Any Way You Cut It, Kerry's A Jerk!

"reporting for dity"  - what a donkey.

Its duty, u donkey.

Shouldn't you be out with the girls trick or treating

you put in for Orbcomm ?

i is right next to u.  I didn’t go to secretarial school like you -

I agree.  Whether you are a Dem. or Rep., disrespect such as that is uncalled for.  The fact that he won’t apologize only continues this disregard for those that are fighting for his right to say things that display his idiocy.

Gee. A pompous pseudo-intellectual who married into money makes another truly ignorant statement, then won't back away from it.

It seems they're everywhere!

John Kerry is a coward. He was a coward in Viet Nam and he’s a coward on our soil.

[quote=doberman]

Does it really matter what party affiliation you belong to? Does it matter whether you're for or against the war?

What Kerry said about "either you're smart or you're stuck in Iraq" is a blatant disrespect of our military. (Of course, I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist is the same.)

Republican or Democrat, it stinks to high heaven and Kerry's the only one who's been eating beans!

[/quote]

You're really buying into this? Dobe, you're smarter than this.

If you turn off Fox News and watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, you'll find that Kerry did nothing to disrespect our military. He clarified his remarks. The republicans, who have had nothing to cheer about are latching on to this and spinning it in what has become an all too familair arrogant assault on the intelligence of the american people. Fox News has really run with this ball, presenting  a one sided view, cynically deriding Kerry's clarification. They did not show Kerry's clarification, while ABC and CNN did. ABC and CNN were balanced in their reporting and commentery. After getting the entire story a viewer comes away with two thoughts: Kerry didn't say anything disrespectful about the military,  and that Kerry is an idiot who got what he deserved for trying to take a politcal pot shot. 

That said, we can debate whether education, the prospects for higher education, or economics in general,  play a role in the demographics of our military. I think we all know the answer to that one. 

[quote=My Inner Child]John Kerry is a coward. He was a coward in Viet Nam and he's a coward on our soil. [/quote]

Again, I'm not a Kerry fan, but please tell us why you believe he is a coward?

He clarified his remarks.

No he didn't.  There was nothing to clarify. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. 

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

There is no way to rearrange these words to make them anything else. He has contempt for the military and no respect for the people who volunteered for service. He trashed the military when he left Vietnam and he is doing it now.  This is the person who you would have as Commander in Chief?   Right now he is frantically trying to spin and cover up his real thoughts.  As busy as a cat in a litter box covering up scat.

And as to your and Kerry's contention that the military consists of a bunch of losers and dolts here are some statistics on academic composition.  Granted this is of the Air Force which has a higher level of college educated members.  

Academic Education 

-- 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees;  39.4 percent have master's degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.
 
-- 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master's degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master's degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours;  4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.

Many who join the military (my two nephews for example) have done so not only to serve but also to be able to pay for future college that they could not otherwise afford. 

Stereotyping an entire class of people as dumb, redneck hicks, religious nuts and other such things is a standard tactic of the liberal leftist elites of which John Kerry is the poster boy.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball tried to say that Kerry's quote was taken out of context and when you listened to the whole speech you would understand it was a shot a Bush.  Garbage.  Listen to crowd reaction to his "joke" (deafening silence).  Even the supporters in the audience who heard the entire speech understood that he was referring to the military as a career of last resort. 

Even if you believe Kerry's "clarification", the fact is that what he said came out as an insult and he should apologize.  That's the right thing to do.  He's trying to copy Bill Clinton by fighting back against the right wing conspiracy but as usual is so out of touch with real people that he can't pull it off.  

[quote=babbling looney]

He clarified his remarks.

No he didn't.  There was nothing to clarify. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. 

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

There is no way to rearrange these words to make them anything else. He has contempt for the military and no respect for the people who volunteered for service. He trashed the military when he left Vietnam and he is doing it now.  This is the person who you would have as Commander in Chief?   Right now he is frantically trying to spin and cover up his real thoughts.  As busy as a cat in a litter box covering up scat.

And as to your and Kerry's contention that the military consists of a bunch of losers and dolts here are some statistics on academic composition.  Granted this is of the Air Force which has a higher level of college educated members.  

Academic Education 

-- 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees;  39.4 percent have master's degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.
 
-- 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master's degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master's degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours;  4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.

Many who join the military (my two nephews for example) have done so not only to serve but also to be able to pay for future college that they could not otherwise afford. 

Stereotyping an entire class of people as dumb, redneck hicks, religious nuts and other such things is a standard tactic of the liberal leftist elites of which John Kerry is the poster boy.

[/quote]

Don't like Kerry huh?

Are you talking to me with these remarks? Because if you are, you're attaching things to me that I didn't say.

Did I say that I wanted Kerry as president? No! In fact, the best thing to come out of this mess is that it, in all likelihood, takes Kerry out in 08.  Right now, McCain, or Guillianni would be my first choices for pres in 08. However, McCain is stepping into this controversy, which cheapens him in my view. Regardless of what the spin machine wants, he knows Kerry didn't dispararge anyone. Looks like Hillary will get the nod from the dems. That'll be a mess even though I don't find her objectionable. Then there's Obama. Hmm...

Did I say that I consider members of the military losers and dolts? No I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that. I certainly don't believe that. So, I have to ask, where did you get that? Of course I am assuming you are talking to me since I'm the only one on the thread who has offered a counter view of the topic.

My oldest son blew off Villanova to join the Marines. Him, I do consider an idiot. I love him just the same. And obviously, he's not stupid. As it turned out the Marines rejected him for a medical condition he didn't have. Someone, no doubt with an advanced degree, screwed up. We went through a process that took six months to try to clear the error. We found out that, at least within the recruiting command chain, they don't admit to mistakes. As disappointed as my son was, no one was more pissed off about it than the local recruiter, a sargeant, who said the problem was systemic within his chain of command. Whatever that means?  My son went on with his life only to have the Marines call him back about a year later with a revelation that a mistake had been made and he was good to go. Having had a front row seat to the recruiting fiasco, the recruiter's reaction to it, a valuable lesson, he told them to go eff themselves. A smart move on his part because of the direction his life has taken.

As a side note to that, we could have side stepped the entire issue if I'd enlisted the help of a friend of mine, who just happened to be the top doctor in the navy. One phone call and he was in. We decided against that route, not knowing what effect it might have on my son when he got to basic training.  Noone likes people who pull strings, least of all, drill sargeants. When talking to my friend, I never mentioned the marines.

My own take is that the military is an excellent option that all HS and college grads should consider. That the local Marine recruiting process was in such disarray, doesn't impact that view. Yet, my belief is that most, not all, recruits are still joining for economic reasons. That is, they have poor job and/or educational prospects at home, so they join to get the leg up that the military offers. In this way, there is a demographic tilt within the military towards the economically disadvantaged.

Let's face it, there aren't too many Pat Tillmans quiting high paying jobs or dropping out of top schools to join the fight. The education and training benefits were front and center in the Marines pitch to my son. We told them that was a non issue, the kid's getting a bought and paid for education regardless, next slide. However, to a person without the means to pay for an education, that would be a powerful incentive. As you said your own nehews are using their military service as a way to pay for college.

Within my school district, over 90% of the HS graduates go on to college. We live in an upper middle class suburb. You can count on one hand the number of kids going directly from HS into the military in our district. The recruiters, themselves, told us our area, our town and the surrouding towns were one of the toughest recruiting assignments in the country because of the opportunities these kids have. Different demographics would produce  different results. You can call that leftist, elitist, or you can call it what it is, reality.

Point me to the URL that shows the educational level of our military.

I've hated Kerry since Vietnam. and the damage that he did to the returning soldiers at that time and the lingering damage in the stereotype of the psycho baby killer Vietnam vet that he helped to create. I despise his elitist snobbish attitude.

Point me to the URL that shows the educational level of our military.

http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?storyID=123027385

As I noted this is for the Air Force which is likely to have a higher percentage of college graduates.  I am quite sure that the other branches probably have more enlistees from societal areas that join for the economic benefits. Nevertheless this is NOT like it was when Clinton was dodging the draft, where if you didn't go to college you WERE likely to be stuck in Vietnam.  Everyone is a volunteer for current service. Kerry and the rest of the liberal aging hippies are stuck in a time warp.  I don't know about you but I want people to govern who are forward looking instead of being high centered on their flaming youth.

McCain will never be the nominee for President. Most Republicans while they have great admiration for him as a man and as a veteran who suffered terribly view him as a turncoat to the party.  I wouldn't vote for him just because the McCain/Feingold assault on our first amendment rights.  Giuliani would be a good choice because he is pretty much a moderate socially and tough on crime and the terrorist.  And contrary to the Democrats/Kos crowd's idea, most Republicans are social moderates.  Rudy/Condi would be my pick.

Hillary would energize the Republican base. She would be a terrible pick for the Democrats.  Obama, whatever. Lightweight.

Regardless of what the spin machine wants, he knows Kerry didn't dispararge anyone

Yes he did.  You can deny and spin this all you want. He said what he said, and it was insulting to the people in the military and to all prior military personnel. It reveals his mindset and the way that his party looks on the people of America as substandard and less than they.  Very similar attitude to our resident troll Put Trader/Devil's Advocate and all of his persona.

Anyone who says Kerry did not spit in the face of 10,000,000 who have served has never served. Add in the families who love these military members and you has 30,000,000 pissed off Americans!





There is no way to break down his comment.



Everything about the comment is BS.

We are a force of volunteers.

We constantly focus on mandatory and non-mandatory education. The Air University provides degrees from Associates to Masters. It is just about required that one has a degree to be an officer or top three ranks as an enlisted member.





Bondguy, since 9/11 the middle class has stepped up to the plate and entered the military. This was verified by a PEW study last year. In the end it’s funny that the military is run by civilians.



Personal response to John Kerrys comment:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”



When one leaves high school it is hopeful they have a positive opinion of our country in general.



Option one: At age 18 young adult can chose to serve in the Armed Forces and become a man or woman, while obtaining OJT (on the job training) and an education through military (Air Force Community College) & civilian schools. At age 25 military member has traveled to different states and potentially over seas, while obtaining respect from friends, family and others. This individule has been in leadership positions training and leading other military members. Individule has opportunity to attend distance or on-site educational programs with most tuition and fees paid for by government. At age 30 military member is a non-commissioned officer and only 8 years away from retirement. This leader now a mentor for other military members, while providing guidance and senior level management for accomplishment of mission. When the veteran hits 40 they have veteran preferance for a federal position and most companies want that military integrity, disipline and leadership! Some of these military members go on to fill advanced positions within government, military contractors, politics and other organizations. The benefits that an individule obtains with an honorable discharge can include health, tuition, grocery (40%+ discounts), travel and a life long brother/sister hood with 10,000,000 veterans. We stick together and support one another during a time of need.





Second option: Enter college at the age of 18 and upon completion have 100k in student loans with minimal OJT experience. During the students educational process they obtain limited OJT experience and obtaining real world hands on experience in areas of culture, society and life outside their hometown or spring break. During college many students are tempted to join Moveon.org or some other peace organization to justify world peace or less military. Another option to avoid tuition and fee’s is that mommy or daddy cover costs. At age 24 individule moves forward with 30,000 career. At age 30 individule is 38/42 years away from collecting Social Security or 30+ years from pension. At 40 individule is sick and tired of career path, but locked in awaiting 20+ years till retirement…



This is not to say one path is better then the other, but just to show the potential paths…

Of course in college one could join teams or organizations and become a leader. In the military this is mandatory and part of a military members developtment. Military member also has the option at the end of contract to leave active duty and join the reserves. At 20 years individule has some benefits, but full pension and medical benefits start at age 60. In the end it is a large commitment to enlist with the constant positibility of going to war, but it is tough to question which path is smarter?



Finally does the general public have a 99.7% completion of High School.





Now if the child watches CNN and listen to parents who go out of their way to slam the president and US then they would be negative. I mean after all 99% of the world wants to come here, but the it is obvious to me many Americans are just spoiled!





Comrade Kerry, disguised Republican, leads republicans to victory

That was one person's feedback I was looking forward to hearing on this topic.

[quote=BondGuy]

You're really buying into this? Dobe, you're smarter than this.

If you turn off Fox News and watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, you'll find that Kerry did nothing to disrespect our military. He clarified his remarks. [/quote]

No, Bondguy, he didn’t. Instead of simply saying he’d misspoken and meant no disrespect, and apologizing, Lurch can out swinging at his hastily called press conference and whined about his words being twisted and how he wasn’t going to take it. The take away line was “I apologize to no one”.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

 This C- student who likes to pretend to be something more as he attacks the intellect of another C- student has got to be the most tone-deaf, self-indulgent fool to ever marry (twice) into money. Now he's radioactive and no Democrat wants to bee seen with him. Hilary is beside herself with joy.

BTW, Kerry does have a pattern of saying stupid things about our military. He did it in the early 1970s before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he did it just months ago when he talked about US troops “terrorizing” Iraqis.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=My Inner Child]John Kerry is a coward. He was a coward in Viet Nam and he's a coward on our soil. [/quote]

Again, I'm not a Kerry fan, but please tell us why you believe he is a coward?

[/quote]

I wouldn't use that word (after all, he did volunteer for active duty) but some of his  fellow officers who were with him during his brief visit (4 months, 1/3 the normal tour) to Vietnam have.

Whether or not the guy meant it in a more positive light or it was taken out of context, the simple fact is that he pissed off tons of people - both military and non-military - and his comments cheapen what they sacrifice their lives for in many instances.  What is more ridiculous is the fact that he tries to explain and justify, vs. simply saying "I didn't mean it in that way and I apologize if I offended anyone". 

