"Why did you change your handle chickenhawk?"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I believe the administrators found it objectionable. I changed it, and lest there be any confusion, I mentioned on the signature line what the old screen name was. I hope it meets your approval....

" Why is chickenhawk weenie?"

"Chickenhawk" is what liberals with no argument call people who support the war (before it was <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Afghanistan, now it's Iraq they object to) and haven't been in the military. It's childish name calling and it begs the question, if only those who have been in the military have a right to support the war, what other subjects are there that one isn't allowed to speak about without some prerequist experience. Personally, since I was in the military, I find it funny.

" On the other hand I don't see where you've brought anything new to the table ..."

I figured pointing out how empty your rethoric was was contribution enough.

" I bet your wife has to wipe your weenie baby chickenhawk slobber off yer weenie chin. "

There's just nothing quite as penetrating as liberal wit. You've cut me to the quick. Quarter, quarter I beg of you....

"Tell me something about markets butler. "

OK, but based on your limited knowledge on the subject, we should start with the basics. See, the person with something to sell is the "seller"....

" I wonder if you feel if the entirety of the GOP should be painted with the same brush say in terms of Nixon, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and George W. Bush. "

"In terms" LOL, I move the misuse of the phrase. I guess this is your way of trying to excuse away the fact that Robert "Sheets" Byrd is the number one Democrat in the Senate while you attempt to lecture Republicans on the issue of race.

FYI, Buchanan left the GOP.

“Oh and lets not forget the LaHaye family…”

Why would we forget them? Why, everyone remembers his run for the White House, or his Senate term. Then there’s his important role in the RNC. In fact, if he keeps up the good work he may someday achieve the high status that Michael Moore has earned in his party.

“Good lord buddy I could go on all day, …”

I don’t doubt that. Whatever drug you’re using not only makes you speak in mindless pablum, it also seems to give you energy. I’m guessing it’s a mix of some narcotic and Red Bull…

“ Sure you can throw out a few excentrics like Jackson and Sharpton.”

You mean guys who actually ran for your party’s nomination for the president and are granted a form of moral relevancy they couldn’t possibly deserve? You figure they’re the Democrat equivalents of the minor (if that) players you mentioned above in the GOP? You can’t be serious.

“ I mean f**k I remember Tawana Brawley …”

Sure I do, and I remember the race riots he caused that killed a man at Freddies. It’s a shame no one in your party remembered.

Say, how many times do you figure Hilary had to shower after kissing is his ring (prior to her run for the Senate) before she felt clean again?

“Which I am supposing this little slice of alphabet soup belongs too. "Say, menotellname, why use another handle?"”

Because it’s obvious who you are.

“Did you change yours from Sniper1 to Mike Butler222 so you could write this.”

Of course. I had to change my screen name so that I could attack you anonymously. Then I added the “was sniper” for fun.

“After this one I don't like myself so much any more and I am going to give up and cede the debate so I can stop this vindictivness and go on with my life.”

Don’t feel bad, you’re not the first lib to get his head figuratively crushed after spouting off the meme…

“ I wish you all the best and I hope the GOP has a better future than it looks like they have right now.”

Haven’t you guys been predicting doom for the GOP forever at this point? How much of a minority party do you need to become before to snap to?

I don't know Sonny but I like his style.  Nice to see "sniper" getting abused again.  Amazing that the admin found you objectionable (I guess I'm not alone). 

Anyway...I've been here for a while...seen a lot of people come and go...things are getting busier and better at work so I don't have as much time to play online.

Sniper...much like many in this profession and in this forum...I was here when you got here and I'll be here when you're gone.

P.S. - Even a mental midget like you should notice the distinct difference in the posting styles, diction, and phraseology of myself and Sonny.

“I'm not making the prediction Christie Todd Whitman, John Danforth and David Brooks are, amongst others.”<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

LOL, and which one said the majority party status of the GOP is over? Have they said it since the moonbats took over the DNC? Yeah, I thought not…

“ As far as me being menotellname, I'm not.”

