your pastor’s ramblings? Select a peppier sermon from among hundreds of “godcasts” online. Just pick a topic: Christian dating? Old Testament prophets? Then download it to your MP3 player.

    Finding the old leather-bound Bible a bit cumbersome? A quick download from Olive Tree Bible Software and you’ll be able to search Scripture on your BlackBerry.

    “At first blush, it may seem a little peculiar to connect with God on your cellphone,” said Christopher Chisholm, a TV-executive-turned-digital-evangelist. He recently helped launch FaithMobile, a service that will send a daily Bible verse to your cellphone for $5.99 a month.

    [continued on LAT site]

  50. Bill Bradley Says:

    Thanks, Reg, I appreciate that.

    You know, as I’ve always said, thinking about this vexing and complex issue, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

    A fraction of your wages is a small price to pay for world peace.

    Or something like that.

  51. woody Says:

    The first half of the speech was a lackluster, passionless, obligatory laundry list of a phantom domestic agenda. It came off as a vague manifesto of supply-sider dogma penned by a committee of finance, real estate and insurance lobbyists. No figures or details were attached to the Clintonesque “applets” he proposed on health care, social security and education. A wise decision to forego the stats, as they surely would not have passed any significant scrutiny. They were merely stated as for-the-record place holders in case anyone asks if Mr. Bush really has “a plan” or not.

    check these links. kick ass, yeah.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7351540&dopt=Citation

    and your mamas said this is about, you mother fucker.

    http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5000447619

    http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/172216.php

    http://laweekly.blogs.com/marc_cooper/2004/09/bush_speaks_the.html

  52. Alfred Doten Says:

    Bush is never going to protect our borders like he should-the fix is already in with fox -no this boders thing and the senate is already doing his dirty work by passing their insane law to reword 13million to 20million law breakers with false I.D.s to out right S.S. number theft. The rule of law no longer exist in our country any more-that is for illegal ailens.So the President is trying to get his base back by trying to push other laws he thinks might bring his base back thinking you will forget about him giveing our country away. He must think we have stupid written on our for heads.

  53. Alfred Doten Says:

    Bush is never going to protect our borders like he should-the fix is already in with fox -no this boders thing and the senate is already doing his dirty work by passing their insane law to reword 13million to 20million law breakers with false I.D.s to out right S.S. number theft. The rule of law no longer exist in our country any more-that is for illegal ailens.So the President is trying to get his base back by trying to push other laws he thinks might bring his base back thinking you will forget about him giveing our country away. He must think we have stupid written on our for heads.

  54. Two Words Ringtone Says:

    Two Words Ringtone…

    Dead World Ringtone Dead World Ringtone She Loves You Ringtone She Loves You Ringtone Politics Ringtone Politics Ringtone Outcast Ringtone Outcast Ringtone Ti Faro Morire Ringtone Ti Faro Morire Ringtone March Of Hope Ringtone March Of Hope Ringtone Th…

  55. barber chair koch Says:

    barber chair koch…

    Wow that’s a nice post ….

  56. MickeyRourkemxb Says:

    Ich can mich an dich uberhaupt poker nicht errinern.mxb

  57. baseball picks Says:

    Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks

  58. hot men models Says:

    hot men models…

    I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….

  59. John Says:

    Respect you!Added to favorites!!Nice site!
    This is my site:
    http://www.volny.cz/disctairlineticket/index.html

  60. Ron Says:

    Respect you!Added to favorites!!Nice site!
    This is my site:
    http://www.volny.cz/disctairlineticket/index.html
    http://www.volny.cz/disctairlineticket/map.html

  61. Michael Says:

    anime ringtones for motorola
    http://idisk.mac.com/ton16/Public/index.html
    free ringtones for sprint phones
    http://idisk.mac.com/ton17/Public/index.html
    free downloads t mobile ringtones
    http://idisk.mac.com/ton18/Public/index.html

  62. Joel A Says:

    Ironically enough, it was Tito, who created a welfare state in Kosovo for illegal Albanian’s who continued their policy in two world wars of driving out non-Albanians and breeding like rabbits until such an opportunity arised as to realize their century old goal of Greater Albania.

    They will need stop at KosovO either.

  63. Uchkudukus Says:

    http://www.prolinkuptraining.com/user/view.php?id=30&course=1 buy very cheap branded viagra super active online
    http://wasb.urz.uni-magdeburg.de/ikus_n/user/view.php?id=1558&course=1 viagra generic buy viagra generic
    http://kahveci.boun.edu.tr/courses/user/view.php?id=1167&course=1 order branded cialis soft tabs tab online
    http://www.wiwi.uni-wuppertal.de/schneider/elearning/user/view.php?id=2812&course=1 online buy branded viagra soft tabs fast delivery
    http://3is.media.unisi.it/learning/user/view.php?id=1448&course=1 addiction drug online order branded viagra super active

  64. Violary Says:

    Is there a way to locate someone locally to try this?

  65. anne Says:

    I really liked your blog! i read 4 others that are on similar subjets, but they domt update very often, thanks.

  66. PRAVAR Says:

    Amazing work ! really helpful post ! thanks..

  67. Summers Says:

    Happy Valentine’s Day!

  68. Balash Says:

    Hey I really liked the info you had today.
    Thanks for having a really great site.

    Regards http://digitalalarm.info