[quote=babbling looney]He clarified his remarks.

No he didn't.  There was nothing to clarify. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. 

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

There is no way to rearrange these words to make them anything else. He has contempt for the military and no respect for the people who volunteered for service. He trashed the military when he left Vietnam and he is doing it now.  This is the person who you would have as Commander in Chief?   Right now he is frantically trying to spin and cover up his real thoughts.  As busy as a cat in a litter box covering up scat.[/quote]

TJ, I love ya, man, but I'm with Babs here.  I have no doubt that Kerry meant what he said and said what he meant.  This is far from the first time he's stuck his foot in his mouth ("I was for the war before I voted against it", or some such nonsense), and it's not likely to be the last.  The missteps of the current presidency aside, if I had it to do all over, I would vote for W again.  When I considered Kerry as a candidate, I really was left with no choice and I still feel that way.  If Kerry were a smart man, he'd disappear from the political landscape for awhile because he's doing about as much damage to the Dems as Hastert and Foley did to the Repubs.  A smart man knows when it's time to shut up and he obviously hasn't figured that out yet.  You are spot on that he's eliminated himself from the 2008 race.

I consider myself a "purple" but I don't have any use for idiots Like John Kerry.

[quote=BondGuy][ Yet, my belief is that most, not all, recruits are still joining for economic reasons. That is, they have poor job and/or educational prospects at home, so they join to get the leg up that the military offers. In this way, there is a demographic tilt within the military towards the economically disadvantaged. [/quote]

You're wrong.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.c fm

 Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees. For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pen­tagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.

Someone asked about education levels...

For enlisted members;

http://www.dod.mil/prhome/docs/recqual05x.pdf

For officers;

Given that most officers are required to possess at least a baccalaureate college degree upon or soon after commissioning and that colleges and universities are among the Services’ main commissioning sources (i.e., Service academies and ROTC), the academic standing of officers is not surprising. The fact that 87 percent of active duty officer accessions and 95 percent of the officer corps (both excluding those with unknown education credentials) were degree holders (approximately 17 and 38 percent advanced degrees) is in keeping with policy and the professional status and expectations of officers. Likewise, 81 percent of Reserve Component officer accessions and 91 percent of the total Reserve Component officer corps held at least a bachelor’s degree, with 23 and 34 percent possessing advanced degrees, respectively.

Finally, here's Kerry's "clarification";

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rE2QveEZdw8&mode=related& search=

Don't bother looking for a "I misspoke, I apologize"....

Question for all of you:

If you posted regarding this topic, would you please share YOUR personal military experience?  I would be interested in your feedback...  Call it curiousity more than anything else.  Remember, please don't fib as I am an active service member and can see right through you...

To doberman, NOFX, badmove, BrokerRecruit, Starka, My Inner Child, BondGuy, MikeButler22, BabblingLooney, Vagabond, and AirForce...  My thanks in advance...

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

Question for all of you:

If you posted regarding this topic, would you please share YOUR personal military experience?  I would be interested in your feedback...  Call it curiousity more than anything else.  Remember, please don't fib as I am an active service member and can see right through you...

To doberman, NOFX, badmove, BrokerRecruit, Starka, My Inner Child, BondGuy, MikeButler22, BabblingLooney, Vagabond, and AirForce...  My thanks in advance...

[/quote]

Army. Now, let's hear yours. Remember, don't fib, I have a DD214 and can see right through you 

I don't have any military service. I am a woman and during the Vietnam era, I was in college, however my fiance at the time was killed in Vietnam. I had many friends who were drafted and some who willingly joined the armed forces.

I have had two Uncles who were career Air Force. Both retired now for several years. One was a Veterinarian and the other a pilot (C-5 Galaxie...gigantic!!!) both were highly educated and spent their entire careers in the Air Force.  Recently my two nephews joined the military. They are both discharged now having done 2 tours each. One was an Army Ranger (Afghanistan first and then Iraq) the other joined the Marines and did two tours in Iraq.  They were both in college when they joined. The Marine has gone back to college and the other nephew is not doing very well just now.

Attitudes like Kerry's and from the so called liberal left that people who are in the military are somehow losers and dimwits make me furious. In addition the lies and propaganda spread by Kerry in particular, that the military was turning out psychopathic baby killing torturing monsters, ruined many returning Vietnam Vets ability to re-integrate into society. A lot of employers bought into this myth and made it difficult to get a job. The emotional scars of being spit on by your own hurt and made some of the returning servicemen buy into the stereotype too.

This snobbery and inability to understand that some people can actually be educated AND be patriotic is evidence of their complete disassociation with the majority of Americans.  This isn't 1968 anymore and Iraq is not Vietnam. Unfortunately, Kerry is still living in the past.

I'm in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I'm bored.

Oh, did I mention that I'm also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

Army, Military Police 31B, Officer...  Primary Mission: Force Protection

Air Assault Qualified

[quote=babbling looney]

I don't have any military service. I am a woman and during the Vietnam era, I was in college, however my fiance at the time was killed in Vietnam. I had many friends who were drafted and some who willingly joined the armed forces.

I have had two Uncles who were career Air Force. Both retired now for several years. One was a Veterinarian and the other a pilot (C-5 Galaxie...gigantic!!!) both were highly educated and spent their entire careers in the Air Force.  Recently my two nephews joined the military. They are both discharged now having done 2 tours each. One was an Army Ranger (Afghanistan first and then Iraq) the other joined the Marines and did two tours in Iraq.  They were both in college when they joined. The Marine has gone back to college and the other nephew is not doing very well just now.

Attitudes like Kerry's and from the so called liberal left that people who are in the military are somehow losers and dimwits make me furious. In addition the lies and propaganda spread by Kerry in particular, that the military was turning out psychopathic baby killing torturing monsters, ruined many returning Vietnam Vets ability to re-integrate into society. A lot of employers bought into this myth and made it difficult to get a job. The emotional scars of being spit on by your own hurt and made some of the returning servicemen buy into the stereotype too.

This snobbery and inability to understand that some people can actually be educated AND be patriotic is evidence of their complete disassociation with the majority of Americans.  This isn't 1968 anymore and Iraq is not Vietnam. Unfortunately, Kerry is still living in the past.

[/quote]

Ms. Looney, may I ask why you chose not to serve?

[quote=dude]

I'm in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I'm bored.

Oh, did I mention that I'm also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

[/quote]

This is funny how?

Cmdr, USN, Ret. Submarine Fleet and ONI.

[quote=babbling looney]

  This isn't 1968 anymore and Iraq is not Vietnam.

[/quote]

I think more appropriate would be: Iraq is not Afghanistan.  Saddam is not Osama.  AK 47's, scuds and qurans are not weapons of mass destruction.  If we had devoted 1/4 of the resources that the Iraq war has gobbled up to catching Osama and dismantling the Al Queda networks our world might be a safer place than it is today. 

Iraq is a poorly thought out and poorly executed attempt at bludgeoning the middle east into parity with the rest of the world.  Although the ideal is admirable and would be great for the world in the long run...it's the logistics of the whole thing that makes the idea laughable.  Just look at the results...

Never the less, John Kerry is a doof....at least as much as Bush is anyway.

[quote=StarsAndStripes][quote=dude]

I'm in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I'm bored.

Oh, did I mention that I'm also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

[/quote]

This is funny how?

[/quote]

Because you have X-ray vision my man.

I feel so naked under your gaze.  You’re making me blush.

I love these guys....

Nice!

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

  Remember, please don't fib as I am an active service member and can see right through you...

[/quote]

I believe you...really...I like to wear camo.

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

Army, Military Police 31B, Officer...  Primary Mission: Force Protection

Air Assault Qualified

[/quote]

Uh, a commissioned officer in the MPs is a 31A. 31B is an enlisted MOS, isn't it? Either way, thatnks for your service.

Mike, now THAT'S funny!

[quote=babbling looney]

I've hated Kerry since Vietnam. and the damage that he did to the returning soldiers at that time and the lingering damage in the stereotype of the psycho baby killer Vietnam vet that he helped to create. I despise his elitist snobbish attitude.

Point me to the URL that shows the educational level of our military.

http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?storyID=123027385

As I noted this is for the Air Force which is likely to have a higher percentage of college graduates.  I am quite sure that the other branches probably have more enlistees from societal areas that join for the economic benefits. Nevertheless this is NOT like it was when Clinton was dodging the draft, where if you didn't go to college you WERE likely to be stuck in Vietnam.  Everyone is a volunteer for current service. Kerry and the rest of the liberal aging hippies are stuck in a time warp.  I don't know about you but I want people to govern who are forward looking instead of being high centered on their flaming youth.

McCain will never be the nominee for President. Most Republicans while they have great admiration for him as a man and as a veteran who suffered terribly view him as a turncoat to the party.  I wouldn't vote for him just because the McCain/Feingold assault on our first amendment rights.  Giuliani would be a good choice because he is pretty much a moderate socially and tough on crime and the terrorist.  And contrary to the Democrats/Kos crowd's idea, most Republicans are social moderates.  Rudy/Condi would be my pick.

Hillary would energize the Republican base. She would be a terrible pick for the Democrats.  Obama, whatever. Lightweight.

Regardless of what the spin machine wants, he knows Kerry didn't dispararge anyone

Yes he did.  You can deny and spin this all you want. He said what he said, and it was insulting to the people in the military and to all prior military personnel. It reveals his mindset and the way that his party looks on the people of America as substandard and less than they.  Very similar attitude to our resident troll Put Trader/Devil's Advocate and all of his persona.

[/quote]

Babs,

I wanted to make sure you weren't getting your information from Bob Perry or The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Who, ironically turned out to be liars.

If we turn the clock back 35 years, while not liking what Kerry was doing, it's at least understandable. Within the context of the times attacking the vets was just another antiwar strategy. I too thought it was wrong. Personally, I won't go see a Jane Fonda movie. Yet, calling all vets baby killers was a way to drum up support for peace. In the times, as you know, not only was it accepted, it was widely supported.  Kerry found his political footing in this movement. The entire country was being torn apart by the war. For a young person with political aspirations the anti war movement was almost too good to be true. It was a no brainer "How to get elected white paper." Just join the movement. He did, in the most contrived way, by first serving in the military and by fighting in the war. Even though, he admits, when he joined he had no intention of getting in harm's way. And even by cynically saying he served as part of a plan isn't quite right, because back then, there were only so many ways out of the war. How was he to know that 20 to 35 years later, that draft dodgers would be in control? Now, 35 years later we've lost the emotional context of that era, but the words remain as part of the official record. Words that are brought out and displayed at every RNC meeting in the country.

The Vets have every right to be pissed off this guy, but don't ever buy into the spin. Not taking kerry at his word that his comments were directed at Bush is implausable. Regardless of what you think of him, kerry is not a stupid man. Only a complete imbecile would make a comment like that a week before an election. Take the cheap shot if you wish, Kerry's not an imbecile. As for an apology, for what? He misspoke, he owes noone an apology.

About Clinton the draft dodger- You've got to remember the times. Early on, mid 60s males were running to the fight. Nam was their    WW II. By 68 momentum had shifted. Everyone was trying to get out of the draft. College deferments were the order of the day. The 68 democratic convention and the 70 shootings at Kent State were hallmarks of the times.

 Clinton ran to Oxford, used politcal influence to avoid draft, acceptable as measured in context by the times. Most families were looking for ways to get their sons out of the draft. The ending of graduate deferments went to the issue of how desperate the government was to fill its quota.

Bush ran and hid in the National Guard, used political influence to avoid duty. I use the term hid as it was used by us all at that time. Hiding in the National Guard was an acceptable, if last ditch effort, to avoid Vietnam. This is why I harbor no ill will for Bush having done so. We were all headed there if need be.

Cheney- racked up what was it, eleven deferments? His comment when asked why he chose not to serve was "I had better things to do" is truly insulting to troops everywhere and in every time. Yet, within the context of the times, acceptable.

Rumsfeld-Served in the navy as a carrier pilot. He came of age between Korea and Vietnam. Which is a shame because, no doubt he would have landed an F4 in North Vietnam and micromanaged them into surrendering, kicking their asses the whole time. I don't like what Rummy's done with Iraq, but on whole, he's my kind of guy.

So when you call Clinton a draft dodger, it's not an insult. He shares that distinction with many others, including our President and Vice President. They are all products of the times. Within the context of that time, none is wrong for their choice. All are wrong for trying to use it as a smear.

Finally, there's Rice. Rice is one of the major architects of our new "pre-emptive war" foreign policy. She believes that the world will be a safer place if it's all one big happy democracy. And that, while we stand unchallenged as the world's only super power, now is the time to strike. Now, when no military can challenge us. She's right, it would be safer. Yet, the world doesn't want to be a big happy democracy. Sovereign nations and people aren't cozying up to the idea of do it our way or else. Go figure! So, I gotta disagree on Rice.

Ms. Looney, may I ask why you chose not to serve?

Actually, I did consider the Air Force. They tried to recruit me as a Navigator or Pilot based on some tests that I had taken before graduating high school (good spacial and 3d recognition skills I think), but when they found out that I was a 'girl' the offer was changed to other non-combat occupations. I guess they assumed I was a guy because of my scores.

In the 60's it was rare for women to serve in the military: unlike now where it is very common. In the meantime, my family needed me to be at home to help take care of a disabled family member.

I generally agree that John Kerry is an idiot.

I believe though that the context of his statement WAS concerning the state of affairs our country is in and was intended as a criticism of the opportunities our country currently affords those of lower academic achievement.  Kinda like: "Look what is available to you under our current administration; it sucks". 