Sure you aren’t…

”Why would we go into Iraq before we consolidated our victory in Afganistan?”

Same reason we didn’t defeat Japan before we went after Germany.

“ Being involved in an insurgency in Iraq is a fools game. “

The military strategist steps forward…. I’m betting the ranch you were among those who cried “quagmire” on day three of the invasion and often pontificated about the “harsh Afghan winter”. Defeatists all…

“If nothing else we should with draw from the central part of the country secure the oil in the north and south and draw out the opposition so that they fight on our terms.”

You mean allow them to consolidate in those areas that you would run from in the hope that they’d adapt conventional warfare tactics in the areas you didn’t run from? That’s insanity. Stick to the bong water…

”Or as Shinseki had asserted that we begin with a perimeter around Baghdad…”

Why don’t you find us a quote where Shinseki (never the commander on the ground, btw) said we should give up all the terrain we’d captured on our way to Baghdad. Hint: he never said anything of the sort.

“…..a strategy developed after others had failed in Algiers, Vietnam, Malaysia and Afganistan.”

Let’s see… no such thing ever happened in Vietnam or Afghanistan, and don't care to be dragged into some foolish conversation on the other two.

“If you were in the military as you say then the lack of sound military strategy that has characterized the plan in Iraq should concern you.”

You’re simply talking out of your, well, wrong end. You’ve now embarrassed yourself on the subjects of philosophy and economics, it’s probably only right that you would do the same on the subject of military strategy.

Say, have you called Franks or Shelton to ask what they thought of your ideas? After all, they’re retired now and have time to laugh at you.

“ Indeed the same General that was a concern for his impotence to act in the first Iraq war by Gen. Schwartzkopf…”

I’m sure you have a quote somewhere from Schwartskopf about the ADC of the First Team? I can hardly wait…

“… was given command of the operations in Iraq after Shinseki would not play ball.”

Just making stuff up as you go along, aren’t you? Shinseki was Army Chief of Staff. He was already scheduled for retirement and was never scheduled to be the CENTCOM commander.

“As far as the origins of the chickenhawk label here again you create a strawman. You characterize those who use the term as critisizing pro war Republicans who have no military service when in fact it means pro war Republicans who dodged the draft in Vietnam.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29

Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military, especially one who opted out of a previous war on dubious grounds. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term is generally used in the ad hominem circumstantial context: since a supposed "chickenhawk" has not served in war, the implication is that the person is morally ill-equipped to support a war. On the contrary, implication is that any person who has served in a war is morally better-equipped to make decisions about war.

Perhaps you learn what a term means before you lecture others on it. BTW, when you called me a chickenhawk, you figured I was of age to have served in Vietnam? Yeah, right….

“ My father was killed in Vietnam ….”

Sure he was. Hey, if you’re going to make up a persona, menotellname, why not one who has a father that died in Vietnam? Sure sounds like a useful political prop…

“I hope that someday you realize how horrible it is to leave our troops in the lurch in Iraq…”

Seriously, save yourself some embarrassment and leave the lectures on military strategy to others. You sound like a guy who once say an airplane from a distance talking on and on to a airline pilot about the difficulties of landing a jumbo jet in a crosswind.

“I'm not against war per se, I am against fighting with no clear strategy.”

If you’re unclear about the strategy it’s your own fault for not listening…

“ From what I have heard from my friend who is an Aide De Camp to a General to those military leaders who are no longer under W's command is that we are fighting in Iraq on an ad Hoc basis which you know as well as I is a recipe for failure.”

ROFLMAO…… have another hit…. BTW, my friends on the ground at various levels of command say you're lying.

Your search - Santino Clipinsiero - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.

I tried, man...apparently Google thinks you're a nobody...

"The wikilechtual shows himself. Did you post that so that you could then quote it."

Face it, you missed used the term and I pointed it out.

" As far as the strategy goes my reference was the columnist David Brooks who pointed out that Shinseki,..."

