The Democratic Future For Republicans Will Be Like The Democratic Past Was For Republicans

2164th wrote:

In 1982, Reagan had a loaded Congress against him. He could not get a budget passed and had to rely on continuing resolutions. That was not enough for the Democrats. One scumbag Congressman attached the Boland amendment. Wikipedia misrepresents it at having been passed 411-0. They do not mention, that if the Amendment and continuing resolution was not passed the government would be closed down. Congressman Edward Boland, D, Mass., attached the amendment with no thought about the irregular troops in the field fighting the Sandinistas and the consequences to them with the cut-off of funds. In short they would have been slaughtered. Reagan should have told the Democrat controlled Congress to go fuck themselves and see you in Court or hell. Reagan folded and did some gymnastics getting the Japanese and Saudis to fund the Contras through the CIA. I helped unload planes of wounded with injuries that smelled like yesterday's dead dog, while on a farm In Costa Rica, owned be an American hero, John Hull. Hull was maligned by another Democratic piece of shit, John Kerry. Do a Google on John Hull, CIA drugs and you will read lie after lie after lie. If John Hull was a drug dealer, he was the worst on record. He never had any money. He still owes me $500, he borrowed to buy fuel for his plane to get more wounded from Nicaragua. Expect nothing noble from Republicans and worse from Democrat Politicians. I hate all of them.




woman catholic
said...
2164th wrote:
Reagan folded and did some gymnastics getting the Japanese and Saudis to fund the Contras through the CIA.

With all due respect to your service to the wounded, 2164th, if Clinton used the NSA to channel federal funds to the Taliban in the 1990s by saying, "It depends on what your definition of intelligent agency is" the GOP-controlled Congress would have gone ballistic.
10:38 PM, November 09, 2006



woman catholic
said...
Dang, am I the only one on this blog who Never worked for the Company?

The first rule of the Company is, you don't talk about the Company.

Woman Catholic. John Hull was not in the CIA. John Hull foolishly helped and assisted the CIA, because he was that type of person. As a young man, from Indiana, during WWII, he joined the Canadian Air Force so he could go to England and flew for the RAF as a fighter pilot with over sixty missions. All he wanted to do was farm and raise cattle. His farm happened to be in Northern Costa Rica and he had farmland in Nicaragua.

The trouble in Nicaragua was stirred up and abetted by the Cubans. There was serious danger of it spreading throughout Central America.

John Hull had an airstrip on his farm. When he got radio reports (there were no telephones in that area at that time) that there were wounded and dying in Nicaragua, he walked out the back door, jumped into his plane and flew to an airstrip in Nicaragua and brought the wounded out to a hospital in Quesada, Costa Rica. The CIA used John Hull and John Hull let them. I was a friend and associate of John Hull. I warned him that his deepening relationship with the CIA would not end well, because there were too many people in his circle that had big mouths. They were stringers and wannabes. They thought it was sort of cool. Hull was serious. It was the most un-secret operation. I had nothing to do with the CIA. There is nothing classified about anything I said. I warned Hull, he would lose his farm. He did lose his farm and had to flee from Costa Rica, because of left wing ex-pat Americans, liars and Democrats. That was the thanks he got. The lies are all over the Internet. They are second hand, and factually incorrect. They are preposterous distortions and outright lies.

Those lies, a Democratic Congress, and investigations dragged innocent well-meaning people before Congressional Committees. Many became financially ruined and lost their livelihood.

I happened to be there. It was a Forrest Gump moment in my life.

Your assertion that people in the CIA do not talk, when out of the CIA, is not correct. Go to Amazon and you will find books and books and books, some by ex-directors.

My point, as an eyewitness, was to give a personal view of what may be in store for some people. It is a warning. It is something that occurred a quarter century ago. John Kerry is still around. He is going to be the most feared and dangerous man in the US Senate. He is a vicious creep. He will ruin many a good man before he completes his service to the US.
Many other like-minded Democrats will assist him.

It is already starting:

At the Pentagon, Concern About Blame for the Situation in Iraq
New York Times

By THOM SHANKER
Published: November 10, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — As they scurried along 17½ miles of Pentagon corridors, civilian and military officials on Thursday held files stamped “Secret,” cups brimming with the piping coffee that fuels their efforts — and divided views of the hottest subject of all: Donald H. Rumsfeld’s departure.

Some had hoped for it, and others said the day had come too soon.

But with President Bush’s decision to change his defense secretary, people in uniform, especially, were asking whether the public would from now on blame the military for the morass of Iraq, despite Mr. Rumsfeld’s six-year domination of American military policy.

More than they may have feared, or even disliked, Mr. Rumsfeld as a boss, the officer corps fears the loss of public support. It is a lasting effect of the hated memories of how the military was viewed and treated by many in the public after the Vietnam War.

Within the Pentagon, an enormous labyrinth in which more than 20,000 people work, there is no single, dominant mood, any more than there is among the roughly 1.5 million people making up the active duty military today.

Some senior military officers have said that the administration has consciously sought to shift blame for the situation in Iraq onto specific recommendations and decisions from the armed services — or onto the reluctance of the officer corps to respond strongly against the views of the Pentagon civilians. That perspective is seconded even by some Pentagon civilians.