You should post a pic of your neighbor for Friday Bird Blogging, but then the Secret Service might find him easier if you did.

The presidential pooper is always welcome to hide out at my house.

I am no apologist but we should all refer to any President current or former regardless of party as President________ not as Mr. or Mrs. (for future purposes). It's about respect for the office not the person.

Thank you so much for that observation, Wayne.

It is my humble opinion that Mr. Bush has behaved in such a way that respect for the office has suffered far more than any writer could cause by calling him Mr. Bush. Indeed it is a great kindness considering the monikers that he has earned.

Among others, Liar Bush comes to mind.

The Hill Online

With sincere apologies to Wayne,

I am in the midst of reading the electronic version of David McCullough's Truman. Mr. McCullough includes several quotes from Mr. Truman's contemporaries who referred to President Truman as "Mr. Truman".

Among the many:

Secretary of State, Henry Stimson

Clark Clifford, attorney and later Secretary of Defense for Lyndon Johnson

Greta Kempton, White House artist who painted the Truman portrait

Secretary of the Army, Kenneth C. Royall

Vice President Alben W. Barkley

Secretary of State Dean Acheson

And, of course, Douglas MacArthur

Radio Commentator, H. V. Kaltenborn

Democratic Party Chairman Stephen Mitchell

There are also quotes from these newspapers:

Omaha World Herald, New York Times, Baltimore Sun, Kansas City Star, and The New York Herald Tribune.

From what I have read, I don't think Mr. Bush's dignity would survive the scrutiny of a McCullough biography.

The Hill Online

I am no apologist but we should all refer to any President current or former regardless of party as President________ not as Mr. or Mrs. (for future purposes). It's about respect for the office not the person.

OK, from now on it's President Birdpoop. Oh yes, and how do you refer to Mr. Clinton?

I'm so glad you asked. I also refer to all former presidents as President ________ . We all need to get over out hatred and find common ground where there is any to be found. I personaly am tired of all the politics for politics sake, especialy on the war front. I supported what President Clinton tried to do in Somalia. We should have taken care of business there as well as in Iraq in the first Gulf War under President George H.W. Bush.The Middle Eastern culture only understads victory or defeat. There is no middle ground, this is considered weakness. On a side note I am looking forward to an election without a Bush or a Clinton leading the ticket.

The Middle Eastern culture only understads victory or defeat. There is no middle ground...

How so and what qualifies you to understand Middle Eastern culture?

...this is considered weakness.

To whom?

On a side note I am looking forward to an election without a Bush or a Clinton leading the ticket.

On this we agree!

Recommended reading

The Hill Online

We all need to get over out hatred and find common ground where there is any to be found.

What common ground do you suggest can be found?

Passing secrets to Iran? I guess I missed that one. Common ground-the understanding that evil exist and there is no greater evil than Islamic terrorists or any terrorists. By the way I have spent significant time in the middle east as well as time with those who were there risking there lives so others like us can bitch about our government. Which is something that until we arrived in Iraq and Afganastan the people could not do. The enemy watches how we talk about this war on both sides pro or con and laughs at us. This really makes our soldiers feel appreciated (sarcasm).

Passing secrets to Iran? I guess I missed that one.

Yep. Damn that liberal media.

Common ground-the understanding that evil exist and there is no greater evil than Islamic terrorists or any terrorists.

None at all? Are you sure? Are you REALLY sure? Are you REALLY REALLY sure? Really really really? For real?

By the way I have spent significant time in the middle east as well as time with those who were there risking there lives so others like us can bitch about our government. Which is something that until we arrived in Iraq and Afganastan the people could not do.

I see they're making huge advances in human rights since then.

The enemy watches how we talk about this war on both sides pro or con and laughs at us.

Pro or con? Sounds like I can't really lose this one, no matter which side I pick.

I pick "out of Iraq." (Are they still laughing? Oh well.)

This really makes our soldiers feel appreciated (sarcasm).

You know what I bet REALLY make them feel appreciated? Having tours of duty extended! Having additional tours slapped on their backs! Going into battle with obsolete body armor and Humvees with tincan plating! Coming home to inadequate medical care! Getting stop-lossed into active combat! Eating MREs for indeterminate lengths of time because of supply shortages of real food! Suffering higher divorce rates and suicides than your average citizen!

Um... (sarcasm).

____________________________

Am I the only solipsist here?

Andy Axel,

It's funny we agree on several things. Our troops that are there need to be given the tools to win and the authority to use them. They need to know that if they are injured or heaven fobid killed, the and thier family will be taken care of with the respect they deserve. This means a clean funding bill, no other appropriations except those directly related to funding the needed hardware,equipment,supplies and man power to do the job: Eliminate the terrorists opperating in Iraq by any means necessary. Period no Republican Highway projects, no Democrat Entitlement increase, No special tax breaks, only funding for troops and machines.

Excuse me for injecting a note of skepticism here but, how does someone who "works in the mental health field", who has "spent significant time in the middle east as well as time with those who were there risking there [sic] lives so others like us can bitch about our government", and yet spells Afghanistan "Afganastan", twists Andy's comment and then "agrees" with him on the new version, and has a positively anal obsession with addressing present and former presidents as something other than mister, expect to be taken seriously?

Missed the one on passing secrets, huh?

The Hill Online

redmondkr,

I'm sorry for using my experience to back up a point.Maybe you could do the same. I noticed that you did not even attempt to refute the overwhelming first hand accounts of our soldiers. (I'm sure you can find a few of dissenting opinion)Maybe, just maybe, you would care to exlplain how you came to your point of view other than news sources that you agree with. Nice slap at mental patients in you thread title, how caring and liberal of you. As for whether you take me seriously or not, I really don't care.

