But they support the troops!

[kT]

Ubiquitous wrote:

People that don't have 'Support the Troops' stickers on their SUVs are
TRAITORS !

 

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:49:05 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports from Waterloo, Iowa, that "Democratic
>presidential candidate Barack Obama said he doesn't wear the American flag
>lapel pin because it has become a substitute for 'true patriotism' since the
>Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" (emphisis mine):
>
> "The truth is that right after 9-11 I had a pin," Obama said.
> "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking
> about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true
> patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of
> importance to our national security.
>
> "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the
> interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American
> people what I believe WILL MAKE THIS COUNTRY GREAT, and hopefully
> that will be a testament to my patriotism."

I'll go for that. Too many people substitute flag waving for being a
patriot.

Swill
--
Money isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money.
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

 

[Ubiquitous]

On Feb. 9, 2003, the "antiwar" group United for Peace and Justice
published a letter from musician Dave Matthews questioning the
patriotism of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and other
supporters of the war in Iraq:

I want to speak my mind about this war with Iraq, or I
will choke on my conscience. . . . What is the motivation?
Regime change? Shouldn't that be up to the people of the
region and the people of Iraq? The only real threat from
Saddam Hussein is to his neighbors...

Saddam Hussein is a genocidal maniac but he is not Al
Qaeda. He is certainly more visible though. Is he our
target because he is easier to identify than the
illusive [sic] terrorist network? ...

Bottom line: this war is wrong and this war is un-American.

So what is Matthews doing tonight? According to the Web site of the Dave
Matthews Band, he's performing the first of two concerts at the
Eisenhower Hall Theater in West Point, N.Y., "to insure that all [U.S.
Military Academy] cadets have the opportunity to attend a free DMB
concert in their intimate theatre."

Has Dave Matthews come around and repudiated his prior opposition to a
course of action that removed a "genocidal maniac" from power? Not
necessarily, but let's hope.

--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.

 

[garrethhume@yahoo.com]

On Nov 16, 12:03 pm, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:

> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.


It is simply breathtaking to watch the malice and negligence with
which
the Bush Administration and the Angry Right have been attempting to
turn
their criminal blunder in Iraq into a victory. Too bad
for all of us, Bush is an incompetent failure.

 

[Ubiquitous]

>By the way, the military's America Supports You Web site [1] is running a
>"Giving Thanks Campaign" so that you can send a text message of support
>to the troops in the field.
>
>[1]: http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/thanks/index.aspx

The site has a nice little exhortation:

Send a word of thanks to American troops who won't be home
tomorrow because they're defending us in Iraq.

Here's a sampling of the comments it drew:

"No one who is defending us (or freedom, etc.) is in Iraq.
Sorry to burst your bubble."

"I'd like to thank them for being over there fighting and
dying in that senseless clusterfark so I don't have to."

"Spending $7.5 million dollars per hour, I'll bet they get
nicer food than I do."

"They are not defending us, they are being used by Bush and
Co. to bully the world. We shouldn't be thanking these troops,
we should be apologizing to them, for not electing politicians
that protect the troops interests. We should be working with
the INTERNATIONAL community to solve INTERNATIONAL problems.
Obviously the world realizes now there is no USA in TEAM.
Thanks, George."

"Remember: while it's illegal to discriminate against
ex-servicemembers, it's not illegal to discriminate against
people who've recently spent time in Iraq or Afganistan [sic].
So, when you see these people who make Bush and Iraq possible,
ask them who they thought was going to invade the continental
US when they joined, and if the answer isn't a very intelligent
one, perhaps one of the other candidates would spend less
time picking their noses?"

It's almost enough to make you question someone's patriotism.

--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.