I think he is seriously dumb if he thought that his 'joke' would achieve it's intended result.  Very very easy to confuse the message he was trying to convey

[quote=BondGuy]

I wanted to make sure you weren't getting your information from Bob Perry or The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Who, ironically turned out to be liars.[/quote]

Says who? I wasn't interested in them exploring the fog of war when it came to the minute details of the circumstances of his decorations. I doubt many could survive that sort of scrutiny.

But their larger point, the fact that he told tall tails about his “Christmas in Cambodia”, that his fellow officers didn’t think much of him, that his tour of duty was 1/3 the standard length than he slurred them upon his return in order to spark a political career. Those were important truths, and probably explains why something along the lines of 70% of active duty service members voted against him.

[quote=BondGuy]If we turn the clock back 35 years, while not liking what Kerry was doing, it's at least understandable. Within the context of the times attacking the vets was just another antiwar strategy. [/quote]

Sorry, there's no "understanding" the smear of US troops in Vietnam Kerry conducted, and there's no forgetting what a craven opportunist the guy is. My father served two tours, we all take that sort of thing to heart.

I'm not in the military, nor have I been.  That said, my association is as follows:

My father was in the Navy as a Radioman, 3rd class.  Never saw any action and served four years.

My brother-in-law is currently in the Marines.  He is getting two weeks of leave Nov. 14-28 so that he can come home and get married before he goes off to Asia (first Japan for three months, followed by Korea). 

My close friend was in the Army and served in Bosnia while much of that conflict was taking place.  Saw some action, but made it home safely.

Finally, my grandfather (mother's side) was in WWII.  He served in Europe and was part of the later wave that took Normandy.  He spent 12 years in the Army and came away with a Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

I have utmost respect for those that served, both in wartimes and non-wartimes.  The fact that someone is selfless enough to put their life on the line day-in, day-out so that I can criticize my gonvernment, along with many of the other freedoms we have that those in other countries could be killed for, is what is great about this country and I take my hat off to those that serve for me. 

[quote=dude]

I generally agree that John Kerry is an idiot.[/quote]

I don't understand why Kerry, a sub-par Yale student (so much so that he was rejected by Harvard, where Bush got his MBA), spends so much time making jokes about the intellect of someone who earned an almost identical GPA. I says so much about this smug, money-marrying elitist snob.

tails = tales

[quote=BondGuy]

Babs,

I wanted to make sure you weren't getting your information from Bob Perry or The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Who, ironically turned out to be liars.

If we turn the clock back 35 years, while not liking what Kerry was doing, it's at least understandable. Within the context of the times attacking the vets was just another antiwar strategy. I too thought it was wrong. Personally, I won't go see a Jane Fonda movie. Yet, calling all vets baby killers was a way to drum up support for peace. In the times, as you know, not only was it accepted, it was widely supported.  Kerry found his political footing in this movement. The entire country was being torn apart by the war. For a young person with political aspirations the anti war movement was almost too good to be true. It was a no brainer "How to get elected white paper." Just join the movement. He did, in the most contrived way, by first serving in the military and by fighting in the war. Even though, he admits, when he joined he had no intention of getting in harm's way. And even by cynically saying he served as part of a plan isn't quite right, because back then, there were only so many ways out of the war. How was he to know that 20 to 35 years later, that draft dodgers would be in control? Now, 35 years later we've lost the emotional context of that era, but the words remain as part of the official record. Words that are brought out and displayed at every RNC meeting in the country.

The Vets have every right to be pissed off this guy, but don't ever buy into the spin. Not taking kerry at his word that his comments were directed at Bush is implausable. Regardless of what you think of him, kerry is not a stupid man. Only a complete imbecile would make a comment like that a week before an election. Take the cheap shot if you wish, Kerry's not an imbecile. As for an apology, for what? He misspoke, he owes noone an apology.

About Clinton the draft dodger- You've got to remember the times. Early on, mid 60s males were running to the fight. Nam was their    WW II. By 68 momentum had shifted. Everyone was trying to get out of the draft. College deferments were the order of the day. The 68 democratic convention and the 70 shootings at Kent State were hallmarks of the times.

 Clinton ran to Oxford, used politcal influence to avoid draft, acceptable as measured in context by the times. Most families were looking for ways to get their sons out of the draft. The ending of graduate deferments went to the issue of how desperate the government was to fill its quota.

Bush ran and hid in the National Guard, used political influence to avoid duty. I use the term hid as it was used by us all at that time. Hiding in the National Guard was an acceptable, if last ditch effort, to avoid Vietnam. This is why I harbor no ill will for Bush having done so. We were all headed there if need be.

Cheney- racked up what was it, eleven deferments? His comment when asked why he chose not to serve was "I had better things to do" is truly insulting to troops everywhere and in every time. Yet, within the context of the times, acceptable.

Rumsfeld-Served in the navy as a carrier pilot. He came of age between Korea and Vietnam. Which is a shame because, no doubt he would have landed an F4 in North Vietnam and micromanaged them into surrendering, kicking their asses the whole time. I don't like what Rummy's done with Iraq, but on whole, he's my kind of guy.

So when you call Clinton a draft dodger, it's not an insult. He shares that distinction with many others, including our President and Vice President. They are all products of the times. Within the context of that time, none is wrong for their choice. All are wrong for trying to use it as a smear.

Finally, there's Rice. Rice is one of the major architects of our new "pre-emptive war" foreign policy. She believes that the world will be a safer place if it's all one big happy democracy. And that, while we stand unchallenged as the world's only super power, now is the time to strike. Now, when no military can challenge us. She's right, it would be safer. Yet, the world doesn't want to be a big happy democracy. Sovereign nations and people aren't cozying up to the idea of do it our way or else. Go figure! So, I gotta disagree on Rice.

[/quote]

Man, BondGuy...you are a voice of balanced reason, you actually make sense.  I was beginning to think that folks around here only responded after referencing The Republican Codex's chapter on acceptable opinions.

When are people going to realize that real life doesn't fit into a polarized black and white framework?  There are innumerable ways to look at and solve problems...not just through a Liberal/Conservative lenz.

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

Question for all of you:

If you posted regarding this topic, would you please share YOUR personal military experience?  I would be interested in your feedback...  Call it curiousity more than anything else.  Remember, please don't fib as I am an active service member and can see right through you...

To doberman, NOFX, badmove, BrokerRecruit, Starka, My Inner Child, BondGuy, MikeButler22, BabblingLooney, Vagabond, and AirForce...  My thanks in advance...

[/quote]

What, are you kidding? Does military service give you some moral advantage over those of us who didn't serve? And if so, where does that leave Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and the rest of the chickenhawks? OK with you if they speak to the issue?    

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

Question for all of you:

If you posted regarding this topic, would you please share YOUR personal military experience?  I would be interested in your feedback...  Call it curiousity more than anything else.  Remember, please don't fib as I am an active service member and can see right through you...

To doberman, NOFX, badmove, BrokerRecruit, Starka, My Inner Child, BondGuy, MikeButler22, BabblingLooney, Vagabond, and AirForce...  My thanks in advance...

[/quote]

We don't have to have any military experience to comment, nor do we have to have been a senator to comment. Your post makes me wonder if Jon Carry wasn't right, afterall.

[quote=dude]Man, BondGuy...you are a voice of balanced reason, you actually make sense. [/quote]

It's human nature to think someone who agrees with you is the "voice of reason", dude...

[quote=dude] I was beginning to think that folks around here only responded after referencing The Republican Codex's chapter on acceptable opinions.[/quote]

It's a feature of our current political culture that some people seem to think that those who don't agree with them aren't reaching their conclusions based on their own review of the facts, they’re simply programmed and easily led…..

MikeB said:

Sorry, there's no "understanding" the smear of US troops in Vietnam Kerry conducted, and there's no forgetting what a craven opportunist the guy is. My father served two tours, we all take that sort of thing to heart.

Reply:

So do you really believe the Bush Administrations BS about why Iraq?  To me it smells of opportunistic hubris as much as Kerry's behavior, if not more.

[quote=BondGuy]Cheney- racked up what was it, eleven deferments? His

comment when asked why he chose not to serve was “I had better things to

do” is truly insulting to troops everywhere and in every time. [/quote]



(Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a

Campaign Issue - nytimes.com)



FWIW Cheney’s quote is "“I had other priorities in the 60’s than military

service.” when the Wash Post asked him about his five deferals when he was

being being reviewed to become the Sec Def.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]Man, BondGuy...you are a voice of balanced reason, you actually make sense. [/quote]

It's human nature to think someone who agrees with you is the "voice of reason", dude...

[quote=dude] I was beginning to think that folks around here only responded after referencing The Republican Codex's chapter on acceptable opinions.[/quote]

It's a feature of our current political culture that some people seem to think that those who don't agree with them aren't reaching their conclusions based on their own review of the facts, they’re simply programmed and easily led…..

[/quote]

MikeB, I assure you that I don't doubt your command or review of the pertinent facts...I just doubt your conclusions.  As a matter of fact, when we were debating a similar topic (Bush admin/Iraq War etc..) I remember discussing the failure of the war (although you disagreed) concerning escalating violence etc...

Since then things have gotten worse.  Care to comment as to why I should agree with your position?  Even Bush is mincing words concerning a 'change' of approach. 

As for my comments to bondguy, I don't necessarily agree with all his points; I can't stand Rumsfeld...I agree more with his paradigm and generally non partisan approach.  It doesn't sound like it's coming from the Loony Lefties or the Self Righteous Righties.

[quote=dude]

So do you really believe the Bush Administrations BS about why Iraq?  To me it smells of opportunistic hubris as much as Kerry's behavior, if not more.

[/quote]

You must be joking, dude. You going to come up with some alternative reason now? Lemme guess, oil, right?

Kerry slurred the very troops he served with, while thousands were still in Vietnam in the fight, and he did it to start a political career.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]Man, BondGuy...you are a voice of balanced reason, you actually make sense. [/quote]

It's human nature to think someone who agrees with you is the "voice of reason", dude...

[quote=dude] I was beginning to think that folks around here only responded after referencing The Republican Codex's chapter on acceptable opinions.[/quote]

It's a feature of our current political culture that some people seem to think that those who don't agree with them aren't reaching their conclusions based on their own review of the facts, they’re simply programmed and easily led…..

[/quote]

MikeB, I assure you that I don't doubt your command or review of the pertinent facts...I just doubt your conclusions. [/quote]

I, and others that disagree with you, won’t ever sound like “a voice of balanced reason”, we’re never going to “make sense”, dude. It’s pure human nature. Bondguy agrees with on the larger issues and is one of a limited number that does so.

[quote=dude][As a matter of fact, when we were debating a similar topic (Bush admin/Iraq War etc..) I remember discussing the failure of the war (although you disagreed) concerning escalating violence etc...

Since then things have gotten worse. Care to comment as to why I should agree with your position? [/quote]

You don’t have to agree with me, and you’re free to call it a “failure”, a term usually reserved for post-event, reviews, not commentary on an ongoing event. To me that desire to reach a final conclusion long before the curtain closes says a great deal.

[quote=BondGuy]....and the rest of the chickenhawks?    [/quote]

[quote=dude]

I generally agree that John Kerry is an idiot.

I believe though that the context of his statement WAS concerning the state of affairs our country is in and was intended as a criticism of the opportunities our country currently affords those of lower academic achievement.  Kinda like: "Look what is available to you under our current administration; it sucks". 

I think he is seriously dumb if he thought that his 'joke' would achieve it's intended result.  Very very easy to confuse the message he was trying to convey

[/quote]

Wait a sec, are you saying you think he was saying if you don't do well in school you'll end up in the military?

If so, what do you think that might be confused for, as you say in your last paragraph?

BTW, since people joining the military have a higher average education than the public at large, what's your specific point about currently affords those of lower academic achievement?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

So do you really believe the Bush Administrations BS about why Iraq?  To me it smells of opportunistic hubris as much as Kerry's behavior, if not more.

[/quote]

You must be joking, dude. You going to come up with some alternative reason now? Lemme guess, oil, right?

Kerry slurred the very troops he served with, while thousands were still in Vietnam in the fight, and he did it to start a political career.

[/quote]

Nope.  Let me quote myself here:

[quote=dude]Iraq is a poorly thought out and poorly executed attempt at bludgeoning the middle east into parity with the rest of the world.  Although the ideal is admirable and would be great for the world in the long run...it's the logistics of the whole thing that makes the idea laughable.  Just look at the results...[/quote]

Helping stabalize oil supply might play into it somehow, but I think that's a brazen and short sighted accusation given the bigger prize... 

I think that the intentions were good....though, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, John Kerry is an opportunistic ass...so is Bush. 

None of the primary reasons for going to Iraq have ever materialized...connections to Al Queda, WMD etc...At the time it required a BIG stretch to connect Iraq to Al Queda as well as lay the foundation for a 'pre-emptive' strike (it's laughable that we were 'pre-empting' anything other than some scuds maybe hitting the Iraq desert on their way to Israel).  It leaves me wondering if Bush was being opportunistic to 'forge' a new middle east?

Look, if you told me one thing to motivate me to act (maybe that Iraq had WMD's etc...), then I act based on your info.  You better believe that your credibility would be lost if I showed up and there was no evidence of your claims.  Why is Bush exempt from this?

Maybe because he's a Republican?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

I generally agree that John Kerry is an idiot.

I believe though that the context of his statement WAS concerning the state of affairs our country is in and was intended as a criticism of the opportunities our country currently affords those of lower academic achievement.  Kinda like: "Look what is available to you under our current administration; it sucks". 

I think he is seriously dumb if he thought that his 'joke' would achieve it's intended result.  Very very easy to confuse the message he was trying to convey

[/quote]

Wait a sec, are you saying you think he was saying if you don't do well in school you'll end up in the military?

If so, what do you think that might be confused for, as you say in your last paragraph?

