Paul Ryan Calls Generals Liars

[IndependntLogic]

It was Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that took issue with those comments as one might expect.

"There’s a difference between having someone say they don't believe what you said versus ... calling us, collectively, liars," the general told reporters on Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal. "My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.

Of course it was General, a more honest phrasing would have been: it was a strategy-driven process to which we mapped to increase our budget.

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

Either they are lying because they are syncophants to the president, or they are incompetent. I'd prefer to believe they are lying to keep the stassi from the door.

Nobody has an opinion on this Ryan asshole calling our Generals liars?

So much for Republicans supporting the troops.

You don't know what you're talking about.

This is just another phase from the left attempting to demonize the GOP for the coming election.

Generals have to follow orders and Obama is the COC......so anything that comes from the White House is untrustworthy. Everything must be questioned.

These are political generals.

1. ALL Generals are political. You don't get to colonel, let alone general, without knowing how to deal with politics.
2. This is not "The Left" trying to demonize anyone. Ryan f-d up. Oops. Then he corrected it before it got too out fo hand. He's smart that way.
3. No one is talking about the budget proposed. It's actually quite solid and based in logic - which is why the generals are behind it. Our enemies and wars aren't massive land wars with cavalry and infantry. they are fought with drones, intelligence agencies and special operational forces - which is where this budget shifts the focus. But those screaming about the deficit demonize this budget why? Because it didn't originate from "their side". No surprise.

Seriously, people using our military as political footballs is sickening. Both sides.... shame on you.

Seriously, people using our military as political footballs is sickening. Both sides.... shame on you.

Nothing to say about the OP, eh?

YOu expected her to address the topic and issues of the post, instead of criticizing posters? Guess you're not familiar with her. She just proved a point from another thread.

Just another case of you excusing your wingnut politicians for their public statements, eh?

You continue to demonstrate why nobody respects you, CG.

No doubt. Plus you notice she overlooks the fact that it was RYAN who brought up the military in the first place? yeah that.
The military is certainly fair game for discussion. If we cut our military budget in half, we would STILL spend more than every other country in the world combined AND we could make serious impact on the deficit. But heaven forbid we use a little common sense.

 

[Katzndogz]

If obama is reelected, by the time that term ends, the interest payment on debt will be more than the defense budget. But, maybe if we are weak enough and destitute enough, no one will want to bother with us.

 

[Stephanie]

It was Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that took issue with those comments as one might expect.



Of course it was General, a more honest phrasing would have been: it was a strategy-driven process to which we mapped to increase our budget.

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

Another Republican Rightwinger shitting on our military when it's politically advantageous.

Is anybody really surprised?

shut up whiner. you all shit all over Bush, McCain and Allen West. they were all in the military..
so you can spare us your FAUX outrage

 

[mudwhistle]

It was Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that took issue with those comments as one might expect.



Of course it was General, a more honest phrasing would have been: it was a strategy-driven process to which we mapped to increase our budget.

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

1. ALL Generals are political. You don't get to colonel, let alone general, without knowing how to deal with politics.
2. This is not "The Left" trying to demonize anyone. Ryan f-d up. Oops. Then he corrected it before it got too out fo hand. He's smart that way.
3. No one is talking about the budget proposed. It's actually quite solid and based in logic - which is why the generals are behind it. Our enemies and wars aren't massive land wars with cavalry and infantry. they are fought with drones, intelligence agencies and special operational forces - which is where this budget shifts the focus. But those screaming about the deficit demonize this budget why? Because it didn't originate from "their side". No surprise.

Seriously, people using our military as political footballs is sickening. Both sides.... shame on you.

Nothing to say about the OP, eh?

YOu expected her to address the topic and issues of the post, instead of criticizing posters? Guess you're not familiar with her. She just proved a point from another thread.

Just another case of you excusing your wingnut politicians for their public statements, eh?

You continue to demonstrate why nobody respects you, CG.

No doubt. Plus you notice she overlooks the fact that it was RYAN who brought up the military in the first place? yeah that.
The military is certainly fair game for discussion. If we cut our military budget in half, we would STILL spend more than every other country in the world combined AND we could make serious impact on the deficit. But heaven forbid we use a little common sense.

What total nonsense. While we're cutting back China, Turkey, Russia, and Iran are increasing spending.......they're just not reporting the actual expenses.

It also would help if we didn't have to sink so much into countries that shoot our officers in the back of the head.

 

[Desperado]

If we cut our military budget in half, we would STILL spend more than every other country in the world combined AND we could make serious impact on the deficit. But heaven forbid we use a little common sense.

