Truly supporting our troops

[mrsx]

And when people complained, something was done:

The Senate passed an amendment introduced by Illinois Democrat Barack Obama that will pay for them. It got added to an $82 billion emergency spending bill full of war money that President Bush is about to sign. The amendment applies to all military hospitals, not just Walter Reed.

The amendment is retroactive to January 1, 2005, so these troops should be expecting a refund.

You are absolutely correct in your facts, Sir. My point is that it took the people, led by a Democrat, to notice the problem and force Rummy to fix it. That speaks well for the people and Sen. Obama - for Rummy & Co., not so hot!

 

[GotZoom]

You are absolutely correct in your facts, Sir. My point is that it took the people, led by a Democrat, to notice the problem and force Rummy to fix it. That speaks well for the people and Sen. Obama - for Rummy & Co., not so hot!

And....

A problem was pointed out...yes, by a Democrat....and Rummy & Co., with President Bush fixed it.

So your point is....

 

[mrsx]

Kind of calling the kettle black isn't it?

Not quite. I didn't call you any names. I regard my characterizations of Bushman and his supporters as an exercise in scientific taxonomy. I do admit he's cute when he tries to say "nuclear," though.

 

[GotZoom]

Not quite. I didn't call you any names. I regard my characterizations of Bushman and his supporters as an exercise in scientific taxonomy. I do admit he's cute when he tries to say "nuclear," though.

You "forgave" her name calling.

Then ripped 3 off in your post.

Just an interesting observation.

 

[mrsx]

You "forgave" her name calling.

Then ripped 3 off in your post.

Just an interesting observation.

Try and follow this, if you can.
She called me a childish name because she doesn't agree with me. I didn't call her names. I forgave her. I regard my characterizations of Bushman & Co. as an exercise in scientific taxonomy.

 

[mrsx]

And....

A problem was pointed out...yes, by a Democrat....and Rummy & Co., with President Bush fixed it.

So your point is....

So my point is that the chicken hawks don't give a damn for the welfare of the troops. It is folks like they that caused Dr. Johnson to observe that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

 

[GotZoom]

Try and follow this, if you can.
She called me a childish name because she doesn't agree with me. I didn't call her names. I forgave her. I regard my characterizations of Bushman & Co. as an exercise in scientific taxonomy.

Oh...ok....my bad. Name calling is bad if it is directed against the person you re talking to...but not bad if the person doesn't hear it.

Gotcha.

If they truly didn't care about the welfare of the troops, would the bill have been passed?

 

[5stringJeff]

Oh...ok....my bad. Name calling is bad if it is directed against the person you re talking to...but not bad if the person doesn't hear it.

Sweet! Let's hope Darin doesn't read this thread so we can talk smack about him!

 

[GotZoom]

Sweet! Let's hope Darin doesn't read this thread so we can talk smack about him!

Don't forget. Some of us think:

Darin = yuela

 

[5stringJeff]

Don't forget. Some of us think:

Darin = yuela

I disagree. Darin's writing style is radically different.

 

[mrsx]

Oh...ok....my bad. Name calling is bad if it is directed against the person you re talking to...but not bad if the person doesn't hear it.

Gotcha.

If they truly didn't care about the welfare of the troops, would the bill have been passed?

They couldn't oppose the bill. What would folks like you have said? Voting for it was a no-brainer. Not fixing the problem before the Democrats forced them to shows a negligent concern for the welfare of the troops.

 

[mrsx]

Oh...ok....my bad. Name calling is bad if it is directed against the person you re talking to...but not bad if the person doesn't hear it.

Gotcha.

If they truly didn't care about the welfare of the troops, would the bill have been passed?

Public figures are not entitled to the same protections against slander as private citizens. I ignored being called the worst sort of troll because I am trying to elevate the level of discourse in hope of bringing a few dazed wanderers into the light. It is amusing to see you get all prissy about name calling at this late date.
I repeat that my characterization of Bush as a war criminal is not name calling. He has the blood of 100,000 completely innocent Iraqi women and children on his hands. Check out the so-called "Downing Street Memo" published by the Sunday Times of London on May 1. It is the latest evidence that we were deliberately deceived about Saddam. It further shows that the lame excuse that "all the other intelligence services were fooled too" is BS. British intelligence saw the Bush claims as bogus and told Blair so.

 

[GotZoom]

I disagree. Darin's writing style is radically different.

Oh I know. We were talking about Darin messing with us. You can easily change your style in order to pull a ruse. Especially since yeula likes to "Cut and Paste."