BTW, since people joining the military have a higher average education than the public at large, what's your specific point about currently affords those of lower academic achievement?

[/quote]

I think you're stupid if you think Kerry would mean what your implying while trying to get elected.  Give me a break, he's not that dumb (just dumb enough).

Actually, I don't think you're stupid...it's just that your only framework for opinions seems to come from the National Republican Codex, so it colors the value of your insight.  An honest person would admit that Kerry was not intending to say what amounts to:

"Stupid Americans enlist in the military"

Only Republican Opportunists would suggest that.

I am not suggesting that Kerry articulated his point well at all. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

You don’t have to agree with me, and you’re free to call it a “failure”, a term usually reserved for post-event, reviews, not commentary on an ongoing event. To me that desire to reach a final conclusion long before the curtain closes says a great deal.

[/quote]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure?  When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when..... Not that I advocate 'cut and run'.  This has been an awfully executed war with little in the way to justify it.  Whether we establish a stable government or not I would hope that in the history books the Iraq war is not cited as an example of why we should go to war or how it should be executed.  Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested?  It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then?

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI by colonial imperialist interests, populated by a culture that is religiously and socially at odds with ours who has been suffering under the weight of economic destitution is not a fertile soil to plant the seed of a Western Style democracy...especially not at the hands of it's 'oppressor'.  We may not agree with the paradigm of America as an oppressor, but only an idiot would ignore that the average muslim in the Middle East does when trying to convince the masses to hop on board.  It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

I generally agree that John Kerry is an idiot.

I believe though that the context of his statement WAS concerning the state of affairs our country is in and was intended as a criticism of the opportunities our country currently affords those of lower academic achievement.  Kinda like: "Look what is available to you under our current administration; it sucks". 

I think he is seriously dumb if he thought that his 'joke' would achieve it's intended result.  Very very easy to confuse the message he was trying to convey

[/quote]

Wait a sec, are you saying you think he was saying if you don't do well in school you'll end up in the military?

If so, what do you think that might be confused for, as you say in your last paragraph?

BTW, since people joining the military have a higher average education than the public at large, what's your specific point about currently affords those of lower academic achievement?

[/quote]

I think you're stupid if you think Kerry would mean what your implying while trying to get elected.  Give me a break, he's not that dumb (just dumb enough). [/quote]

I'm not implying anything, dude, I'm trying to understand what you are saying Kerry meant. If I've misunderstood your comment, help me out.

You said "...was intended as a criticism of the opportunities our country currently affords those of lower academic achievement.". That's a different take on what he intended than I've heard anywhere else. It sure does sound like you think he's saying the people who end up in Iraq were of "lower academic achievement". And what could that possibly have been confused for that would be even more objectionable?

BTW, and this is a side issue, if that's really what Kerry meant, I'd ask him about the 4.6% unemployment figure and the fact that people joining the service average a higher education level than the public at large.

Mike, 

You are correct... I apologize about the error, having been 31B before I completed OCS...  Now 31A...  Can never get the NCO out of your blood... LOL 

To the rest, I don't mean to be critical of anyone... I've always found it interesting to match a person's point of view when involving the military with whether or not they have served...

Those in the military know what I mean when I say "some people are awfully brave when they are dealing with someone else's life!"  I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  I respect different points of view but don't act all HOOAH!!! just because your military experience is watching "Saving Private Ryan" and now your Movie Muscles are all flexed!!!

J.D. Pendry is a retired Army Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.

Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement.  You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage.  You're the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us.  You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it.  Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers.  Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute.  You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam.  Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact.  You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq.  You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam.  You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese.  Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken.  You said we can't win militarily in Iraq.  You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof.  And said we should redeploy to Okinawa.  Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert.  Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir.  You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass.  You're a phony and a disgrace.  Run away John.

Dick Durbin (Rush calls him "Turbin"), you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists.  Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate.  History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us!!   See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera.  Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again.  If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there.  You're a bloated drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs.  To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories  about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one United, with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers.  You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country.  Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is.  Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's "AXIS OF IDIOTS".  Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us.  Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers.  It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists.  Don't ever doubt that.  Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam.  If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.  Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism.  Your loyalty ends with self.  I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing.  You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform.  You need to run away from this war, this country.  Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.!

No, Mr. President, you don't get off the hook, either.  Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.  Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force.  It's your obligation to support them by confronting the  AXIS OF IDIOTS.  America must hear it from you that these Self-centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target.  You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media.  You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets.  Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.  They need you to do it now.

AMEN

Copyright J.D. Pendry 2006, Ret Sgt. Major US Army

I think the jist of what he was saying is that the Bush Admin has given all those who don't have many opportunities an option...albeit a worse one.

You know:  "you can always go fight in Iraq if nothing else" (sarcasm implied here)

For those against the war this is akin to saying: If you don't earn scholarships or get into school you can get there through risking your life on a bunk war.

This is definitley the impression I got, although I can see how it was so easily misconstrued.

Again, I am NO shill for Kerry.  To me he's just as big of a terd as Bush.

BondGuy:

You're really buying into this? Dobe, you're smarter than this.

---------------------------------------------

As was mentioned by a Democratic staffer, "Kerry handed the Republicans the '04 election and now he's going to hand them the '06 election, as well".

Yes, I am buying into this. Why? Because his statement is consistent with previous utterings (diarrhea of the mouth). First, starting with his virulent, fictitious testimony against the military during the Vietnam War. Second, with his accusation that American soldiers were breaking into Iraqi homes and abusing women and children. Third, his accusations against our military manning "Gitmo and Abu Garib" prisons. Do you see a pattern here? I do.

I've heard his "utterings" with my own ears, without the diatribe/opinion that the liberal or conservative press love to give, and my opinion is that Kerry should immediately resign, along with Pelosi; afterall, they called for Hastert to resign over Foley.

And I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican.  

[quote=dude]

So do you really believe the Bush Administrations BS about why Iraq? To me it smells of opportunistic hubris as much as Kerry's behavior, if not more.

[/quote] [quote=mikebutler222]You must be joking, dude. You going to come up with some alternative reason now? Lemme guess, oil, right?

Kerry slurred the very troops he served with, while thousands were still in Vietnam in the fight, and he did it to start a political career.

[/quote]

[quote=dude]Nope. Let me quote myself here:

Iraq is a poorly thought out and poorly executed attempt ….[/quote]

Your post doesn’t mention the “BS about why Iraq”. Just what was the “BS about why”?

[quote=dude]

Helping stabalize oil supply might play into it somehow, but I think that's a brazen and short sighted accusation given the bigger prize... [/quote]

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this….

[quote=dude]

Yes, John Kerry is an opportunistic ass...so is Bush. [/quote]

Hmmm, still waiting to see the reasoning behind why Bush is an opportunist on Iraq…

[quote=dude]

None of the primary reasons for going to Iraq have ever materialized...connections to Al Queda, WMD etc…[/quote]

The world thought he had WMDs (Democrats were talking about that as early as 1998) and there were connections to AQ. AQ’s former leader (the fat one now taking a dirt nap) was in Iraq before the war began, not a bad reason to suspect a connection.

[quote=dude]It leaves me wondering if Bush was being opportunistic to 'forge' a new middle east? [/quote]

Not interested in reviewing any conspiracy theories. Look to the resolution for going to war in Iraq that Kerry signed for the details.

[quote=dude]Look, if you told me one thing to motivate me to act (maybe that Iraq had WMD's etc...), then I act based on your info. You better believe that your credibility would be lost if I showed up and there was no evidence of your claims. Why is Bush exempt from this?

Maybe because he's a Republican?

[/quote]

Maybe it’s because he was relaying what every intel agency in the world thought, the same thing Clinton was saying in 1998?

On second thought, dude, I’m not interesting in some bizarre theory that “proves” Bush knowingly used incorrect intel info because he really had some alternative reasoning that he didn’t let us in on, and that “proves” he was an opportunist on par with Kerry.

You can have the last gasp on this. In the meantime I’ll find a website that we might all use to send some sort of care package to the kind of people we saw in that great photo.

mikebutler222:

I love these guys....

------------------------------------------------

Mike, I busted-out laughing when I saw this! Thanks for posting it!

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

Mike, 

You are correct... I apologize about the error, having been 31B before I completed OCS...  Now 31A...  Can never get the NCO out of your blood... LOL 

To the rest, I don't mean to be critical of anyone... I've always found it interesting to match a person's point of view when involving the military with whether or not they have served...

Those in the military know what I mean when I say "some people are awfully brave when they are dealing with someone else's life!"  I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  I respect different points of view but don't act all HOOAH!!! just because your military experience is watching "Saving Private Ryan" and now your Movie Muscles are all flexed!!!

[/quote]

I fully respect and thank those idividuals who have served.  I have some very close and dear friends/family serving in Iraq currently. 

One thing I don't understand though is why do I keep hearing the "defending our country" propaganda concerning the Iraq war...we are doing no such thing there, Iraq was not a threat to our 'way of life', yet this is the rallying cry of our armed forces...to defend our way of life.  Maybe Afghanistan and efforts to tackle terrorism are akin to defending our way of life, but Iraq...c'mon.

It's laughable to suggest that Iraq was a threat more worthy of confrontation than North Korea or Iran or any other rogue states...unless you also think that the school bully is justified in beating up the school wimp because he might at some point in the future, possibly fling a spitwad at the bully....which the bully heard from a friend of a friend of a friend.  Maybe because the bully wanted to make an example of the wimp, or maybe convert him to the bully's gang.  Interestingly when we open the wimp's locker...there's nothing to be found.

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

 I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  [/quote]

I say this with all due respect and thanks for your service, but as a former combat arms officer (with the appropriate tabs, wings and badges you can get without a badguy shooting at you), son of a career officer, I have a hard time with anyone, military background or not, who thinks that having been a soldier oneself is a prerequisite for anyone exercising their right of free speech, pro or con, about the military and the use of it.

We wear the uniform FOR free speech, not as a reason to deny it to others or as a precondition to have a right to it ourselves.

Now, give us an address so we can send some creature comforts your way (assuming you’re in the sandbox now).

[quote=dude]

I think the jist of what he was saying is that the Bush Admin has given all those who don't have many opportunities an option...albeit a worse one. [/quote]

That's a  different take than I've heard elsewhere, but I have to say, it's still insulting to people serving.

[quote=dude]This is definitley the impression I got, although I can see how it was so easily misconstrued.[/quote]

Well, if that's what he intended to say, that's as insulting as anything he's been accused of meaning. I think a Kerry-phile would tell you he was trying to say "do well in school or you'll end up the kind of dope who get's the country stuck in Iraq".

The irony that Lurch would make a stupid mistake while trying to make a "Bush is stoopid" joke it too funny for words.

[quote=dude]Again, I am NO shill for Kerry.  [/quote]

Never said you were, dude.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=StarsAndStripes]

 I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  [/quote]

I say this with all due respect and thanks for your service, but as a former combat arms officer (with the appropriate tabs, wings and badges you can get without a badguy shooting at you), son of a career officer, I have a hard time with anyone, military background or not, who thinks that having been a soldier oneself is a prerequisite for anyone exercising their right of free speech, pro or con, about the military and the use of it.

We wear the uniform FOR free speech, not as a reason to deny it to others or as a precondition to have a right to it ourselves.

Now, give us an address so we can send some creature comforts your way (assuming you’re in the sandbox now).

[/quote]

Well said!

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

Cheney- racked up what was it, eleven deferments? His comment when

asked why he chose not to serve was “I had better things to do” is truly

insulting to troops everywhere and in every time. [/quote]



(Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a

Campaign Issue - nytimes.com)



FWIW Cheney’s quote is "“I had other priorities in the 60’s than military

service.” when the Wash Post asked him about his five deferals when he

was being being reviewed to become the Sec Def.[/quote]



OK, you got me, I paraphrased from memory. Whats the difference?



Mike, at some point I’d like to talk to you about how you find info so

quickly. I’m impressed.

[quote=dude]

One thing I don't understand though is why do I keep hearing the "defending our country" propaganda concerning the Iraq war...we are doing no such thing there, Iraq was not a threat to our 'way of life', yet this is the rallying cry of our armed forces...to defend our way of life.  [/quote]

I know you don't like to hear it, dude, I know it doesn't fit your view of the world, but no less than Al Qeada themselves have said Iraq IS now the central front in what we call the global war on terror, what they call the jihad.

You can make the case that Iraq was just kite-flying kids until we went there, there were no terrorists there, we had no reason to fear that Saddam would give WMD to terrorists pals for use here, all that sort of stuff and we can waste bandwidth arguing about it.

However, right now, as the world exists today, AQ has made it clear where the struggle is.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

Cheney- racked up what was it, eleven deferments? His comment when

asked why he chose not to serve was “I had better things to do” is truly

insulting to troops everywhere and in every time. [/quote]



(Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a

Campaign Issue - nytimes.com)



FWIW Cheney’s quote is "“I had other priorities in the 60’s than military

service.” when the Wash Post asked him about his five deferals when he

was being being reviewed to become the Sec Def.[/quote]



OK, you got me, I paraphrased from memory. Whats the difference?

[/quote]



I think the difference is the way Cheney said it wasn’t an insult to thse

who served. Cheney, being older than Bush and Kerry, was in a weird

position for the draft. In the early sixties when he was in prime age, the

percentage being drafted was very low. Later, in '65 when the percentage

got much bigger, he got his final deferment, as a new father and was

older than the average draftee. As you can imagine, like any politician

(well, other than Kerry ) Cheney’s been very careful about giving credit

to those who did serve.



[quote=BondGuy]Mike, at some point I’d like to talk to you about how

you find info so quickly. I’m impressed.[/quote]



Thanks. It’s a combination of familiarity with the details and Google/

dogpile.