Think about that and let it sink in!!!!!!!!!
If we cut our military budget in half, we would STILL spend more than every other country in the world combined AND we could make serious impact on the deficit.
Now would someone tell me again why the military budget is off limits?

Now would someone also explain why Trace Adkins has to go begging for money for the Wounded Warrior Project to treat wounded vets? This should be the number one responsibility of the military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nobody has an opinion on this Ryan asshole calling our Generals liars?

So much for Republicans supporting the troops.

It’s more of a drop in the ocean effect.

Both of Ryan’s partisan and destructive ‘budgets’ were an affront to the entire Nation, not just its service members.

 

[JimH52]

Ryan is a self serving jerk who is looking for a VP invitation.

 

[IndependntLogic]

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

1. ALL Generals are political. You don't get to colonel, let alone general, without knowing how to deal with politics.
2. This is not "The Left" trying to demonize anyone. Ryan f-d up. Oops. Then he corrected it before it got too out fo hand. He's smart that way.
3. No one is talking about the budget proposed. It's actually quite solid and based in logic - which is why the generals are behind it. Our enemies and wars aren't massive land wars with cavalry and infantry. they are fought with drones, intelligence agencies and special operational forces - which is where this budget shifts the focus. But those screaming about the deficit demonize this budget why? Because it didn't originate from "their side". No surprise.

Nothing to say about the OP, eh?

YOu expected her to address the topic and issues of the post, instead of criticizing posters? Guess you're not familiar with her. She just proved a point from another thread.

Just another case of you excusing your wingnut politicians for their public statements, eh?

You continue to demonstrate why nobody respects you, CG.

No doubt. Plus you notice she overlooks the fact that it was RYAN who brought up the military in the first place? yeah that.
The military is certainly fair game for discussion. If we cut our military budget in half, we would STILL spend more than every other country in the world combined AND we could make serious impact on the deficit. But heaven forbid we use a little common sense.

What total nonsense. While we're cutting back China, Turkey, Russia, and Iran are increasing spending.......they're just not reporting the actual expenses.

It also would help if we didn't have to sink so much into countries that shoot our officers in the back of the head.

You spew a lot but offer little of substance. Just a lot of unsubstantiated RW hysterics promoted by the pundits.
Our current budget is over $700B. China's is a little over $100B. Russia's is about $55B.
if we cut by 50% and China doubled their budget, we would still spend more than China and Russia combined.
So you may now continue claiming "others" state nonsense.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ryan is a self serving jerk who is looking for a VP invitation.

If Obama/DNC does not put a lot of money and weight behind Rob Zerban, I will seriously question my belief in them.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

1. ALL Generals are political. You don't get to colonel, let alone general, without knowing how to deal with politics.
2. This is not "The Left" trying to demonize anyone. Ryan f-d up. Oops. Then he corrected it before it got too out fo hand. He's smart that way.
3. No one is talking about the budget proposed. It's actually quite solid and based in logic - which is why the generals are behind it. Our enemies and wars aren't massive land wars with cavalry and infantry. they are fought with drones, intelligence agencies and special operational forces - which is where this budget shifts the focus. But those screaming about the deficit demonize this budget why? Because it didn't originate from "their side". No surprise.

Nothing to say about the OP, eh?

YOu expected her to address the topic and issues of the post, instead of criticizing posters? Guess you're not familiar with her. She just proved a point from another thread.

Just another case of you excusing your wingnut politicians for their public statements, eh?

You continue to demonstrate why nobody respects you, CG.

No doubt. Plus you notice she overlooks the fact that it was RYAN who brought up the military in the first place? yeah that.
The military is certainly fair game for discussion. If we cut our military budget in half, we would STILL spend more than every other country in the world combined AND we could make serious impact on the deficit. But heaven forbid we use a little common sense.

What total nonsense. While we're cutting back China, Turkey, Russia, and Iran are increasing spending.......they're just not reporting the actual expenses.

It also would help if we didn't have to sink so much into countries that shoot our officers in the back of the head.

Türkiye is one of our very best and most important allies.

 

[Greenbeard]

Ryan is a self serving jerk who is looking for a VP invitation.

If Obama/DNC does not put a lot of money and weight behind Rob Zerban, I will seriously question my belief in them.

It might be personally gratifying to see Paul Ryan lose, but the Democratic Party would probably be better served by contributing to Ryan's re-election fund. Having that disingenuous shitbag driving the Republican agenda has been a godsend.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ryan is a self serving jerk who is looking for a VP invitation.

