The lefts revisionist history of Clinton.

As you can tell from the sparse posting I have done here, I'm not really the blogger I had hoped to be. Mostly I just don't have time...as witnessed by the fact that I had to stay up entirely too late to post this. But I do spend a lot of time perusing other blogs as well, not to mention the myriad sites I troll frequently for parts for my poor car (see my other blog 94TALONNA) One of the sites I frequent is Rob Schumachers site While I was looking for ways to further antagonize poor, uber-liberal Rob, I saw this post.

This was just too asenine, so I replied as follows:
Oh, you've GOT to be shitting me!!!! This is by far the most assenine grouping of bullshit revisionist history I've ever seen. I was in charge of ordering parts for M-div on my sub in the "salad days" of the Clinton years, and we couldn't get shit. We were perpetually undermanned, as well. And, yeah, we finally got raises around the last few years I was in...somewhere around 3%, which almost covered inflation. And, as you're so fond of pointing out, when your trying to write something negative, for the last 4 years he had a republican congress overseeing the funding. I'm sure that had nothing to do with what little we did see.

As far as Clinton building the force able to win so successfully, one of the talking points of the idiot liberals who insist the war is a mistake is that are troops are stretched too thin and we didn't have enough troops in Iraq. Then there is this bullshit:

"Despite frequent Republican criticism during the 2000 presidential campaign of Clinton-era military deterioration, the force that was so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq -- while continuing to perform a myriad of tasks around the world on a daily basis -- was clearly quite capable. Republican assertions that the military was underfunded and overstretched and that readiness was poor were contradicted by those performances in Afghanistan and Iraq."

So we don't have enough "boots on the ground" in Iraq to win the war...which by all liberal accounts, we've already lost...but the reasons we had such a stunning military victory is because Clinton built the military into such a capable force? Doesn't quite jive. And how the hell can we have had a stunning military victory?!?! Bush is too stupid to plan a war, which is why we lost it, apparently. Oh, and the military was supposedly hopelessly under armored to fight this war. With all the magic Clinton was performing for the services, how did that get overlooked? God, you people are way too accustomed to speaking out of both sides of your asses. Yes, asses, because that's where your heads are perpetually stuck.

Yeah, Bush wanted to end the more pointless overseas deployments, mostly those associated with nation building, which he also detested. I know, now we're actively building two nations and we've had extended deployments overseas as a result. Hmm, what could have happened between his inauguration and Sep.12, when he vowed to send troops overseas. Damn, it's not like 3000 people died when a group of fanatical murderers declared WAR on us or anything. And, honestly, if I hear the Iraq is not part of the GWOT, I'm going to fucking scream. Thats your OPINION. The nation was asked what it thought of that opinion and 63 million people told you you were WRONG. PLEASE shut up about it now, it 's over, you lost. AARRGGGHH! By the way, with us missing all of our recruiting deadlines, because everyone knows Bush screwed up the war, how did we manage to add 27,000 troops? Anyone?

A few more points on why this article is so stupid: Explain the ways the last two wars were so exceptional, from the perspective of the first Gulf War. We had better communications and some improvements to GPS, but the methods were fairly similar: slam the country with tomahawks and planes, then send in a very quick strike of mechanized units. We won a decisive and stunningly quick victory in that first war as well. And why was the actual "war" part of this war, where it was professional soldier vs. professional soldier, over so quickly? Many people were complaining about the tens of thousands of casualties the brave Iraqi thugs would inflict upon our maurauding, barbaric forces, only it didn't happen. We hit barely any resistance. It's almost like Sadam was hiding his actual military preparedness from the rest of the world. Naw, Bush must have been lying about his analysts reports just to increse the anguish of the families of our soldiers. Aparently he's evil like that. One final note: It mentions that Clinton spent more money on defense then the Bush I administration. This is fuzzily written, as it fails to mention that CLinton was president for twice as long. I would think he would spend more in 8 years than H.W. spent in four. Not really an impressive stat, as it is.

Now, I was a little angry, cause not only do I not agree with Robs views on the Iraq war, but I really can't stomach someone who routinely bashes the war as a lost cause so promenently touting an artice clearly tring to make it look like the only reason we've been successful in Iraq is because of Clinton. I may need to edit this tomorrow, but for now, I'll just leave it as is.

Well, the elections went off in Iraq without a real hitch and everyone still thinks W is an idiot. I really can't get my head around the fact that a whole party of our government is so consumed with partisan politics that they continue to crucify our president for making real differences in the world. I don't care about the reasons for those changes, they've been beaten to death and I no longer have the will to repeat why I believe we were right to do what we did. It's done. It's literally history. But I believe that we will see life-altering change in the middle east in the next 4 years, and it will be because of George W. Bush. The really sad part, for Democrats, is that Bill Clinton could have been the catalyst for all this change if he wasn't stuck at his desk getting "Monica's". Use the link to Instapundit to see what I mean. Glenn has an article there about the policies Clinton enacted regarding Iraq, but, as usual, never followed through on.
John Kerry was on the tube this weekend talking about how he won the election before he lost the election. What a waste of flesh. I can't stand "career" politicians, no matter what letter is by their name. The term pretty much confirms they are there only to make sure they themselves get rich. At least W was a buisnessman, although there are dubious distinctions in his records, I understand, but he proved he can lead in Texas government and then jumped into the big seat. He'll be out after 2008 and will probably be a prominent figure in our country's history.
Well, my pontificating is at an end for tonight. Stay safe and pray to your God(s) for the Iraqi people.

Testing my ability to link.

Do not panic. This is only a test.