I just thought that you were a walking political junkie MikeB…good to know that you’re just like the rest of us.  I would suck to be that geeky. lol

It would suck to be that geeky.  

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=BondGuy]

Kerry was part of a movement, not the movement. The problem today is as I've said, the heat of that moment has passed, the national mood has changed. Kerry, however, remains a lightning rod on this issue. [/quote]

He hasn't gone away, he continues to defend his actions.

[quote=BondGuy]

The bigger issue, and yes there was a bigger issue, was what Kerry and other antiwar activist were trying to accomplish, ending a police action that was killing people on both sides and trying to stop escalation. Today, with 30 years of reflection, can you or anyone give me a valid reason as to why we were in Vietnam? I know the "reasons" we were there. Need a good "why"

[/quote]

Sorry, bondguy, no amount of "what" they were trying to do will change the "how" they did it.

[quote=dude]I just thought that you were a walking political junkie MikeB...[/quote]

I am.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][ Yet, my belief is that most, not all, recruits are still joining for economic reasons. That is, they have poor job and/or educational prospects at home, so they join to get the leg up that the military offers. In this way, there is a demographic tilt within the military towards the economically disadvantaged. [/quote]

You're wrong.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.c fm

 Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees. For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pen­tagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.

[/quote]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank?

OK, out of respect for you I read the linked page. Interesting stuff. A couple of things though and if I read it wrong straighten me out (like I gotta tell you that, huh?):

Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. Even that doesn't match the cost of living for the state. As such incomes below that amount qualify for assistance.  So, $44,000 might cut it as middle class in Backwater USA but it ain't doing the trick here in the Northeast. At least not in Jersey.

The median family income in my town is $76,000. The town immediately to our south is at $78,000. Immediately north it's over $80,000. One town to the east is also in the mid seventies. Point being, we classify ourselves as middle class, or upper middle.

Still, with all this income people in our towns struggle to find ways to pay for their children's college education. If families making $75,000 are struggling to send their children to college, I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that it's more of a struggle for people making $44,000. Thus the economically disadvantaged statement I made still holds true. I wasn't talking about a ghetto army. I'm talking about how does one pay for college?

On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. other areas of recruiting success, rural areas and the south. I don't know if that means rural south or rural and southern states. Either way, rural means no job prospects. I think small town with no other way out of Dodge.

Again, I believe the military to be an excellent career path. Whoever posted it earlier, put the military path in a good perspective. The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq. I've even brought it up, asking why not consider it? They look at me and say don't you you know what's going on? My answer is I'm a dad, I know everything, yet I know nothing.

 I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.

Wow, it sucks to be a loser. The democrats must hate life.



We bring up John Kerry is piss pore American for the comments he says about our troops.



Democrats response:

He did not mean that?

Dick Cheeny did this…

George Bush did this…

Republicans did that…

Rush Limbaugh was mean… M. Fox was over medicated…

Fox is not fair…

Afganistan…

Talaban took over town… with 2 terrorists…

Kerry meant this… lower grades and lost election…





Sounds like a kids response after being caught stealing.





Come on men/ladies. Was it this way in the 90’s? The difference was Clinton was blown in the oval office and the Senator from Mass screwed a page. Ohh yeah, Ruth Beta was nominated for the Supreme Court. That was one hell of a Q & A… Well I dont think I should answer that… Followed by childish giggle.



What did the Republicans talk about that was not based on fact? I am asking this since I do not know.

[quote=StarsAndStripes] [quote=dude]

I’m in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I’m bored.

Oh, did I mention that I’m also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

[/quote]

This is funny how?

[QUOTE]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? When we don't find WMD's
or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, or when civil war erupts, or when
after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.....
Not that I advocate 'cut and run'. This has been an awfully executed war
with little in the way to justify it. Whether we establish a stable
government or not I would hope that in the history books the Iraq war is
not cited as an example of why we should go to war or how it should be
executed. Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had
egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if
eventually the desired outcome manifested? It will be someone elses
mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it
right, would it be a success then?

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI by colonial
imperialist interests, populated by a culture that is religiously and socially
at odds with ours who has been suffering under the weight of economic
destitution is not a fertile soil to plant the seed of a Western Style
democracy...especially not at the hands of it's 'oppressor'. We may not
agree with the paradigm of America as an oppressor, but only an idiot
would ignore that the average muslim in the Middle East does when trying
to convince the masses to hop on board. It's the population of Iraq whom
we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's
government.

[/quote]

This pretty much nails it. Our failure to understand or at least plan for
the tribal nature of this mission is in large part responsible for where we
stand today. That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to
begin with.

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. This his third book
about Bush/Iraq. The previous two have been pro bush if you want to
know how Woodward leans. This one not so. Just through the first section
of the book and it's incredible how poorly this was planned. Clueless
doesn't come close. it does bring out the fact that all of our top field
commanders believed there were WMDs but were troubled that there was
no confirming intell to that end. Also interesting is a snippet about
something called 'Sunday morning Prayer Meetings" Where field
commanders and their junior officers would meet every Sunday, in
Kuwait, just prior to the invasion to discuss everything about everthing. It
was an open forum quest for new thinking. Had we thought of
everything? One week an officer put forth a counter intel reasoning for
Sadam's requiring his offices to read Black Hawk Down. The popular belief
was it was a moral builder for Iraqie commanders. Kill a few americans
and they'll go home. Yet this officer put forth that it was instead an
operations manual. A "How To" on how to defeat a superior force. His
hypothesis, that Sadam's army would melt away and become an insurgent
army. popping up at will, and drawing the U. S. into a long drawn out
gorilla war, for which the american public had no stomach, was dismissed
by all in the room. So much for out of the box thinking. They stuck with
the Fortress Bagdad theory, and we all know how that turned out.

By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. In Iraq we're
doing Stand and Lose.

Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank? [/quote]

They used DoD information. You wouldn't expect a left wing group to do that research, would you?

[quote=BondGuy]Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. [/quote]

It's a Federal number, not a NJ number....

[quote=BondGuy]On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. [/quote]

Really? Did you do some check of unemployment numbers? If someone said "quick, name the states with "poor job prospects" would those three come to mind? I wouldn’t have thought of them first.

Ever consider that the denominator isn't employment rates, but the fact that they're culturally "red" states? Perhaps that's also why you see (in your personal experience) lower interest in NJ? If enlistees came from “poor job prospect” areas you’d expect they’d come from the worst areas, the inner cities.

[quote=BondGuy]The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq.[/quote]

Your anecdotal perspective is interesting, but it doesn't explain the DoD making their recruiting goals and the high re-enlistment rates. Again, where you live makes a difference.

[quote=BondGuy]

I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.

[/quote]

Yeah, that one confuses a lot of people who don't have much contact with the military.

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=StarsAndStripes] [quote=dude]

I’m in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I’m bored.

Oh, did I mention that I’m also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

[/quote]

This is funny how?

[quote=BondGuy]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? [/quote]

When it’s over. Just like we didn’t start talking about “failure” in any other war until it was over. People who want to describe it as “failure” now have a agenda to call it such.

[quote=BondGuy] When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, …[/quote]

There were links to AQ, not finding WMDs has already been called an intel failure.

[quote=BondGuy]

or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.…[/quote]

If, not “when”….

[quote=BondGuy] Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested? [/quote]

That would be an apt description of almost every war that mankind, much less the US, has ever been involved it. It’s only after the parades that the retelling of the story loses the above and only mentions the victory. Take a look at any description of our Civil War, for example.

[quote=BondGuy]

It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then? [/quote]

That’s just the sort of lets-paint-it-as-a-failure-now, and for transparently political reasons that just makes these conversations a waste of time.

[quote=BondGuy]

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI…..[/quote]

Sounds just like the descriptions of how/why we couldn’t prevail in Afghanistan. “Tribal culture”, “brutal Afghan Winters” QQQUUAAAAAGGGGMMIIREEEEE….

[quote=BondGuy] It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.[/quote]

No, it’s an element of that population. Actually a fraction of it, and it’s of various subsets.

[quote=BondGuy] That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.[/quote]

There you have it folks, some people just need to be right, even if the real cost is victory.

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. [/quote]

As Snow correctly put it “If They’d Only Listened to Me”…..if the war was going well he book would have featured a different set of voices from the very same available chorus. Books written after we win will sound completely different, just like a book written about Afghanistan today would read completely differently than one written a year ago, which would sound completely different than one written on week two of that fight..

What would a book written about WWII after Dunkirk or the Battle of the Bulge or Pearl Harbor or any number of other setbacks read like, versus one written after 1945?

[quote=BondGuy] By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. [/quote]

That’s ridiculous beyond words. I bet that without doing a Google you couldn’t even tell us how many US troops are there. You simply haven’t a clue.

[quote=BondGuy] In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. [/quote]

Yawn….seems like you still haven’t gotten around to reading the AQ inter-office mail that details how they are saying they’re getting crushed…my guess is they know more about the situation on the ground than you do.

BTW, tell me, besides getting people like you to talk doom and gloom louder and louder, and get those who speak like you to grow in numbers, how will the insurgents/terrorists defeat us when they can’t do anything but set off bombs and snipe? They can’t hold ground, they can’t organize a government, and as unpopular as you think we are there, they’re even more unpopular with the population.

So tell me, how do we lose?

[quote=BondGuy] Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[/quote]

No doubt the finest military strategists can be found right here, on this forum. Here’s the deal, the commanders on the ground are constantly evolving their tactics and strategy on the ground, moving and reorganizing forces as the enemy changes. This war isn’t being run out of the basement of the Whitehouse. Bush isn’t reviewing target lists. The military professionals are, and I have confidence in their abilities.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank? [/quote]

They used DoD information. You wouldn't expect a left wing group to do that research, would you?

You get what you pay for. The right paid for that report to fight this very same debate. Bought and paid for stats never have impressed me, left or right

[quote=BondGuy]Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. [/quote]

It's a Federal number, not a NJ number....

Which means what? The number doesn't count? $38,000 in Jersey gets you sleepless nights waiting for the repo man. And public assistance. Bump it up to $44k and what, we're sending jr to Rutgers? Not a chance. And while the cost of living in NJ may be higher than say Alabama or someplace it's not significantly higher. The 44K as a middle class income number is not valid. It certainly doesn't allow families to freely foot the bill for college. The military is a great answer to a big problem. Which is why the military offers money for school.

[quote=BondGuy]On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. [/quote]

Really? Did you do some check of unemployment numbers? If someone said "quick, name the states with "poor job prospects" would those three come to mind? I wouldn’t have thought of them first.

Actually yes, these states would come to mind, along with rural areas of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and WVa. Dead ends for serious job prospects. Think small one horse towns where the biggest thing going is the Friday night football game. One or two employers supply the economic engine and hold all the cards. These towns exist all over the country. Nothing wrong if you want to follow family tradition and work down at the plant, but if you want more or different getting out can be a struggle. The military is one way to achieve that end, and maybe the only way for a kid who is average.

Ever consider that the denominator isn't employment rates, but the fact that they're culturally "red" states? Perhaps that's also why you see (in your personal experience) lower interest in NJ? If enlistees came from “poor job prospect” areas you’d expect they’d come from the worst areas, the inner cities.

No, I don't know that's there's a basis for red/blue versus enlistment. On the surface it holds some merit. As for the inner cities, I don't think so. I don't think there would be a lot of recruiting there. One problem is the military won't take those without a HS diploma. The closest inner city to me is Camden NJ. Dropout rate is over 50% or there abouts. Many of those who stay in school pay for college thru a variety of aid programs. I know of two students from single mom households who are attending college this way. Mom pays zero, the kids pay zero. One of these kids is at Douglas. That's 1/2 notch below Ivy league. Not bad for a poor kid, or any kid. Next, the enlistee has to pass a test with a minimum score. My thinking is that an inner city dropout, or all dropouts for that matter, would have little chance of scoring high enough on that test to be eligible. So the inner city would be a poor recruiting ground.

[quote=BondGuy]The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq.[/quote]

Your anecdotal perspective is interesting, but it doesn't explain the DoD making their recruiting goals and the high re-enlistment rates. Again, where you live makes a difference.

They've lowered their standards to make the goal. With my son, they told him that they'd made a mistake, discovered where it was made and corrected it.  They also told him that even if he had the medical condition as they previously believed, it no longer disqualified him. Sounds like a lower standard to me. But, yes, where you live does make a difference. My original point, recruiting is less successful where competition is greatest. That's both economic and regional in nature. In a one horse town the kid has one or two choices if he doesn't go to college. In a metro area like the Philly suburbs he can become a union carpenter making $60K a year or an electrician making the same. He/she could work for UPS making $50k to drive a truck. The opportunities are endless. The military has got to compete.

[quote=BondGuy]

I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.

[/quote]

Yeah, that one confuses a lot of people who don't have much contact with the military.

[/quote]

I think it's connected to the inner city drop out problem. But, don't know for sure.

[quote=BondGuy]

[/quote]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure?  When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when..... Not that I advocate 'cut and run'.  This has been an awfully executed war with little in the way to justify it.  Whether we establish a stable government or not I would hope that in the history books the Iraq war is not cited as an example of why we should go to war or how it should be executed.  Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested?  It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then?

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI by colonial imperialist interests, populated by a culture that is religiously and socially at odds with ours who has been suffering under the weight of economic destitution is not a fertile soil to plant the seed of a Western Style democracy...especially not at the hands of it's 'oppressor'.  We may not agree with the paradigm of America as an oppressor, but only an idiot would ignore that the average muslim in the Middle East does when trying to convince the masses to hop on board.  It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.