More talking in circles.... I simply asked you to provide a quote where Shinseki endorsed your foolish "tactic" of giving up ground to the terrorists. Just as you had every other military detail wrong in your post, you had that on wrong.

"My name is Sonny Clips, or more correctly Santino Clipinsiero."

Sure, menotellname...

" Google my name if you don't believe it. "

Did, you don't exist 

" You can email me at [email protected] if you would like confirmation."

Oh, well knowing how closely yahoo controls the names they allow for mail accounts, you have me there...

"I would also like to reiterate that you need to do some reading because you've done little to argue against any of my claims. "

Menotellname goes back to his usual routine of mentioning books he probably hasn't even read when he gets his lunch eating over silly things he's said here.

BTW, you remind me the the knight in Holy Grail who continues to calim he's ready for a fight after his arms and legs have been severed...

"Same reason we didn't defeat Japan before we went to Germany."

Of course we had the will at the time to completely destroy cities in order to break our enemy.

That sidesteps the fact that we defeat completely defeat Japan before we went after Germany.

"We go house to house, leave and the pissed off people we leave in our wake become more and more simpathetic with the insurgents. "

So we leave the citizens more pissed off by going door to door than the terrorists do when they blow up hundres of people in suicide bombings....

" This, however simplistic and wrong headed view, causes the populace to identify more and more with the agitator and side with him against control. "

Oh great military strategist, I could be wrong but I suspect the terrorists by cutting off kidnapped people's heads and bombing market places is making far more enemies than we are going house to house. My friends on the ground there tell me the same.

[quote=mikebutler222]

"My name is Sonny Clips, or more correctly Santino Clipinsiero."

Sure, menotellname...

Menotellname goes back to his usual routine of mentioning books he probably hasn't even read when he gets his lunch eating over silly things he's said here.

[/quote]

???

You are a paranoid little bitch aren't you?

[quote=SonnyClips]blah blah blah. Guess you didn't read the Krepinevich article. Too bad.

Cheers,
Sonny
[/quote]

blah blah blah.. I read it and I read his book on Vietnam a few years back. Golly, you found a retired LTC who claims a new, grand strategy that by his own words would take over a decade and would cost more lives at least in the short term.

Now, tell me again why he's a better source than people who advanced far further in the military career than he did? BTW, I'm shocked, shocked to find a critic of the current administration collecting a check at the CFR....

[quote=menotellname][quote=mikebutler222]

"My name is Sonny Clips, or more correctly Santino Clipinsiero."

Sure, menotellname...

Menotellname goes back to his usual routine of mentioning books he probably hasn't even read when he gets his lunch eating over silly things he's said here.

[/quote]

???

You are a paranoid little bitch aren't you?

[/quote]

Don't get so excited litte fella', there probably wasn't more than two people here fooled with your multiple screen anems and conversations with yourself. What are the odds that two different people on the same board, completely unrelated to politics would ;

1) spout the same rap nonsense

2) spout the same political nonsense

3) react exactly the same way when they were corrected

4) make a habit of dodging debate by referring people off to books they clearly hadn't read themselves 

Sonny,  Re the photo, you do know that Reuters has admitted that it was “photoshopped”?  That means it is about as real as Dan Rather’s fake memo.  The MSM will stop at nothing to try to discredit a President who isn’t even running for anything anymore.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

The Democrats and the MSM would have more credibility if they were to concentrate on creating positive outcomes instead of fabricating facts and twisting those facts that are available.  They are becoming more and more like “the boy who cried wolf”.  Someday they may actually have something of value to say, but no one will pay any attention.

All the hysteria over New Orleans.!!! 10,000 people will die…..waaaaah…. Blacks are cannibalizing each other in the city…waaaah….25,000 people are starving at the Superdome…..waaaaah…….George Bush controls the weather by not voting on a treaty a few years ago…..waaaaah……Oh wait… only 710 people so far have died in 5 States (how disappointing for the MSM)….oh wait …no cannibals (well there goes that stereotype)…oh wait….no one starved in 5 days, as if you could.(and given the size of some of those asses that I saw on the television, I bet they couldn’t starve in a month if they tried)….oh wait….. the hurricanes have been hitting the gulf area for thousands of years, hence the mound builders, so maybe a treaty a few years ago wouldn’t have changed the weather…. And so on and so on.

