When your only other campaign strategy option is "I haven't been indicted yet"

[Annie]

Hmmm... how exactly do you know that again? Oh, that's right... we have secret ballots in the U.S. You don't. But, it's an opt-repeated number that the cons like to throw out there with no POSSIBLE proof. Why, because if you propagate a lie engouh times, people will start to believe you.

Right, just like the less than 10% of blacks vote democratic. Right. I think it's all based on 'self-reporting' which last I check was exit polling. With the military, it would be a version of that...

 

[jasendorf]

Try realclearpolitics.com

The military has a history of voting Republican. That is Al Bore wanted to toss the military vote in 2000

1) no possible proof
2) lie

This gets easier and easier.

 

[red states rule]

1) no possible proof
2) lie

This gets easier and easier.

Of course it gets easier for you. You ignore the truth, dismiss facts, and pretend your party is the majority

Welcome to the world of liberalims - often called Fantasyland

 

[jasendorf]

Right, just like the less than 10% of blacks vote democratic. Right. I think it's all based on 'self-reporting' which last I check was exit polling. With the military, it would be a version of that...

Those same self-reporting exit polls which said Al Gore was killing George Bush in Florida?

THOSE kinds of polls?

 

[Gunny]

Read again what Durbin said. He stated that the report sounded more like the actions of those horrible groups than the actions of US military personnel. If anything, he was AGREEING that those actions weren't typical of our troops. And, just because the Nazis killed 6 million Jews doesn't mean that they didn't also perpetrate millions of lesser horrible things. I seriously don't understand the, "Well, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, so, who cares if they tortured and raped them too!" line of reasoning.

Maybe you think the honor of our military isn't worth time or effort or money... but I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

He made the comparison, and I'm not buying his after-the-fact disclaimer. That's called "damage control."

I did not suggest such a line of reasoning as you have. However, instead of "tortured and raped" let's say "humiliated." And yes, severity of the crime in this instance DOES matter. Each crime -- genocide, torture and rape, and/or personal humiliation -- should be judged on its own merit. Saying that "humiliation" is the same as genocide is a bit far-fetched.

The military personnel at Abu Ghraib were tried and convicted, and are serving their sentences. If any Marines are found guilty of war crimes at Haditha, then they too should be hammered to the fullest extent of the law.

Had Durbin kept his statement within the context of actual events instead of making a comparison between unspecified "Americans" and Nazis, and of course equating personal humiliation with genocide .... well then .... I guess he wouldn't have had anything to say, would he?

 

[jasendorf]

Of course it gets easier for you. You ignore the truth, dismiss facts, and pretend your party is the majority

Welcome to the world of liberalims - often called Fantasyland

I can only discount so many lies a day... unfortunately it seems you can cut-and-paste more of them than I care to demolish. You win. You can lie faster than I can spread truth. You win.

 

[red states rule]

I can only discount so many lies a day... unfortunately it seems you can cut-and-paste more of them than I care to demolish. You win. You can lie faster than I can spread truth. You win.

Libs define a lie as confronting them with facts that destroy their DNC talking points

 

[Annie]

Those same self-reporting exit polls which said Al Gore was killing George Bush in Florida?

THOSE kinds of polls?

You're so correct, those are the same ones you've quoted over and over again about blacks. Whatever; liar, twister, loser.

 

[red states rule]

You're so correct, those are the same ones you've quoted over and over again about blacks. Whatever; liar, twister, loser.

Good description of him

 

[Gunny]

I wanted to address this on its own merits.

The military drawdown of the 90's was a direct result of the excessive spending of the Cold War designed to force the Soviet Union out of business. Luckily the Democratic Congress allocated that money (at the behest of President Reagan) for our military to force them out of business.

The drawdown in forces was initiated by Reagan in 1988 through the BCC. Then, in 1991, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney presided over the first major BRAC drawdowns. President GHW Bush understood that we couldn't, and shouldn't, retain a military to fight a superpower when no other superpowers existed. He set in motion (along with the Democratic Congress, because you can't pass a budget without them) the resulting drawdown.

