Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget

[BlueTalon]

The excuse Talon tried isn't a valid one either, because we can sweeten the pot for recruitment, and give our soldiers a nice signing bonus, and other incentives. If we need the troops, we can get them.

Ahem... that's being done. (And my prior statements aren't invalid simply because you say so.)

If you seriously think that the military climate under Clinton was the same or comparable to the military climate under Bush, then your brain clutch is slipping.

[chomerics]

Ahem... that's being done. (And my prior statements aren't invalid simply because you say so.)

What are we doing to get recruits to sign up? We can get as many troops as we need, hell we could have a draft if we needed troops bad enough. Do you want to know how to get kids to sign up? Give them an education to a school they got rejected from. Get them into the school, and they'll sign up. they'll probably work 10X as hard because they'll have something to prove. There are numerous ways to get troops, our government just lacks the ability to think differently.

If you seriously think that the military climate under Clinton was the same or comparable to the military climate under Bush, then your brain clutch is slipping.

I never made any such contention, I argued that if the military was so undermanned during Clintons tenure, how come Bush hasn't raised troop levels by at least 100K? Sarge said the problem with fighting two wars was that the military was gutted, but the troop levels are lower now then in 1999, so what gives?

[Mad Mike]

Let me get this straight, It's the REPUBLICANS fault for not getting Bin Laden during the Clinton administration as well as failing to get him during the Bush Admin....Well I'll be. Democrates must the best people to ever set foot on this planet. They don't do anything wrong do they?

Come on Chom, instead of your CONSTANT complaining about the Admin, why don't you tell us how YOU would have done it.

Better yet, tell us what you are doing to help since EVERYTHING that happens under the bush admin you have a problem with.

I'm going to say something that is almost never true. Chom is correct.... to a point.

The republicans WERE more concerned with Clintons BJ than getting bin Laden. I remember because it ticked me right-the-he!! off. The problem is that Chom's logic fails from there on out.

It was still up to Clinton to do his job regardless of what the anyone said. And no, a cruise missile strike followed by a shrug does not cut it. Thus the comments of the 9/11 commission... "We must then ask when the U.S. government had reasonable opportunities to mobilize the country for major action against al Qaeda and its Afghan sanctuary. The main opportunities came after the new information the U.S. government received in 1996–1997, after the embassy bombings of August 1998, after the discoveries of the Jordanian and Ressam plots in late 1999, and after the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000." Too bad Clinton did not apply his considerable power of persuasion to convincing America of the need to get bin Laden and instead used it to con a few BJ's off of an idiot intern knowing full well that he was risking the effectiveness of his Presidency should he be caught.

[chomerics]

I'm going to say something that is almost never true. Chom is correct....

. . . . . . . to a point.

The republicans WERE more concerned with Clintons BJ than getting bin Laden. I remember because it ticked me right-the-he!! off. The problem is that Chom's logic fails from there on out.

It was still up to Clinton to do his job regardless of what the anyone said.

I agree with you here as well (minus the logic bit). I think he should have done more in hindsight, but he wanted to get him, there is no question. He knew the threat Bin Laden posed, but he didn't act as quick as he should have. He started a special unit to get the ****, but he didn't get him.

[Mad Mike]

What are we doing to get recruits to sign up? We can get as many troops as we need, hell we could have a draft if we needed troops bad enough. Do you want to know how to get kids to sign up? Give them an education to a school they got rejected from. Get them into the school, and they'll sign up. they'll probably work 10X as hard because they'll have something to prove. There are numerous ways to get troops, our government just lacks the ability to think differently.

Brilliant! (note the sarcasm) Your first sugestion would lower the quality of our military by introducing troops who do not want to be there and your second solution is for the government to force private institutions to accept any stiudent that the government wants to force on them. I think I can speak for all rational people when I say... Duher :dunce:

I never made any such contention, I argued that if the military was so undermanned during Clintons tenure, how come Bush hasn't raised troop levels by at least 100K? Sarge said the problem with fighting two wars was that the military was gutted, but the troop levels are lower now then in 1999, so what gives?

[chomerics]

Brilliant! (note the sarcasm) Your first sugestion would lower the quality of our military by introducing troops who do not want to be there and your second solution is for the government to force private institutions to accept any stiudent that the government wants to force on them. I think I can speak for all rational people when I say... Duher :dunce:

You know Mike, I thought for once, you actually had seen a tiny shred of light, but no, you are in way to deep to see that. Now you are saying that we can't get military troops, and my ideas to bring people into the military won't work. So what won't work?

There aren't ROTC quarters in almost every college in the country? Well fund it and increase it. This will get a bunch of people who WANT to go into the military, to go. It will give kids an opportunity to get an education at a school as well as serve our country. We get to train these kids, and we have them for four years. It's a win-win situation. It creates an educated society, as well as one with discipline from the military. It solves a number of problems, but no, you'll continue to follow along the path of Bush and his minions. Go right ahead Mike, You should be able to see the cliff by now, it's not too much farther, and you can follow him right off.

[Mad Mike]

You know Mike, I thought for once, you actually had seen a tiny shred of light, but no, you are in way to deep to see that. Now you are saying that we can't get military troops, and my ideas to bring people into the military won't work. So what won't work?

There aren't ROTC quarters in almost every college in the country? Well fund it and increase it. This will get a bunch of people who WANT to go into the military, to go. It will give kids an opertunity to get an education at a school as well as serve our country. We get to train these kids, and we have them for four years. It's a win-win situation. It creates an educated socitey, as well as one with discipline from the military. It solves a number of problems, but no, you'll continue to follow along the path of Bush and his minions. Go right ahead Mike, You should be able to see the cliff by now, it's not to much farther, you can follow him right off.

Dude I think you have fallen right off that cliff onto your head. Your earlier examples wont work for the reasons I have given. "Give them an education to a school they got rejected from." :laugh: Just admit that it was a stupid idea. The government has no business telling private institutions who they have to accept based upon the fact that they joined the military. :doh1: You know damned well If Bush were to suggest that, you would write a 100 word essay saying what a moronic idea it was.

The "ideas" you have listed in this post have been used for decades. Where have you been. :doh:

The fact is that the Military has been working hard in their recruiting efforts but there is an active effort to counter act those efforts by the anti war movement. The net result is that while recruitment is down, so far neither side has gained a real advantage and recuitment has neither increased or decreased by a great amount. On the other hand the Military has been very smart and very effective in it's efforts to retain it's experienced soldiers. In times of war, those are the people we need most.

[chomerics]

Dude I think you have fallen right off that cliff onto your head. Your earlier examples wont work for the reasons I have given. "Give them an education to a school they got rejected from." :laugh: Just admit that it was a stupid idea. The government has no business telling private institutions who they have to accept based upon the fact that they joined the military. :doh1: You know damned well If Bush were to suggest that, you would write a 100 word essay saying what a moronic idea it was.

The "ideas" you have listed in this post have been used for decades. Where have you been. :doh:

The fact is that the Military has been working hard in their recruiting efforts but there is an active effort to counter act those efforts by the anti war movement. The net result is that while recruitment is down, so far neither side has gained a real advantage and recuitment has neither increased or decreased by a great amount. On the other hand the Military has been very smart and very effective in it's efforts to retain it's experienced soldiers. In times of war, those are the people we need most.

You can cry all you want, but the simple fact is if you have a job to do, you can get people to do it. You up the ante, the fact that they haven't increased troop numbers just goes to show you they have no idea how to run a bakery let alone a government. They can get soldiers whenever they want, hell they get truck drivers in Iraq, they can damn well get soldiers, if you think they can't, you are wrong. You can get a person to do anything you want then to do. As for your ideas? Oh yea, more of the same :doh: In otherwords, no ideas.

[Sarge]

Sarge, on page 56, it lists the total amount of troops from 99' to 05'. Starting at 99, the first year listed, there were 360,590 troops. In 05' there were 359,700 troops. This is a net decrease of 790 troops from 1999 to 2005. The reserves were just as I listed it as well. If you take from when Bush took office in 00, it is a slight increase of troops, but nowhere near the 100K I'd expect.

The jump in strength of 15K had to do with 9-11, as there was a large influx of people who wanted to join like Pat Tilman, but the number of active troops has since decreased to 1999 levels.

Do you see why I ased you this question? You are contending that Bush didn't have the military because of Clinton. You claimed that we were shortstaffed because of Clinton, but the numbers tell a more interesting story. If we were short staffed as you say, how come we are still at the same levels? Why haven't we increased troop strength by 60K bare minimum?

The excuse Talon tried isn't a valid one either, because we can sweeten the pot for recruitment, and give our soldiers a nice signing bonus, and other incentives. If we need the troops, we can get them.

It's as I said in one of my posts. The choice is between people or equipment. That's budgetary reality. It's also called stewardship of the military. The troops and the nation 10 years from now will thank this administration for making this choice.

Our stuff, as laid out in those charts in Airman magazine, is old. It can't go on forever, no matter how much TLC you put into it

It's like you and I and our vehicles. If you have a new car, and I have still have my 64 Mustang, there diferences in what we have to do for maintainence. You probably have to take your car in for regular oil changes. I change my oil on a regular basis as well, but I also just replaced my fuel tank sending unit and brake light switch.

It's the same for aircraft or any other piece of military equipment. THe older it is , the more maintenance is involved, which take more manpower and more time

So again, knowing the sevice life is either rapidly approaching for some of our stuff or knowing it's already gone past, it's time to replace our stuff.

Again, if this had been done in the 90's, we wouldn't be having this problem

So, this year the Air Force dropped 10,000. It sucks for the people left behind, because now I not only have to do my job, but someone else's as well. But it's paying for stuff that I'll never see, but will probably either save some airman's life 10 years from now or send some arsehole to meet Lucifer in the future

[chomerics]

It's as I said in one of my posts. The choice is between people or equipment. That's budgetary reality. It's also called stewardship of the military. The troops and the nation 10 years from now will thank this administration for making this choice.

Our stuff, as laid out in those charts in Airman magazine, is old. It can't go on forever, no matter how much TLC you put into it

It's like you and I and our vehicles. If you have a new car, and I have still have my 64 Mustang, there diferences in what we have to do for maintainence. You probably have to take your car in for regular oil changes. I change my oil on a regular basis as well, but I also just replaced my fuel tank sending unit and brake light switch.

It's the same for aircraft or any other piece of military equipment. THe older it is , the more maintenance is involved, which take more manpower and more time

So again, knowing the sevice life is either rapidly approaching for some of our stuff or knowing it's already gone past, it's time to replace our stuff.

Again, if this had been done in the 90's, we wouldn't be having this problem

So, this year the Air Force dropped 10,000. It sucks for the people left behind, because now I not only have to do my job, but someone else's as well. But it's paying for stuff that I'll never see, but will probably either save some airman's life 10 years from now or send some arsehole to meet Lucifer in the future

Sarge, I understand the bugetary process, but we have increased the military's budget by $100billion dollars in less then 5 years. That is a hell of a lot of money. This has been my contention with the way the military is run; I don't think the brass and the Pentagon spend their money either wisely or cautiously. They waste money like it is going out of style, and they never give the soldiers the support they need.

Personally, I think the military should invest in the soldier, not in the $100billion dollar weapons program that may or may not work. The cost-benifit analysis isn't even close to being worth it, but they just ignore anyone who says it isn't a good idea. They plow ahead and throw money at the problem, while other areas, such as soldiers, suffer.

If you want to b!tch about Clinton cutting the military, that is your perrogative, but it isn't completely true to say that Bush can't handle two wars at once because of Clinton. If Bush wanted to, he could have restored troop levels to where they needed to be in order to accomplish his goals, he didn't. It is easier to blame the previous guy, but when you are guilty of the same thing, not hiring more troops, then you deserve some as well.

[big z]

okay, many many valid points...where to start...here we go...

Really, kind of revisioninst history Z, because if you remember it was REPUBLICANS, like yourself, who were MUCH more concerned with Clinton getting a hummer then trying to get Bin Laden.

I guess you don't remember the wag the dog comments do ya :doh:

no. not revisinist history. all the bloodhounds after Clinton for such a trivial and idiotic mistake are idiots themselves. The man had a country to run. Them taking him away from it just magnified His mistake even more for their own benefit. I could see the point before his 2nd term...they were trying to mudsling to get him out of office...but once his 2nd term started...he's there, 4 more years...let him do his job...lets not pigeonhole all Republicans, or Conservatives (as I claim to be) though...many many people on both sides of the spectrum, Democrartic, sensible minded Liberals as well, Saw the TRUTH without letting their party lines blind them...

What he was talking about was when Clinton ordered airstrikes against a camp where Bin Laden was supposed to be. The Republicans said that attacking Bin Laden was a waste of time and a diversion from the Monica Scandal. Hence, the wag the dog reference.

You know, I actually do remember those airstrikes, and the wag the dog comments...and you know, I remember thinking the exact same thing...that he was doing it to take attention away from himself. Look, I would not put anything past our former slick willy president. He earned that name with his smooth talking and his smooth operator actions. Maybe it was to divert attention, maybe it wasn't. But Fact Is, Bill didn't get the job done. That act can be shown as YET ANOTHER REASON why 9/11 HAPPENED. When you have a bees hive at your front door...do you poke it? NO, you KILL ALL OF THEM...REMOVE THE THREAT 100%...or at least the BEST YOU CAN...more may come...so maybe you goto the source, AND TRY TO WIPE THEM OUT BEFORE THEY GET BACK TO YOUR FRONT DOOR.

kinda like we are doing now...are you guys following the metaphor?

1. Advance campaign work for Hilary...That is a good one I have to admit. :laugh: Her losing...we will see...she can't do as bad a job at President than GW has that is for sure!

2. His Monday Morning QBing. GW and the conservatives out there have to just deal with it...It comes with the territory...especially if the President you elected isn't doing a good job.

3. We don't know what type of due diligence Clinton...I know one thing, 9/11 did not happen when he was President..and if GW was in office long before 9/11...so you are telling me that there was nothing GW could have done to stop 9/11?? A hummer over National Security?? :bsflag: You mean just like Bush chose to use some bogus/half a** intelligence reports to use as his rationale to go to war in Iraq instead of using some real, concrete, accurate intelligence reports????

4. Instead of bashing Clinton, how about bashing the President on how bad he has run this country into the ground since he took over.

It IS advance campaign work...Clinton is at the pulpit at every opportunity...much more so than in Bush's 1st term...it's all for Mrs. Clinton to run...Personally? I want a Guliani/Rice ticket. That would blow all other contenders out of the water.

Yes, it criticism comes with the territory. And when Bush messes up, which he does from time to time, I expect him to be called out on it. And his supporters, like myself, that are Confident in the Overall GREAT job he is doing, should be 1st in line, cuz we care about his Presidency and want to steer him back on track...meanwhile, the Radical Bush Hating Libs swarm like Pirahna to Chum because, well...because that's what they do.

Anyone want to point the finger at 9/11?

Lemme tell you where to point.

1st. Bin Laden and Al Quaida.

2nd. BOTH Clinton and GWBush.

3rd. The Sytematic Breakdown in our Goverments Communication.

and lastly,

I'm NOT intentionally Bashing Clinton, i'm spitting TRUTH...if it's bashing, so be it...and Clinton STARTED IT by going to the pulpit and berating our President. I admitted he dropped the ball with Katrina, but he's off and running now...ask yourselfs...and i'll ask myself...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TODAY FOR THE KATRINA VICTIMS?

How many attacks were on our soil when Clinton was in office? How many Americans died from an attack on American soil while Clinton was president? How many were killed while on Bush's watch?

Your point? I support our soldiers, I honor them and I want them to succeed.

Yep, too bad he dropped the ball more then once in protecting us. I guess vacations come before national security huh. From the outside it sure appears that way doesn't it. I mean he was on vacation when he received a briefing stating Bin Laden determined to attack the US

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

What did he do? Did he call a staff meeting? Did he cut his vacation short to discuss the matter? Nope, he went fishin'. :doh:

Hell it's Clinton's fault anyway right? At what point do you ask the question maybe Bush could have done something more then he did. Why did Bush do nothing about the Cole? Why did Bush ignore Bin Laden's threats? I mean Bush was obviously privy to the information Clinton had, how come Bush didn't do anything?

Actually, I do NOT believe it. do you know why? Because all I have heard is it is just great over there. I've heard that terrorism was in its last throes, it wasn't. I heard that they knew where the WMDs were, they didn't. I heard a complete bunch of lies, and I don't believe them anymore. It is as simple as that.

I completely agree with the rest of your post.

1st of Chomerics, I agree that anytime a President puts something personal over this Nation, that is a Collossal Eff Up. Bush can go on Vacation anytime he chooses as far as I'm concerned, but if/when anything hits the fan, he better have the Secret Service in a chopper over his fishing pond telling him to get his ass on board, there's work to do. BUT, for non national emergency issues, people and systems are in place to take care of that without the President overseeing every little detail. The right people have to be in place.

I put Katrina on Bush's shoulders, but we All KNOW a messup like that starts with the local gov't in place. It just makes me sick to hear Clinton saying how he would have had buses there for the poor and immobile. Whey wasn't HE ON THE PHONE TO THE WHITEHOUSE...I Think They'd let his call through. But know, he's just the shining knight on his white horse, the monday after...

And of course you don't believe it's getting better. That would throw all your anti-Iraq war persepectives into a tailspin. IT IS. Iraqi police forces are growing by the day. Infrastructer, new and rebuilt is being erected. Medicine, Food, and EDUCATION for the Children is all being put in place in ways like never before. For the 1st time in a LONG TIME, people don't have to worry about Saddams goons grabbing up anyone they choose, for any reason they choose, to rape, torture, kill. Yeah, I think things are getting BETTER. Are there STILL IDIOTS out there trying to muck it up? Yup. People that have lost everything that Saddam laid at there feet...people from other countries that have their own agendas against the US...

I personally thing we need to do a PSUEDO PULL OUT...Give the illusion of pulling out of the Iraqi cities. Let them police themselves. Put all the American troops, or a vast majority on the Borders to keep out NEW enemies...and station them at infrastructure targets...yes, including oil derricks.

This will embrazen the bad buys already in town. They will come out like ****roaches in the night, and THEN, with Special Ops units, we can CRUSH THEM...ONE GROUP AT A TIME....But that's just my opinion...

Clinton did a large number of things to combat terrorism during his term. Read Clarke's book as well as the 9-11 commission report, they are both full of stuff Clinton did.

Again, I'm not arguing about this with you. I never saidt Bush should have been blamed, there was enough to go around. I do take offense though when people want to balme Clinton for everything, and ignore Bush, so I point out the glaring weakness in their argument.

All I have heard for 5 yeras has been yea, but Clinton. . . but Clinton did this, or Clinton did that. Well, Clinton is NOT our president, and I am tired Bush supporters blaming everything on Clinton.

I was pointing out to Big Z the absurd notion that Clinton cared more about a BJ then our security is a complete and absolute farce. If ANYTHING, it was the other way around, hence the wag the dog comment.

Again, I am not saying 9-11 WAS Bush's fault, I am just stating the obvious that people should look at their own parties actions before trying to cast blame on somebody who hasn't been president for 4 1/2 years.

Whatever Clinton Did, it OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT ENOUGH. That hummer comment was toungue and cheek, I apologize for it. It has obviously taken the attention away from the facts, which are all that matter. As you said, there is plenty of blame to go around. Enough blaming about the past. Lets look to the future...look at today...Has the communication problems between security agencies been fixed? Who knows, but we do KNOW it's a helluva lot better than it was in 2001. Are there less AlQuaida and American haters (the ones that are willing to kill and even die for their misguided cause) out there? Yup...less by the DAY. Are they running scared? Yup...and there may be some in palestine, syria or pakistan...we need to work with those governents to get the AlQuaida threat there as well...

Alright gentlemen...I love discussion...carry on. Godbless Us All and Hail to the Redskins! Remember, we are all brothers in arms, even if we disagree sometimes...

[chomerics]

okay, many many valid points...where to start...here we go...

no. not revisinist history. all the bloodhounds after Clinton for such a trivial and idiotic mistake are idiots themselves. The man had a country to run. Them taking him away from it just magnified His mistake even more for their own benefit. I could see the point before his 2nd term...they were trying to mudsling to get him out of office...but once his 2nd term started...he's there, 4 more years...let him do his job...lets not pigeonhole all Republicans, or Conservatives (as I claim to be) though...many many people on both sides of the spectrum, Democrartic, sensible minded Liberals as well, Saw the TRUTH without letting their party lines blind them...

You know, I actually do remember those airstrikes, and the wag the dog comments...and you know, I remember thinking the exact same thing...that he was doing it to take attention away from himself. Look, I would not put anything past our former slick willy president. He earned that name with his smooth talking and his smooth operator actions. Maybe it was to divert attention, maybe it wasn't. But Fact Is, Bill didn't get the job done. That act can be shown as YET ANOTHER REASON why 9/11 HAPPENED. When you have a bees hive at your front door...do you poke it? NO, you KILL ALL OF THEM...REMOVE THE THREAT 100%...or at least the BEST YOU CAN...more may come...so maybe you goto the source, AND TRY TO WIPE THEM OUT BEFORE THEY GET BACK TO YOUR FRONT DOOR.

kinda like we are doing now...are you guys following the metaphor?

It IS advance campaign work...Clinton is at the pulpit at every opportunity...much more so than in Bush's 1st term...it's all for Mrs. Clinton to run...Personally? I want a Guliani/Rice ticket. That would blow all other contenders out of the water.

Yes, it criticism comes with the territory. And when Bush messes up, which he does from time to time, I expect him to be called out on it. And his supporters, like myself, that are Confident in the Overall GREAT job he is doing, should be 1st in line, cuz we care about his Presidency and want to steer him back on track...meanwhile, the Radical Bush Hating Libs swarm like Pirahna to Chum because, well...because that's what they do.

Anyone want to point the finger at 9/11?

Lemme tell you where to point.

1st. Bin Laden and Al Quaida.

2nd. BOTH Clinton and GWBush.

3rd. The Sytematic Breakdown in our Goverments Communication.

and lastly,

I'm NOT intentionally Bashing Clinton, i'm spitting TRUTH...if it's bashing, so be it...and Clinton STARTED IT by going to the pulpit and berating our President. I admitted he dropped the ball with Katrina, but he's off and running now...ask yourselfs...and i'll ask myself...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TODAY FOR THE KATRINA VICTIMS?

1st of Chomerics, I agree that anytime a President puts something personal over this Nation, that is a Collossal Eff Up. Bush can go on Vacation anytime he chooses as far as I'm concerned, but if/when anything hits the fan, he better have the Secret Service in a chopper over his fishing pond telling him to get his ass on board, there's work to do. BUT, for non national emergency issues, people and systems are in place to take care of that without the President overseeing every little detail. The right people have to be in place.

I put Katrina on Bush's shoulders, but we All KNOW a messup like that starts with the local gov't in place. It just makes me sick to hear Clinton saying how he would have had buses there for the poor and immobile. Whey wasn't HE ON THE PHONE TO THE WHITEHOUSE...I Think They'd let his call through. But know, he's just the shining knight on his white horse, the monday after...

And of course you don't believe it's getting better. That would throw all your anti-Iraq war persepectives into a tailspin. IT IS. Iraqi police forces are growing by the day. Infrastructer, new and rebuilt is being erected. Medicine, Food, and EDUCATION for the Children is all being put in place in ways like never before. For the 1st time in a LONG TIME, people don't have to worry about Saddams goons grabbing up anyone they choose, for any reason they choose, to rape, torture, kill. Yeah, I think things are getting BETTER. Are there STILL IDIOTS out there trying to muck it up? Yup. People that have lost everything that Saddam laid at there feet...people from other countries that have their own agendas against the US...

I personally thing we need to do a PSUEDO PULL OUT...Give the illusion of pulling out of the Iraqi cities. Let them police themselves. Put all the American troops, or a vast majority on the Borders to keep out NEW enemies...and station them at infrastructure targets...yes, including oil derricks.

This will embrazen the bad buys already in town. They will come out like ****roaches in the night, and THEN, with Special Ops units, we can CRUSH THEM...ONE GROUP AT A TIME....But that's just my opinion...

Whatever Clinton Did, it OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT ENOUGH. That hummer comment was toungue and cheek, I apologize for it. It has obviously taken the attention away from the facts, which are all that matter. As you said, there is plenty of blame to go around. Enough blaming about the past. Lets look to the future...look at today...Has the communication problems between security agencies been fixed? Who knows, but we do KNOW it's a helluva lot better than it was in 2001. Are there less AlQuaida and American haters (the ones that are willing to kill and even die for their misguided cause) out there? Yup...less by the DAY. Are they running scared? Yup...and there may be some in palestine, syria or pakistan...we need to work with those governents to get the AlQuaida threat there as well...

Alright gentlemen...I love discussion...carry on. Godbless Us All and Hail to the Redskins! Remember, we are all brothers in arms, even if we disagree sometimes...

I actually agree with most of what you said, good post man

[boobiemiles]

and if you care to discuss the Iraq war, I will justify it in the face of ANY CRITICISM, SO please, feel free to bring it on...

IF Billy Clinton had done the EXACT SAME THING, Libs would be lining up to say it wasn't his fault...so spare the dramatics and lets look at facts.

Has there been an attack on US soil since the iraqi/afghanistan LIBERATIONS?

ARE our BRAVE SOLDIERS who are giving their lives doing so for the benefit of American Civilian Lives and Iraqi/Afghanistan Civilian Lives? Yup.

Is there an OBVIOUS interest in the Middle Eastern Oil in these countries and other strategic purposes...YES.

Our PRESIDENT, Mr. Bush is responsible for this nations security and this nations prosperity. Day by day, things are getting better, whether you want to believe it or not. Godbless our Troops!

and if you want to criticize our President, feel free to attack his border control policies/problems. I agree wholeheartedly that he has alot of work to do...and YES, I even agree that President Bush dropped the ball with Katrina. He should have been there lighting fires under asses from day one to make sure people were evacuated, fed, and medicated as necessary. He finally woke up a few days later and the ball is rolling. I'll focus on the positive and mourn those lost as they are gone forever...Godbless them.

This is looser talk. At the end of the day somebody has to be held accountable. Bush II is worst than the original. And Bush should have been concerned with the social stability of the country when he makes descisions. If your life is better today than yesterday God bless you. I'm too busy pumping gas at $3.35 a gallon to join you in celebration.

[boobiemiles]

Ahem... that's being done. (And my prior statements aren't invalid simply because you say so.)

If you seriously think that the military climate under Clinton was the same or comparable to the military climate under Bush, then your brain clutch is slipping.

Your brain clutch is slipping. I tried to stay out of these political threads because quite frankly they make me think that most of you are selectively ignorant at the times that fits best for you, and validates your arguements. Hands down Clinton was a better president, and in my opinion has earned the right to say what he feels if it's in Bush's II favaor or not. I know it's a fact that under Clinton the military shrunk, but dont you people feel there were midigating issues for it's decline. The internet was booming, jobs were available, Russia had lost to Osama bin Laden and his U.S. provided stinger missles, and there wasn't a major arch international criminal to be found anywhere. So why would a guy or woman that wants to distinguish themselves and make a living choose the military to do so?

I keep trying to understand why people think that Clinton shrunk the military. Couldn't it be that he managed the situation properly. Look under CLinton we had more armed conflicts than any other president, and sent more troops into foreign conflicts than any president in history. We lost Somalia, but we did alright in Korsovo and Bosnia. But we didn't have any wars, because quite frankly there was no reason for it.

Clinton left the country in good shape. He warned Bush about Al Qeida because of the USS Coles attack. But like most things Bush was like "ah I know what I'm doing", next thing we have is 9-11. Come to think of it the whole reason we lost in Somalia is we went against an establish power base, favored by the majority (I belive). He led them to beleive that the US was threat to their way of life....sound fimiliar. Bush was the guy that appointed his "friend" the head of FEMA, not Clinton. Bush was the one that landed on the Aircraft carrier with the slogan Mission Accomplished, Bush was the one that said Hussien was a immediate threat. Bush is the one that went to battle and is loosing the war. It's Bush, yes it's all Bush. I'm a proprietor of my own business. If it fails there are reasons it did, but I'm ultimately held responsible. Maybe I can try one these Bush tactics and see how it work with my creditors.

[big z]

This is looser talk. At the end of the day somebody has to be held accountable. Bush II is worst than the original. And Bush should have been concerned with the social stability of the country when he makes descisions. If your life is better today than yesterday God bless you. I'm too busy pumping gas at $3.35 a gallon to join you in celebration.

don't call my talk loser talk...i feel it is winner talk.

yes, at the end of the day somebody has to be held accountable...i told you where the finger pointing should be directed...GW was on the list...what more do you want?

GW IS concerned with social stability...but he is NOT a litmus test president, which you seem to be comfortable with. That would have been 'as the wind blows' Kerry...aka spine like a jellyfish...THANK GOD that wishy washy man is not in the Whitehouse...

Yes, my Life is better today than yesterday...and tomorrow, it will be better than today...thanks for the prayers, and I feel your pain at the Gas Pump...I think 99.9% of us do...

maybe the Saudi's are putting it to us cuz we won't need as much of their oil soon as we'll be buying from the Iraqi people, supporting their gov't and infrastructure. I dunno...also, the cost of war operations could be contributing...I like to think I'm supporting the troops when i fill my little 15 gallon tank with 45+ dollars worth of gas...they'll go down soon...I'd love a buck fifty, but i fear it will bottom out at 2 bux a gallon after the war simmers down and our oil supplies are stabalized...

but we all gotta drive...make the best of it man...we all in the same boat...

[Sarge]

Your brain clutch is slipping. I tried to stay out of these political threads because quite frankly they make me think that most of you are selectively ignorant at the times that fits best for you, and validates your arguements. Hands down Clinton was a better president, and in my opinion has earned the right to say what he feels if it's in Bush's II favaor or not. I know it's a fact that under Clinton the military shrunk, but dont you people feel there were midigating issues for it's decline. The internet was booming, jobs were available, Russia had lost to Osama bin Laden and his U.S. provided stinger missles, and there wasn't a major arch international criminal to be found anywhere. So why would a guy or woman that wants to distinguish themselves and make a living choose the military to do so?

I keep trying to understand why people think that Clinton shrunk the military. Couldn't it be that he managed the situation properly. Look under CLinton we had more armed conflicts than any other president, and sent more troops into foreign conflicts than any president in history. We lost Somalia, but we did alright in Korsovo and Bosnia. But we didn't have any wars, because quite frankly there was no reason for it.

Clinton left the country in good shape. He warned Bush about Al Qeida because of the USS Coles attack. But like most things Bush was like "ah I know what I'm doing", next thing we have is 9-11. Come to think of it the whole reason we lost in Somalia is we went against an establish power base, favored by the majority (I belive). He led them to beleive that the US was threat to their way of life....sound fimiliar. Bush was the guy that appointed his "friend" the head of FEMA, not Clinton. Bush was the one that landed on the Aircraft carrier with the slogan Mission Accomplished, Bush was the one that said Hussien was a immediate threat. Bush is the one that went to battle and is loosing the war. It's Bush, yes it's all Bush. I'm a proprietor of my own business. If it fails there are reasons it did, but I'm ultimately held responsible. Maybe I can try one these Bush tactics and see how it work with my creditors.

Thanks dude. You boosted the esteem of my 7th grade son. When I told him about this post, he felt great that he knows more about recent events and the military than a 30 year old man

[chomerics]

GW IS concerned with social stability...but he is NOT a litmus test president, which you seem to be comfortable with. That would have been 'as the wind blows' Kerry...aka spine like a jellyfish...THANK GOD that wishy washy man is not in the Whitehouse...

When I said that I agree with your previous post, it was because you sounded rational, and it appeared as if you were looking at the situation honestly, not it appears as if I was wrong.

How anybody can honestly sit there and say

That would have been 'as the wind blows' Kerry...aka spine like a jellyfish...THANK GOD that wishy washy man is not in the Whitehouse...

It is beyond me as to how people seriously think that Kerry could have done worse. Explain to me how? Please give me a few examples on just HOW Kerry could have done a worse job at president in the past 9 months. What has Bush accomplished except for taking a vacation and nominating a judge? I just saw him stand by and watch the greatest national disastor to ever hit the country decimate a city, and he didn't even pay attention. Do you honestly think that John Kerry would have decided to put an incapable cronie in power? Do you honestly think he would have put one of his buddies at the helm, instead of hiring somebody who was at least compitent in the position? Do you honestly think Kerry wouldn't have been all over this like white on rice? He was called out for being weak, do you not think he would have done everything to show the American people he had things under control?

When I read posts like yours, I feel pain for my country, I feel pain because there are actually people int his country who put their party before all others. This is exactly what is wrong with America right now, people thinking of their party, and not their fellow Americans. The otherside does this as well, but the otherside are not the ones screwing everything up, if they were, they would be the ones called out.

[Larry]

It is beyond me as to how people seriously think that Kerry could have done worse. Explain to me how? Please give me a few examples on just HOW Kerry could have done a worse job at president in the past 9 months. What has Bush accomplished except for taking a vacation and nominating a judge?

But, don't you understand?

Kerry would have made French our national language, put the UN in charge or our military, forced everybody to marry people of the same sex, doubled our taxes, and made us all listen to Broadway show tunes on the radio.

Carl Rove said so.

[big z]

When I said that I agree with your previous post, it was because you sounded rational, and it appeared as if you were looking at the situation honestly, not it appears as if I was wrong.

How anybody can honestly sit there and say

It is beyond me as to how people seriously think that Kerry could have done worse. Explain to me how? Please give me a few examples on just HOW Kerry could have done a worse job at president in the past 9 months. What has Bush accomplished except for taking a vacation and nominating a judge? I just saw him stand by and watch the greatest national disastor to ever hit the country decimate a city, and he didn't even pay attention. Do you honestly think that John Kerry would have decided to put an incapable cronie in power? Do you honestly think he would have put one of his buddies at the helm, instead of hiring somebody who was at least compitent in the position? Do you honestly think Kerry wouldn't have been all over this like white on rice? He was called out for being weak, do you not think he would have done everything to show the American people he had things under control?

When I read posts like yours, I feel pain for my country, I feel pain because there are actually people int his country who put their party before all others. This is exactly what is wrong with America right now, people thinking of their party, and not their fellow Americans. The otherside does this as well, but the otherside are not the ones screwing everything up, if they were, they would be the ones called out.

no, you were right to agree with my other post...it was spot on.

you are more than entitled to your opinion on Kerry, but i've just stated facts...he is wishy washy. The man couldn't take a stand on something if you put a 6ft stick up his behind...

Kerry would not have had the BALLS to Liberate Iraq. To stay the course.

He would have buckled to the hating ignorant public opinion that made up the majority of his supporters. He would have pulled out of Iraq, and left it a mess...and then he would have Blamed George Bush.

I don't know enough about both men's social security plans to comment.

I know he would put litmus tests to any nominees...something our President has vowed NOT to do.

AND, regarding Katrina, I admit I have not been watching coverage non-stop, but i'd be interested in knowing what exactly Mr. Kerry and his Ketchup fortune has done to help...maybe he has stepped to the plate big time...and chose to do so in anonymity...If so, I applaud him...

But man, the water in new orleans never rose past curb level before. Many people in the path of the monster were ignorant to the fact of what would happen. To sit there and point the finger at GW for all that went wrong just shows YOUR political bias. I've already called him out for it as well, as he is the man at the top, and thus, the security and safety of All The American people rests on his shoulders ultimately, BUT he should NOT have to light fires under peoples asses to get the job done. The local and state gov't of neworleans should have been on the ball. They were not. If they needed help, they should have been on the phone to the whitehouse...i dunno if they were or not...

But why not look at what GW is doing now? I'll tell you why, cuz it serves the bias, radical liberal viewpoints best, to focus on what wasn't done the first couple days, the to focus on what has been done since...

you are a very smart and informed man Chomerics, but I'm your huckleberry for any political discussions brother...if i am not informed on anything you wish to discuss, i'll get informed. Now thumbs up...I love opposing viewpoints as they help me learn as well...since I am ignorant about a plethora of things as well...just like el guapo.

Peace, Luv, and Laffs-

-BigZak

[Sarge]

Sarge, I understand the bugetary process, but we have increased the military's budget by $100billion dollars in less then 5 years. That is a hell of a lot of money. This has been my contention with the way the military is run; I don't think the brass and the Pentagon spend their money either wisely or cautiously. They waste money like it is going out of style, and they never give the soldiers the support they need.

Personally, I think the military should invest in the soldier, not in the $100billion dollar weapons program that may or may not work. The cost-benifit analysis isn't even close to being worth it, but they just ignore anyone who says it isn't a good idea. They plow ahead and throw money at the problem, while other areas, such as soldiers, suffer.

If you want to b!tch about Clinton cutting the military, that is your perrogative, but it isn't completely true to say that Bush can't handle two wars at once because of Clinton. If Bush wanted to, he could have restored troop levels to where they needed to be in order to accomplish his goals, he didn't. It is easier to blame the previous guy, but when you are guilty of the same thing, not hiring more troops, then you deserve some as well.

Again, here is the choice. Equipment or personnel. Our equipment is quickly wearing out. Again, had the recapitalization process started in the 90's, we wouldn't be faced with this choice. This is where clinton fu(ked the military and the current administration. Now, we have systems that are breaking and/or wearing out and need to be replaced. But we need people to fight the war as well. Which do you choose? Without equipment we have nothing to fight with. With no people, there is no one to run the equipment.

That's the choice this administration was handed by clinton. When Bush came into office, and I know I've used this before, but it's pretty much indicitive of the state of the military, we had 48 of 96 F-15e's sitting on the ramp useless because they had been cannibilized to keep the others flying. The reason? No spare parts.

THe first year of the Bush budget was to get spare parts bought and out to the field.

Then came the increase in personnel both because of 9/11 and some planned increases by the administration.

And this leads to my point about personnel. Say you increase the military by 100,000. Those people are useless for at least 8-24 months. Your basic GI infantryman goes through basic, goes to infantry school and goes to the field. They learned to tie their shoes, march and shoot. In my career field it takes a minimum of a year and a half to go from basic to certified, minimum. More like two years. And at the end of two years you have a wet behind the ears newbie with no experience.

That is pretty much the way most career fields are because of the highly technical aspects of the jobs and equipment. So even if you increase the size of the miltary today, you don't see the results for 18-24 months.

That's why you have to stay on top of the miltary and keep it constanly up to date.

Again, if you want to increase the budget so we can upgrade equipment and keep people, please write good 'ol Teddy Kennedy and tell him so. Being the ardent supporter of the miltary that he is, I'm sure he'll jump all over it

[Larry]

Kerry would not have had the BALLS to Liberate Iraq. To stay the course.

He would have buckled to the hating ignorant public opinion that made up the majority of his supporters. He would have pulled out of Iraq, and left it a mess...