Everything according to the left is the fault of George Bush and the evil genius Satan..oops I mean Carl Rove.  The whining that there were no supplies delivered to the starving began within 2 days of the disaster. A disaster the size of <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />England or most of France, larger than any natural disaster ever in American history.  Since I doubt you have any practical life experience in long haul transportation, let me explain why there where no supplies delivered (Never minding  that there were no supplies provided by the local authorities when they KNEW that the Superdome would be the last chance refuge.)   A loaded semi weighs 80,000 lb.  Coming from outside the devastated area, say from Chicago, in the best of conditions it takes a day or so.  When the interstate is flooded, bridges down or the road blocked by trees and debris of houses, the truckers who don’t know the area must weave around the back roads to find a passable road and a bridge that can support their weight.  The miracle is that the goods were delivered when they were at all.  So qwitcherbtchn.

Sure the response to this HUGE disaster was not adequate, but when you have incompetence and corruption on the local level and a distance between the federal level and a snarl of bureaucrats in-between it is no wonder the whole thing is FUBAR.  They need to get their acts together and soon.  However we need to realize that we must depend on our own selves to save our butts.  No white charger is coming to save my bacon when the feces hits the oscillating mechanism.  I am depending on myself, my spouse and friends. (and my 12 gauge scatter gun among other weapons of moderate destruction I have at my hands.)

This post is long  and off topic because you piss me off.

(sorry about the font I did cut and paste and this is what I got)

"Why would someone with the handle menotellname invent another persona, Dumbass. "<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Because he (you) has no credibility and no gravitas here. He (you) was hoping, vainly, that he could have a fresh start at pumping old ideas with a new name.

"If you had read my post I refered to two articles, one the David Brooks NYT article and Krepinevich in his piece on the foreign policy website. "

David Brooks writes op-ed pieces for the Times which I read regularly. Krepinevich is a house writer for CFR, which is where Democrats go when they're out of office. It's the Kennedy School of Government of foreign policy, but I'm sure that's news to you.

Providing links to other opinion writers does nothing to change the fact that you can't carry your side of a debate. There's nothing especially insightful about someone else's opinion. They don't have exclusive rights to the correct policies. It's even worse when you link us to someone like Krepinevich who is all alone in his policie suggestions AND who calls for a much longer commitment to Iraq. Is his opinion interesting? Sure. It is some sort of revealed text that would should bow to? No. Is it a tiny minority opinion. Oh, yes it is. Would it be better if you could form your argument rather than providing a link and whining “go read this, I agree with this guy”. You bet.

”Brooks is a big supporter of Bush,….”

That shows how little you know of Brooks. I suggest you learn a bit about him before you speak further. I like Brooks, but he’s much more of an establishment, Northeastern, Rockefeller sort of Republican. He only looks like a “big supporter” of Bush because he’s on the same page as moonbats like Mo Dowd, Paul Krugman  and  Frank Rich.

“Why do you feel the need to fall in lockstep with Bush.”

Speaking of a strawman……

“Here is a photo of W writing a note to Condi Rice asking for permission to go to the potty,..”

This is why you loons have no credibility. Even if this WASN’T a Reuter’s photoshop job (The French owned news agency that won’t use the word “terrorist” and just the other day said “"The United States holds al Qaeda responsible for many attacks, including the suicide hijack assaults on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001." As if there was any doubt about it) it isn’t anyone “asking permission”, it’s a boss telling an underling that he’ll be needing a break. You DO know the difference, don’t you?

“You should really look in to the Toulmin stuff I recomended. I used to use it when I taught a course on Argument…”

ROFLMAO, I bet that cost you more in refunds than that foolish “The Beastie Boys are the next Beetles” bet…..

