Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests 300,000 new jobs last month..

Next time you wanna bring up quotes of George Patton against the French, do your homework first. Patton was struggling to get out of Brittany and then race across France to head for the Rhine and Berlin. Free French Gen. LeClerc's forces were then assigned to work in concert with Patton's US 3rd Army. in mid-August, 1944, LeClerc and Gen. DeGaulle approached the Allied leadership about wanting to break off from Patton and go for Paris. LeClerc was turned down. He went after Paris anyway. The French were not turning away from a fight with the krauts or being "surender monkeys", but then you throw around that quote implying a meaning inconsistent with what it meant when Patton vented it. Since "Is Paris Burning" was published ONLY 39 years ago, you've had adequate time to read it by now. Did Mr. Rove hide your copy?

Speaking of homework, did you catch The McLaughlin Group last nite on the tube? One of his guests was that flaming apologist for the far left, Patrick Buchanan. The group disccused that apparently, a former 30+ year vet of the State Department and a former State Dept. staffer on security issues (Morton Abrahamson? or a similar name) just published his analysis (try out www.nationalinterest.com)including that we could occupy Iraq for years and still NOT achieve a stable democracy there. Anyway, that leftist stooge Buchanan agreed that we are for the most part now HATED in Iraq and that an early pull out IS a viable option for Bush. I guess Buchanan has not followed Bush''s quick-trigger fingered blunder into Iraq as well as you have, since you know better than him. So is Pat a big Nader backer too, since he'd refute you too?

Meanwhile, on the program before Mclaughlin's, a guest included that famous liberal Democrat John Dean. Yep, the White House counsel under the reknowned pinko Dick Nixon leading up to Nixon's resignation. Dean went out of his way to talk with Republicans in studying the GW Bush administration, and after their input and his observations, Dean concludes that our present Bush admin is WORSE than Nixon's was during Watergate, in terms of operating in secrecy, thinking in group-think bunker mentalities, and going after its "enemies lists".

Anyway, go try your lame arguments on liberals like McLain and Pat Buchanan. But isn't it ironic that the Jews that mistakenly voted for Pat in Florida (and Nader) put your boys in office. Congradulations on being the self-appointed declarer of truth, even when contradictory facts stare you in the face. In the future, you can wax eloquently on how Clinton founded an islamic theocracy in Iraq in 2005.

I look forward to your apology when the ayatollahs run Iraq. It will save me from saying I told you so. If you think Iraq will turn out democratic, maybe you need to drop that Jim Beam bottle. Yeah, there are so many other domocracies in the middle east to use as models. Like Iran.

Your tax dollars at work.

You're the expert on rectal smell. I'll rely on you to detect it.

Sorry, guys, it was Morton Abrahmowitz's article in www.nationalinterest.org.

Gee, too bad wimpy liberals like Newt Gingrich, George Will and Margaret Thatcher admire that publication, as did the deceased Daniel Moynihan with his IQ of about 40.

Anyway, get a subscription, read the articles, and start to realize how much you engaged your mouth without first being knowledgeable. A common problem on this site.

And if you can handle that reading, maybe you can check out a copy of "The Best and the Brightest" at your local library too.

I find it rather amusing that after the complete shutdown of your points I presented you with, you latch on to the only thing you possibly can; a single quote that you feel was possibly misused (which I'll address).

Alright, here we go again...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Next time you wanna bring up quotes of George Patton against the French, do your homework first.

---

Been there, done that. 2 biographies later and Patton's own work "War as I Knew It" all paint his distaste for how the French handled things during WWII and how the generals/politicians rubbed him the wrong way (nothing compared to his disgust with the Russians, though). I feel more than comfortable using that quote in light of his aggrivation at French..."tactics", I guess I should say.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Patton was struggling to get out of Brittany and then race across France to head for the Rhine and Berlin. Free French Gen. LeClerc's forces were then assigned to work in concert with Patton's US 3rd Army. in mid-August, 1944, LeClerc and Gen. DeGaulle approached the Allied leadership about wanting to break off from Patton and go for Paris. LeClerc was turned down. He went after Paris anyway. The French were not turning away from a fight with the krauts or being "surender monkeys", but then you throw around that quote implying a meaning inconsistent with what it meant when Patton vented it. Since "Is Paris Burning" was published ONLY 39 years ago, you've had adequate time to read it by now. Did Mr. Rove hide your copy?

---

To answer your question, no, I haven't read it. This doesn't change the well-known FACT that Patton voiced his dislike for much of what was pushed by the French and British leaders when he started chasing the German Army back towards the Rhine. Some of it was his own ego speaking, some of it was his genuine disgust with the France's lack of "guts"...

Hang your hat one something else because you have to be flat-out desperate to latch onto this and little else.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Speaking of homework, did you catch The McLaughlin Group last nite on the tube? One of his guests was that flaming apologist for the far left, Patrick Buchanan.

