Clinton may have avoided the draft, but at least he did so honestly, and didn't make up excuses about "having better things to do."

That is the most assinine statement you have ever made!  There is nothing honest or honorable about Clinton or his episode!

You want Honorable?  Try learning about Muhammed Ali!  That was Honorable and why he is one of my greatest heros. 

That was pathetic even by your standards.

So you say, mr guy, without anything to back up your contention. Yet, you offer nothing else.

I have already refuted you point by point with facts.  That is called back up my dear Dabe.

The quickest way to ensure that a comparison between Iraq and Vietman will EVER be accurate is to do EXACTLY what you lame-assed liberals want us to do..."BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOWWWWWWWWWW."

Bingo!  And that is EXACTLY right.

Well, I don't think even your ass will be big enough. The movement in Crawford was only those who could make it there. The antiwar movement is just growing. March on DC, Sept. 24th, with hundreds of thousands expected to show, just like the vietnam demonstrations. the joke, for lack of a better term, is on you.

The joke is on you.  A few thousand?  Out of 300 million?  A gnat on the butt of humanity.

get your facts straight lemonhead.

Impossible for the sanity challenged.

Nixon ended it because he was thrown out of office for the watergate break-in,

You are an idiot!  he was thrown out in 74 (august).  He ended it in Jan 73!  You really were a thumb sucking infant!  And you did not even bother to learn the history!

Reply By: dabePosted: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 minisculeman, get your facts straight, or at least your story.

I would say that to you.  He is a lot more accurate than you are!

Yeah, too bad your boy Clinton didnt have the sense to do the same, he was impeached as well, remember that?

Nixon was never impeached.

PURJURY about a blow job.

It is Perjury.  ANd no, it is for lying under oath. You know the thing that sent Martha Stewart to Jail cause she was not a democrat President?  You really dont know shit do you!  You have not been right on one fact you have regurgitated yet!  Sheesh!  You are half armed in a battle of wits!

As for my age, in that you seem to be so obsessed with it, I am 54 years old. I graduated from high school in 1968. I was an adult when Vietnam and the antiwar movement was peaking. Now, go back to hubby for a beating and stop obsessing about me.

Chronologically.  Not mentally.  Cause you must have been stoned as you got all your facts wrong.  No one died when Nixon Lied either, but he had the DECENCY to resign instead of dragging the country and office down.  in that, he is a much better man than Slick Willy ever will be,

Guy, you really are a sicko whacked out sob. Nixon never got impeached. I said that. But, he resigned in shame. Hello, you moron. It wasn't about decency. typical rightie spin, though. It was about avoiding impeachment. He was a scumsucking crook. Nothing more. As for anyone dying when nixon lied, that's really a specious argument, as the discussion is referring to Clinton's blowjob lie and dubya's lying to congress to go to war. NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED.

As for Clinton, I did not support his blow job escapade, but so what? As for getting a Rhodes Scholarship and avoiding the draft, well good for him. At least he never lied about his disdain for the vietnam conflict. He got out like thousands of others. what he didn't do was go around spouting what a wonderful endeavor that American fiasco was, while at the same time getting in the Champagne Unit of the guard, and couldn't even fulfill his enlistment oath because he was too doped up on coke and alcohol. Hypocritical freakin' sob. No wonder you like him. You're just like that dubya chimp. Like a rock, only dumber.

You obviously do know shit, cuz that's all you spout.

Dabe - "Yes, I sure was. It was a hidious time for this country, split down the middle with those who supported the war, those who came home in body bags or damaged, and those who used whatever their daddies could conjure up to keep them out of the battle, even though they said they supported the effort."

Clearly you are only looking at one side of the picture. There was the part that did not happen in the USA as well. There was the part in this country that was not protesting. There was the part where returning troops were spit on and ostracized. I do agree with you about the hypocrits.

In a later post to you someone pointed out that 1000 does not equate to 100,00 and clearly defeats the claim of "galavanized" the same as during the Viet Nam era.

In later posts you made references to then and now to try and make it justified as a comparison. It is evident that you did not know much about actual events at the time. LBJ did not escalate a war based on lies. Everyone was quite upfront that it was to step the "Communist Menace". Although often a method of rhetoric at the time, in the case of Viet Nam, it was true. What happened after we left? What happened to Cambodia and Laos as a result of that same end? It was a quagmire because it was led by politicians and an incompetent general. Iraq is no where near the level of quagmire in the context of Viet Nam. We do not have every other man, woman and child over there trying to kill us as we walk down the street. We have a very small minority made up almost entirely of foreigners on a holy quest and left overs from Saddam that hope to revive the "old days".

