Archive through March 17, 2006 Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through August 12, 2006 » Archive through March 28, 2006 » LARGEST IRAQ AIR INVASION SINCE 03 » Archive through March 17, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13002
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So perhaps it's 3.8% chance in a given tour of duty. And a tour is now, what?, two or three years?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit

Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2006


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've been reading but not writing.

But I can't help but notice.

Where have all the wingnutz gone?

Little girls have picked them, for their soccer teeeam.

Sung to the tune of..you know
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4875
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I can no longer tolerate people saying you don't support the troops if you oppose this idiotic, unnecessary war."

What I first said in this thread, and what I meant was "...no mention of or concern for our troops…”

Don't you dare question my motivation or patriotism either! Go back and look! No one said prior to my post that they hoped our troops will be OK, or no one hoped no one dies or is badly wounded. No, everyone went right to the war issue, and right to bashing Bush! This action was being billed as one of the largest assaults since the beginning of the war. I also have a right to be pissed about the constant cry baby, moaning and groaning of all of you who keep complaining on how bad things are while you sit here at home and our country is at war, and our troops in harms way.

Right Betty, I’m 65 and I’d be back in the service in a heart beat if they‘d let me!

Those of you who followed my post with your same old rhetoric were not much better than the ones before it... Just more placing blame and bringing up the same old arguments. It’s getting disgusting to read it day in and day out. What with the liberal media and everything else, some of you should be ashamed. I’ve never said, no one should not oppose the war, for me this is all about the means to the end, and I don’t like the means some of you are using.

If some of you are for the troops say so, yes, every time and all the time, believe me, they and their families are reading what is said on the Internet. If you’re against the war, no problem, it’s your right. Talk about it, protest, and support an alternative plan, and an alternative leader.

Meanwhile, trust me, I’m not the only person in the country who is sick and tired of all this idiotic and unnecessary bashing of our President. What say you about Iran, because the way it looks, they're next!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23

Post Number: 1504
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ajc,

Opposing the president is supporting the troops.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston

Post Number: 1770
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doug: I believe America is the land of opportunity and I believe in the American dream. I believe in the individual. George W. Bush does not.

I believe America is the greatest country on the face of the Earth, well, except for the South.

Art: You can support the war by getting a job with Halliburton. I hear they get better equipment than Rumsfeld gives our boys...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 767
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Robert I am glad to hear you say positive things.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

themp
Supporter
Username: Themp

Post Number: 2666
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought they were air raids. Aren't casualties pretty low?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston

Post Number: 1771
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Depends on your definition of low. This family wouldn't think so...

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03- 15T171553Z_01_COL544311_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-RAID.xml&archived=False

So doug, how many more terrorists do you think were created today? How many people from the community on that link don't think of America as you or I do?

But ajc doesn't give a crap, right? Our president is right no matter what. Makes me sick.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23

Post Number: 1505
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You need people on the ground telling the guys in the sky where to hit. It gets awfully complicated if you have Iraqis telling American pilots where to go.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay

Post Number: 1658
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The air assault refers to the air transport of soldiers to the target area, not a bombing campaign.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 770
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 5:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Robert it is very hard to be civil with you. I don't know how many terrorists were created today, I did not open the link, I rarely open any links on MOL. I was just suprised when I read that you thought of yourself as a patriot. Usually if anyone posts anything positive about America you (and others) rip into them for being naieve (sp). I was truly glad to hear you say good things about the US.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso

Post Number: 138
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 5:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ajc: It was you who called posters above a "bunch of jerks" for stating their opinions. I do "bash" Bush and will continue, because he is ultimately responsible for what I and many others in this country believe is a major foreign policy blunder which has weakened the nation and resulted in unnecessary deaths and serious injuries to our bravest men and women. It is they who are bearing the brunt of this war, and we don't want to see any more killed or injured.
I have a right to be pissed about having to hear (or having heard) from the conservative media and the conservative administration how great things are going over there, how freedom is on the march, how the insurgency is in its last throes, how we'll be welcomed as liberators, how the insurgents should "bring it on", how we go to war with the army we have not the army we want etc., while we sit here basking in tax cuts which they want to make permanent and no one is asked to sacrifice except the men and women in uniform.