President Clinton followed the eact path laid out by the BRAC reccommendations set forth by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Then the REPUBLICAN HOUSE of 1995 CONTINUED the BRAC recommendations. And, to this day, they are STILL closing and realigning bases.

The military has done what the nation needed it to do. The nation doesn't serve us, we serve it. But, as long as we serve it... we shouldn't be used as a poltical football to hide the fiscal failures of the Administration.

That's about the most factual deflection I think I've seen. Nice. But, irrelevant.

The fact is, regardless WHO authored the program, increasing our OPTEMPO while decreasing our manpower and materiel = disaster. As you stated about Bush in another thread, Clinton at that time could have dealt with the reality of "NOW" rather than rubberstamp a plan that looked good on paper to a previous administration.

Which goes to make my point in that thread as well as this .... the problem is not party-specific. It's endemic to the bureaucracy.

 

[Gunny]

Those same self-reporting exit polls which said Al Gore was killing George Bush in Florida?

THOSE kinds of polls?

You mean the ones that had Gore ready to concede? Only the lightbulb of an idea to steal the election stopped him.

Fact is, in the end, he lost by an even bigger margin than was originally thought.

 

[jasendorf]

That's about the most factual deflection I think I've seen. Nice. But, irrelevant.

Somehow I knew you weren't beholden to stupid little things like facts.

The fact is, regardless WHO authored the program, increasing our OPTEMPO while decreasing our manpower and materiel = disaster. As you stated about Bush in another thread, Clinton at that time could have dealt with the reality of "NOW" rather than rubberstamp a plan that looked good on paper to a previous administration.

You want to explain how Kosovo is an increase over staging for war against the Soviets and/or Desert Storm?

Which goes to make my point in that thread as well as this .... the problem is not party-specific. It's endemic to the bureaucracy.

It's easy to blame some mystical, magical, nefariously shadowy "bureaucracy" when the blame lies with the party you've fought so hard to put into power... but, I suppose when there is a void of leadership... what else is one to do?

 

[Gunny]

It's easy to blame some mystical, magical, nefariously shadowy "bureaucracy" when the blame lies with the party you've fought so hard to put into power... but, I suppose when there is a void of leadership... what else is one to do?

You want to explain how Kosovo is an increase over staging for war against the Soviets and/or Desert Storm?

I can only assume that whatever branch you serve in, it isn't the Marines. OUR OPTEMPO increased.

The Cold War produced a vast military prepared for a conventional and/or nuclear war. Once the Cold War was over and the reality that most "wars" are minor engagements and our government just loves force projection, you had less Marines deploying to more ports and taking over more operations as the Army drew down.

At the beginning of the drawdown, once could expect to deploy every 18 months. At the time I retired, my unit deployed 13 months after we returned. May not seem significant to you, but then, you aren't the one bobbing around on the ocean in a tin can, are you? That is a significant increase in OPTEMPO.

As far as Kosovo goes, since we already had plenty of Air Force and Army within the theater of operations, I'm quite sure the impact was negligible.

It's easy to blame some mystical, magical, nefariously shadowy "bureaucracy" when the blame lies with the party you've fought so hard to put into power... but, I suppose when there is a void of leadership... what else is one to do

Is that what you said after Clinton was elected?

 

[jasendorf]

Is that what you said after Clinton was elected?

I believe in the BRAC as a way to improve the military and turn it into the force that the 21st century demands. Just like SecDef Cheney, Presdeitn GHW Bush, President Clinton and President GW Bush... I don't see blame for the BRAC, but those are the people I believe(d) in to lead during the BRAC process.

 

[Gunny]

I believe in the BRAC as a way to improve the military and turn it into the force that the 21st century demands. Just like SecDef Cheney, Presdeitn GHW Bush, President Clinton and President GW Bush... I don't see blame for the BRAC, but those are the people I believe(d) in to lead during the BRAC process.

Base Realignment and Closure has little to no effect on operational military. They just move the same units elsewhere.

The manpower drawdown is a separate issue.

I have no problem with transforming the military into a force that meets the needs of the current world. Problem is, you have to get politics out of the way first.

Such as the fact that there no longer is a Cold War but how many troops do we have stationed in Europe and why?