Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 331

• 0%

  time4change1 year, 5 months ago

  This situation is deplorable !! Where did the billions and billions and billions of taxpayer's money go ?? Certainly not to our troops !! The $$ has gone and will go to line the pockets of Halliburton (Cheney), private industry/companies with no bid contracts with US and "payoffs" to Iraqi leaders we use as puppets !! AND BUSH WANTS MORE $$$$ !! STOP THIS INSANITY NOW !! Support our troops and bring them home !! Congress should cut off the funds forcing them home....things in Iraq will never change despite $$ and the blood of our children/spouses !!

  Reply

  124 Replies

  • 0%

    bobo-in-texas1 year, 5 months ago

    We have a problem so let's retreat and surrender. Nice plan.

    Reply

    76 Replies

    • 100%

      time4change1 year, 5 months ago

      The problem is Bush...after 4 years, billions and blood it isn't going to get better !!

      Reply

      63 Replies

      • 0%

        bobo-in-texas1 year, 5 months ago

        But the surge along with the change in tactics is having a positive effect. Take a look at this piece from ABC News "In Parts of Baghdad Surge is Working"

        http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/04/04/in-pa...

        Reply

        47 Replies

        • 0%

          BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

          Cutting the deal with regional leaders that allows them to make independent oil deals with petroleum companies to develop their oil fields is what is working...not our troop surge. Bush essentially picked sides and sold out the Sunnis who have no oil. Shiites now have a reason to join the Iraqi army and kill "insurgents"...i.e. Sunnis. It's a form of sanctioned genocide and suppression. In response to our picking sides, the King of Saudi Arabia came out within the past 10 days and called our occupation of Iraq "illigitimate". Our military presence has been irrelevant. Giving the Shiites a green light to supress the Sunnis and cut their own independent oil deals has set the political stage and motivation such that thre are now clear good guys and clear bad guys. All we did to create the 'favorable' outcomes was to pick one side and sell the other side out so a new political equilibrium can be reached. Go study low intensity conflicts and social psychology.

          Reply

          29 Replies

          • 0%

            questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago

            bravo, do u have a link that tells whats going on with the oil splitting laws? im curious as to how the kurds and sunnis were treated

            also why wouldnt it be good to ask for oil money for the american peops at least until the cost of rebuilding and security r paid...which honestly we know is gonna last decades(if ww3 doesnt end things first)

            is it unrealistic to name the real objectives? which i see as guarding the canal and the oil feilds

            lastly, i think its the saudis and the iranians that we need to get talking since they seem to be 2 major influences to the opposing sides in bagdad

            Reply

            21 Replies

            • 0%

              BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

              The article on the changes in oil revenue laws was only in the press for one day...I'm not sure how to find it again.

              I think we should name the real objectives: 1) protect the Suez Canal and secure the Red Sea trade route. 2) Ensure our competitiveness in the global economy by controlling the oil. This either, or both, gives us access to cheap energy; or, raises the cost of energy to our competitors.

              The President of Iran said a couple months ago that the US and Iran are natural allies. Whoever is pulling his strings is 10 times smarter than Bush and has been a step ahead of all of us.

              Reply

              18 Replies

              • 100%

                questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago

                ty 4 ur response,i agree about the objectives and i think being honest about them and getting out of the cities would help make this occupation easier for the average american to take

                i noticed u didnt comment on amercians getting part of that oil money to cover the cost of the security or rebuilding and while i think it would be wrong to go to war for money,we r there so i see no reason that the usa should be banqrupted to provide security for the wells,canal...also maybe and this is just a thought,if we had the money,fighting "contractors" (that r already being used) could possibly replace the guard troops and the ovr extended us army peops

                i know these r outta the box ideas but i think we have to start looking outta the box because what we r doing is tearing america apart,a part of me thinks lots of this could be fixed with money but it has to be money in the right hands and i dont trust exxon or bp to do the fixing

                Reply

                13 Replies

                • 0%

                  BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

                  I don't see any problem with our taking some of the profits on the oil or being the ones to develop the fields. The problem is that we've been so incompetent and have consequently caused so much damage that politically it's going to be hard to take any of the profits. I expect the Iraqis will cut deals with someone other than us to develop the fields. Once the deals are cut they will be able to finance their own defense forces without using contractors or us.

                  Reply

                  12 Replies

                  • 0%

                    BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

                    The only good news is that Iran clearly wants to do business with us. They just need a plausible story that allows them to do that. Right now, they are more clear on what they are doing than we are.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago

                    the prob with them financing their own defense tho is the sunnis get genocided,i agree that everything has been bungled to this point but with the right person talking i think things could still be worked out but NO politician is willing to stand up and say,hey money is big part of the prob for americans,lets look at getting the american treasury repaid

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

                      I agree, I'm just skeptical that we have enough clout remaining to achieve the goal you describe. We've lost so much of the initiative.

