Replies

*Yawn*

Again, kindly explain to me why it is we should forego providingpeople with the evidence aginst them - as required by the Sixth Amendment.

"Yes, but let's see, they also helped engineer the highest increase in spending, non-defense primarily by the way, since LBJ? And that's not counting the new drug dollop and the aborning effort to subsidize another 12 million illegal aliens --- and the first term isn't even over yet!"

Southack has compiled a pretty good list of what we GOT in return.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1038819/posts?page=156#156

Stuff like unsigning Kyoto, deploying the beginnings of a national missile defense, two tax cuts, two state sponsors of terrorism - Islamic terrorism, I might add - removed from power and one of those heads of state IN CUSTODY, banned partial-birth abortion...

Those accomplishments are not free. So the question I pose is this: Do you consider the gains Bush has made worth the price that he has paid to this point?

I do.

And for the record, the first vote for Senator I ever made went to Ollie North in 1994. It is a vote I would repeat without hesitation,a and which I do not regret. You cannot say I will not support thiose who put it on the line for national security.

" based on evidence that they don't have to produce?"

1) This is what you asked. They do produce it.

2) Again , the reason I cited already, illegal aliens aren't American citizens, are in fact in violation of our laws, and can be summarily deported, in essence. It's not my job to teach you immigration law.

3) I would certainly HOPE we are getting something for it!!

a) First we have a larger deficit.

b) You can Thank Gaffney for Kyoto and missile defense; getting out of the former cost us nothing and getting into the latter is somewhere in the order of 1% of the Defense budget and was already largely budgetted for. so , the first two things you mention aren't part of "what we got for it"

c) Precisely what part of this 40-year record increase is paying for the ban on partial birth abortion?

d) Actually, the Taliban wasn't recognized as a state, but I'll give you a "C" for heading in the right direction

e) Bush doesn't pay, we pay. And no, not exactly. Congressional pork barrel and prescription drugs were neccesary in order to get which of the other cited putative benefits?

f) Actually if you want to get cutesy constitutional about it, Ollie almost took down the Reagan Administration by playin fast and loose with facts, not to mention a few millions worth of botched airdrops and non-functioning ammo reulting from having chose the wrong people to use as cut outs in CA; ditto the wrong people chosen for Operation Democracy stateside, who stole a good portion of the money. Figures from that that you would have no problem with Grover.

Read Maj Genral John Singlaub's biography, "Hazardous Duty" on the former matter; and in case you are too young to know, Jack Singlaub is who Ollie and his fans only wish Ollie could have been. And more conservative too boot. One of the greatest living US military heros. He also abhors what Norquist is doing, an dhas written against it. Of course that would figure too, you're thinking --and you'd be right. Yawn over to you kid.