My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« So long, Barbaro | Main | More on Sen. Chuck Hagel’s opportunism »

January 30, 2007



Common dog.


I heard this kid on Sean Hannity, and apparently what really hurt the guy is that the spitter had a 82nd Airborne patch on his jacket. This just kills me, though the treatment of veterans is nowhere near the Vietnam level, any incident like this is totally uncalled for. It's nice to see stories like the new facility at BAMC in San Antonio, but then crap like this happens and you wonder if people have lost their minds.

Frank Warner

Weirdly enough, Corporal Sparling was getting hate mail even when he was at Walter Reed Hospital.

Frank Warner

For no reason. I think a letter said, "Have a great time dying in the war." Something like that.


I hate to hear moments like this because I suspect the police would arrest the Corporal and not the other person.
I'm hot that Baghdad Jane has surfaced and feels she has the right to take center stage. All her "supposed" apoligies to the Vietnam Vets, like my father who never accepted it, meant nothing and as Dad had said "She's a liar!"

The ceremony at BAMC was great but then I feel was again a political statement when you see who attended and comments that followed by Rosie.


We all know the reasons Klinton was there, she could care less about us military folk and if she is elected, she'll gut and destroy the great military we have. It just burns me that she has the guts to show up at BAMC after all her comments about being mislead in voting for the war, we should get out, etc.

I think the link on this page takes you to the site that shows the one Christmas card Cpl. Sparling received, which was hatemail. Nice touch. Iraq wasn't a VietNam but it's slowly becoming a political issue which is why VietNam failed. Now Hanoi-Baghdad Jane has joined the fray, look out. Maybe John Kerry will join in also, we all know he was smart enough not to get stuck in Iraq.


I meant to also say that we (the military establishment) are still recovering from what Klinton I did, God help us if there's a Klinton II.

jj mollo

The military is always just recovering from something. I'm not convinced that Clinton did it any great harm. Though I'm certainly not convinced that Rumsfeld harmed it. I think he knew what he was doing and it had to be done. The Military is a great big bureaucracy at the top, with a lot of Turf Tigers who see things through their own narrow lenses. They're always crying foul while they slash each other in the back to get promoted.

I see no reason to believe that Hillary would be bad for the military -- unless you believe that all Democrats would be a disaster. Personally, I'd rather see Joe Lieberman get the job, but unless the War turns around fast, he can't get nominated.


Billary is on record as a military hater. What Klinton I did was to basically not fund the miltary each year he was in office, instead opting to allocate certain funds for military expenditures. I'm not a budget expert, but someone explained what he did during his tenure and it was incredible nothing like 9/11 happened on his watch. I've been in since Reagan was president, and the 8 years Klinton was in office were the worse. Many of us don't wish to talk about the Klinton era, and now with a potential Klinton II, it worries the hell out of me. I can't retire until 2015, and I figure it will take Billary Klinton about 6 months to decimate the military, morale and budget wise. Not to mention what she'll do to the country as a whole, it's taken almost 6 years to dig out of what Klinton I did to us. If I had a choice between Lieberman and Klinton, it's no choice. Hell, I'd vote for Kerry over Klinton! Just for God's sake, and the sake of the safety of our country, DO NOT VOTE FOR BILLARY KLINTON.

jj mollo

You can't build a military without tax revenues. Bush is cheating here by means of deficit spending. Reagan did the same thing. Deficit spending has its penalties. Clinton was the grown-up on this issue, repairing part of the damage. If you remember John Anderson, he was my candidate in 1980, because he was willing to commit to a 50 cent a gallon tax on oil.

Both Clinton and Reagan did all right on the economy generally. I don't believe Bush has done as well. This is the important part, IMO, because the most important parameter in winning wars is, far and away, the productive capacity of the combatants.

Well, let me take that back a little. Today, a more important factor is the determination to win. Reagan showed that against the Soviet Union, but not in Lebanon. Clinton showed it in Kosovo, but nowhere else. Bush, bless his soles, has been adamant at putting his foot down. I just wish he would stop stepping in it.


How has Bush not done well on the economy when unemployment is down, jobless claims are at an all time low, consumer confidence is very high? Yes, Reagan practiced deficit spending, so did Klinton, so did just about every other President in the history of the US. It's a historical/economic fact that when the budget is balanced, the economy suffers (don't know why, ask an economist). Not that it's an excuse to put the US in debt, but a fact of our history of our economy. I'm no fan of the Iraq situation (most military are willing to die for their country, as am I, but it doesn't mean I like the prospect of widowing my wife and leaving my 3 kids without a father), but it's not all Bush's fault. This conflict should be handed over to the Military commanders, and the politicians taken out of the equation. That is the only way we're going to win.

And one more point, the president doesn't spend any money, that's the job of congress, Reagan submitted a balanced budget 6/8 (maybe it was 7/8) years he was in office, and all 8 years the congress (democrat controlled congress, save a couple years of a republican senate) blew the budget away with overspending on pork projects (Bird highway in WV to name one). So don't blame the pres, blame the bozos on Capitol Hill.

jj mollo

The federal debt increased by about 200 billion/year under Clinton, and 450 billion/year for the first five years under George W. Bush. The average annual increase of per capita GDP was around $750/year under Clinton, and $490/year under Bush.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)