Bill and Hillary  (The ideal happily married couple):
>
> Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting
> all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.
>
> Selective Service Number 326 46 228.
>
> Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964
>
> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
>
> Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
>
> Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military.
>
> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States
> Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of Col. E. Holmes.
>
> Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
>
> Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of
> Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
>
> Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with
> Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E.
> Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law
> 90-40 (2)(a) registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for
> induction.'
>
> Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,
> 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report  for induction
> is INELIGIBLE!
>
> Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
> under Public Law 90-40.
>
> Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a
> fugitive from justice.
>
> Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21,1977, from President
> Carter.
>
> Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President
> of the United States.
>
> All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public
> laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been
> refuted by Clinton.
>
> After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton promised
> that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>
> After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed fiveU.S. military
> personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
> down and punished.
>
> After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
> and injured 200 U.S. military personnel;Clinton promised that those
> responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>
> After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224
> and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be
> hunted down and punished.
>
> After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed
> 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those
> responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>
> Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in
> New York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
>
> AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
> This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
> casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
>
> There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively
> cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity.
>
> The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the
> Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over
> the eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?
>
> THINK ABOUT IT!
> It is a strange turn of events.  Hillary gets $8 Million for her forth
> coming memoir. Bill gets about
> $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who
> spent 8 years being unable to Recall anything about past events while
> under oath.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN  (ret)

How a man with such a blemished record could have become the greatest American President of the last 40 years?

You truly are a fool, but you knew that didn't you puke?

and that's a big pile of bullshit. Do you guys ever but ever look at this stuff and see what it is?

The Cdr. is a real person all right but categorically denies ever writing this. Some nameless no good piece of shit cowardly hack cobbled it together and the attached the good Cdr.'s name it.

A big reason why I considered a lot of the right, but thankly not all, to be illiterate dimwits.

There I said it. I feel better. Thank you.

Fact check much?

Is anyone supposed to take you seriously?  Placing the debate of Clinton's accomplishments vs. failures aside, how in the world can you refer to him as a "Hero"?

The U.S.S. Cole was bombed on October 12, 2000. George W. Bush was elected president less than a month later. The FBI did not prove that the bombing was done by al qaeda until after Bush was inaugurated. Please explain how Clinton could have attacked anyone if he was not president anymore.

You're not very bright, are you?

More swift, decisive action by Clinton.  Perhaps he could have attacked Al Quaeda for the other dozen or so attacks that he never responded to prior to the attack on the Cole.  I guess the FBI solved those cases after he was out of office as well.

what Bush did and attack Iraq, but that would have been like, you know, stupid. As I recall, Clinton did make attempts to get Bin Laden and ironically the Repugs accused him of "wagging the dog." Also, last time I looked, the guys responsible for the 93 WTC bombing are still rotting in a jail somewhere.

it is no wonder why this country is going down the shitter at such an alarming rate.
Instead of examples of equity, honor, duty, fiscal prudence and selflessness in which the populace could draw upon; near everyone of our elected leaders for the last 40 years has proven an example of elitist, power grabbing, self serving greed and ethical turpitude.

We as a nation have been electing and becoming the very thing our founding fathers tried to keep us from, and our forefathers fought and died to protect us from.

Left or Right; the current ‘electable’ candidates for POTUS are again perfect examples of groomed, elitist, two faced, hypocrites and power mad panderers to corporate bribery. The candidates with a shred of dedication to the people and principles of our Constitution have long been marginalized by the mainstream media as ‘Unelectable’.

We’re gonna get what our shallow, history ignoring, ADD / sound byte afflicted society deserves; another stinking pile of the SAME OLD SHIT.    

You do intend to apologize for posting a blatant lie, don't you?

As soon as pigs fly.

By Colonel Robert "Buzz" Peterson, who is a real hero.

He has no agenda, just gives facts about both Clintons.


xoxo
Samantha

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Your upcoming book begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation “cannot survive treason from within.” Surely you’re not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?

“Buzz” Patterson: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as “adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis, Soviets in gulags, and Pol Pot; or refers to our Marines as “cold blooded killers” before an ongoing investigation is completed and charges filed, they have crossed the line and have taken their politics to the battlefield. These are behaviors that give aid and comfort to our enemy.

It’s not just the Democrats though but many on the Left — its faculties and administrations on college campuses, big media, Hollywood, and left-wing organizations such as the Ford Foundation, Moveon.org, United for Peace and Justice, etc. What is particularly disturbing to me is that these Americans are doing it while their fellow citizens are fighting and dying in combat. The best ally that al Qaeda has these days is the Democrat Party leadership. It’s reprehensible.

Lopez: Is it fair even to say “The Left has declared war on the U.S. military and the global War on Terror”? And your title! The Left doesn’t want to destroy the military, for Pete’s sake.

Lt. Col. Patterson: Not only do I absolutely believe that Democrats have declared war on an American victory in the War on Terror but that’s generally been the case since 1968. They’re opposed to all uses of military force unless one of their guys is in the White House. In 1968, it was Vietnam and President Lyndon Johnson was too hawkish for them. The New Left adroitly turned a military victory overseas into a humiliating national defeat which the Democrats successfully parlayed into political capital, winning Congress and the White House. Now, it’s Iraq and the War on Terror. Different war, same game plan. Democrats win if America loses.

By facilitating defeat against Islamo-fascism, Democrats have placed the U.S. military squarely in the cross-hairs as well. But, again, this is nothing new. For decades liberals have attempted to emasculate the armed forces. In my years serving as military aide to President Bill Clinton, I gained an intimate understanding of how he and the Left regarded the military. Take a look at the Department of Defense budget over the last 40 years — when a Democrat is in the White House the military and our intelligence agencies take huge hits in terms of funding and support. When a Republican president is in office, the military and intelligence organizations receive the necessary funding for procurement, pay, and logistics. Fortunately, we’ve only had two Democrat commanders-in-chief over that span, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In my opinion, arguably the two worst military leaders in our country’s history, certainly within the last 100 years. Not only doesn’t the Left understand military culture, but in fact they regard it with utter disdain.

Lopez: But don’t we all support the troops?

Lt. Col. Patterson: The Left’s “support” of our military consists of constant undermining or ignoring of the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there have been many), legislation calling for outright defeat, grossly exaggerating or embellishing the misdeeds of a few miscreants at Abu Ghraib, championing baseless claims of torture at Guantanamo Bay, and staging antiwar rallies across the country. Our troops certainly don’t need or deserve those sorts of support.

How can somebody claim to support the troops while they demean them publicly (as John Kerry has done routinely since 1971) and not support the combat that we, as a nation, ordered them into? The reality is the Left doesn’t understand the military, in many cases finds military service distasteful and beneath them, and apparently doesn’t nearly understand the threat we face.

basic self-images to rationalize dominance attempts within a group:  thus, Christians say to each other, I love Jesus more than you do, Commies say, I'm more communist than you, women try to out-cute each other, and men get in chest-thumping contests.   And of course it's 90% irrelevant BS.

Patterson here follows a typical pattern, the assumption that indiscriminate killing is feasible, will solve the problem, and of course the only manly thing to do.  

My first question is whether it's even feasible.  Ground and air warfare are very different.  Ground-pounders are way more likely to have to deal with the problem of reconstruction, ie, so you kill them all, then what?