 

[Daniel Bergman]

Ubiquitous wrote:
>> By the way, the military's America Supports You Web site [1] is running a
>> "Giving Thanks Campaign" so that you can send a text message of support
>> to the troops in the field.
>>
>> [1]: http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/thanks/index.aspx
>
> The site has a nice little exhortation:
>
> Send a word of thanks to American troops who won't be home
> tomorrow because they're defending us in Iraq.
>
> Here's a sampling of the comments it drew:
>
> "No one who is defending us (or freedom, etc.) is in Iraq.
> Sorry to burst your bubble."
>
> "I'd like to thank them for being over there fighting and
> dying in that senseless clusterfark so I don't have to."
>
> "Spending $7.5 million dollars per hour, I'll bet they get
> nicer food than I do."
>
> "They are not defending us, they are being used by Bush and
> Co. to bully the world. We shouldn't be thanking these troops,
> we should be apologizing to them, for not electing politicians
> that protect the troops interests. We should be working with
> the INTERNATIONAL community to solve INTERNATIONAL problems.
> Obviously the world realizes now there is no USA in TEAM.
> Thanks, George."
>
> "Remember: while it's illegal to discriminate against
> ex-servicemembers, it's not illegal to discriminate against
> people who've recently spent time in Iraq or Afganistan [sic].
> So, when you see these people who make Bush and Iraq possible,
> ask them who they thought was going to invade the continental
> US when they joined, and if the answer isn't a very intelligent
> one, perhaps one of the other candidates would spend less
> time picking their noses?"
>
> It's almost enough to make you question someone's patriotism.
>
They are not patriots. They are socialists. In other words Communists.
And they have direct affection for terrorists and thugs. So of course
they wouldn't appreciate anyone fighting for freedom and America. Might
as well give up on that idea.

 

[Daniel Bergman]

Daniel Bergman wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> By the way, the military's America Supports You Web site [1] is
>>> running a "Giving Thanks Campaign" so that you can send a text
>>> message of support to the troops in the field.
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/thanks/index.aspx
>>
>> The site has a nice little exhortation:
>>
>> Send a word of thanks to American troops who won't be home
>> tomorrow because they're defending us in Iraq.
>>
>> Here's a sampling of the comments it drew:
>>
>> "No one who is defending us (or freedom, etc.) is in Iraq.
>> Sorry to burst your bubble."
>>
>> "I'd like to thank them for being over there fighting and
>> dying in that senseless clusterfark so I don't have to."
>>
>> "Spending $7.5 million dollars per hour, I'll bet they get
>> nicer food than I do."
>>
>> "They are not defending us, they are being used by Bush and
>> Co. to bully the world. We shouldn't be thanking these troops,
>> we should be apologizing to them, for not electing politicians
>> that protect the troops interests. We should be working with
>> the INTERNATIONAL community to solve INTERNATIONAL problems.
>> Obviously the world realizes now there is no USA in TEAM.
>> Thanks, George."
>>
>> "Remember: while it's illegal to discriminate against
>> ex-servicemembers, it's not illegal to discriminate against
>> people who've recently spent time in Iraq or Afganistan [sic].
>> So, when you see these people who make Bush and Iraq possible,
>> ask them who they thought was going to invade the continental
>> US when they joined, and if the answer isn't a very intelligent
>> one, perhaps one of the other candidates would spend less time
>> picking their noses?"
>> It's almost enough to make you question someone's patriotism.
>>
> They are not patriots. They are socialists. In other words Communists.
> And they have direct affection for terrorists and thugs. So of course
> they wouldn't appreciate anyone fighting for freedom and America. Might
> as well give up on that idea.

Test

 

[garrethhume@yahoo.com]

On Nov 28, 7:12 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.

Dick Cheney
April 1991

"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in
a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a QUAGMIRE. Once we
got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power?
What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni
government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it
be secular along the lines of the Ba'ath Party? Would it be
fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants
to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the
responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no
sense at all."


LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ.
Former commander US forces,Iraq.
12 OCTOBER 2007

"THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS. AS A JAPANESE
PROVERB SAYS, "ACTION WITHOUT VISION IS A NIGHTMARE." THERE IS NO
QUESTION THAT AMERICA IS LIVING A NIGHTMARE WITH NO END IN SIGHT"

"AFTER MORE THAN FOUR YEARS OF FIGHTING, AMERICA CONTINUES ITS
DESPERATE STRUGGLE IN IRAQ WITHOUT ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO
DEVISE A STRATEGY THAT WILL ACHIEVE "VICTORY" IN THAT WAR TORN
COUNTRY OR IN THE GREATER CONFLICT AGAINST EXTREMISM. FROM A
CATASTROPHICALLY FLAWED, UNREALISTICALLY OPTIMISTIC WAR PLAN TO THE
ADMINISTRATION'S LATEST "SURGE" STRATEGY, THIS
ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO EMPLOY AND SYNCHRONIZE ITS
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER. THE LATEST "REVISED
STRATEGY" IS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT BY AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS
NOT ACCEPTED THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THIS WAR
AND THEY HAVE DEFINITELY NOT COMMUNICATED THAT REALITY TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE"

"THE BEST WE CAN DO WITH THIS FLAWED APPROACH IS STAVE OFF
DEFEAT. THE ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS AND THE ENTIRE
INTERAGENCY, ESPECIALLY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MUST SHOULDER THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS CATASTROPHIC FAILURE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE."

"NEGLECT AND INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
LEVEL, THAT IS THE PATH OUR POLITICAL LEADERS CHOSE"

 

[Ubiquitous]

Helen Thomas, American journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic, had
this exchange the other day with White House press secretary Dana
Perino:

Q: Why should we depend on him [Gen. David Petraeus]?

Perino: Because he is the commander on the ground, Helen. He's the one
who is making sure that the situation is moving--

Q: You mean how many more people we kill?

Perino: Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row
position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues, to make such statements.
This is a--it is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room,
and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent
people is just absurd and very offensive.

Q: Do you know how many we have since the start of this war?

Perino: How many--we are going after the enemy, Helen. To the extent
that any innocent Iraqis have been killed, we have expressed regret for
it.

Q: Oh, regret. It doesn't bring back a life.

Perino: Helen, we are in a war zone, and our military works extremely
hard to make sure that everyone has the opportunity for liberty and
freedom and democracy, and that is exactly what they are doing.
I'm going to move on.

Columnist Sean Kirst of the Post Standard (Syracuse, N.Y.) reports that
a Syracuse University professor turned down an offer for U.S. servicemen
to speak on campus:

In October, Marine Major Christian Devine sent an e-mail
to Mark Rupert, chair of political science in the Maxwell
School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Devine asked if
Rupert's department would be interested in a talk by
college-age members of a military program known as "Why
We Serve." . . .

Rupert turned down the offer. He did some research and
found an article in which Devine described "Why We Serve"
as an attempt to "win the 'war on narratives,' especially
in the mainstream media." In the same article, a lieutenant
involved in the program spoke of the need to change American
perceptions in a "very, very powerful information war."

In his response to Devine, Rupert wrote, "I must decline
your invitation to (host) a Pentagon domestic outreach
program which appears to want to substitute an allegedly
'non-political' meet and greet with the troops for a
direct and explicitly political discussion of the issues."

That kind of one-sided message runs contrary to a
departmental mission to "foster open and honest discussion,"
Rupert said Wednesday.

Another professor stepped in and accepted the invitation. Kirst quotes
one student who was puzzled at Rupert's determination to suppress the
military viewpoint:

"I didn't understand the problem with having the actual
troops come and speak," said Katelyn Hancock, a student
who helped to organize the event. "We can have Michael
Moore come and speak on campus, but the troops can't come?"

The Colorado Springs Independent reports that police cars in the
Colorado town sport "Support Our Troops" magnets, which has raised the
hackles of some local lefties:

Cathryn Hazouri, executive director of the ACLU of
Colorado, says the magnets are on shaky legal ground.
As a representation of the view of the city, they're
fine, because they don't represent a religious viewpoint.
The problem is, the public might think the magnets
represent not only the view of the city, but also that
of the employee driving a given vehicle.

"I think [the city has] the right to make the decision as
to whether or not they want a message on their vehicles,"
Hazouri says. "The question is, do their employees have
the right to not have the same views and not publicize
the same views?"

is Hazouri questioning the patriotism of Colorado Springs cops? Then
there's this letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle
(seventh letter):

Editor--I have put a green light in my window to signal
that I want the troops home.