---

Oh, God. Why would I care about ANYTHING that Pat Buchanan says? This is the clown that promoted the idea of low-intensity landmines lining the US-Mexico border to stonewall illegal immigration. He's a reactionary right-wing NUT. Simply put, I just don't subscribe to any of his insanity, regardless of my mainly conservative leanings.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

The group disccused that apparently, a former 30+ year vet of the State Department and a former State Dept. staffer on security issues (Morton Abrahamson? or a similar name) just published his analysis (try out www.nationalinterest.com)including that we could occupy Iraq for years and still NOT achieve a stable democracy there. Anyway, that leftist stooge Buchanan agreed that we are for the most part now HATED in Iraq and that an early pull out IS a viable option for Bush.

---

Don't know of the other guy and like I said before, I immediately dismiss just about anything that comes out of Pat's mouth, as time and time again he's made Dan Quayle look like Churchill as a statesman.

I'll have to read the report before I'll comment on it...

...but I will say that this is why the UN will probably be asked to step into the ring and administer Iraq sooner rather than later. It's a political "win-win" for the US, Iraq and the Bush administration to do so. All jokes aside on their abilities, the UN are the best and least "volatite" option in terms of a long-term police and administrative force in Iraq (I did wince while typing that). I'm quite sure this administration knows that it's getting close to the time where the UN needs to be invited back into the game.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

I guess Buchanan has not followed Bush''s quick-trigger fingered blunder into Iraq as well as you have, since you know better than him. So is Pat a big Nader backer too, since he'd refute you too?

---

try this on for size; I'd consider the opinions on US national security from YOU to be about as relevant as Pat's.

That should clear up any misconceptions about my thoughts towards Buchanan, no?

Quick "trigger-finger"? You must have some S&M tendancies in you if you think a DECADE is pulling the trigger to quick with the likes of Hussein. Bush, Sr. should have mopped things up in '91; hindsight is 20/20, though.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Meanwhile, on the program before Mclaughlin's, a guest included that famous liberal Democrat John Dean. Yep, the White House counsel under the reknowned pinko Dick Nixon leading up to Nixon's resignation. Dean went out of his way to talk with Republicans in studying the GW Bush administration, and after their input and his observations, Dean concludes that our present Bush admin is WORSE than Nixon's was during Watergate, in terms of operating in secrecy, thinking in group-think bunker mentalities, and going after its "enemies lists".

---

Well, if John Dean concludes that, it MUST be true. I'd firmly trust the opinion of one of the clowns jailed for their assistance with Watergate.

Isn't this also the guy that's claimed that Cheney is running a "shadow government" behind the scenes?

The term "crackpot" comes to mind. Time will tell, though.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Anyway, go try your lame arguments on liberals like McLain and Pat Buchanan.

---

Wait a minute; lame is "your clame to fame" when the only thing you could find to attack in my previous post was a quote that you FELT and assumed wasn't used properly...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

But isn't it ironic that the Jews that mistakenly voted for Pat in Florida (and Nader) put your boys in office. Congradulations on being the self-appointed declarer of truth, even when contradictory facts stare you in the face. In the future, you can wax eloquently on how Clinton founded an islamic theocracy in Iraq in 2005.

---

Pray tell of the contradictory facts instead of totally washing over the meaty details that will bring about my intellectual and ideological downfall!

Inquiring minds WANT to KNOW!

Clinton certainly has his fair share of blame in this nastiness, there's no doubt about it.

What would you have preferred happen, since you are so vehemently opposed to any action in Iraq? I'd be interested in hearing this...

(Eyes bulging out of head): "Stimpy! You EEEEEEDIOT!"

Had to get that out.

'Best and Brightest' also covered the fallout during the 50's, the ripple effects, throughout our foreign relations and security actions, including from Mao's turning China Red. The GOP was all over the Dems for losing a country to communism on its watch, and cleaned house of knowledgable State staffers, which lead to bad assessments and decisions later.

The point? Consequences of bad decisions, when bad enough, can have repercussions for a decade. Or more.

Bush jumped into Iraq knowing it was supposed to be easy pickings militarily. His mistake was not having a clue on how to effectively cover the contingency we are facing there right now. Which raises the question of what plans he did have developed before he went in (Remember, he's only been in office two years when he pulled the trigger. How much of that two years did he dedicate to planning details of our military being that country's security after we knock out Saddam, for even as much as three years, with what insurgents there are up to. Did he foresee the fragility of the cooperation among the three main factions there, even while we are there in force?

Bush either went in with NO idea of what he was getting into, OR he did a terrific plan and everything right now is exactly as he wants it and he chose for it to be this way, OR a combination of the two.

So, was he an idiot cowboy nobly charging in while also not having a clue on what he was getting into? Or was he deliberately taking too high a risk on too speculative an outcome, and if he craps out, you can figure at least some of the bad fallout such a lost bet would have on our foreign relations and security now. Or, was he a combination of the two? And if this blows up, will we be in deep doodoo (thanks GHWB) for only 10 years in the middle east, or will it instead be 20 years? Will you be so proud of GWB when history puts him right next to Carter over Iraq going theocratic?

Yeah, I want the leader of the free world and safekeeper of our security to be reckless.