The Hannity quote was made on his show of 4/6/99 after the US was involved. (Fox only links back to 2005) My memory is that this talk was continuous throughout the conflict but I don't have access to LexisNexis where I am. If you have access it should be easy to find them.

Or am I to accept your assertions as fact, without your having provided any?

Specifically, republicans were critical of the move in Bosnia before we went in, and before we had troops on the ground, after which the criticisms ceased.

That is patently untrue. Several of the quotes I provided above were made when US troops were in harms way. The same is true of comments made by these same people and others during the conflict in Somalia. They are shameless hypocrites and by their own professed standard un-American.

Bit,
Why don't you supply some quotes from prominent Democrats at the time demonizing Republicans as unpatriotic, un-American, or treasonous for criticizing the president when our troops were in harms way? I'll be waiting.

Perhaps you didn't notice the difference involved in the criticism; Specifically, republicans were critical of the move in Bosnia before we went in, and before we had troops on the ground, after which the criticisms ceased. Not so, with the democrats. They were cheerleaders along with everybody else about how the policy in Iraq was the correct one. It was only after we became involved with the battle that they started turning their more traditional yellow hue.

*****Kucinich for a relatively high profile example. For lower profile examples, from what I've seen here Tano and legion fit the bill. Now either prove that they are not engaging in honest debate, vote for a Democratic president in '08, or prove that you are a liar.*****

haha

OK, you got me, not that I believe that they are engaging in debate for honest reasons but that all three are crazy enough to believe that they are being honest when they say what they believe, and you will be happy to know I just voted in a poll that said I would prefer Obama over Clinton for pres. in 08, since once again you have changed the meaning of the offer, I was doing my best liberal interpretation of what you would have of me.

****There totalitarians of both sides of the political spectrum. If you were at all honest you would admit this, but you are not so you won't.****

On this point I will agree with you, but if you can not see the this,that all the democratic leader ship, the elite media, and the teachers unions, along with most of their supports(willingly or unknowingly) use this mode of operation as the main platform and daily way of going about gaining and keeping their power you really have a lot of waking up to do my friend.

you show me a liberal, just one, engaged in a honest debate, I'll vote for the Democrat of your choice.

Kucinich for a relatively high profile example. For lower profile examples, from what I've seen here Tano and legion fit the bill. Now either prove that they are not engaging in honest debate, vote for a Democratic president in '08, or prove that you are a liar.

There totalitarians of both sides of the political spectrum. If you were at all honest you would admit this, but you are not so you won't.

you show me a liberal, just one, engaged in a honest debate, I'll vote for the Democrat of your choice.

You've got mighty thin skin for someone with such a big mouth.
I'm perfectly well aware of when and why I am being insulting. I generally avoid insulting comments with anyone who is engaging in honest debate and is not bandying about invective. From what I've seen here you rarely ever engage in honest debate and almost always go heavy on the invective thus my treatment of you.

fun is fun, silly is silly, that crap you think is debate whatever, but..

you are getting pretty bold with that middle school playground talk Gilly.

Totalitarian:Designating or characteristic of a government controlled exclusively by one party or faction that suppresses political dissent by force or intimidation and whose power to control the economic,social, and intellectual life of the individuals is virtually unlimited. =liberal.

Dude buy a dictionary.

and welcome once again to words have meaning!

GA,

Liberal or Conservative you tell me?

Totalitarian, leaning towards conservative.

The book is tripe. I would debate you further on it but that would necessitate me reading over it again and once was more than enough.

If you want to read some quality science fiction you could try: Heinlein, Card, Stephenson, Herbert, and Doria to start.

oh and what in the great blue hell is a middle school?

7-9th grades. Between grammar school and high school, thus the designation middle. This distinction is made more in the West than the East.

and because most of you liberals think your so much smarter then the rest of us is why you cant tell when your being insulting, and why you guys always say I was just stating...

You've got mighty thin skin for someone with such a big mouth.
I'm perfectly well aware of when and why I am being insulting. I generally avoid insulting comments with anyone who is engaging in honest debate and is not bandying about invective. From what I've seen here you rarely ever engage in honest debate and almost always go heavy on the invective thus my treatment of you.

you are are never going to get that I know what your doing and why, and have already explained to you that you are miss using the situations.

and now your getting a little closer to Johny and Terl's parts but you have missed what Johny becomes and why Terl is like he is. But that's about it.

The Pyclo, start as Hypnotists , who through mind implants use behavioral control to keep totalitarian Domination over their populace, not to mention that these same mind implants bring death to any who would betray and give away the secrets of their Religion of science and mathematics.

Liberal or Conservative you tell me?

the hero becomes, a warrior/scholar, a free-er of slaves and the leader of the resistance and then the father to the new would.

wonder what communist manifesto L.Ron got the inspiration for this character from.

but then you tell me I see only what I want to see when your whole interpretation of this book amounts to a handful of communist and or liberal talking points and or learned thought patterns:

corporate overlords
polluted resources
hierarchical corporate power structure
surveillance of everyone he perceived as a potential enemy.
overthrown by their workers
extracting minerals from the land of conquered people.
militaristic

once again you justify what I have said about you and most other indoctrinated liberals.

oh and what in the great blue hell is a middle school?

and because most of you liberals think your so much smarter then the rest of us is why you cant tell when your being insulting, and why you guys always say I was just stating...

And I'm sorry you don't like me Donkey lingo, oh And I know perfectly well that you cant win an argument with a liberal.

The Democrats were not uniformly on board with Clinton's handling of Somalia and, more importantly to this discussion, the Democrats did not demonize opposition to this operation as unpatriotic and un-American or tantamount to treason.

I accept as a given that Bill Clinton had to deal with the "peace at all costs" idiots in his own party.

I most certainly do not, however, accept the idea that the democrats didn't demonize their opposition as anti American ; they most certainly did. I wrote about it at that time. The charge was also laid at the feet of the republicans that they were being political opportunist in the matter.

Try again.

Only if you're prepared to explain the democrats supporting our military actions then, and not now.

The Democrats were not uniformly on board with Clinton's handling of Somalia and, more importantly to this discussion, the Democrats did not demonize opposition to this operation as unpatriotic and un-American or tantamount to treason. The Republicans until quite recently have backed Bush's policies regardless of their merit and have demonized opposition to this conflict as unpatriotic, un-American, and tantamount to treason.

If anyone has serious disagreement with any government policy they should speak out. This is the essence of being a good citizen in a representative democracy.

So again the box is wide open and what has come out hurts your position and supports mine.

Another example of this same hypocrisy for you. These same Republicans vociferously criticized Clinton and his handling of the situation in Somalia calling for immediate withdrawal of US troops while American troops were in harms way. I await your excuse for this behavior.

Only if you're prepared to explain the democrats supporting our military actions then, and not now.
As I say, are you sure that's a box you wanna open, Pandora?

Re: Hubbard book
The hero was a rebel in his own community and defied the traditions and religion of his community to set out into the world.
The villains in general were a militaristic, authoritarian race with a rigidly hierarchical corporate power structure that was obsessed with security and extracting minerals from the land of conquered people.
The primary villain was the head of security of one of their colonies. He was obsessed with secrecy and surveillance of everyone he perceived as a potential enemy.
And you see the villains here as liberal and the hero as conservative. You truly see only what you wish to see.

Re: my "regulating how science should be written." I merely said that good science fiction should at a minimum have good science or good fiction. You apparently disagree and think that good science fiction requires neither good science nor good fiction.

Your argumentation amounts to little more than middle school name calling. If you can't win an argument on the merits you resort to some combination of donkey, poop, communist.

But then you twist an obviously great action story about a lone American hero facing an entire race of mind controlling space liberals who rule their civilization with a social elite hierarchy that that keeps total domination with its religion of science, not to mention that the companion to hero of story, is one these creatures, and the only reason he is not like them is because he is an abortion survivor......Leninist parable indeed.

Plus now your are going to go and start belittling my tastes and regulating how science fiction books should be written.

Its funny how every time one of donksters tries to tell me I'm wrong or wrong about you, you cant help but get that hoof a little farther past them big floppy ears and and down the throat that's behind that big old buck tooth poop eating grin.

No it had to do with why we are there, under who's command and why our troops were in harms way.

Obviously you read none of the quotes. Once again, not one dealt even periferally with the issue you bring up. Even if that were the case American troops were in harms way and most of the people quoted have since said that opposing a war when troops are in harms way is unpatriotic, un-American and/or tantamount to treason. There is no two ways about it. By their own standard they are unpatriotic, un-American, and perhaps treasonous.

If you are going to try to say that they were talking about the controversy surrounding command vs operational control then you need to explain how any of the quotes I supplied could be contrued that way.

And that was a good book...

Your taste in literature is about as refined as your rhetorical skills. At a minimum good science fiction needs to have either good science or good fiction, preferably both. Hubbard's book had neither and managed to stretch a what by all rights should have been no more than 200 pages into over a thousand. I'm a bit surprised you liked given that the corporate overlords are overthrown by their workers with the poluted recourses they have been forced to extract. It is clearly a Leninist parable.