Spintrep. That is a new one for me.

I noticed that you did not even attempt to refute the overwhelming first hand accounts of our soldiers.

You have not cited any first hand accounts of any soldiers. As a matter of fact you have not cited anything.

Here is an example of a soldier-on-the-ground article. Although not from the respected Fox News.

Try here, or here, or here, or just turn to Google. You surely know how to Google. Try entering "soldiers against Iraq war".

Nice slap at mental patients in you [sic] thread title

That was not a slap at mental patients. That was merely pointing out that most would expect a mental health care-giver who professed first-hand knowledge of the middle east to be more literate about the area. The title suggests that a mental patient could profess to be in the mental health field.

As for whether you take me seriously or not, I really don't care.

That goes without saying.

The Hill Online

You asked about my credentials. The media often mention my name in articles about Microsoft.

The Hill Online

but then the Secret Service might find him easier if you did.

It's funny you mentioned this. That stupid story that started this mess was written after my neighbor (whose name is not really Jeffrey) left town for the weekend in a rental car. The day after I wrote it a mutual friend, who is with the Secret Service and occasionally stops over for the night on road trips between DC and Florida, showed up at his house. He was on his way to a short vacation after a quick trip to Baghdad with Darth.

"Jeffrey" came home yesterday and found a note and a nice souvenir on his mantel.

The Hill Online

redmonkr,

This is going no place. I'll just say this, I'll bet if I googled positive stories on soldiers most would come up on places other than the big three or CNN. As for my first hand knowledge, I travel frequently and see soldiers in airports, hotels and other places, my nephew was there, they are all proud of there mission and upset that the good they are doing rarely gets reported. They appreciate the education they recieved but, that is not why the enlisted. For the people who whine and say I didn't know I may have to fight, HELLO you joined the milatary. I wish them all a safe return but don't give me the crap about you didn't know. More first hand knowledge: Iguessed you missed my comment on our local General Carl Stiner. (google him I'm sure you'll see he knows more about our enemy in the middle east than any of us together. I could go on naming soldiers from grunts to generals I know. Would it really do any good? You are blinded by hatred of Republicans. I really dislike some leaders of both parties.

As for my first hand knowledge, I travel frequently and see soldiers in airports, hotels and other places, my nephew was there, they are all proud of there mission and upset that the good they are doing rarely gets reported.

Your "first-hand" stories are "third-hand."

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

"I'll bet if I googled positive stories on soldiers most would come up on places other than the big three or CNN."

Quite a comprehensive study you've undertaken there!

Sorry for the foul up. I'm assuming you have first hand knowledge then. Get back to me on the Carl Stiner thing. It may take you a while.

ultron,

I guess I could just get my talking points from moveon.org or the DNC as apparently you do.

I could go on naming soldiers from grunts to generals I know. Would it really do any good?

No. They're good soldiers who are but a tiny non-representative sampling of voters who elect the deciders in this democracy. And you're just an illiterate troll. (I know that's redundant.)

Would it really do any good to say I know more voters who are against the war than you know military personnel who are for it? Nyah, nyah, nyah.

Well Wayne, there you go again. What you need to do is learn a little HTML so you can add some links to all these sources you claim to have then start you a web site of your own so you can use your flowery language skills to convince some of these folks that the views you seem to share with Mr. Bush about his war are righteous.

I agree with you in one respect, however, this is going nowhere and it's getting close to time for a good pie recipe.

PS: I am a registered Republican. With the exception of Jimmy Duncan, I haven't voted for a Republican since the party was hijacked several years ago by charlatans posing as Christians when they wouldn't know a real Christian if one bit them on the ass. To paraphrase these demagogues, I can hate a Republican's sins without hating a Republican.

Have a nice day.

The Hill Online

Since when do we register by party when registering to vote? We only choose when voting in a primary. This is an interesting subject. Maybe one that we can can have a dialogue about on this blog. Some states require registration by party and some say it keeps cross over votes from spoiling the opposition's primary outcome. I personally think any effort to do that is really not feasable. To organize something on that large of a scle is nearly impossible. Maybe in a small local race. Factchecker, I just hope one day to be as educated and enlightened as you. Really, I don't know how I have made it this far. I've noticed the term Troll is only reserved for those who are not liberal on this blog.

I've noticed the term Troll is only reserved for those who are not liberal on this blog.

Chad Tindell is not considered to be a troll or a liberal.

Several of us welcome his comments although we can disagree with him.

The Hill Online

How would you define troll as it relates to this blog?

There are certain characteristics of trolls. People on the political right who post responsibly are welcome here and they aren't trolls. People who use this blog to ramble into their agenda of carrying shit for this president do generally meet the criteria of trolling.

If I visited right-wing sites (--I don't), I would act responsibly in debating the fine points and I'd be damn careful to back myself up with links or other references. Throwing smears against the wall just to see how they might stick wouldn't cut it--it would make me a troll.

There are other common characteristics of trolls, like pretending to agree with some minor points we don't really agree on ("good cop" posturing) and implying they're carrying on a real debate when they won't really debate at all.

I'm sure you're not really illiterate, but it's very odd how virtually all of Rush's OxiContin brigade are so sloppy with their grammar. We all make mistakes, but why are agitators from the right so careless? Or does it tell something more?

A troll

The Hill Online