Well, I figured out how to add links, finally. I use MSNBC and Drudge daily at work for news breaks. I used to use Glenn Beck's site as well, 'till it was banned by our IT dept. Still not sure why.... I listen to Glenn every day, though as well as Rush, so you know where I'm comin' from. I like Glenn over Rush for the humor and less emphasis on REPUBLICAN matters as opposed to conservative ones. I like to get a feel for what the other side is saying as well, so that's why I read MSNBC and occasionally CNN, when I can stand it. I can't stand Olberman's blog or Alterman. Idiots. But Glen Renyolds, od InstaPundit usually has short but good posts. And the "Clicked" blog is excellent as well, kind of a summary of the days heavy blogging. They are both at the very bottom of MSNBC's website. I will see if I can link to them seperately in the future. Until next time, SuperFriends........

Doing bad in the name of good?

Now for another of my pet peeves. Enviofacists know what they want, but they have no damn idea how to actually get there. We've all been sujected to the new marvel of a clean hydrogen system. Since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it must be the best for us to use, right? Well, not really. See, all the hydrogen we can get to is not pure hydrogen, it's more like an ex-girlfriend: they seem great at first, but then you have to deal with all their baggage. To actually reap the benefits of a hydrogen infrastructure, we must seperate the hydrogen from whatever it is currently attached to. This is usually oxygen, from water. (H2O, remember? The H is hydrogen and the O is oxygen. Grade-school chemistry refresher over.) How do we accomplish this? A lot of electricity. So we will see a big spike in electricy cunsumption and therefore electricity generation. The catch is that the majority of our electrical plants run on conventional fuels, like coal, which means to lower pollution from car, we will increase pollution from electric plants. Big freakin waste of the billions of dollars it will cost.
There is a way to get out of the afore-mentioned viscious cycle, but envirofacists protest it even more than "war for oil." That would be the nuclear option. Nuclear plants create no pollution, per se, but there is the nasty issue of radioactive rods hanging around until, oh, maybe 37004 A.D. Which is awhile. But we have a solution for this problem. We figure we'll stick it under a mountain in Nevada 'till then. We've studied and tested said mountain over the past decade or more, ensured we have adequate transportation units that can survive being hit by a train at full speed without a breech and came up with a plan to control and govern the site for the next 10,000 years. The only thing in our way is the court system which, under heavy lobbying from the envirofacists, have deemed 10,000 years (50 times as long as the 200 year history of our country) as too short a time and we should plan for more. What?
Now, I know we need to take the accidental release of radation seriously, and as I have seen in my 6 years experience with nuclear reactors, we do. But I don't see haw anyone can seriously study a plan of more than a century. If we had started a plan in the year 1900 that would govern how all state officials must travel for the next 100 years, we'd still have to have provisions for horses and carriages. And not just in Amish country. In the next 100 years we may find a way to neutralize radiation from spent fuel, or maybe a 100 after that, but surely before 10000 years have gone by. What we really need is a serious plan to implement the technology we have for, say, that magical 100 years. Then, every decade we revisit the topic and tweak the plan to account for new understandings and technologies. We do this ad infinitum, and by God, crisis averted.
The good residents of Nevada are dead set against this plan. NIMBY in action, though I see their point. However, their actions are strangling the nuclear plants we currenly have and are a big part of why we haven't built a new nuclear reactor outside of North Korea for a decade or two. While their selfish reasoning is seen as benefiting them short-term, it is endangering residents in other states long-term. Every day the spent rods from current reactors are not sitting miles under a Nevada mountain they are sitting in decades-old storage pools and containers, waiting for something to happen to them. They are much less secure, so we as a nation are less secure. Something needs to be done.
President Bush has approved use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which is the only site under serious consideration due to the time and money already sunk into the site. Even if all objections to further develop the site were dropped today, it would take years to finish and start collecting spent rods. If we allow Nevada to scrap the plans for this mountain, it will take decades to find a replacement. I am by no means an authority on this subject, so I ask anyone who reads this to do your own research. I will post updates and links to relevent information at a later date to back up my claims, or alter them if my memory has served me falsely. I appreciate all rebuttals and questions, but please keep them civil.

Take a left and keep going (and going, and going.......)

God am I sick of the far left's screed. Many of the blogs I've found lately have been full of pure hatred for our president. Between the war for oil charges, to Bush lied, to the stupid non-starter of his Guard service it's enough to make me sick. I've tried to make rational responses, but usually all I'm met with is personal attacks and leftover campaign rehtoric. I have no problem with anyone who has genuine misgivings about the country and our president, but those who refuse to listen to fact, or opinions contrary to their own are giving the left a very damaging reputation. To be fair, some leftists believe what they are spewing but are open to actual debate. God love 'em, that's all I ask. With the truth and some positive stories "leaking" out of Iraq by bypassing the traditional media, I believe we can start to bring rational people to back the efforts of our troops and our government. I don't give a rats ass about what the rest of the world thinks about us, but it pains me to have the homefront divided. We will have a hard enough time fighting the terrorists in the years to come without having to fight our own brothers and sisters at the same time. Please, let us all drop the hate and party affiliations and have the long-needed frank debate this country desperately needs. Anyone with me?

Into 2005, joining the mainstream kicking and screaming.

This is the first post of my first blog. If you are reading this, you are either related to me, have the great fortune to be a friend or have way too much time to kill on the net. I'd like to share my thoughts on this amazing country we live in; not because anyone wants to hear it, but because I want to say it. Time will tell if I can keep up with the posts and if anyone will really care at all. For now, I'd like to close my first post by wishing everyone a Happy New Year and a fulfilling 2005.
Bob