If Obama/DNC does not put a lot of money and weight behind Rob Zerban, I will seriously question my belief in them.

It might be personally gratifying to see Paul Ryan lose, but the Democratic Party would probably be better served by contributing to Ryan's re-election fund. Having that disingenuous shitbag driving the Republican agenda has been a godsend.

I think the Democratic Party (and the nation) is best served by having smart, Liberal-leaning Congressmen and Senators.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think the Democratic Party (and the nation) is best served by having smart, Liberal-leaning Congressmen and Senators.

Who pursue a pragmatic, inclusive course of action with what’s best for the nation as a goal, not what’s best for their party.

 

[midcan5]

Imagine this sort of thinking in any other place than the political world of spin: how much will you need to fix the roof? Twenty thousand. That's not enough, I think you are wrong. Or the CEO reports they need one million for the new project, board of directors decides you really need 1.5 million. What utter nonsense from the republicans. Is it any wonder they are such failures when given the reigns of governance? Clowns to right of us jokers to the left.

"Americans may have elected a Republican president and Congress, but they are unlikely to go back to a world in which one illness can devastate their last years or one storm can destroy their lives. Because government is the one institution that allows us some control over our future, conservatism, which distrusts government so much, is best viewed as a natural counter to liberalism, which, if left unchecked, tends towards wasteful bureaucracy. Indeed, as the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party. And so the best that can be hoped for is that American voters will do for conservatives what they are unable to do themselves: to vote them out of office." "Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

 

[Old Rocks]

It was Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that took issue with those comments as one might expect.

"There’s a difference between having someone say they don't believe what you said versus ... calling us, collectively, liars," the general told reporters on Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal. "My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.

Of course it was General, a more honest phrasing would have been: it was a strategy-driven process to which we mapped to increase our budget.

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

You are a fucking liar.


Martin Dempsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dempsey attended John S. Burke Catholic High School in Goshen, New York, and received a commission as an Armor officer upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. As a company-grade officer, he served in 1st Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment as the S-1 OIC. He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He then commanded the 4th Battalion of the 67th Armored Regiment "Bandits" from 1992–1995 in the 1st Armored Division in Friedberg, Hesse, Germany.[2]

In June 2003, then Brigadier General Dempsey assumed command of 1st Armored Division. He succeeded Ricardo S. Sanchez who was promoted to command V Corps. Dempsey's command of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June 2003 to July 2004. While in Iraq, 1st Armored Division, in addition to its own brigades, had operational command over the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division; the command, called "Task Force Iron" in recognition of the Division's nickname, "Old Ironsides", was the largest division-level command in the history of the United States Army.[3]

It was during this time that the U.S. intervention in Iraq changed dramatically as Fallujah fell to Sunni extremists and supporters of Muqtada Sadr built their strength and rose up against American forces. Then Major General Dempsey and his command assumed responsibility for the Area of Operations in Baghdad as the insurgency incubated, grew, and exploded. General Dempsey has been described by Thomas Ricks in his book "Fiasco": "In the capital itself, the 1st Armored Division, after Sanchez assumed control of V Corps, was led by Gen. Martin Dempsey, was generally seen as handling a difficult (and inherited) job well, under the global spotlight of Baghdad."

On March 27, 2007, Dempsey was promoted from commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, to be reappointed as a lieutenant general and assigned as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

On February 5, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to head the Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe, and was nominated for promotion to four-star general upon Senate approval.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A conservative in America, in short, is someone who advocates ends that cannot be realized through means that can never be justified, at least not on the terrain of conservatism itself. In the past, the ends sought were the preservation of hierarchy, even if the means included appeals to democratic sentiment. In more recent times, conservatives promised order and stability through means dependent upon the uncertainties and insecurities of the market. Unwilling to accept the fact that government was here to stay, conservatives stood on the sidelines as conditions kept arising that demanded bigger and more effective national authority. Westward expansion required Washington to settle the issue of slavery, and the recalcitrant South ultimately lost. Industrialization forced the country to deal with trusts and workplace oppression, and the Gilded Age leaders ultimately lost to the Progressives. The Depression demanded stronger government action even more urgently, even as the advocates of laissez faire opposed the New Deal. Similarly, the rise of fascism necessitated a vast expansion of federal power; and again, the conservative impulse, in the form of isolationism, lost.

"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

Indeed.

And this pattern has only continued since then, during the last 40 years alone conservatives have deteriorated to the point of utter irrelevance, completely incapable of administering a modern government, and refusing to acknowledge the need and benefit of sound governance.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that took issue with those comments as one might expect.