Anyone want to join me?

RON NORLIN
San Francisco

Seems like an odd way of making friends, but hey, whatever works for
you.



--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article
<c4322681-5d17-4d76-804d-20aa9638b208@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
garrethhume@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Nov 28, 7:12 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> > It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> > the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> > our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> > for them, it's failing.
>
> Dick Cheney
> April 1991
>
> "I think for us to get American military personnel involved in
> a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a QUAGMIRE. Once we
> got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power?
> What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni
> government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it
> be secular along the lines of the Ba'ath Party? Would it be
> fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants
> to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the
> responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no
> sense at all."
>
>
> LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ.
> Former commander US forces,Iraq.
> 12 OCTOBER 2007
>
> "THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT
> STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS.

Even when he shouts it at you, you can't see the obvious fact staring
you dead in the face.

Amazing to me, even at this late date.

You have Cheney predicting what would happen 12 years later.

You cannot logically claim "incompetence."

--
NeoLibertarian

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
---Ronald Reagan

 

[garrethhume@yahoo.com]

On Dec 6, 8:59 pm, web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:

> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> for them, it's failing.

[typos corrected]
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> the military and the Dick Cheney have been attempting to turn
> our blunders in Iraq into a victory. Too bad
> for all of us, Bush is a failure.

Dick Cheney
April 1991

"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a
civil
war inside Iraq would literally be a QUAGMIRE. Once we got to
Baghdad,
what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government
would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a
Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba'ath
Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United
States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and
accept
the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no
sense
at all."


LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ.
Former commander US forces,Iraq.
12 OCTOBER 2007


"THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS. AS A JAPANESE
PROVERB SAYS, "ACTION WITHOUT VISION IS A NIGHTMARE." THERE IS NO
QUESTION THAT AMERICA IS LIVING A NIGHTMARE WITH NO END IN SIGHT"

"AFTER MORE THAN FOUR YEARS OF FIGHTING, AMERICA CONTINUES ITS
DESPERATE STRUGGLE IN IRAQ WITHOUT ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO DEVISE A
STRATEGY THAT WILL ACHIEVE "VICTORY" IN THAT WAR TORN COUNTRY OR IN
THE GREATER CONFLICT AGAINST EXTREMISM. FROM A CATASTROPHICALLY
FLAWED, UNREALISTICALLY OPTIMISTIC WAR PLAN TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S
LATEST "SURGE" STRATEGY, THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO EMPLOY AND
SYNCHRONIZE ITS POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER. THE LATEST
"REVISED STRATEGY" IS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT BY AN ADMINISTRATION THAT
HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THIS WAR AND
THEY HAVE DEFINITELY NOT COMMUNICATED THAT REALITY TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE"


"THE BEST WE CAN DO WITH THIS FLAWED APPROACH IS STAVE OFF DEFEAT. THE
ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS AND THE ENTIRE INTERAGENCY, ESPECIALLY THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MUST SHOULDER THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS
CATASTROPHIC FAILURE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST HOLD THEM
ACCOUNTABLE."


"NEGLECT AND INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEVEL,
THAT IS THE PATH OUR POLITICAL LEADERS CHOSE"

 

[garrethhume@yahoo.com]

On Dec 6, 10:22 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c4322681-5d17-4d76-804d-20aa9638b...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> garrethh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 7:12 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> > > It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> > > the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> > > our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> > > for them, it's failing.
>
> > Dick Cheney
> > April 1991
>
> > "I think for us to get American military personnel involved in
> > a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a QUAGMIRE. Once we
> > got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power?
> > What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni
> > government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it
> > be secular along the lines of the Ba'ath Party? Would it be
> > fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants
> > to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the
> > responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no
> > sense at all."
>
> > LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ.
> > Former commander US forces,Iraq.
> > 12 OCTOBER 2007
>
> > "THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT
> > STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS.
>
> Even when he shouts it at you, you can't see the obvious fact staring
> you dead in the face.
>
> Amazing to me, even at this late date.
>
> You have Cheney predicting what would happen 12 years later.
>
> You cannot logically claim "incompetence."

