Sunday, February 19, 2006

Debating a Democrat

I'm sure you remember the "Stuck on Stupid" (9/27/05) picture of Cindy Sheehan leaning on Jesse Jackson. Well it's making the rounds again and generated a heated email exchange between Palos Verdes friend Tom, the Democrat, and your humble PV blogger. I think the debate is rather revealing. Here is Tom's first salvo.

Not having lost a child or been through a divorce I am not inclined to judge her (Sheehan). Similarly I am not inclined to judge someone who would serve his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery. (Newt, as I recall) These kinds of things are very personal and shouldn't become partisan, just like an accidental shooting shouldn't become partisan. Let's stay focused on the real issues and pointed toward the right result. Even if some of us may differ from time to time on the right path to a result I think we often agree on the result we want. A free and democratic Iraq would be a great result, but I for one still question whether it is worth a half a trillion dollars (your guy's current prediction), not to mention all the young lives either lost or ground up in the process. Let's send over a bunch of old guys instead. Indeed the Vice President seems pretty handy with a gun--let's send him. The old guys have less to lose and are much less important to our future. And they always seem to be enthusiastic about wars, so let them fight. A draft for all men over 50! I like it. Solves the need for troops and the ballooning costs of Medicare and Social Security all at once.

Tom compares Sheehan with Gingrich and is enthusiastic about drafting all men over 50. Reasonable? My response follows.

I believe that Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson are disgraceful anti-Americans. I would be horrified to know either one of them. But they are unimportant. Your view of the war, however, is a serious matter.

Like most Democrats and liberals, you make a fundamental mistake in assessing the war. You say that a free and democratic Iraq is not worth half a trillion dollars and the lives of 2200+ soldiers. The valid question is: What is it worth to avoid another 9/11 (or worse) attack on America?

Because of Clinton's inattention in the 1990s, we lost 3000 citizens on 9/11 and the economic cost measured in the $Trillions. Can you imagine the cost in lives and the economic cost if we were hit again with a dirty bomb, or a biological or chemical weapon? That would have happened already, in my opinion, if we had not invaded Iraq and killed a lot of the bad guys. Listen to the bin Laden videos or the Saddam tapes if you doubt their intentions.

You may have a different opinion, and that is the problem for Democrats. Until the Democratic Party reclaims the courage of Truman, Kennedy, and Lieberman, we will never let them back into the White House. So if you care about liberal social policies you would be better served by Democratic leaders who can be trusted to protect the country. Forget about Hillary.

Back to Tom.

I agree another 9-11 would be a terrible cost. It would cost more lives than Iraq and perhaps as much as 10% of the money Iraq has cost. If I thought Iraq were the enemy, I could understand the war better. Afghanistan harbored the Taliban and their training camps so that invasion made sense and many of us are not challenging it.

Saudi Arabia and UAE provided all of the terrorist killers for 9-11 and the money. Iraq did nothing as far as I have seen. Yet we attack it and Saudi Arabia and UAE get a free ride. I am still waiting for a good explanation of that enigma. You can't fight an effective war without identifying the enemy. And I don't believe the Saudi protestations that its citizens were just acting privately. Was it just a private flying club that attacked us on December 7th 1941? Nonsense. The Saudi government has funded and encouraged Wahhabi fanatics for years. With "friends" like Saudi Arabia and the UAE we don't need enemies.

But hey I stand by my plan to draft 50 plus year olds. They are always the most enthusiastic for war in every society and yet they are protected. In the old days when wars were fought on raw strength that made sense. But now it is all technology. The old folks have fewer years left so less would be lost and indeed they cost society more. OK I am a little tongue in cheek on this but it galls me to see Arab fanatics (all old guys) sending their young to die in suicide bombings and to at the same time see our elderly leaders sending young kids to die in a fight not focused on the real enemy.

Ok, so Tom thinks another 9/11 would cost around $50 Billion (10% of the Iraq war), that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and he really wants me to sign up.

Ah Tom,
It's the non-mathematical lawyer talking. You say a WMD attack on America would cost the economy 10% of the Iraq cost, when it would be more like 10 times the Iraq cost. Just imagine a nuke in LA, just one city. Forget about living or doing any business in LA County for years after. Up to one million people killed, 10 million out of their homes, many trillions of dollars lost in property values and many more trillions in business.

Debating Saudi Arabia, UAE, and the rest is a waste of time. Taking the war over there was the key rather than fighting it in America. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest of the Muslim mobsters had better wise up or they will be living in the Dark Ages with their dark age religion. The real enemy includes all the Islamic fanatics and if we kill them in Iraq that's just as good as killing them in Saudi Arabia.

And I think you are dead wrong about who supports the war. The old folks aren't the warriors. It's the kids like my grandson who signed up at 18, after 9/11, and millions more like him who are brave and believe in defending America.

Back to Tom.

I applaud your grandson for volunteering. But I submit that he is way more important to the future of this country than you are (and way more important than I am too.) We'd be better off with you and/or me fighting than him. It isn't the middle ages anymore and so our inability to put on armour and lift a heavy sword isn't a problem.

The choice of the real enemy is important. We didn't respond to Pearl Harbor by attacking Thailand on the grounds that the enemy was Asian and Buddhist. We responded to the Japanese. Iraq had no WMDs and no Wahhabis either. The 9-11 attackers were ALL Saudis and one UAE. But, of course, this administration is so closely tied to Saudi Arabia that any thought of attacking the real enemy must be set aside. For WMDs we need to focus as much on defense as offense. Where are the drugs for acute radiation poisoning? The administration won't fund them. The likely scenarios for a WMD are not the destruction of all of LA County--just areas near the Port (like us). In this case it's not the non-mathmematical lawyer talking, but the son of the physicist.

We need an open discussion of our priorities without dissenters being accused of being un-American so I appreciate your willingness to debate the issues. Everyone should be as intellectual about this as you are. And I do share the concern about Islam. If it is blasphemy to portray Mohammed poorly then it must be blasphemy to commit mass murder or launch suicide bombers in his name. And yet neither of the latter two things got the protests we are now seeing. Both got protests in their favor. That speaks volumes.

Now I'm starting to get worried. He's figured out that the nuke will be exploded in the harbor and only the South Bay (including us!!!) will be devastated and then calls me an intellectual; what nerve!

Do you actually know a soldier? Have you seen any films of the battles in Iraq? I've got to believe your answers are No and No or you could not possibly make such a silly suggestion. ( We'd be better off with you and/or me fighting than him. )

I need to introduce you to Col. Dave McCarthy who has been to Afghan once and Iraq twice and is expecting to go back again. He would tell you what fighting is all about. Or Cpl. Brian Weiss, age 30, who joined the Marines at 29 and is heading for Jbouti in North Africa. Brian is the guy who used to run the PV farmers market on Sundays. He would tell you about the training they get in hand-to-hand combat so they are prepared before they ever get into battle. Sgt. Johnny Walton (my grandson) could tell you what it's like to jump out of an airplane carrying an M16 and an 80 pound pack.

I'd bet a lot that even a biker/swimmer such as you would not make it through basic training. As for me, fugetaboutit!! So let's not waste any more time on silliness.

I beg you to get serious about the real enemy (The 9-11 attackers were ALL Saudis and one UAE.) Do you expect me to believe that you would be right behind the war effort if we had attacked Saudi Arabia and the UAE instead of Iraq? That is very disingenuous!!

We attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. And Bush made clear at the time that if you are a State supporting terrorists you were on our list (the Axis of Evil). Iraq was number one because it (1) was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire; (2) had been firing on US planes for a decade; (3) was in violation of 17 or so UN resolutions; (4) paid the families of Hammas suicide bombers; (5) was re-arming aided by corrupt governments (France, Russia, China to name a few) using the oil-for-food mechanism, while their people were suffering; (6) were likely working on WMD programs; (Want to bet that the WMD materials show up in Syria. The Saddam tapes point in that direction.) and finally, (7) We had to start somewhere and Iraq is a strategically good place.

As for defence, I agree that much more needs to be done. First we need to secure the borders. Do you support a security fence along the Mexican border? Do you support racial profiling at airports, etc.? Politics is getting in the way of our defence. Look at the misery the Administration is taking over the wire-tapping of overseas calls between foreign terrorists and their agents in the US. In the past such defensive activities would be roundly supported by both political parties. I blame the Democrats for this huge problem. I too would like drugs for acute radiation poisoning but it is a matter of cost/benefit tradeoff and I would prefer that we spend the money on stopping the bomb before it goes off.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that these are the kinds of discussions that should be happening all over the country, especially in the Congress. Let's write our Senators Boxer and Feinstein with that message; a letter signed by Tom and Bill.
Now that would speak volumes!

Tom's next edition is in the comments. But I am getting frustrated and may not respond. Tom is a smart guy and a friend. What should I do? What would you do?


Anonymous Anonymous said...


My answers are actually Yes and Yes. Of course trained soldiers are better than amateurs and certain minimum standards need to be met, so neither you nor I will do. But the old guys can be trained too and many will meet the minimum standards. And I stand by my statement that your grandson's survival is more important to society than your survival or mine. Surely we agree on that. It says something about a society that sacrifices its youth when older people would do just fine for many of the tasks at hand. The issue isn't just who is the best soldier, but also who can society best afford to sacrifice. Too many old guys seem very enthusiatic about war. Too enthusiatic. Let them bear some of the consequences. If the casualty rate goes up, so what? It saves money on Medicare and Social Security. OK, true I am being a little tounge in cheeck here but I do think we need to reexamine our priorities and that's my point.

I would have supported a real effort to isolate Saudi Arabia and the UAE and if they didn't cooperate, military force. But again, the strong links between this administration, the oil industry and Suadi Arabia make a tough approach with them impossible. We can't even hold the Bin Laden family as material witnesses or get cooperation on the issues of funding terrorism from the Saudis. Focusing on the wrong enemy because they are an easier target strategically makes no sense. Afghanistan was a good choice because it harbored terrorists. I don't question that. But Iraq? It's all just a bunch of unproven speculation. Even this administration has admitted as much. In Word War II had we decided that island hopping toward Japan was too tough and focused on easier "enemies" instead, we never would have taken a lot longer to end the war. But then this iadministration has no interest in ending the war. That's why we are staying in Iraq in the middle of a civil war where no one is on our side. Like Doonesbury I owe Bush Sr. a big apology. He had the wisdom to handle Iraq correctly and the ethics to avoid torturing our prisoners and the common sense to set an obtainable goal and end the bleeding when the goal was achieved. His son is only a pale shadow of the leadership he offered. Sometimes it takes really poor leadership to reveal the strengths of someone who seemed mediocre at the time. To some degree Clinton and to a great degree Bush Jr. make Bush Sr. look pretty darn good. Or so I suspect history will conclude.

I have always supported profiling at airports (racial and otherwise) to make the best use of our time. If a plane is half full of elderly Pennsylvania Duth ladies like my aunts on their way to a quilting bee and a bunch of single young Arabs going to flight school, I know who I want to have searched.

Believe all you want about stopping the bombs. You may be OK. but I may well not be be and your grandson probably won't be. It's a question of time. (Again this is the son of a physicist talking and that was his view well before he died in 1987.) I am pretty sure the Port of LA is a problem. But this administration is spending half of the Homeland Security money under a formula that gives an equal amount to each state regardless of population. So Wyoming gets an enormous amount of money. But maybe they need it since they have residents who shoot people on hunting trips even when those people are wearing ORANGE JACKETS! Republican Congressman Chris Cox was leading the effort against this waste, ut now he is at the SEC. Oh well. I still want my drugs for acute radiation poisoning.

It's not just Feinstein and Boxer who need letters, but the rural state yahoos (mostly Republicans) who insist that Wyoming needs money to fight terrorism while your home town right next to the Port of LA and the Port itself, make do with nothing (for RPV) and very little (for the Port).


2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I learned a long time ago you cannot debate, argue with fools and idiots. If you want to keep this person's friendship, then never discuss politics, however, are you sure you want to retain the friendship? Have a great week end.


2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah Bill, and I'm PV guy who served in Iraq as an Army physician. I'd love to show you some photos of our young boys and girls missing arms/legs/faces with their brains oozing out of their heads. Not to mention the several dozen Iraqi children I treated for serious wounds. You really need a reality check on your stance here. Killing 30000 Iraqis, spending $1 trillion and losing 2000 of our best and brightest is not the way to spread democracy.

2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not at all surprised by Tom's thinking, it’s the same “lost in the sauce” thinking I hear all too often. He acts as if closing with and destroying all of the bad guys doesn’t make sense or make the US any safer. I think Dave and I would agree that it would be much easier if the bad guys all wore uniforms and actually declared war, but we will take it as we get it. It is clear to me as a Marine that my “enemy” is anyone who can make America suffer in any way. I do not care if they are backed by a government or wear uniforms, their intentions are clear to me, and I know that their eradication is what is most important. Where they hail from is unimportant to me, if they take up arms against the US or our interests I’m game. As President Bush said, its better to fight them there in their land than wait for them to come to us. Our mission in Iraq is extremely important for our future stability. My only wish is that we could leave the politics out of the war. Let the military do what they do best, and fix the rest after the dust settles. The longer we let any extreme group fester, the stronger they get. I am not opposed to using words with rational people, but so far all of the extremists only understand one thing, greater violence!

I hope all is well with all of you.

Brian Weiss

5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The nations (and we as individuals) debate and debate and debate. Too much dishonesty, greed and evil has permeated our world...and we've allowed it. So now we must fight it and hopefully it will not be a fight within our borders.

As a reminder, I post here what I was told in the late '80s by a middle eastern man..."we're not here to live, we're here to take over." Wake up and smell the terrorism.


6:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, What's your response to this report...since you seem to blame Clinton for everything?

E.J. Saperstein


On May 16th, 2002, Rice said “I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"[CBS News, 5/17/02]. But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport,” [Reuters, 7/24/03]. More specifically, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” [ABC News, 5/16/03]

9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Why do you still keep trying to put lipstick on the Bush/Cheney pig? Your first six reasons for the invasion of Iraq are highly questionable, and the seventh is an outrage:

"We had to start somewhere and Iraq is a strategically good place."

What kind of reason is this for invading a country that has been proved to be no threat to the US? Substitute "New York" for "Iraq" and it sounds like the rationale Al Qaeda might have used for 9/11.

Your words illustrate very clearly why the U.S. is (1) no safer from terrorism than it was 5 years ago, and (2) loathed so strongly throughout much of the world.


9:42 AM  
Blogger Ralph said...

You are attracting Aaron's moonbats. He will never forgive you.

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Ray Rose said...


I’d suggest you review Ann Coulter’s book ‘How to talk to a liberal, If you must!’ but you say this guy is a friend and you may loose your intellectual sparring partner if you use too much of Ann’s advice. It looks to me like you’ve hit most of the points that need hit. Here are a few things I’d like to point out:

Iraq gave us a great place to ‘take the fight to the enemy’. It allowed us to create a Terrorist Trap. Iraq sucks in the radical Islamists so we can bludgeon them with the most effective military in the world. This is a much better option than dealing with them here at home in our cities full of innocent civilians.

We don’t need to invade Saudi Arabia or the UAE because we have peaceful diplomatic ties with them. That alone allows us to influence their policies. Besides, In the near future, they will have a thriving democracy for a neighbor (Iraq) that will show their peoples the power of Freedom.

Draft 50+ year olds? He can’t be serious! While thinning out the Baby Boomers might go a long way toward cleaning up the Medicare and Social Security crisis; I know it would be a damn good way to increase our casualty count to something approaching that of the enemies. I think I read somewhere that theirs is something like 100 times higher.

I got out of the Navy about 12 years ago and can tell you that once a Sailor, Soldier, or Airman get over 30 they, generally speaking, are no good for the front lines. They make good assets in the rear, planning and directing, but no longer have what it takes to be a pair of boots on the ground. I know there are exceptions, but we need to remember that those people are truly exceptional. Many of the 50+ year olds I know spend their time between naps complaining about aches and pains. They are not war fighting material.

Wait a minute; did Tom (a liberal) just admit that there is actually a problem with Medicare and Social Security? Maybe you are getting through a little after all, Bill.

Ray Rose
Gulf War Vet

5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Outstanding letter and logic. Doubt whether you converted him...join the crowd. Keep trying.

Tom R.

7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom is a typical Liberal. His argument is a moving target. As soon as you take him to task on one issue he moves it to another. What does going to war with Saudi Arabia and UAE have to do with whether we should be in Iraq? It seems to me that Tom sees it as an " either/or " which it is not. Further, I can tell you we saw almost 4 years of constricted economic activity after 9/11 because Industry Leaders were scared that another " 9/11 " might happen and the economy would tank. Even today, my clients say things are looking good long as we don't get another 9/11. To what extent is that fear controlling their willingness to spend money on new ideas, expansion, new hires? I do not know but, to tell me it is not having some effect is ludicrous. If it happens, again, this economy will shut down. 1932 will look like a mild recession in comparison. You should dig up the figures on what Katrina cost this economy and it was natural. Imagine if it were a planned attack.

Hope to see you later this year.


7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I just did a quick check through the internet and sources estimate that Katrina will cost approx. $200 billion. Imagine and there is not fear factor in play for the rest of the Country. What would it cost if across America we were scared that the next attack might happen by each of us? We would be nearly paralyzed. Corporations would scale back drastically anticipating a slowdown, people would stop buying and start hording. Like I said, 1932 would pale by comparison and Tom is either too much a Democratic chauvinist or too mentally handicapped to see that. I can attest that right after 9/11 Corporate hiring went to near zero for over 12 months and did not start to come back till about a year ago, or less. As a result of 9/11, we had massive layoffs, no hiring and a tanked consumer confidence.
Next time.....Oh, My God!


7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GIVE ‘EM HELL BILL!! As for, "we will never let them back into the White House", I hope and pray every single day that you are right, and I will work tirelessly to see that they are never back in the White House. Your friend’s arguments about letting the older folks do the fighting is as old as war, and likely will always be around. You’re 100% right: it’s a ridiculous line of thought (I refuse to call it a line of reasoning).

I honestly don’t know how you can have a dialog with someone like this; you’re using logic, reason and rationale, all of which are foreign to these types of people. You’re having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Keep the faith and keep up the fight my Good Friend!


7:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Sorry to say, do not waste your time on Tom. The liberals I know are all smart guys. Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin were smart guys. Woodrow Wilson was a smart guy. Hell, Jimmy Carter was a smart guy. Like a lot of smart people, they simply lack common sense.

The problem is that liberalism is a secular, albeit intolerant, religion, complete with dogma and taboos. Conservatism is simply a reaction to that religion. You cannot reason with people who are in love, whether with another person, or with themselves. Liberals are the intellectual descendants of Rousseau. Their core belief is Reason, a tragically misplaced understanding of human nature. Their hearts burn with the blind passion of leftist faith. All facts must be subverted to the greater good. They are like the tone deaf child, who sings loudly off-key, and dreams of someday performing at the Met.

Lovers of the perfect society they know they could make if only others would follow, they project their own idealism on to the object of their affection, in this case upon a hugely imperfect humanity. That is why they believe that deviant criminals can be rehabilliated, are against the death penalty even for people who commit murder in prison, fantacize about world government, are devoutly pacificistic, and continue to look for the magic programs that will close the gap between the rich and the poor. (Actually, Marxism succeeds at this. Everyone is poor.) They trusted Stalin, admired Mao, and were charmed by Fidel. After all, state-sponsored murder aside, their goals were pure, noble, worthy. Surely our persistent diplomacy would have also made them nice. Just like it made Adolph nice. And Benito nice. And Tojo nice. Saddam would have been nice, too, if we had been nicer to him. Now look what we have gone and done.

Surrounded by others of their ilk, including a feverishly proselytizing academy and a national media no less zealous and socially tedious than the folks wishing to save you from etermal damnation who appear on your doorstep on Sunday afternoons, liberals seek to bear witness to progressive truths at every opportunity. They do not understand people, and the American people least of all, which is why they are destined to fail in next fall's election. And, once again, they will bitterly blame everyone but themselves. It is impossible to reason with the Toms of this world. Let him therefore straighten his tie, get back on his bicycle, and push another door bell for The Cause. It will make him feel good about himself (the best part of being a liberal), even as he feels bad about you.


7:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would drop the debates between you and Tom, you are too biased to listen to his point of view. You "intellectual"? Come on, an intellectual is a reasonable person which you are not. Your consevative "tunnel vision" is beyond repair. GO TOM.


7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, great post on your debate with Tom. Really enjoyed it.


10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael Medved addressed the latest liberal complaint that the Iraq war has cost half a trillion dollars... the figure is in fact around (I think) $440 billion, but that includes the total cost so far for Iraq AND Afganistan, and before the libs get a chance to say it, Afganistan is a big chunk of the total.


10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you really need all these conservative voices to back you up? As for the cost of the iraq war, I would refer you to the estimate of the cost by a Nobel Prize winning economist,0,7038018.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
John, you use Michael Medved as your source of information? This is the same guy who touts "intelligent design". Please don't tell me you're a creationist!As for sucking in the terrorists into Iraq so we don't have to fight them over here is just so plainly dumb as to barely justify a response. So when would the terrorism end and when could we leave Iraq? Terrorism and Islamofascism will not end with invading Iraq. Iraq had no operational relationship with Al-Qaeda and was not involved with 9/11. This is not "liberalism" These are facts, and no amount of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Medved can change that.

10:54 AM  
Anonymous Ray said...

Apparently Andy and some other liberal readers need a brief history lesson to put reality into context. Let's review a little timeline that demonstrates terrorist atttacks on US interests:

1983 US Embassy, Beirut
1983 US Marine barracks, Beirut
1986 Pan Am flight 73
1986 Pan Am flight 840
1988 Pan AM flight 103
1993 World Trade Center
1995 Oklahoma City Murrah Building
1996 Khobar Towers
1997 Empire State Building shooting
1988 US Embassy bombings, Tanzania and Kenya
1999 Foiled Bomb attempt on LAX
2000 Several millennium attacks, some foiled
2000 USS Cole bombing
2001 September 11
2001 Anthrax attack on US Congress and NY State government
2002 bomb outside US Consulate, Karachi (no US citizens killed)
2003 Riyahad Compound bombing
2004 US Consulate, Jeddah bombing (no US citizens killed)

Now, give that timeline a close look. Any buffoon will notice that after we took the fight to the enemy, we've been much safer here in the homeland.

The Terrorist Trap is working!


10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see:
Oklahoma City that was by an American (McVeigh I believe?)
Anthrax attack: We still don't know who did that
Most of the attacks you refer to were not on American soil, and were pre-9/11. I still don't understand what evidence you have that the Iraq war has made us safer. Terrorism worldwide is up (ie.London, Madrid) If you're right and we have to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism, how long do we have to stay? By your definition, it would be forever. And if the whole point of the Iraq War was to make a "Terrorist Trap", why didn't the Pres just say so at the start? Why talk about WMD's if the whole point was to trap terrorists? I gave the timeline a close look, and nothing in there would justify invading a country with no WMDs and no ties to islamic terrorism.
Your little "history lesson" is a bit too simplistic.

1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to come back to this idea -

Where are the drugs for acute radiation poisoning? The administration won't fund them.

I believe the outlook for such drugs is not good, based upon an understanding like this -

Is there something, aside from the opinion of a nuclear physicist, that suggests that drugs could be developed?

When the next Big One hits LA or San Francisco, the liberals will scream that Bush could have reinforced every structure on the west coast. Shall we start on that now? I don't believe we can afford that much government.


11:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home