[Congressman Billybob]

I had this column ready early. Figured I should get it published early, before the Wesley-Clark-for-President boomlet collapses, and the jokes no longer seem relevant.

[CyberAnt]

What I don't understand is WHY on earth didn't Rumsfeld just state the truth - I mean Byrd should have been told that HE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT IN 1998. I'm so sick of this. Maybe we know what's going on - but the general public doesn't know - this "new tone" stuff is making our guys look like idiots - while the dems are dishing it out by the gallon full.

I still believe - the president's numbers will not improve until he allows the repub members of congress to stand up for the TRUTH.

[MHT]

One of the most important things FDR did during WWII was sending Hitler-lovin' Joe Kennedy home. Too bad we can't muzzle his son the same way. This man's lies are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and undermining our troops. Shame on him.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Outstanding, Congressman! Thank you for exposing the deceitful vitriol coming from our elected "leaders" on Capitol Hill. Our victorious and honorable military leaders have been treated like dirt by many Dems. and a few Republicans on Capitol Hill since Baghdad Liberation Day.

A simple "thank you for saving the free world" would suffice.

It is wrong to describe the Democrat Party this time around as the "anti-war" party. They are neither that consistent nor that logical.

Instead, they are the "anti-history" party. Some support the war; some oppose the war. But all demonstrate a blazing ignorance of America's history..

Ping for our future Congressman from the great state of North Carolina!

 Thanks, Tonkin!

If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

Thanks for the ping, seamole!

[Texican]

Congressman:
Outstanding, I can hardly wait for you to get into the real Congress, then let your sharp wit and outstanding humor put the demorats to shame. If in the days, and weeks ahead are any indications you should be in the Congress come the day after the elections. As an aside, any FReepers reading this should send a few dollars to our own CONGRESSMAN BILLYBOB. I know that he will make a great addition to our side of the isle. And as John H. would say "That is my two cents worth"

The very best to you and yours.

Semper Fi
Tommie

[Angelwood]

Great column -- pinging others to this thread!

[staytrue]

before the Wesley-Clark-for-President boomlet collapses

I honestly don't know why anyone would want to get into presidential politics unless you are a saint or unless you are a shameless crook. The game of politics basically amounts to how you can tear the other guy down. This is why Bush's most formidible opponent in the polls is unnamed democrat, or none of the above.

You are right, in a few weeks, Clark will be torn to pieces.

The Clintons fall into the shameless crook category. They love politics. They were made for politics (this is an insult). Clark is no saint and not a shameless crook. He does not belong in the race. He should especially not be in the democrat race. They are the experts in the politics of personal destruction. Contrast Bush's mostly positive campaign vs. the democrats campaign to label bush as a dui, silver spoon fed, cocaine smoking, dumb, alcoholic party boy.

[staytrue]

Charles Krauthammer in his column of 26 September

I read that column. It was titled "Ted Kennedy, Losing it". I thought the title should have been "Kennedy lost it". He lost it at chappaquiddick when he allowed a young girl to die and failed to take responsiblity for it. He lost it then, because every day, when he looks in the mirror, he can't like what he sees. He lost it when he has to drink daily to forget that day and to kill the pain.

[staytrue]

wackos at the beginning of World War II who claimed that "President Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance," and that he "allowed" it to happen "in order to force America into the war."

In defense of the wackos, the US had apparently broken the japanese code and had decoded the ambassador's declaration of war that was to be delivered to the US. For some reason, this info was not relayed to the proper people. Also for some reason, the US carriers were not at Pearl. Further, papers show FDR wanted to go to war, but wanted the bad guys to fire the first shot. Maybe he had something smaller than Pearl in mind, like the firing on Ft. Sumter, the gulf of tonkin incident, or maybe the shot heard round the world. But it is documented that he wanted an incident to start a war.

To defend your point, there is a decent amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that FDR may have known about Pearl in advance, but there is no smoking gun or conclusive evidence. But I do think the word "wacko" is a bit extreme.

[moodyskeptic]

Good writing. This week you beat Mark Steyn hands down. Of course, his was a lousy asterisk trifle, but it must feel nice to outwrite him.

Bookmarking for some tasty phrases.

[nuconvert]

" Kennedy's rant reflects the Democrats' blinding Bush-hatred, and marks its passage from partisanship to pathology."

Really Does!

[facedown]

And Rumsfeld was far too polite to point out that Senator Byrd was dottering, senile, and past his expiration date.

LOL! Good piece overall.

[nicollo]

John, you commended a post by Mr.Smorch on another thread that met up with your column here. He wrote,

It must be really tough to be a RAT at this point in our history. JFK once said that sometimes party loyalty asks to much, but not for today's RATs. They put party loyalty above their loyalty to their country.

A couple things:

JFK's book, "Profiles in Courage," followed the stories of Senators who stood against their parties and against popular passion in the name of principle, such as J.Q. Adams, Sam Houston, and Edmund Ross (who cast the deciding vote in the Andrew Johnson Senate impeachment trial). JFK's lessons are dubious, for each of those profiled was felled by popular indignance, and history has not been generally kind to them. Nonetheless, JFK gave the solid warning that principle is more important than popularity.

Our friends -- and the newly inscribed -- in the Democrat party won't like these lessons. At best, they'd interpret those examples to embolden their opposition to the President.

I suffered today through a C-Span airing of a John Conyers speech to a Congressional Black Caucus event. Conyers is precisely the type that JFK's "Profiles" ignores. Conyers sticks to dogma against all realities, and he wouldn't dare miss an election for principle. In his speech today Conyers complained that his constituents weren't backing him enough against Bush, and it keeps him from confronting him. Translation: "I'd really, really wail on the president if you only wanted me to."

Profile of a woose?

Whatever JFK's sincerity, or his legitimacy as an author, his point ought stand: there is no bravery in the Democratic party, c. 2003.

[bigghurtt]

wow...dogpatch bump.

[lainde]

Just brilliant BillyBob!