"So what? That still means Bush blew it."

Of course, after all, any failure at any level of Federal government is the direct fault of the president. It doesn't matter at all the the royal screw-ups that the local level created hell on Earth for FEMA to clean up. I say we impeach Bush now.

"The NO and LA officials seem to be taking on the chin while the MS officials like Haley Barbor (sic?) are getting lauded."

As are local and state officials in Alabama. My guess it's because they weren't abject failures who made a giant mess and waited for the Feds to save them. It's interesting that MS, AL and FL all seemed to have worked well with FEMA and this  director/White House and  the NO/LA  official couldn't.

What happened to personal responsibilty.

According to you there IS no such thing. Bush is responsible for everything including the failures of the NO/LA officials.

Come on menotellname, you're a hyper-partisan and all this pretending to be otherwise is a lame joke...

[quote=SonnyClips]Butler you didn't read the Krepinevich book.  [/quote]

Wrong, gasbag, I read "The Army and Vietnam" right after it came out in the late 80's.

Hey ladies and gents this is a good story.

As for huricane response... I have been through about 5 hurricanes and OPAL was the worse. On a military base in 1995 it took about 2 days for help. When I say this I mean there was a few hundred of us in dorms and the military left us food and water. Can you imagine about 30 of my friends with MRE's, water and a bunch of alcohol.

The worst of it was the fact the alarm systems went off for about 40 hours. After a while you learn how to sleep, eat and drink with that alarm.

Did you know in New Orleans (2004) there was a cat 5 disaster preperation test. All of the top leaders at the state, federal and local level were there (including previous mayors of major cities). They expected about 100k people to stay in the city.

The plan is pretty straight forward.. Use all means available to get the people out. This was not done when there was 10-25k at center for days... Now if these people are there its only common sense to have protection, food and water for at least a few days. 500 national guard troops with guns would have helped alot (LA has about 5k in state now).

One could say "the military should have entered on Tuesday." Well the active duty military can not enter a city until local/state requests assistance (unless mutiny or something). This happened on Wednesday.  

It seems there was problems at all levels, but the first few days fall on the shoulders of local and state.

The Perfect Storm will beat the Perfect Plan.

true dattttttt…

Bottomline is this - New Orleans is the biggest trash in the country and always has been.  The city government and police are the biggest bunch of corrupt theives. For a lot of the locals it’s ‘payback.’ This is the harsh reality but you won’t hear this from the media outlets. NBC, CNN, CBS and continue to spin the story.

President Declares Major Disaster For Louisiana

Release Date: August 29, 2005
Release Number: HQ-05-179

» More Information on Louisiana Hurricane Katrina

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced today that federal disaster aid has been made available to the state of Louisiana to help residents and communities recover from the damages and losses incurred from the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina.

Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response, said the assistance was authorized under a major disaster declaration issued for the state by President Bush. The declaration covers damage to private and public property from Hurricane Katrina that occurred beginning August 29, 2005 and continuing.

The action follows the President's emergency declaration of August 27 that released federal resources to help meet immediate life-saving and life-sustaining human needs and protecting property in addition to other emergency protective measures. Debris removal and emergency services to assist law enforcement with evacuations and establishment of shelters are also eligible costs covered by the federal funding.

****************************************************

Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...

He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...

Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.

 I am sure another clinton is going to have to come in and clean up after W's mistakes. Just like a clinton did after W's daddy was president. However I would not put too much blame on old W for the hurracane tragedy. Even somebody who actually knew what they were doing could not have done much better under the circumstances.

[quote=menotellname]

Yes...Mr. Bush f**ked up...

He declared a disaster on August 27th...and still couldn't rally the troops...

Only Republican sympathizers make up weak excuses for their even weaker leader.

[/quote]

It's hard to believe that someone could be so ill-informed as to believe that the declaration of emergency (which simply begins the funding process) means the Feds come in immediately and take charge with local requests.

I can only assume it's being that ill-informed that makes you the perfect Democrat,,,,