I guess North Korea will follow Iran, then Syria. Or maybe Syria after Iran since it's closer, then North Korea. All this while the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan. How are we going to accomplish all this when we are about to enter our fourth year in Iraq? I'm sure arrogant and clueless Donald Rumsfeld will put together another great battle plan with a lot of forethought before we go into those countries. I just hope Rumsfeld assembles the army WE NEED to accomplish those missions. If those countries are the goal, better reinstitute the draft.

Again, tell me who is the enemy in Iraq? Who are our brave men and women fighting? Foreign terrorists? Shiites? Sunnis? Ordinary Iraqis who don't want us in their country? All of the above. It reminds me of a line from "Good Morning Vietnam": "How do you know who the enemy is soldier?" "Well, we go up to them and ask, 'Are you the enemy?', and if they say yes we shoot them."

According to one of the commanders over there who gave a jolt of reality relatively early on the insurgency: "You can't have an insurgency of this duration and strength without broad popular support." Those words sent a chill down my spine and I believe he was absolutely correct.

I thought this country would have learned that you can't spread freedom and democracy to other countries at the point of a gun.

Is this bombing campaign another "shock and awe" program that will bring the "enemy" to its knees and make us once again the most loved and respected country on earth?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso

Post Number: 139
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 6:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Correction. It looks like it is not a bombing campaign but 50 helicopers ferrying soldiers to Northern Iraq.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

llama
Citizen
Username: Llama

Post Number: 744
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 8:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh Glory! In the name of freedom, let the carnage begin...beware evildoers, we will stay the course, support the troops, Americas the best country in the world, Saddam knocked down the WTC, right? We need to turn our ports to the UAE to show our trust to the world, the Saudis are our friends, democracy in Iraq, GITMO, torture, rendition, abortion, God, it's not about WMD's, Osama, or oil, etc, etc. Hey, wait a minute, i'm confused,what is it about, anyway??? Could I please have a neo-conservative explain it to me?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1686
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 9:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Three years ago we had to attack Iraq and fight the terrorists there so we wouldn't have to fight them here.

Well, that plan certainly has worked to our advantage. We have so many troops OVER THERE that we couldn't fight the terrorists HERE if we had to (never mind the fact that the terrorists don't "fight a war" the way we expect them to.

Two weeks ago, in a Monday afternoon press conference (in Michigan, I believe it was) the President responded "Al Qaeda" when a reporter asked him which of three countries (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) was the greatest threat to us. He did so with a smile, he said, because the question was wrong.

This week, the greatest threat is Iran, according to Bush, Cheney, and Rice. But because Iran is the greatest threat, we're executing one hell of a big air and para action in Iraq.

Can somebody tell me what is going on? Can somebody help me to believe that this administration has the slightest ability to develop useful strategy and tactics and then to execute on them?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman

Post Number: 773
Registered: 8-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 10:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Llama,

Brilliant post.

ps: Is your mama a llama?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 5370
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 10:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RL -- the Left does not believe in the power of the individual. It undercuts the victimology necessary for them to survive politically.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1690
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CJC:

Where did you learn that? Pretty sweeping statement. Has all the earmarks of the latest of the latest 1:45 to 1:55 PM slot on Limbaugh's radio show.

Do you mean to say that the Right really believes in the power of the individual?

If it does, which individuals do they believe in? Where do they come from? How do they get to be among the "elected" to that status? How do they develop that "power"?

Is there some Protestant Work Ethic Oath and ceremony that they go through? How do they develop and then display their "individualism?"

Is it by self-schooling so that they avoid going to schools paid for by everyone's taxes or in great part subsidized by government money? Is it by avoiding the educational infrastructures, including student loans and grants-in-aid that "non-empowered individuals" (the victims who languish in a state of victimology, to extend your logic) avail themselves of to obtain a university education?

Is it by building and utilizing their own internet and world wide webs so that they're not tainted by the research and production that taxes paid to governments have funded?

Is it by travel akin to the transmigration of souls to wherever they go so that they don't need to use the highways and other traffic arteries that taxes pay for?

Is it by creating something out of nothing, as in building a business with a totally new and creative idea, with no funding except bootstrapping? No SBA loans, no tax leniencies or considerations, no forgiven loans, or tax-advantaged incentives?

In a society of almost 300 MM people, you can count those individuals on several hands only.

Unless your individual lives in total isolation from the rest of society, and survives on his or her own "off the grid," your "individual" is largely a myth.