Of course it was General, a more honest phrasing would have been: it was a strategy-driven process to which we mapped to increase our budget.

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

You are a fucking liar.


Martin Dempsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dempsey attended John S. Burke Catholic High School in Goshen, New York, and received a commission as an Armor officer upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. As a company-grade officer, he served in 1st Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment as the S-1 OIC. He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He then commanded the 4th Battalion of the 67th Armored Regiment "Bandits" from 1992–1995 in the 1st Armored Division in Friedberg, Hesse, Germany.[2]

In June 2003, then Brigadier General Dempsey assumed command of 1st Armored Division. He succeeded Ricardo S. Sanchez who was promoted to command V Corps. Dempsey's command of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June 2003 to July 2004. While in Iraq, 1st Armored Division, in addition to its own brigades, had operational command over the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division; the command, called "Task Force Iron" in recognition of the Division's nickname, "Old Ironsides", was the largest division-level command in the history of the United States Army.[3]

It was during this time that the U.S. intervention in Iraq changed dramatically as Fallujah fell to Sunni extremists and supporters of Muqtada Sadr built their strength and rose up against American forces. Then Major General Dempsey and his command assumed responsibility for the Area of Operations in Baghdad as the insurgency incubated, grew, and exploded. General Dempsey has been described by Thomas Ricks in his book "Fiasco": "In the capital itself, the 1st Armored Division, after Sanchez assumed control of V Corps, was led by Gen. Martin Dempsey, was generally seen as handling a difficult (and inherited) job well, under the global spotlight of Baghdad."

On March 27, 2007, Dempsey was promoted from commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, to be reappointed as a lieutenant general and assigned as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

On February 5, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to head the Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe, and was nominated for promotion to four-star general upon Senate approval.

Saw it.

He started out in personnel. He never commanded a platoon in combat.

He's a perfumed warrior.

He's a badge-hunting wannabe.

 

[IndependntLogic]

It's interesting that the General was one of those perfumed warriors that came out of Personnel, better known as S-1.

He's the perfect spokesman for Obama.

You are a fucking liar.


Martin Dempsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dempsey attended John S. Burke Catholic High School in Goshen, New York, and received a commission as an Armor officer upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. As a company-grade officer, he served in 1st Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment as the S-1 OIC. He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He then commanded the 4th Battalion of the 67th Armored Regiment "Bandits" from 1992–1995 in the 1st Armored Division in Friedberg, Hesse, Germany.[2]

In June 2003, then Brigadier General Dempsey assumed command of 1st Armored Division. He succeeded Ricardo S. Sanchez who was promoted to command V Corps. Dempsey's command of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June 2003 to July 2004. While in Iraq, 1st Armored Division, in addition to its own brigades, had operational command over the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division; the command, called "Task Force Iron" in recognition of the Division's nickname, "Old Ironsides", was the largest division-level command in the history of the United States Army.[3]

It was during this time that the U.S. intervention in Iraq changed dramatically as Fallujah fell to Sunni extremists and supporters of Muqtada Sadr built their strength and rose up against American forces. Then Major General Dempsey and his command assumed responsibility for the Area of Operations in Baghdad as the insurgency incubated, grew, and exploded. General Dempsey has been described by Thomas Ricks in his book "Fiasco": "In the capital itself, the 1st Armored Division, after Sanchez assumed control of V Corps, was led by Gen. Martin Dempsey, was generally seen as handling a difficult (and inherited) job well, under the global spotlight of Baghdad."

On March 27, 2007, Dempsey was promoted from commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, to be reappointed as a lieutenant general and assigned as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

On February 5, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to head the Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe, and was nominated for promotion to four-star general upon Senate approval.

Saw it.

He started out in personnel. He never commanded a platoon in combat.

He's a perfumed warrior.

He's a badge-hunting wannabe.

he's the one who spoke out but all the JC's agreed. Are you calling them all liars?

better yet, do you really think the best way to spend our money is dumping $700B a year into resources that are out of date and equipment that is designed for land wars, is the better than putting our focus on tech, intel and SOFs?
If so, I'd be interested to hear your support for such a position.

 

[Synthaholic]

The bloated military budget has basically become a jobs act of make-work for Congresscritters' districts, who are afraid of cutting that budget, and the loss of jobs.

That's why practically every Congressional district has a Pentagon footprint in it.

 

[Katzndogz]

If democrats really believe what they are saying, why haven't they demanded the immediate arrest and prosecution for treason of every republican walking the streets?