Actually I can. but I don't have to.

Either he is so incompetent that he agreed with an invasion with no
thought to of what to to do afterwards even knowing the perils of such
a course of action.

That is either gross incompetence or malice aforethought.

Take your pick.

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article
<675736b4-9eb6-428e-9478-383f619e4bd6@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
garrethhume@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Dec 6, 10:22 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c4322681-5d17-4d76-804d-20aa9638b...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > garrethh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 7:12 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
> > > > the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
> > > > our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
> > > > for them, it's failing.
> >
> > > Dick Cheney
> > > April 1991
> >
> > > "I think for us to get American military personnel involved in
> > > a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a QUAGMIRE. Once we
> > > got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power?
> > > What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni
> > > government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it
> > > be secular along the lines of the Ba'ath Party? Would it be
> > > fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants
> > > to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the
> > > responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no
> > > sense at all."
> >
> > > LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ.
> > > Former commander US forces,Iraq.
> > > 12 OCTOBER 2007
> >
> > > "THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT
> > > STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS.
> >
> > Even when he shouts it at you, you can't see the obvious fact staring
> > you dead in the face.
> >
> > Amazing to me, even at this late date.
> >
> > You have Cheney predicting what would happen 12 years later.
> >
> > You cannot logically claim "incompetence."
>
> Actually I can. but I don't have to.
>
> Either he is so incompetent that he agreed with an invasion with no
> thought to of what to to do afterwards even knowing the perils of such
> a course of action.
>
> That is either gross incompetence or malice aforethought.

False dilemma, there's at least one more possibility.

--
NeoLibertarian

"The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on
for the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of
wills and ideas--a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold,
the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated."
---Ronald Reagan

 

[Ubiquitous]

Another American city has declared war on the U.S. Marines, reports the Toledo
Blade:

A company of Marine Corps Reservists received a cold send-off
from downtown Toledo yesterday by order of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

The 200 members of Company A, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines,
based in Grand Rapids, Mich., planned to spend their weekend
engaged in urban patrol exercises on the streets of downtown
as well as inside the mostly vacant Madison Building, 607
Madison Ave.

Toledo police knew days in advance about their plans for a
three-day exercise. Yet somehow the memo never made it to Mayor
Finkbeiner, who ordered the Marines out yesterday afternoon just
minutes before their buses were to arrive.

"The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people,"
said Brian Schwartz, the mayor's spokesman.

We got to wondering: To what political party does this Carty Finkbeiner
belong? The Blade does not tell us, so we tried checking some other sources.
WNWO-TV, the local NBC affiliate, didn't tell us. Neither did the Fox station,
WUPW-TV, or the CBS outlet, WTOL-TV.

Maybe the Toledo press corps figured everyone locally already knew
Finkbeiner's party, so it wasn't necessary to mention. So we tried the media
in Grand Rapids, Mich., where the Marine company is stationed. But neither the
Grand Rapids Press nor WOOD-TV sought fit to mention the mayor's affiliation.
Neither did the Associated Press.

But wait! The Toledo Blade came through in the end. In a second-day follow-up
story, we find the following in paragraph 13:

Mayor Finkbeiner, a Democrat, said yesterday that he ordered the
Marines out because he did not want a repeat of the last time the
Marines' battalion trained downtown in May, 2006.

This isn't the first time Finkbeiner has found himself in a nationally noted
kerfuffle. In 1994, the New York Times reported that the newly elected mayor
"suggested at a staff meeting that a way to resolve complaints about airport
noise would be to move deaf people into the neighborhood." Even back then, the
paper did not see fit to identify his party.

Contrast this with a Times book review from just this past weekend. The paper
doesn't even wait until the first paragraph to tell us the party ID of its
subject: The headline reads "R, North Carolina." The subject is former senator
Jesse Helms and his backward views on race. How much do you want to bet that
the Times never has and never will use a similar headline for a biography of
Theodore Bilbo or Ben Tillman or Robert Byrd?

--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.