Like all myths, it makes a good story, a little bit like the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus, the hydra, the unicorn, but still a story.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave

Post Number: 8902
Registered: 4-1997


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you imagine cjc speaking in Frank Burns' voice it will help you understand him better.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay

Post Number: 1659
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Frank Burns' take on the situation:

"Unless we all conform, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free. "

"Without discipline the Army would just be a bunch of guys wearing the same color clothing. "

He actually sounds like GOP Man.


Back to the concern about not knowing the enemy.

"The rebels in the area are a mix of local nationals and foreign fighters," he said. "We have their voices recorded along with their names and pictures."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/17/uirq.xml&sSheet= /portal/2006/03/17/ixportaltop.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston

Post Number: 1772
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In my head, cjc always sounded like Thurston Howell III.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh

Post Number: 397
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Largest Iraq Air Invasion Since '03"

AKA "Operation Change the Headlines"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SO Ref
Citizen
Username: So_refugee

Post Number: 1592
Registered: 2-2005


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Except GOP Man is a parody...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops

Post Number: 938
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RL

and I think its Straw who is really Frank Burns.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso

Post Number: 140
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Local nationals are the enemy? How do we know if one is a "good" local national or a "bad" local national? Aren't we there to help the local nationals? Isn't Iraq our ally? You see, that's the problem in a Guerilla war, which is what the leaders of this country have gotten us into, no matter what the most recent rationale or spin is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay

Post Number: 1660
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

betty, the Iraqis are doing a large part of the fighting. They are going after the bad local nationals based on info from the good locals.

I will say this again, most posters here have lost their intellectual honesty and curiosity. Most responses can be summed up by Bush Sucks.

Check out Ralph Peters who is no fan of Bush's handling of Iraq. This is the latest in a series of articles from Iraq.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61042.htm

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso

Post Number: 141
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight without the US is zero, and we're at the start of the fourth year of a war Rumsfeld said would be over in no longer than 6 months. Talk about losing intellectual honesty.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay

Post Number: 1661
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

betty you forgot the Bush sucks part.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk

Post Number: 10974
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Paul Brenner decided to sack the entire Iraqi Army and this move was approved by Washington. Subsequently it was found very few of the members, even midlevel officers, were Baath Party members.

It is really hard to start an army (from buck privates to generals) from scratch and we are now paying the price of Pro-Consul Brenner's decision.

The last I read is that Army spokepeople aren't revealing the number of Iraqis involved in the current sweep.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23

Post Number: 1506
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My favorite line from the Ralph Peters article: "I can tell you that the operation's been very carefully planned."

He's got the inside juice!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

themp
Supporter
Username: Themp

Post Number: 2667
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A couple questions:

David Brooks, who has always been luke warm on the war, wrote a column yesterday wherein he says Donald Rumsfeld failed to believe important facts that were becoming obvious two years ago, and that is why things are such a mess. He seems to be saying that we missed a crucial turning point due to closed mindedness and intellectual dishonesty at the head of the military.

Is that criticism of the troops' "boss" less disloyal than criticizing the president?

Is David Brooks right in this criticism?

Should Bush have fired Rumsfeld at some point?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 5373
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:40 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Innisowen -- I've known this my entire life, thanks to the upbringing I received as well as my observations as I've gone through life. I was taught to believe in myself, that I could overcome obstacles that turn out to be mostly self-inflicted, and that the person who says "I've got your best interests at heart" wasn't the person to follow (unless they were my parents, and then after 18 all bets were off). Conservatives believe that everyone is capable as an individual to best pursue happiness. And it's not a white Protestant Work Ethic at all.

On to some of your questions:

Yes, we have to navigate the subsidized failures inherent to a monopolistic government run school system, which may include using private schools. We believe that choice made by non-annointed individuals in where their kids go to school is the best way of getting there. You shouldn't have to be an Al Sharpton or Al Gore to be able to do that.

I'm not sure needing a student loan means you can't attend some university. Nor why needing one precludes you from the 'status' and 'power' necessary to be able to pay for your sorry rear end throughout your life.

It seems you're playing this that to be an individual means one who owns a business (and a major one at that) and didn't need a loan or didn't need to utilize some feature in the tax code he has little control over, and only then can he avoid dependence upon government to cover their needs.