As opposed to simply continuing to do the same thing over again, and creating a bigger one.

and then he would have Blamed George Bush.

as opposed to blaming Clinton

I know he would put litmus tests to any nominees...something our President has vowed NOT to do.

And which he has, in fact, done. (Hint: How many articles do you think I can find that says that Bush wanted to nominate Gonzales, but the GOP wouldn't let him, because the GOP thinks Gonzales is moderate on abortion?)

AND, regarding Katrina, I admit I have not been watching coverage non-stop, but i'd be interested in knowing what exactly Mr. Kerry and his Ketchup fortune has done to help...maybe he has stepped to the plate big time...and chose to do so in anonymity...If so, I applaud him...

I'd suspect that he has, personally, done about as much as Bush, personally has done.

[BlueTalon]

(Hint: How many articles do you think I can find that says that Bush wanted to nominate Gonzales, but the GOP wouldn't let him, because the GOP thinks Gonzales is moderate on abortion?)

Go ahead and post some of them. I'm willing to bet you've got nothing more than op-ed pieces. You could line up a thousand opinion pieces, and all you've got is a thousand opinions.

[chomerics]

Again, if you want to increase the budget so we can upgrade equipment and keep people, please write good 'ol Teddy Kennedy and tell him so. Being the ardent supporter of the miltary that he is, I'm sure he'll jump all over it

Sarge, you should look up what Kennedy did in the 80's for the military and the soldiers. Kennedy has always been pro-soldier and anti-complex, that is my position as well. Look at who sponsered the bills which gave soldiers the benifits they now have, and I think you may be suprised, a lot of what you have going for you right now is because of Kennedy.

I can't wait to hear your reshonse with a bunch of laughing emoticons, but do the homework and look up the bills. I seem to remember him doing a number of things for the soldiers while my father was in the Air Force in the 80's.

[NavyDave]

Sorry Chom but T Blairs comments were on CSpan3 and the local PBS when he said he couldn't see signing the Kyoto treaty when it wouldnt be economically beneficial to England and how India, China and russia wouldnt sign it.

I do blame Bush for foolishly reviving Clinton. As many people who have called him and begged to stop the reaching out to the snakes.

Well he finally did start addressing Clinton lies.

It like a woman finding lipstick on the shirt, some other babes thong panties in the pants pocket of her boyfriend a dozen times and still takes him back thinking he will be faithful

[chomerics]

no, you were right to agree with my other post...it was spot on.

you are more than entitled to your opinion on Kerry, but i've just stated facts...he is wishy washy. The man couldn't take a stand on something if you put a 6ft stick up his behind...

No, you are buying into the campaign jargon. He thinks everything through, and he will change his position if more information comes out. This is called rational though, this is how you stop from making the same mistakes over, and over, and over again. It is how you act as a man. Something our president has a real hard time doing.

Kerry would not have had the BALLS to Liberate Iraq. To stay the course.

He would have buckled to the hating ignorant public opinion that made up the majority of his supporters. He would have pulled out of Iraq, and left it a mess...and then he would have Blamed George Bush.

What did Kerry want to do? He wanted to increase the military presence in Iraq by over 50,000 people. He wanted to train the Iraqi police and military OUTSIDE of the country, to protect them. He wanted to transition over OUR military for the Iraqi military.

When I look at Bush, I see father who is lost, and driving around for 5 hours yet he won't stop to ask for directions. "I know where I'm going" yet everyone in the car knows he has no freakin clue.

I don't know enough about both men's social security plans to comment.

Fair enough.

I know he would put litmus tests to any nominees...something our President has vowed NOT to do.

Wait to see who the other SCJ nominee is before you go making any statements like that, but I don't mind Roberts at all, and I think he will be good.

AND, regarding Katrina, I admit I have not been watching coverage non-stop, but i'd be interested in knowing what exactly Mr. Kerry and his Ketchup fortune has done to help...maybe he has stepped to the plate big time...and chose to do so in anonymity...If so, I applaud him...

Actually, Kerry did donate a cargo plane worth of supplies to NO. He flew on the plane, and delivered the goods a week after the storm. Was it PR, most likely, but at least he was helping.

But man, the water in new orleans never rose past curb level before. Many people in the path of the monster were ignorant to the fact of what would happen. To sit there and point the finger at GW for all that went wrong just shows YOUR political bias. I've already called him out for it as well, as he is the man at the top, and thus, the security and safety of All The American people rests on his shoulders ultimately, BUT he should NOT have to light fires under peoples asses to get the job done. The local and state gov't of neworleans should have been on the ball. They were not. If they needed help, they should have been on the phone to the whitehouse...i dunno if they were or not...

I have blamed all forms of government, but I put the majority on the feds. Michael Brown was talked to the Whitehouse on Monday night or Tuesday morning and said that the governer was in over her head. The president knew what was going on, but he was just oblivious to what could happen. His statement in my sig is a perfect example.

But why not look at what GW is doing now? I'll tell you why, cuz it serves the bias, radical liberal viewpoints best, to focus on what wasn't done the first couple days, the to focus on what has been done since...

I have already said I think GW is doing a good job with Rita, I mentioned it in another thread, the one dks started. I don't have a problem giving credit when credit is due, I have a problem with people pushing blame on everyone but the president, when the president was napping.

you are a very smart and informed man Chomerics, but I'm your huckleberry for any political discussions brother...if i am not informed on anything you wish to discuss, i'll get informed. Now thumbs up...I love opposing viewpoints as they help me learn as well...since I am ignorant about a plethora of things as well...just like el guapo.

Peace, Luv, and Laffs-

I actually like your posts, as I am more then willling to discuss everything with the otherside in a manner that is respectful I know I am ignorant in a LOT of areas, but I am always trying to imrpove and learn more, so you to can give me a different point of view, and I may change as well

-BigZak