 

[GotZoom]

Public figures are not entitled to the same protections against slander as private citizens. I ignored being called the worst sort of troll because I am trying to elevate the level of discourse in hope of bringing a few dazed wanderers into the light. It is amusing to see you get all prissy about name calling at this late date.
I repeat that my characterization of Bush as a war criminal is not name calling. He has the blood of 100,000 completely innocent Iraqi women and children on his hands. Check out the so-called "Downing Street Memo" published by the Sunday Times of London on May 1. It is the latest evidence that we were deliberately deceived about Saddam. It further shows that the lame excuse that "all the other intelligence services were fooled too" is BS. British intelligence saw the Bush claims as bogus and told Blair so.

If they truly didn't want to pass the bill, there could have been a way to prevent it.

I am familiar with the Downing Street Memo. Very interesting. And you know, even if every single word of it is true, that doesn't negate that fact that the action we took needed to happen.

Are you suggesting that, just because of some of the things the DSM says, that Sadaam should still be in power today?

 

[mrsx]

If they truly didn't want to pass the bill, there could have been a way to prevent it.

I am familiar with the Downing Street Memo. Very interesting. And you know, even if every single word of it is true, that doesn't negate that fact that the action we took needed to happen.

Are you suggesting that, just because of some of the things the DSM says, that Sadaam should still be in power today?

Are you suggesting that bill shouldn't have been passed? Of course, they wanted it passed. The point is that they were inert until public pressure forced them to do the right thing - hardly zealous in the support of these poor soldiers. Given all the other boo-boos, one suspects that they were motivated to vote for Obama's proposal not because they cared about the troops but because they didn't want to look bad.

If the invastion of Iraq needed to happen, why didn't the administration tell us the truth and make the case they are making now? For all I know, the Congress and the public would have agreed, we would have gone to war far more united as a country and although Rummy & Co. would still have bungled the job, we wouldn't have the sour sense of manipulation and betrayal that is poisoning the atmosphere and hurting the reputation of the military?

(/ANSWER) They were afraid they couldn't get public support, so they decided to "sex up" the evidence. The endless lies and blame shifting on everything from armored vehicles to torture of civilians shows that the prior bad act in presenting the evidence against Saddam was no mistake. Then there all the lies from the story of Jessica Lynch to Pat Tillman. Hell, even the famous pulling down the statue of Saddam turns out to have been staged. Lying to the troops isn't supporting them. Lying about the troops isn't supporting them, either.

 

[Annie]

Are you suggesting that bill shouldn't have been passed? Of course, they wanted it passed. The point is that they were inert until public pressure forced them to do the right thing - hardly zealous in the support of these poor soldiers. Given all the other boo-boos, one suspects that they were motivated to vote for Obama's proposal not because they cared about the troops but because they didn't want to look bad.

If the invastion of Iraq needed to happen, why didn't the administration tell us the truth and make the case they are making now? For all I know, the Congress and the public would have agreed, we would have gone to war far more united as a country and although Rummy & Co. would still have bungled the job, we wouldn't have the sour sense of manipulation and betrayal that is poisoning the atmosphere and hurting the reputation of the military?

(/ANSWER) They were afraid they couldn't get public support, so they decided to "sex up" the evidence.

Like you are the 100,000 quote from the Lancet? Which was debunked nearly from the start:

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18942&highlight=lancet

The endless lies and blame shifting on everything from armored vehicles to torture of civilians shows that the prior bad act in presenting the evidence against Saddam was no mistake. Then there all the lies from the story of Jessica Lynch to Pat Tillman. Hell, even the famous pulling down the statue of Saddam turns out to have been staged. Lying to the troops isn't supporting them. Lying about the troops isn't supporting them, either.

 

[mrsx]

Like you are the 100,000 quote from the Lancet? Which was debunked nearly from the start:

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18942&highlight=lancet

One would be enough to convict. It isn't a statistical quibble.

We are going to be there until there is a stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq government in command of forces capable of suppressing the "insurgency."
That's what they said in Viet Nam. It didn't work then and it isn't working now. An occupying power (US) without popular support cannot install a government capable of suppressing its own people. The lesson of Viet Nam is that many Americans are too dumb to learn the lessons of Viet Nam. I don't think the JCS any longer expects "victory" in the sense that was so blithly bandied about two or three years ago. The real choices are:
(1) choose some arbitrary political event to declare success and pull out, leaving the whole bloody mess to sort itself out
(2) initiate a controlled disintegration of Iraq leaving an independent Kurdistan with its oil fields and protective American bases, ditto with the Shia'a in Basrah with a share for the Brits and leave the Sunni disaster to burn itself out.
The U.S. forces aren't going to be defeated in the field, so we can claim success. And all these young troops will have died for nothing, just like Viet Nam. You heard it here first, although you'll be the last to figure it out.