Where the Left fits into all this is they run on a campaign of "you're miserable, you can't make it on your own, so elect me and I'll give you stuff that other people and your children and children's children will pay for. Leave the decisions to me." Sure, some people need help at some point (and fewer at all points) and there's a role for government to play. The Left, though, creates a political power-base that will regenerate itself. You tell people they're losers, they raise their kids to think they're losers unless they get 'lucky,'and you plan on the government taking care of you. You can't blame these people for that, as they're conditioned to expect it.

This has been particularly effective in the black community, where they've been complaining about the same things for years and voting for the same party for years, a party that ran congress for a 40 year stretch and provided $5T in wealth tranfers.

It's not limited to low income minority groups. One of Joe Lieberman's dreams as he was running for higher office was to extend entitlements into the middle class. Guess he's got you on board. Planning on an entitlement is not comforting to me at all on a variety of levels.

And to be a successful individual means he has to 'live off the grid" -- is that what you're saying? If that were the case and done on a very large scale, who would be left to pay the bulk of the taxes?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13020
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Those are valid points, cjc, but to me, they are hyperbolized too much. The aim of the left, in creating programs, is of the fishing pole type, not free fish. At least, those are the types of programs I believe do the most good. I don't believe in perpetuating the "you're a loser" message. I don't know of anyone who does.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit

Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2006


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

cjc- I was wrong, wingnuttery reaching amazing levels now. Here's a quote from some lefty, but as far as I can tell pretty on the money, and remember it's your money:

"Democrats aren't committed to high rates of government spending as a core principle in the way that conservatives are with tax cuts. Yes, they believe in more social spending as a general rule. And there are certainly cases when that's led to fiscal excess. The distinction is an important one -- and one conservatives have a difficult time facing. But, in any case, what President Bush has done over the last five years -- with the unfailing support of pretty much every Republican elected official and pundit -- isn't 'big spending.' It's intentionally reckless fiscal policy which is going to create havoc for the country's finances for years to come."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston

Post Number: 1777
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

cjc: You must pretty disappointed in the Bush administration then. More than you let on, anyway. It's simply not possible that a liberal president could spend more than Bush does.

From USA Today:

"A USA Today analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time. It was the largest five year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960's. Spending on these social programs was $1.3 trillion in 2005, up an inflation-adjusted 22% since 2000 and accounting for more than half of federal spending."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso

Post Number: 143
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Guy: I have never used that term to describe the president, and never will. I have tried, in most of my posts, to recite what I beleieve are pretty solid facts and evidence as to how badly this war is going. It was the Pentagon 2-3 weeks ago which said the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight on their own went from one to zero. Does that reflect poorly on our leadership? You bet it does.
Doesn't the FACT that that is the state of affairs at the start of the 4th year of war get you angry? Would it get you angry if a democrat was president? If a democrat was president and that was the state of affirs I'd be just as angry because it is a disgrace any way you look at it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay

Post Number: 1663
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So what is it. Does Bush hate poor people or not. Liberals say yes but his spending says no.

At least Bush put spending cuts in the budget that the Senate wouldn't put through.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 5375
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As far as spending goes, I am disappointed in Bush and his not using a veto once while in office.

I'm disappointed in Republicans too, who bemoan the deficit then ring up a Senate Budget today that's 16B more than the President requested.

Democrats complain about deficits then run up spending as well. But that's to be expected. That republicans are doing it is maddening.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay

Post Number: 1664
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

betty I am angry that we seemed to squander the advantage that we had in 2003 in Iraq. I also understand what the purpose is. I am encouraged that for the past year and a half the plan of training Iraqis and the political side are working. Mistakes will always be made in war. It how you deal with these situations that lead to successes.

The whole story is not being told.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

themp
Supporter
Username: Themp

Post Number: 2673
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But isn't part of the "plan" to transfer wealth from the government to republican-friendly businesses and individuals? Hence grants to churches, reckless defense contracting with few controls or audits, tons of earmarks (way more than ever before), a terrible medicare bill that enrichens insurance companies, etc.

I think that a lot of the "spending" is really transfer of money to (indirectly) the republican party. That's why you have figures like Abramoff emerging, who are brokers in that process.

And it gives conservatives that defense that they use of the board so much - "what, now we're spending too much? Make up your mind, liberals" which is so transparently dishonest that it must have been factory-made by message consultants.

I am trying to see where it's all going now, because I think the democratic party is finished for the midterms and the next presidency.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration