Yeah, poking my nose in here briefly, then back to my (LOL) boycott of political threads (maybe).
I just have to say I'm surprised no one has mentioned the irony of bringing up Nam, when we have a president for reelection who, by some folks definitions, is in charge of the latest "Nam". Something that seems to not end and in which soldiers are dying every day.
And to top it off, we have the world's most famous military liar for credibilty? Gee, what will the GOP trot out next? Have OJ condemn murderers? Pat Nixon talk about the dangers of Miss Cleo? Maybe drag out Al Haig and have him talk about Dems wanting too much power? LOL!
Anyway, back to the original point ... So the guy against Nam who served in Nam is less desired by you staunch Republicans and even you Republican vets? While more desirable is the Prez who didn't serve nowhere who has boys killed daily in a war in which is (ahem) over and which we (ahem) won?
Ooooh yeah, that makes total sense! Better get Nurse Rachet in here; time for a round of meds.
|
09-04-2004
Hybrid Mode
