Back Online, Dear Readers
Dear Readers,
The move is completed, and a ton of stacked boxes await old Teddy now. I apologize for being so slow in getting back to offering my wise insight to all of you, but the move was much more difficult than I had anticipated. Due to the lateness of me getting back into cyberspace, dear readers, I will just roll this week's submissions for "Thursdays with Theodore" over to the upcoming week.
Dear readers, thank you for your patience, and thank you for loving America!
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
The move is completed, and a ton of stacked boxes await old Teddy now. I apologize for being so slow in getting back to offering my wise insight to all of you, but the move was much more difficult than I had anticipated. Due to the lateness of me getting back into cyberspace, dear readers, I will just roll this week's submissions for "Thursdays with Theodore" over to the upcoming week.
Dear readers, thank you for your patience, and thank you for loving America!
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
posted by Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq. at 3:18 PM
7 Comments:
Hello, Political Satire King, I consider myself to be more on the right than the left, a registered Republican who voted for Bush 2 years ago, and all. Anyway, I wonder who the most overrated congressman is and all. I personally think John Murtha is the most overrated congressman at this point. Sure, I have no trouble with someone who publically speaks out against Iraq--especially now that 3 years have passed and the Iraqi citizens should be standing up to defend and rule their own country, but Jack Murtha is the last person in Congress (Democrat or Republican or Independent) to have the right to do what he did. The man is/was a "war hawk," who voted to send troops to Iraq and was one of two congressmen who voted in favor of Charlie Rangel's draft bill in 2004 to send an exponentially large amount of people over there. The problem with drafting people is that you may end up with a larger military in quantity but the quality of the troops will plummet. Not to mention, it creates uncertainty in people and it ruins the economy and colleges can go out of business--don't forget hippies and protesting. Now, he is changing his mind and is getting all of these accolades and wants to run for House Majority Leader--interesting how a quiet, war veteran from Pennsylvania, suddenly became mad with power. I don't know if he'll get it. Yes, his anti-Iraq rampage at this point is winning a lot of people over, but the last time I checked, he opposes gay marriage and abortion--two other issues hot for Democrats.
I just don't think the guy deserves half of what he is getting now. Sure, even though I think he is overrated, I think it was wrong for various Republicans, like Scott McClellan and Jean Schmidt to drag his name in the mud, but still, the problem with many Democrats now is that they abruptly change their mind whenever something doesn't go their way. Yes, I think it is time for them to reclaim Congress again, and I am sure they have a good chance at the White House once W. leaves, but if they want to be successful, they have to have a concrete plan and not just "Bush (or the Republican Party) is wrong--he (they) must be stopped."
Anyway, on a personal note, I think Iraq should have ended or at least be in its finishing stage. Going over there, at least at the time it occurred, was a bad misstep on Bush's part. It took a devestating storm to help me realize that. Our "divinly inspired President" is just sitting on the sidelines for the last 2 1/2 years of his term, just "staying the course." When someone is just ruling average, I guess it is time for the orange to be rinded.
When you rebut, I better not see "west coast liberal elite" in your rant, nor the question "why do you have America" or "why don't you like America."
Again, this political satire charge is ridiculous. Overall, though, you're 100% spot-on. Nobody should ever be allowed to change their mind, even after reconsidering a situation! Even more, for a "war hawk" to go through such a conversion and deep sense of reflection to completely change his position is absolutely unconscionable! As our divinely-inspired President has shown us, right or wrong, it's best to stick with your original position, no matter what new facts come up. Leave it to a member of the west-coast, liberal elite like Murtha to reconsider things and flip-flop.
You're also dead on in terms of the current state of the Democrats. All they talk about is abortion and gay marriage. They need to take a page out of the Republicans back, as we never discuss either of those issues or use either to rally the base!
End Iraq? I have to disagree with you there. I will respectfully disagree, as I've already noted how perfectly you summed up the ridiculousness of Democrats changing a position after recosnidering the facts. We're fighting in Iraq for a simple reason: we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. And I'll trust our President and Karl Rove to keep us safe!
On 2 out of 3, thank you for loving America!
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
Ok, you are not a satirist, I'll leave it there. You are just so far right that you're in the water of the Atlantic Ocean.
Let's see...you called John Murtha a "west coast liberal elite," the last thing I read, he is representing Pennsylvania. Maybe back in colonial days, the Keystone State was the "west coast" but not today.
While I don't mind flip-flopping, Murtha's act was just next in a laundry list of flip-flopping Democrats have typically done lately. It didn't bother me that much, but when John Kerry entered the Presidential picture, that was when things got really bad. I personally think that Kerry would have done much better and/or possibly have gained the presidency if he didn't flip flip every other day.
While I know Democrats talk about abortion and gay marriage, it seems that Iraq really re-entered the picture last November thanks to Murtha (also thanks to Hurricane Katrina, I think, thanks to the failures of all levels of government in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA). With that, I beleive that the middle government (Louisiana) failed the worst with the weak-Kindergarten school teacher governor Blanco with FEMA failing next on a federal level ("Brownie" was rather incompetant) and the locals failing on the least area (they could have chosen to evacuate early and use the New Orleans busses and all, but were stuck between a rock and a hard place after). When people like Ray Nagin started using Iraq analogies and Cindy Sheenan and her protests, that was probably what catalyzed the attention on Iraq.
If you think about it, last year at this time, Iraq was really on the backburner. Now, it is a bigger focal point, not to mention other Middle East countries like Israel, Palestine, Iran, and Syria, and Lebanon.
As for Rangel's bill, it seems the only reason why he drafted it was to express his hatred towards the Iraqi Conflict and to hopefully further squelch the aspirations for the US to go to war with other nations in the Middle East and elsewhere. His most recent draft would have required everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 to serve--talk about the amount of money the military would need to make that happen (probably in the trillions range) not to mention the amount of intentional displacement it would have created among families and college students. Unlike his 2004 bill that had a handful of sponsors, the most recent bill had no cosponsors. And that's another problem with Democrats, too. After he wrote the bill in 2003, some of them, like Howard Dean and John Kerry were spreading rumors that Bush was going to draft people if reelected (probably just to A) scare college kids and B) get more of them to vote (Democrat)), yet it was members of their own party that introduced any draft legistation (and historically, Democrats have been the ones to initiate pro-draft legislation while Republicans have been the ones to end it).
I don't support a complete end to Iraq, but I have questions about it. First of all, shortly after the invasion, Bush declared victory, hanging a "mission accomplished" banner on a ship, but yet, he keeps saying "we must win the war." This "war," is what I have questions about. Did the US enter another war? Was the initial vicotry fake? Who are the enemies of this war? Are they radical Muslims, Saddamists, Iraqi citizens? What are they?
That's the problem with Iraq personally. Bush and co. are not completely honest and open with what is happening over there and elsewhere. If he gave out this information and were square with the general public, then maybe his approval rating and approval for Iraq would increase.
I don't support a complete Iraq withdrawl, but I think progress should have been made by now. Sure, Iraq has a government and constitution, but nothing else has happened except more secretarian violence. I also think that Iraq should have waited until the main al-Qaida radicals, bin Laden and al-Zawahri (however you spell it), were captured and/or thankfully kicked down into the 9th circle of hell where they belong with their "allah." I think al-Qaida and the secretarian strife is what is giving the Islamic religion a bad rap. I mean, these Sunni and Shiite groups are still fighting over who should succeed Muhammad, yet he's been dead for 1300+ years.
I know there will be a military presence there for a while (especially when you consider there is still a presence in Japan and Germany, even though World War II ended 60 years ago), but I think it's time for the Iraqi citizens to take control of their own country with limited to no help from the United States. I think that Bush, while sending more troops there and all, is keeping this from happening.
And, by the way, I think Rumsfeld is one of the most underrated members of Bush's current cabinet. Sure, he sent a small amount of troops to Iraq, but that kept the amount of killings against them low and, logically, if many insurgent attacks are directed at the US, then that number has been kept low. I mean, Donald Rumsfeld created the all-volunteer military, which is perceived by many to be the world's best--creating it as a congressman and witnessing it form as Sec. of Defense under Gerald Ford.
I hate what the Democrats do just as much as you do. Some people call it "wisdom," saying it's wise to re-evaluate situations when more evidence is available, and making a decision based on that. Well, I call it flip-flopping! And again, W. has shown us the way here - no changing your mind no matter what happens.
If the west-coast, liberal elite, liberal media would just stop talking about Iraq, it wouldn't seem so bad, and public perceptions wouldn't be so negative. But leave it to the hate-America-first "journalists" to try to tear apart out country.
You're right, Donald Rumsfeld is a true hero. Never mind that one retired general after another is calling on him to resign or be fired, or that he was the "mastermind" of what some call the Iraq "quagmire". This man is resolute in his decisions - plus, he's told us where the WMD's are. They're just north, south, west, and east of Baghdad, yet the liberal media keeps saying no WMD's have been found. And yes, you're right, the fewer troops he sends, the fewer that can be injured or killed, but be careful - the west-coast, liberal elite will use that logic to say we should have no soldiers there so as to eliminate the risk of death and injury.
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
so, it's really W. versus the terrorists, the liberals, the journalists, Castro, stonecutters, and freemasons?
No no no. It's real Americans (including W) against terrorists, liberals, journalists, Castro, and their ilk.
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
well, let's have some apple pie and some peanuts and some cracker jacks. I don't care if we ever get back.
Post a Comment
<< Home