In the last few days we saw Sunni tribesmen take up arms against Zarqawi'a followers. In Ramadi last month Sunni tribal people took arms and protected the Shi'a that were ordered out by Zarqawi. Make no mistake, neither Hussain nor Zarqawi are Ho Chi Minh. Neither one commands the popular support he did. Neither one has almost the entire population galvanized or terrorized against us or the new government. Even though Zarqawi has tried repeatedly to use the VC tactic of killing and maiming innocent women and children to turn them away from us. Quite the opposite, more and more people from all walks are starting to fight them, not us.

Just because we have to fight a tenacious and capable enmy there does not automatically make it the same as Viet Nam. And let us not forget, the majority of this enemy would be attacking us here if we did not have them tied up over there. Yes, yes, I know, the old line that it is just scare tactics like the "Comunist Menace". However, they actually have attacked us here and elsewhere. The NVA and VC never did. It is not just a threat of what might happen like stated then, it is an event that has already occurred.

So, again, I say do not make claims and statements as though they are rooted in fact unless you back it up with all the actual facts. Leave Viet Nam out of this, it is a ridiculous argument meant to cause fear and consternation, just as the "Communist Menace" statements were meant to do. Do you even realize the anti-war movement is using "McCarthyism" tactics when they argue based on those kind of statements? The protester so the Viet Nam war used actual events and facts to back up their arguments, why don't you try that for a while and you might find a few more ears willing to listen instead of marginalizing yourselves.

Yes. someone lied or did an incredibly inept job at having good intelligence and we went to war primarily on the predication that it was to stop WMD, that turned out not to exist. I do not think Bush, Blair, Powell or any of the others in the forefront lied. I do believe that they followed very bad intelligence. I also believe that the head of the CIA for most of that intelligence gathering (Tenet-appointed by a Democrat) was incredibly incompetent and politically motivated. Bush's mistake was giving too much credibility to the old gaurd placed there by his predessor instead of listening to a more tried and competent general like Powell.

Well, I don't think even your ass will be big enough. The movement in Crawford was only those who could make it there. The antiwar movement is just growing. March on DC, Sept. 24th, with hundreds of thousands expected to show, just like the vietnam demonstrations. the joke, for lack of a better term, is on you.

The anti-military, blame America crowd is not growing. It's just getting the usual preference in the media.

That is true Island Dog, it is getting preferential treatment in the media. Oddly enough a media led by mostly older voices that made their mark and name on the turmoil of the Viet Nam era. If it were to undergo a good thorough psychological analysis I would guess that it might turn out to be fame junkies trying to re-capture the old glory days. In the absense of sufficient substance in the present, they try to use the past that worked before.

As far as the crystal ball prediction of hundreds of thousands in DC, I have seen nothing that even remotely resembles the fire and organization that allowed that to happen in the 60s and 70s. If that many actually show, then go ahead and laugh at who the joke is on. But as I keep saying to you Dabe, base it on actual events and facts, not crystal ball statements, wishful thinking or outright twisting of the facts to make it sound good.

I do not think Bush, Blair, Powell or any of the others in the forefront lied. I do believe that they followed very bad intelligence. I also believe that the head of the CIA for most of that intelligence gathering (Tenet-appointed by a Democrat) was incredibly incompetent and politically motivated. Bush's mistake was giving too much credibility to the old gaurd placed there by his predessor instead of listening to a more tried and competent general like Powell.

This is where you and I truly disagree. I'm convinced that bush wanted a war so badly that he disregarded any intelligence that did not point towards the remotest of possibilities that Iraq had WMD's. He dismissed that intel out of hand, and dragged us into it. Now, he's even saying that we need to protect the oil from the terrorists. Always spinning a new story for our reason for going to war. Our intel wasn't great, but the neocons spinned it. that spinning process is tantamount to lying. They lied plain and simple, whether you acknowledge it or not.

As for fighting the terrorists so they don't fight us here, well that's not quite right either. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, no matter how many times bush and cheney and any of those liars try to convince us of it. they didn't even have terrorists until we invaded. Now, Iraq is a training ground of terrorists, and they hate eachother as much as they hate us. America and Britain created this quagmire, and how to get out is the problem, and the reason it's called a "quagmire".

I was around during the vietnam protests. The soldiers came home to lots of hate and disdain, and that was a hard lesson learned. But, that didn't define the vietnam era. We were fighting communism, which is about as bogus as this war on terror. Upwards of 60,000 GI's died fighting that war, and all for naught. Communism didn't spread, and admittedly I do not know what happened after the Americans left. I do know that Vietnam and the US have normalized relations, and Vietnam is a viable country now, after having recovered from the Americans, French and communists. God only knows how many Vietnamese died during those years, burned to death with napalm and gunned down by anyone with a gun.

We attacked Afghanistan and routed out the taliban, the perpetrators of 9/11. Had we left Iraq alone, we could have finished the job, caught bin laden, and rebuilt Afghanistan. Now, we've virtually abandoned our efforts in Afghanistan, while we chase after a monster of our own creation. In that respect, vietnam and iraq are surely different.