[/quote]

This pretty much nails it. Our failure to understand or at least plan for the tribal nature of this mission is in large part responsible for where we stand today. That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. This his third book about Bush/Iraq. The previous two have been pro bush if you want to know how Woodward leans. This one not so. Just through the first section of the book and it's incredible how poorly this was planned. Clueless doesn't come close. it does bring out the fact that all of our top field commanders believed there were WMDs but were troubled that there was no confirming intell to that end. Also interesting is a snippet about something called 'Sunday morning Prayer Meetings" Where field commanders and their junior officers would meet every Sunday, in Kuwait, just prior to the invasion to discuss everything about everthing. It was an open forum quest for new thinking. Had we thought of everything? One week an officer put forth a counter intel reasoning for Sadam's requiring his offices to read Black Hawk Down. The popular belief was it was a moral builder for Iraqie commanders. Kill a few americans and they'll go home. Yet this officer put forth that it was instead an operations manual. A "How To" on how to defeat a superior force. His hypothesis, that Sadam's army would melt away and become an insurgent army. popping up at will, and drawing the U. S. into a long drawn out gorilla war, for which the american public had no stomach, was dismissed by all in the room. So much for out of the box thinking. They stuck with the Fortress Bagdad theory, and we all know how that turned out.

By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. 

Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? [/quote]

When it’s over. Just like we didn’t start talking about “failure” in any other war until it was over. People who want to describe it as “failure” now have a agenda to call it such.

[quote=BondGuy] When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, …[/quote]

There were links to AQ, not finding WMDs has already been called an intel failure.

[quote=BondGuy]

or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.…[/quote]

If, not “when”….

[quote=BondGuy] Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested? [/quote]

That would be an apt description of almost every war that mankind, much less the US, has ever been involved it. It’s only after the parades that the retelling of the story loses the above and only mentions the victory. Take a look at any description of our Civil War, for example.

[quote=BondGuy]

It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then? [/quote]

That’s just the sort of lets-paint-it-as-a-failure-now, and for transparently political reasons that just makes these conversations a waste of time.

[quote=BondGuy]

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI…..[/quote]

Sounds just like the descriptions of how/why we couldn’t prevail in Afghanistan. “Tribal culture”, “brutal Afghan Winters” QQQUUAAAAAGGGGMMIIREEEEE….

[quote=BondGuy] It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.[/quote]

No, it’s an element of that population. Actually a fraction of it, and it’s of various subsets.

[quote=BondGuy] That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.[/quote]

There you have it folks, some people just need to be right, even if the real cost is victory.

For the record, not that it matters, everthing above this line attributed to me, not me. How did you connect me in to someone elses words?

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. [/quote]

As Snow correctly put it “If They’d Only Listened to Me”…..if the war was going well he book would have featured a different set of voices from the very same available chorus. Books written after we win will sound completely different, just like a book written about Afghanistan today would read completely differently than one written a year ago, which would sound completely different than one written on week two of that fight..

What would a book written about WWII after Dunkirk or the Battle of the Bulge or Pearl Harbor or any number of other setbacks read like, versus one written after 1945?

I heard Snow liked Bob's first two books about the Bush Presidency. They get so snippy when it's not all positives. Woodward would be disappointed if they said anything kind about him or his book. Interestingly, no big controversy disputing Woodward's claims. They let it quietly slip from the publics view. Usually the attack dogs do a hatchet job, not so in this case. i'm reading it to gain insight. I trust Woodward is centered enough not to be pushing an agenda.

[quote=BondGuy] By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. [/quote]

That’s ridiculous beyond words. I bet that without doing a Google you couldn’t even tell us how many US troops are there. You simply haven’t a clue.

Actually I can tell you exactly how many troops we have in Afganistan. Not enough to find  you know who, the six foot three diabetic, after five years of fighting and searching. Not to mention the resurgent taliban, who gain ground everyday. Yeah, mike, things are just peachy in Afganistan.

[quote=BondGuy] In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. [/quote]

Yawn….seems like you still haven’t gotten around to reading the AQ inter-office mail that details how they are saying they’re getting crushed…my guess is they know more about the situation on the ground than you do.

BTW, tell me, besides getting people like you to talk doom and gloom louder and louder, and get those who speak like you to grow in numbers, how will the insurgents/terrorists defeat us when they can’t do anything but set off bombs and snipe? They can’t hold ground, they can’t organize a government, and as unpopular as you think we are there, they’re even more unpopular with the population.

So tell me, how do we lose?

Mike, wrong tense, lost is the proper term. We've already lost. We've lost the country, we've lost the people. they are fighting each other. That's a civil war, unless it's an election year here and then it's not a civil war.  Because we've lost we need a new strategy to get this thing back under our control. Stay to course isn't cutting it. Failing a new course getting out is an alternative.

[quote=BondGuy] Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[/quote]

No doubt the finest military strategists can be found right here, on this forum. Here’s the deal, the commanders on the ground are constantly evolving their tactics and strategy on the ground, moving and reorganizing forces as the enemy changes. This war isn’t being run out of the basement of the Whitehouse. Bush isn’t reviewing target lists. The military professionals are, and I have confidence in their abilities.

[/quote]

I agree that we've got some pretty smart guys on the ground. Yet, these are some of the same guys who embraced Fortress Bagdad. So they're capable of mistakes. Even big picture mistakes. But mostly they're hamstrung by the policy makers in DC. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are running this war.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank? [/quote]

They used DoD information. You wouldn't expect a left wing group to do that research, would you?

You get what you pay for. The right paid for that report to fight this very same debate. Bought and paid for stats never have impressed me, left or right

The stats are DoD, they weren't paid for. Don't like their editiorializing? Fine, read the spread sheets, the DoD numbers. The left has this nifty stereotype of who enlists (or seeks a commission) and why. Facts don't seem to make much of a difference.

[quote=BondGuy]Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. [/quote]

It's a Federal number, not a NJ number....

Which means what?

Which means twisting national numbers to a specific state (as if they aren't already part of the national average) distorts all of it. $38k ain't "poverty line" anywhere, aside from with people like us.

[quote=BondGuy]On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. [/quote]

Really? Did you do some check of unemployment numbers? If someone said "quick, name the states with "poor job prospects" would those three come to mind? I wouldn’t have thought of them first.

Actually yes, these states would come to mind, along with rural areas of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and WVa.

Engage in whatever stereotypes you like. These aren't the states with the highest unemployment rates.

Ever consider that the denominator isn't employment rates, but the fact that they're culturally "red" states? Perhaps that's also why you see (in your personal experience) lower interest in NJ? If enlistees came from “poor job prospect” areas you’d expect they’d come from the worst areas, the inner cities.

No, I don't know that's there's a basis for red/blue versus enlistment. On the surface it holds some merit.

Military service holds a higher position of repect there than you'll find in blue state suburbs. Yours is a classic blue-state why-would-a-kid with-opportunity attitude.

[quote=BondGuy]The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq.[/quote]

Your anecdotal perspective is interesting, but it doesn't explain the DoD making their recruiting goals and the high re-enlistment rates. Again, where you live makes a difference.

They've lowered their standards to make the goal.

They didn't lower re-elistment standards, and the percentage of Non-HS grads now allowed in is miniscule. It was "big news" when they fell short, funny how it's NBD now that they've hit them again.

[quote=BondGuy]

I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.

[/quote]

Yeah, that one confuses a lot of people who don't have much contact with the military.

[/quote]

I think it's connected to the inner city drop out problem. But, don't know for sure.

There ARE graduates in the inner-city. There are also pockets of much higher unemployment than the regions where the military does best in recruiting. Here's an interesting aside, I did some econ work for my undergrad degree looking at the correlation of unemployment to enlistment rates. The talking point of the day was that we had an "economic draft". Guess what? No correlation, period.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? [/quote]

When it’s over. Just like we didn’t start talking about “failure” in any other war until it was over. People who want to describe it as “failure” now have a agenda to call it such.

[quote=dude] When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, …[/quote]

There were links to AQ, not finding WMDs has already been called an intel failure.

[quote=dude]

or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.…[/quote]

If, not “when”….

[quote=dude] Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested? [/quote]

That would be an apt description of almost every war that mankind, much less the US, has ever been involved it. It’s only after the parades that the retelling of the story loses the above and only mentions the victory. Take a look at any description of our Civil War, for example.

[quote=dude]

It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then? [/quote]

That’s just the sort of lets-paint-it-as-a-failure-now, and for transparently political reasons that just makes these conversations a waste of time.

[quote=dude]

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI…..[/quote]

Sounds just like the descriptions of how/why we couldn’t prevail in Afghanistan. “Tribal culture”, “brutal Afghan Winters” QQQUUAAAAAGGGGMMIIREEEEE….

[quote=dude] It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.[/quote]

No, it’s an element of that population. Actually a fraction of it, and it’s of various subsets.

[quote=dude] That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.[/quote]

There you have it folks, some people just need to be right, even if the real cost is victory.

For the record, not that it matters, everthing above this line attributed to me, not me. How did you connect me in to someone elses words?

I didn't see dude's post until after you asked this question. I simply responded to your post that included the above and didn't have full attribution in it.

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. [/quote]

As Snow correctly put it “If They’d Only Listened to Me”…..if the war was going well he book would have featured a different set of voices from the very same available chorus. Books written after we win will sound completely different, just like a book written about Afghanistan today would read completely differently than one written a year ago, which would sound completely different than one written on week two of that fight..

What would a book written about WWII after Dunkirk or the Battle of the Bulge or Pearl Harbor or any number of other setbacks read like, versus one written after 1945?

I heard Snow liked Bob's first two books about the Bush Presidency. They get so snippy when it's not all positives.

Given where we are in the war it's to be expected that it will be filled with "if they'd only listened to me" lines. The ones written after we win won't. That book will be about how the hurdles we faces were defeated and how the critics of the time overstated the gloom and doom.

[quote=BondGuy] By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. [/quote]

That’s ridiculous beyond words. I bet that without doing a Google you couldn’t even tell us how many US troops are there. You simply haven’t a clue.

Actually I can tell you exactly how many troops we have in Afganistan. Not enough to find you know who, the six foot three diabetic, after five years of fighting and searching.

Funny how you're certain he's there and how you know nothing of the force structure in Afghanistan. You really don't have a clue on this one, bond.

Not to mention the resurgent taliban, who gain ground everyday. Yeah, mike, things are just peachy in Afganistan.

Panic, panic, the resurgent Taliban, panic I say. This is the same baseless quagggganmmiirreeee talk we heard starting week two in Afghanistan. Remember when we were dooooomed in Iraq because of a sand storm? And again in week two because we had outrun our supply lines?

Look, they can't hold ground, they're killed by the score when they try to fight. N.Ireland had the IRA for 30 years, Spain has had ETA for decades. There will be remnants of the Taliban, coming back over from Pakistan where they've been hiding, and they'll be destroyed. It's stunning how quickly you dip into defeatist talk.

[quote=BondGuy] In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. [/quote]

Yawn….seems like you still haven’t gotten around to reading the AQ inter-office mail that details how they are saying they’re getting crushed…my guess is they know more about the situation on the ground than you do.

BTW, tell me, besides getting people like you to talk doom and gloom louder and louder, and get those who speak like you to grow in numbers, how will the insurgents/terrorists defeat us when they can’t do anything but set off bombs and snipe? They can’t hold ground, they can’t organize a government, and as unpopular as you think we are there, they’re even more unpopular with the population.

So tell me, how do we lose?

Mike, wrong tense, lost is the proper term. We've already lost. We've lost the country, we've lost the people.

And you know better than AQ's leadership how, exactly? Sorry bond, the politically inspired "lost" talk is just too foolish.

Tell me again how we “lose” (unless we take the doom and gloom to heart and hightail it out) to a group that can’t hold ground, can’t control roads, can’t control their supply lines?

Let me give you a hint, the ONLY way we lose is if we leave. They can’t make us leave, but if we wobble, if we run, THEN we can lose. They’re trying to win this like the Viet Cong did with the Tet Offensive. The gloom and doom types said that battle “proved” we couldn’t win at the same time the VC were eliminated, never to rise again, from the battlefield.

[quote=BondGuy] That's a civil war, unless it's an election year here and then it's not a civil war. [/quote]

More of the same, it’s over, we’ve lost, yadda yadda yadda. Iraq, according to some, was “dipping into civil war” two years ago. A civil war would require much larger elements of the population to be involved, for alternative governments to be formed and proposed. Think our civil war.

Because we've lost we need a new strategy to get this thing back under our control. Stay to course isn't cutting it. Failing a new course getting out is an alternative.

Pardon me, but when did you gain this grand insight? When were you on the ground in Iraq? In fact, when were you on the ground anywhere were there were more than 25 guys in uniform? What’s your vast experience in uniform?

Do you have any idea how silly it sounds to hear someone with absolutely no training, not background and really nothing aside from apolitical agenda pontificate about what should be done next and how we’ve “lost”? And please, don’t pretend “stay the course” mean there are no changes in tactics on the ground. It simply means we don’t cut and run.

[quote=BondGuy] Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[/quote]

No doubt the finest military strategists can be found right here, on this forum. Here’s the deal, the commanders on the ground are constantly evolving their tactics and strategy on the ground, moving and reorganizing forces as the enemy changes. This war isn’t being run out of the basement of the Whitehouse. Bush isn’t reviewing target lists. The military professionals are, and I have confidence in their abilities.

[/quote]

I agree that we've got some pretty smart guys on the ground. Yet, these are some of the same guys who embraced Fortress Bagdad. So they're capable of mistakes. Even big picture mistakes.

Setting aside your “fortress Baghdad” punch line, about being capable of mistakes (which is often what people assume when what they’re really seeing is the ebb and flow between warring forces) really? You mean they’re just like every group of military professionals that have ever existed? Golly….

But mostly they're hamstrung by the policy makers in DC. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are running this war.

Of course they are, the guys in uniform aren;t running it, and thus your gloom and doom is explained….

It's not really surprising that a thread about Kerry's foot-in-mouth issues gets twisted into how Bush has lost Afghanistan and Iraq, is it? Some form of knee-jerk Kerry defense, even if it’s just changing the subject to Bush, has to appear.

You guys feel free to continue, I have no interest in debating how we've "lost" with people that couldn't ID a Colonel from a Corporal, don’t have a shred of historic perspective of the hurdles confronted in every war in the history of mankind and allow a political desire to be "right" to cause them to speak nothing but doom and gloom with extraordinary certainty.

MikeB - you and I along with Dude had a very long and dragged out debate several months back on the Iraq war and I agree it's no use to debate and carry on our own expert analysis again. 

As blind as we are on the side that feels the war in Iraq has been mishandled and improperly planned and executed are - equally those who defend the war in it's execution as well.  You and I know that Murphy enters the equation early and often; I believe what separates a good leader from bad is how one adapts and overcomes what Murphy throws.  Many things involved with this war, certainly as I see it, have been bungled because of stubborness and arrogance but not for lack of desire and at the end of the day, not for lack of belief in the "mission" at hand. 

Unfortunately, regardless of what side we sit, are nation and politicians have become so stinking polarized that neither side can work together for the betterment of our nation and to see this mission through.  And as a result, those wearing the uniform are once again the pawns of the process who are suffering the results and are caught in the middle of our nation's arguments.  To me, this is most disheartening, as I believe, regardless of level of education, those who sign their name, raise their right hand, put on the uniform and stand their post are the best of what our nation has to offer - better than anybody else who has never served for what ever their reasons.  And it is simply unfortunate that politicians on both sides can not do them justice when they need it most; while at war. 

As citizens, our best course of action may be not to take our own podiums to debate to no avail our own beliefs, but to start demanding our politicians do their damn jobs and start working together to solve this or we need to throw ALL OF THEM out on their arses! 

[quote=csmelnix]

MikeB - you and I along with Dude had a very long and dragged out debate several months back on the Iraq war and I agree it's no use to debate and carry on our own expert analysis again. 

Agreed. It's a waste of time...

As blind as we are on the side that feels the war in Iraq has been mishandled and improperly planned and executed are - equally those who defend the war in it's execution as well. 

I doubt you'll find anyone defending every aspect of the fighting of the war. What I've done is try to bring some historic perspective to the issue. NO war is fought perfectly, ever. Never has, never will, but the problems that seemed insurmountable at the time are usualy forgotten after the victory is won. The same will be the case here.

Unfortunately, regardless of what side we sit, are nation and politicians have become so stinking polarized that neither side can work together for the betterment of our nation and to see this mission through. 

I disagree about "neither side... to see this mission through". I think we've reached a dangerous place where the followers (if not the political leaders themselves) of one side are so committed to "being right", so engaged in irrational hatred of the CinC that they are willing to smear US troops (read some Murtha comments about Marines who haven't even had the benefit of a trial and deserve the presumption of innocence) claim defeat right now. The otherside will have to win in spite of them.

  And it is simply unfortunate that politicians on both sides can not do them justice when they need it most; while at war. 

Again, I don't think the "both sides" applies. One side is committed to victory, the other, well, I have my doubts.

Mike,

I agree with your summation of those on the left - I think you are dead on.  But we will just have to agree to disagree about those on the right.  I think they are far to "my way or the highway" to work together and way to arrogant in their approach. 

[quote=csmelnix]

  But we will just have to agree to disagree about those on the right.  I think they are far to "my way or the highway" to work together and way to arrogant in their approach. 

[/quote]

Everyone is capable of being "my way or the highway" but just who are they to "work" with? What are they refusing to do? Give me an example.

Personally I think there's a large contingent of left/right committed to doing what's required, giving commanders on the ground what they ask for and need.

again Mike, we are getting into a debate that will not change either mind here but...a couple off the top of my head:

...the idea of looking at the partitioning of Iraq was welcomed by the administration as Tony Snow put it "a non starter."

...establishing measureable objectives, milestones or however one wants to word it to position the security into the Iraqi government entirely and also as a goal to begin withdrawl from Iraq....again welcomed as a nonstarter. 

Regardless of the merit of the examples simply refusing to discuss them more is what my point is. 

If there are enough left/right members who are committed to do what's right; why aren't they?

[quote=mikebutler222]

It's not really surprising that a thread about Kerry's foot-in-mouth issues gets twisted into how Bush has lost Afghanistan and Iraq, is it? Some form of knee-jerk Kerry defense, even if it’s just changing the subject to Bush, has to appear.

You guys feel free to continue, I have no interest in debating how we've "lost" with people that couldn't ID a Colonel from a Corporal, don’t have a shred of historic perspective of the hurdles confronted in every war in the history of mankind and allow a political desire to be "right" to cause them to speak nothing but doom and gloom with extraordinary certainty.

[/quote]

Talk about cut and run. Mike at least be honest. The people you're not interested in debating is only one person, me.  As soon as I start in on Iraq you start with the labels. I'm a defeatist. I have a political agenda. And now my lack of military duty disqualifies me from any standing in a public forum. Which I've got to wonder how you square that with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rice. Does Bush's National Guard duty qualify him to speak? OK, how about the rest of this group? Not only do they get to speak, the get to act. And they have a political agenda. Which, you agree with.

Mike, the midterm elections are about one Issue, Iraq. If the pols are correct, the house will go to the dems. You could consider it a referendum on Iraq. It's also a referendum on the abuse of power that has taken place over the last six ears. It's the american people saying "Sorry Mr President you no longer have a blank check to do what ever you want." And while it's ashame in that the dems don't have the answer either, it's a victory for the american people. They've taken the first step for getting their government back.

Lastly about my lack of military duty. I came of age during the latter stages of Vietnam. Enlistment or draft guaranteed a tour in country. I prepared by qualifying for Army flight school. I wanted to be a helicopter pilot.  The Army was going to give me that dream. I used the Army as a plan B because of Vietnam. When my number didn't come up in the draft lottery I went to college to get an engineering degree. Two years in to school and free of the draft threat I became disillusioned with school and went to sign up for flight school. Again, the batteries of tests. As part of my college courses I was an intern at an engineering company. One of the guys I worked with knew what I was doing and intervened. He set up a dinner with a buddy of his, a decorated Helicopter AC, just back from his second tour. I went, a 20 year old excited to talk to a real live war hero helicopter pilot. 34 years later, I still remember that dinner like it was last night. The war hero leveled me with a stay the hell out of the army speech that floored me, as well as scared the hell out of me. Grusome is the word to describe it. He wasn't John Kerry, but this guy had his own anti war gig going. He convinced me that joining the army was a mistake. So I left that meeting stayed in school for another year before striking out on my own to a start a small business. I met with early success, made a ton of dough, bought myself flying lessons and five years later bought myself a helicopter company. In the end I believe that the bad timing of coming of age during Vietnam screwed me out of the valuable training and experience the army would have provided.

I'm tired of being judged by those who have never had to face such a decision. Those who didn't live in that time and are clueless as dire situation Vietnam represented to young men at the time. Why do you think, Clinton, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Bush did as they did?  We were simply put in the situation of being victims of a government that was more than willing put us in harms way for nothing. Not for something, for nothing.  A half assed police action being fought on the cheap with nothing at stake. We had to protect ourselves from that government policy run amuck. A policy with life and death consequences.

Not serving is a regret. However, I apologize to no one for my decision.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

again Mike, we are getting into a debate that will not change either mind here but...a couple off the top of my head:

...the idea of looking at the partitioning of <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq was welcomed by the administration as Tony Snow put it "a non starter."

We don't have the right to "split" Iraq, a country with a democratically elected government. If THEY decide to do that, that’s another issue. The fact that some proposals aren't acceptable doesn't mean all proposals are.

...establishing measureable objectives, milestones or however one wants to word it to position the security into the Iraqi government entirely and also as a goal to begin withdrawl from Iraq....again welcomed as a nonstarter. 

Imagine this, but I disagree. That's exactly what's being done. In fact, that process has received a great deal of press coverage lately and resulted in some back and forth between the US and Iraqi governments. What was rejected, and rightly, was tying some date certain to the process.

Regardless of the merit of the examples simply refusing to discuss them more is what my point is. 

Some things, like picking a withdrawal date certain or splitting up a country with a democratically elected government or cutting and running should be rejected, flatly. You make it sound like bad ideas need to be given more respect than they deserve so we can look like we can engage in give and take.

The fact is Baker is currently heading up a bi-partisan group to review alternatives that will report back to Bush shortly.

If there are enough left/right members who are committed to do what's right; why aren't they?

They are. Just because there’s a constant hum of noise from unproductive people doesn’t mean there’s not a constant effort to provide troops and commanders with what they need.

[quote=csmelnix]

MikeB - you and I along with Dude had a very long and dragged out debate several months back on the Iraq war and I agree it’s no use to debate and carry on our own expert analysis again. 

As blind as we are on the side that feels the war in Iraq has been mishandled and improperly planned and executed are - equally those who defend the war in it's execution as well.  You and I know that Murphy enters the equation early and often; I believe what separates a good leader from bad is how one adapts and overcomes what Murphy throws.  Many things involved with this war, certainly as I see it, have been bungled because of stubborness and arrogance but not for lack of desire and at the end of the day, not for lack of belief in the "mission" at hand. 

Unfortunately, regardless of what side we sit, are nation and politicians have become so stinking polarized that neither side can work together for the betterment of our nation and to see this mission through.  And as a result, those wearing the uniform are once again the pawns of the process who are suffering the results and are caught in the middle of our nation's arguments.  To me, this is most disheartening, as I believe, regardless of level of education, those who sign their name, raise their right hand, put on the uniform and stand their post are the best of what our nation has to offer - better than anybody else who has never served for what ever their reasons.  And it is simply unfortunate that politicians on both sides can not do them justice when they need it most; while at war. 

As citizens, our best course of action may be not to take our own podiums to debate to no avail our own beliefs, but to start demanding our politicians do their damn jobs and start working together to solve this or we need to throw ALL OF THEM out on their arses! 

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

It's not really surprising that a thread about Kerry's foot-in-mouth issues gets twisted into how Bush has lost Afghanistan and Iraq, is it? Some form of knee-jerk Kerry defense, even if it’s just changing the subject to Bush, has to appear.

You guys feel free to continue, I have no interest in debating how we've "lost" with people that couldn't ID a Colonel from a Corporal, don’t have a shred of historic perspective of the hurdles confronted in every war in the history of mankind and allow a political desire to be "right" to cause them to speak nothing but doom and gloom with extraordinary certainty.

[/quote]

Talk about cut and run. Mike at least be honest. The people you're not interested in debating is only one person, me.  [/quote]

No, it's at least you and dude. The entire "we've lost" yadda yadda yadda thing is pointless.

As soon as I start in on Iraq you start with the labels. I'm a defeatist. I have a political agenda.

You do, as this post of your points out so clearly.

And now my lack of military duty disqualifies me from any standing in a public forum.

I didn't say that. I did not "disqualify" you from any standing.  In fact, in other posts, I've defended the right of people who haven't served to speak.

I simply ask what qualifies you to speak with such authority on a subject on which you have zero background. If I were to endlessly and in strong term pontificate about some complicated subject, something you did have a background in, wouldn't you ask how I come to such authority?

Which I've got to wonder how you square that with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rice.

I don't need to. I realize that they, unlike you, can get direct input from commanders on the ground. I also know from my own personal experience and from what I hear from friends there on the ground that what I'm hearing from the people you mentioned rings true.

Mike, the midterm elections are about one Issue, Iraq.

That's ridiculous. That's clearly what the Democrats would like to be about, and it may sway some voters, but the outcome next Tuesday means nothing about US policy going forward in Iraq, UNLESS some Democrats (should they take the House) have a complete mental breakdown and move to defund the war. Bush isn't on the ballot, he'll be the CinC no matter what.

 It's also a referendum on the abuse of power that has taken place over the last six ears.

Blah blah blah... give me the whole "shredding the Constitution speech some other time...

 ...it's a victory for the american people. They've taken the first step for getting their government back.

Oh spare me. So that's what it means if the Democrats take the House? What does it mean if they don't? What if the GOP holds the Senate? What does that mean?

The whole "getting their government back" thing is such a self-serving Democrat BS line. If they lose, the "people" have lost their government, as if it wasn't the "people" that decided the Democrats weren't worthy to begin with. Democrats need to learn that the "people" cast the votes, whether they (Democrats) win or lose.

Not serving is a regret. However, I apologize to no one for my decision.

No one asked you to.

...it's a victory for the american people. They've taken the first step for getting their government back.

As a financial advisor I would think that you would be afraid...very afraid... for your client's portfolios and your own career if the Democrats get in and have their way with the economy, not to mention the disaster that will most likely befall us if we leave Iraq in the same fashion as we abandoned the people of South East Asia.  

Can we all say Cambodia?

Try to think like a logical analytical financial professional instead with your partisan emotions.

They say they want to jump start our economy.  Too bad they don't understand anything about economics, our economy is doing very very well. If it ain't broke don't fix it!!! They want to roll back the capital gains breaks that have greatly benefited my clients and the economy as a whole.  The want to apply  the FICA/FUTA tax on incomes over 94,200. I don't know about where you live you but in California anyone making 94,200 is just barely squeaking by. They want to reinstate the lower Uniform Credit levels which would cause practically ALL of my clients to be in high estate tax brackets. 

What do you think will happen to the stock market when they re institute the punitive capital gains taxes that depressed businesses in the past?  What do your small business clients plan to do when the minimum wage is raised to a level that they can't afford to keep all their employees.  Ask them what they will do when mandatory health care paid for, for full time employees is made into law. Ask you clients if they would sell those investments with large capital gains if it were to be taxed at their highest marginal interest rate instead of the current 15%.   How many of your business clients would adjust their incomes and stop producing when they reached an overall over 50% tax bracket? (State, Federal, Self Employment Tax, FICA, FUTA, City and Local Taxes). 

They are going to put us into a recession by squashing small businesses.  People on welfare don't create jobs but expect to see a rise in the unemployed and people who need public assistance if the Democrats get to control the economy with all of their feel good policies.

All the Democrats have are sound bites to pander to the uninformed and cater to those who want class warfare for their own ends.  They don't really care about the economy, the military or the American people's best interests.  Don't fool yourself.  All they want is to be back in power.

God help us all if they succeed.

And Kerry is still an incredible dickhead

Mike,

On the withdrawl date certain response you had...come on...it's exactly my point.  I didn't use that as an example, what I am saying is the ideas brought up may include milestones that are actually measureable that can lead to a withdrawl.  You also mention the Baker commission - leaks being what the are aside, what's your response when Baker comes back with that as an alternative to examine?  It's going to be in there and will Tony Snow respond with "It's a non-starter"?

Look, I am not taking sides on this argument my point is you can sit there and be intellectually honest with the idea that the right to include the administration are open and willing to work while the left are just out to destroy him/us/whoever.  I agree most are self serving and are hell bent on doing that, but I also see the right as just flat blind to reality. 

Thanks for your time..

Mike,

On the withdrawl date certain response you had...come on...it's exactly my point. 

What's your point? That a date certain proposal, one that would allow the terrorists to mark a date on their calender afterwhich US forces would be gone, was rejected out of hand? My point is it should have been rejected out of hand. It's a terrible idea. I can't see how you fault anyone for rejecting it. It says we're leaving based on a DATE, not conditions on the ground. What sort of plan for victory is that? What does it say to the enemy?

I didn't use that as an example, what I am saying is the ideas brought up may include milestones that are actually measureable that can lead to a withdrawl. 

That much is BEING done, as I pointed out. It's gotten considerable press play.

You also mention the Baker commission - leaks being what the are aside, what's your response when Baker comes back with that as an alternative to examine?  It's going to be in there and will Tony Snow respond with "It's a non-starter"?

It's pretty hard to see your point here. Bush should be getting credit from you for appointing a bi-partisan commission, instead he's getting bashed for what he might reject, before it's ever proposed. Snow's already said they'd consider anything the commission brings to them.

Look, I am not taking sides on this argument my point is you can sit there and be intellectually honest with the idea that the right to include the administration are open and willing to work while the left are just out to destroy him/us/whoever. 

Really, I think you're so intent on spreading the wealth of blame that you're trying to tag the administration for something it isn't guilty of. Thus far, everything I've heard rejected as a "non-starter" deserved that response. The bi-partisan commission's very creation seems to me undermines your "they won't listen" claims.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=csmelnix]

MikeB - you and I along with Dude had a very long and dragged out debate several months back on the Iraq war and I agree it's no use to debate and carry on our own expert analysis again. 

As blind as we are on the side that feels the war in Iraq has been mishandled and improperly planned and executed are - equally those who defend the war in it's execution as well.  You and I know that Murphy enters the equation early and often; I believe what separates a good leader from bad is how one adapts and overcomes what Murphy throws.  Many things involved with this war, certainly as I see it, have been bungled because of stubborness and arrogance but not for lack of desire and at the end of the day, not for lack of belief in the "mission" at hand. 

Unfortunately, regardless of what side we sit, are nation and politicians have become so stinking polarized that neither side can work together for the betterment of our nation and to see this mission through.  And as a result, those wearing the uniform are once again the pawns of the process who are suffering the results and are caught in the middle of our nation's arguments.  To me, this is most disheartening, as I believe, regardless of level of education, those who sign their name, raise their right hand, put on the uniform and stand their post are the best of what our nation has to offer - better than anybody else who has never served for what ever their reasons.  And it is simply unfortunate that politicians on both sides can not do them justice when they need it most; while at war. 

As citizens, our best course of action may be not to take our own podiums to debate to no avail our own beliefs, but to start demanding our politicians do their damn jobs and start working together to solve this or we need to throw ALL OF THEM out on their arses! 

[/quote]

I completely agree, especially with the last paragraph.

I also happen to think that Mike is correct, that the libs are so vehement in their blind hatred of GW that they are going to oppose ANYTHING he plans in Iraq, regardless of its merits.  As you said, sadly the members of our armed forces end up in the middle.
[/quote]

I'll third the motion put forth in the last paragraph. Exactly the problem.

"Thank God we're not getting all the government we're paying for"  Will Rogers

How about this:

In your town is a shopping center. It's not the mall, and it's well past it's prime. Yet, it's fully occupied, a good neighbor, and on time with it's taxes. But there is a black cloud over its future. The local political boss has a new dream. He wants to own a minor league hockey team. Problem is, to get into the league he needs an arena. No problem, he'll get the local improvement authority, all his party, all members placed by politicians in his debt, to exercise eminent domain on some unlucky property owner of his choosing. He choses the shopping center. The center fights, but looses. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money gets funneled to party lawyers to bring the fight. The boss, through the IA starts evicting tenants from the center. Peoples livelihoods are destroyed. The IA brings in equipment and levels the buildings. Then in a turn around, after millions of dollars have been spent, after peoples lives have been disrupted, the boss changes his mind and decides he doesn't want to be a hockey team owner afterall. All the reasoning to build an arena is spun into how it wouldn't serve taxpayers. Residents are left with a multi million dollar hole in the ground, a huge tax bill, and no place to shop.

That's what can happen when one party has too much control. This boss owned everyone in a position to stop him from the local counci ,and county freeholders to the state senators. All one party. All in debt to him. If one party in control doesn't work on a local level, there is no way it will work on national level.

If anyone wants to google this, the boss is George Norcross, the county is Camden County NJ. This is the least of the problems here.

Electing the dems won't change a thing unless they grow a set and start acting as our government leaders should. They need to be a check on the executive branch, not a rubber stamp. If need be, they should be obstructionist. Hopefully, they won't have to be. Compromise can be found and maybe we'll get the government we're paying for.

To avoid feeling totally shallow (posting about some new TV show) I am going to say I can’t think of anyone in my circle (Rep. or Dem.) that doesn’t want our troops home. If voters take those sentiments with them into the polls, then I feel the Republican’s chances are slim next Tuesday.

The Dems smell blood and have called out both Kerry and Clinton to do the heavy work. Kerry, as always, continues to be a jack-ass.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

[quote=babbling looney]

...it's a victory for the american people. They've taken the first step for getting their government back.

As a financial advisor I would think that you would be afraid...very afraid... for your client's portfolios and your own career if the Democrats get in and have their way with the economy, not to mention the disaster that will most likely befall us if we leave Iraq in the same fashion as we abandoned the people of South East Asia.  

Can we all say Cambodia?

Try to think like a logical analytical financial professional instead with your partisan emotions.

They say they want to jump start our economy.  Too bad they don't understand anything about economics, our economy is doing very very well. If it ain't broke don't fix it!!! They want to roll back the capital gains breaks that have greatly benefited my clients and the economy as a whole.  The want to apply  the FICA/FUTA tax on incomes over 94,200. I don't know about where you live you but in California anyone making 94,200 is just barely squeaking by. They want to reinstate the lower Uniform Credit levels which would cause practically ALL of my clients to be in high estate tax brackets. 

What do you think will happen to the stock market when they re institute the punitive capital gains taxes that depressed businesses in the past?  What do your small business clients plan to do when the minimum wage is raised to a level that they can't afford to keep all their employees.  Ask them what they will do when mandatory health care paid for, for full time employees is made into law. Ask you clients if they would sell those investments with large capital gains if it were to be taxed at their highest marginal interest rate instead of the current 15%.   How many of your business clients would adjust their incomes and stop producing when they reached an overall over 50% tax bracket? (State, Federal, Self Employment Tax, FICA, FUTA, City and Local Taxes). 

They are going to put us into a recession by squashing small businesses.  People on welfare don't create jobs but expect to see a rise in the unemployed and people who need public assistance if the Democrats get to control the economy with all of their feel good policies.

All the Democrats have are sound bites to pander to the uninformed and cater to those who want class warfare for their own ends.  They don't really care about the economy, the military or the American people's best interests.  Don't fool yourself.  All they want is to be back in power.

God help us all if they succeed.

And Kerry is still an incredible dickhead

[/quote]

LOL on your name for Kerry. I think you've framed him perfectly. Still, I don't dislike the guy. He exemplifies whats wrong with the dems. He's spineless in the face of controversy. Yet, he's not a spineless guy. We need people to stand up for what they believe,whether we agree or not,  and not back down when their career security flashes before their eyes. To many politicians from both sides of the aile have relinquished control. Not just the dems, but the republicans too. Look at this government, spending out of control, does that look republican to you?

I don't share your fear of the dems.

As for Cambodia, not our fight. I'm not justifying it, just saying. Similarly, what about Rwanda, or Dufar? Not good, but not our fight.

All I ask for is honesty from the government.  If someone makes a mistake, sac-up and admit that you made a mistake and how it can be resolved. 

The population looks at politicians as dishonest monsters for creating problems whether they be fiscal, social, etc., when all they want is someone to explain to them (truthfully) why something was done the way it was.  We all know that politicians have some type of agenda or, at least, something they're passionate about achieving (whether it's self-serving or not). 

If someone wants to pass a law reforming the welfare system, tell me that it's because you're sick and tired of the lazy people that are on welfare and use it as a way to stay out of the workforce - don't dance around it.

I have a 'D' on my registration card and voted for Bush because the alternative sucked.  I don't like John Kerry for the same reason I don't like many politicians - they can be pompous jackasses that are too high and mighty to admit fault.

Is it me, or does anyone else vote for the candidate that will screw things up the least?

[quote=BondGuy]

 I think you've framed him perfectly. Still, I don't dislike the guy. He exemplifies whats wrong with the dems. [/quote]

Funny, that's one of the very reasons I do dislike the guy.

[quote=BrokerRecruit]

Is it me, or does anyone else vote for the candidate that will screw things up the least?

[/quote]

The lesser evil. A popular excuse not to vote. Not voting imbeds the ruling party. Things get worse. More voters give up. Those in power are not unhappy with this. Turnout for the midterms next week is estimated today to be about 38%.

And yes, I vote for the lesser evil. All votes are a compromise. No one candidate embodies everything we want. I try to stay focused on the big picture and not let wedge issues affect my vote. Wedge issues are a popular way of getting people to vote against their best interests. For example using gay marriage, a hot button issue, to get people to vote for a politician who will raise their taxes.

My hope for 08 is that both sides will put up viable candidates that give us a clear choice. That would be a nice change.

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=StarsAndStripes] [quote=dude]

I'm in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I'm bored.

Oh, did I mention that I'm also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

[/quote]

This is funny how?

[/quote]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I busted a gut when I read it.
I have not military service, but brother, dad, 2 uncles and a grandfather have served or are still serving.[/quote]

So I just finished the thread and I laughed out loud again when I read it.
[/quote]

Glad it made you laugh.  I guess StarsAndStripes takes his X-ray vision very seriously. 

I thought the Foot Clan reference was priceless.  Nothing like an obscure early 90's barb to get one laughing.

Master Shredder would be honored.

Cowabunga....dude!

My brother-in-law (the Marine) had a huge crush on April O’Neal.

Wow, a crush on a comic book girl...not too flattering.

I guess his collection is probably worthless by now then eh?

Maybe Kerry's right after all.

Well, actually, what I was trying to say is that it would be congruent for folks in the military to fall in love with fantasy characters since they are generally of lower intelligence than most.

Well, no, that's not right...what I meant to say was that I fully support enlisted individuals rights to have fantasy relationships with cartoons, comic book characters and dwarf cowboys. 

Um....maybe what I was meaning to say is that I believe in the morale building ability of fantastical relationships and fully support our troops, since they are dumber than you're average bear.

Go Kerry!!!

I wish this forum had a ‘flip flopping’ fish emoticon right now.

I can’t give him too much grief - he was only 6 or 7 when they were popular.

Yeah...I had a crush on Daisy Duck when I was 5, so who am I to talk?

Saturday Night Live had one of the Hardball skits with Darrell Hammond where he began referring to Kerry as “Floppy the Flip-Flopper”.  Good stuff.

Kerry is a mass. ass. He is still bitter about not getting elected.

Kerry and Gore for that statement above.

Wouldn’t it be great to have front row seats to watch Saddam dance at the end of a rope?  Does anyone think that the verdict was timed (possibly by Karl Rove) to coincide with the mid-term elections?

[quote=Starka]Wouldn't it be great to have front row seats to watch Saddam dance at the end of a rope?  Does anyone think that the verdict was timed (possibly by Karl Rove) to coincide with the mid-term elections?[/quote]

No.

No one gives a rats a$# what happens to Saddam. He is a rat that is captured. Bin Caving is in a hold somewhere on this earth. Who cares. People will vote and on Wednesday nothing will change. This guy Jeff Flake is great. He is really going after the earmarks.

Ah, you liberals are all alike…no sense of fun.  As for me, I’d like a seat in the orchestra for the hanging, and pass the buttered popcorn, please!

[quote=AirForce]No one gives a rats a$# what happens to Saddam. He is a rat that is captured. Bin Caving is in a hold somewhere on this earth. Who cares. People will vote and on Wednesday nothing will change. This guy Jeff Flake is great. He is really going after the earmarks.[/quote]

earmarks?