                      Reply
                  • 0%

                    DoseASpinoza1 year, 5 months ago

                    We already took the profits. Then we stacked the cash on pallets and sent it to incompetent contractors in cargo planes.

                    Reply

                    8 Replies

                    • 0%

                      questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago

                      that was actually iraqi money that had been seized before the war in sanctions but u r correct that it was given back in the a foolish manner

                      Reply

                      7 Replies

                      • 0%

                        DoseASpinoza1 year, 5 months ago

                        Right, Iraqi money. Down payment, profits, what's the difference?

                        Reply
                      • 0%

                        RedstateLib1 year, 5 months ago

                        Yes but we the taxpayers had to replace the lost Iraqi money with our own money. We didn't just loose their money and say Sorry our bad". The Iraqi Government got the money at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers.

                        Reply

                        5 Replies

                        • 0%

                          SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                          i never heard that. do you have any source for that?

                          its my understanding that the official story of that money was that it was 'lost.' it was just irresponsibly distributed with no receipt or record. i don't know that any of it was reimbursed.

                          but i don't know that it wasn't either, i guess.

                          Reply

                          4 Replies

                          • 0%

                            questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago

                            i dont have a link but i saw the investigation on c span

                            the way i understood it ,it was iraqi money but when the US went to turn it ovr to them, the US official in charge loaded pallets of cash on a plane and peops were handing it out to like newly elected iraqi officials,and that was the point,no accounting of all that cash...

                            Reply
                          • 100%

                            SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                            i forgot a 'not' up there... i thought the official story was NOT that it was 'lost.'

                            -sorry

                            Reply
                          • 0%

                            AnvilHead1 year, 5 months ago

                            Even the lowest private in the army is forced to pay for equipment that he loses. Lately even the wounded have been charged for equipment shot off of them in combat or removed by medics. If that's fair why don't those responsible have to pay back the money they can't accout for?

                            Reply

                            1 Reply

                            • 100%

                              BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

                              This forcing the men to buy their own gear and pay to replace it when deployed was severely frowned upon when I was in. It forces the soldier to focus on something other than killing the enemy. Making sure soldiers didn't walk off and leave a rifle because they were so tired and were essentially sleep walking, or making sure they didn't drop gear because they were tired of carrying the weight was the squad leader's job. He got to make the call whether the soldier was culpable and had to replace the gear or whether it was a legitimate loss in battle.

                              Reply
              • 0%

                BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

                Think how brilliant taking the 15 British military personnel was. 1. They took them with ease. 2. They got 'confessions' without months of 'torture' in secret prisons. 3. They created a situation that they knew would lead to direct talks with the British. Not only direct talks but talks they intended to be successful. Talk about setting up a favorable setting for future diplomacy... 4. They took the moral high ground by releasing the Brits soon after showing they could have "put them on trial".

                In short they've created a favorable diplomatic resolution and have mocked the US practice of extraordinary rendition and torture in secret prisons in front of the world (especially the Muslim world).

                I thought our side was supposed to be that smart.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 100%

                  questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago

                  again i agree with u,not only did the iranians come out looking like they had the moral high ground but they also r gonna get access to the 5 iranians the us has been holding(i hope we come out looking half as good when their imprisonment is examined)

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago

                  THe difference is Iran was demonstrating "diplomacy" to some extent and showcasing to the world audience. When Bush acts its in response to an event and he has to take action that his "faithful" can see as standing up to the "bad" guys. Working behind the stage is NOT something Bushies relate to, it has to be a bar room brawl

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  DoseASpinoza1 year, 5 months ago

                  This is what we get for letting a C-student legacy/social promotion run the country.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              Natureboy1 year, 5 months ago

              "also why wouldnt it be good to ask for oil money for the american peops at least until the cost of rebuilding and security r paid..."

              So, after we bomb the crap out of their major cities, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, destroy their infrastructure, decimate their economy, we present them with a bill for services rendered?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 45%

                questionseverything1 year, 5 months ago

                well the oil story split i saw was 25 iraqis and 75 oil comps,im not saying take part of the iraquis money but what about the oil money>? if in fact 1000s of iraquis will be slaughtered when we leave,why does it have to banqrupt america to protect em>?

                i would nevr have gone to war with iraq but we r there now and we have changed the situation,i trust congress and the american peops to help iraq with their own money better than i do exxon or bp

                im a realist...i dont think the neo cons r gonna give up that oil or the canal so im tryin to think of a compromise that lets america survive

                Reply
          • 0%

            dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago

            But But But But BoBo kept saying it wasn;t about oil. Man were those Republicans lieing again?

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

              A hallmark of conservatives is their inability to comprehend anything except the superficial features of a problem. Thus, Bush talks tough, waves the flag, kisses babies and uses the word "patriotism" but can't plan his way out of a paper bag, let alone efficiently plan and supervise to completion a project like Iraq.

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

                focusing on something so trivial as a misspelled word is trivial to the point of seeming stupid. Another hallmark of neo-conservatives is that when faced with issues requiring deep reflection they do things like insult and name call rather than focus on the issues. Thus, Bush's fallback position is always to call people who disagree with him "unpatriotic".

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  DeltaX1 year, 5 months ago

                  "Outcome-based education strikes again! It's interesting to see illiterates pretending to be intelligent. No wonder Dunkirk is a liberal. lol"

                  Where's the insults and/or name calling?

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                    He called him illiterate. After reading his WRITTEN post. It's not only an insult, its an ironically inappropriate insult.

                    Then he equated being a liberal with being illiterate, simultaneously insulting an entire group of people AND insinuating that those who disagree with him MUST be a liberal and inherently bad.

                    Reply
            • 100%

              dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago

              ROFLMAO, nothing like the Republicans continuing to prove that they cant see the forest since they spend so much time looking at the trees. I guess YOU didnt learn much from last Nov elections.

              Reply
          • 0%

            rightfromwrong1 year, 5 months ago

            shame on America

            Reply
        • 0%

          NoWayMan1 year, 5 months ago

          in parts of baghdad surge is working?

          which means in other parts of baghdad the surge isn't working?

          the insurgency is just laying low until the heat dies down. anyone with half a brain knows this.

          and outside baghdad violence has doubled. the worst bombing since the war began took place last week.

          face it people, bush is a total and complete failure.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 50%

            SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

            Not that I don't think that Bush is "a total and complete failure," but you can't pounce upon negative results (like the recent massive bombing) then dismiss positive results (as the insurgency waiting it out.) that's not fair. I think things are going poorly enough over there, that when good news does come out of it, like regional down turns in violence, we should at the very least applaud the news for what its worth. Because what a down turn in violence (for whatever reason) might be worth, is quite a few human lives.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              gamahuche1 year, 5 months ago

              Appreciate your desire to steer something of a middle course between the posters who seem to get their rocks off by abusing each other. Alas, what you say would be more to the point if there really had been a a regional downturn of violence. Its clear that the insurrection has simply moved a few kilometers away and continues unabated. Check the casualty figures! Someone has already quoted them.

              After reading the Time article carefully I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that the US will suffer such acute war-fatigue in the very near future that they will grasp any face-saving excuse to high-tail it out of there as fast as they can run.

              The whole project was a non-starter from the beginning and most people knew it. Saddam's dead and that black farce is about the only tangible "achievement" to date.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                personally i am unaware of any down turn in violence in any region. that doesnt mean its not there... i was simply speaking on principle.

                Reply
        • 92%

          jovial1 year, 5 months ago

          The surge is only working to stall the inevitable. The stalling to allow this scoundrel administration pass off this war to the next President so that they can take the blame for the blunder.

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 25%

            SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

            Well thats silly. No one else is going to take the blame for this blunder. He can't pass it on Tenet any more. Any time people bring up the belief that Iraq had WMD, some talking head points out that Clinton thought they too, trying to pass the invasion off on him... but no one has bought it. and noe one will. Bush is forever tied to this massive failure of humanity, policy, diplomacy, and logic.

            but as far as stalling the inevitable. sometimes when you put something off long enough, the inevitable changes. not always, or even usually, but when there are no positive choices left, it is a credible belief that waiting and stalling in the hopes that the status quo changes and an amiable solution arises, is not a bad idea.

            its been our policy with Israel/Palestine since Carter.

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 33%

              gamahuche1 year, 5 months ago

              And Israel/Palestine is a good model of what??

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                its a good example of averting an all out war through a cold war. The U.S. Russian Cold War is a GREAT example. rather than do something militarily about the cold war we waited it ut until there was another option... crush them economically and turn their own people against them.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 88%

                  HannibalBarca1 year, 5 months ago

                  This is only in hind sight. during the 50,60, 70 etc common thought that a direct conflict(NATO)against USSR would have no winner.This is not the case today,no military force can go toe to toe w/U.S.A. Let alone NATO

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                    i realize the thread is dead... but hind site or not. it was the right thing to do. it doesnt discount the legitimacy of the tactic.

                    Reply
            • 0%

              jovial1 year, 5 months ago

              People in general are silly. And by the way, there are people that to this day blame Carter and Clinton for all the woes our country has experienced for the last 30 years. I do agree that your theory is plausible as well. but we do agree that the tactic is the same, "Stalling". A hail mary effort at your own 20 yard line with 3 seconds to go in the game. Most coaches like to call a lot of timeouts at this point of a game to try to stall the inevitable.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                yeah we agree. but theres no use ending the game in a loss if you still have time outs left. to use your sports anology. though i do understand that there are human costs to simply being there at all...

                Reply
        • 0%

          DoseASpinoza1 year, 5 months ago

          It's called "whack-a-mole". Parts get better because the insurgents go wherever we just left.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 100%

            BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

            lol.

            Reply

        • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
        • 0%

          faregt1401 year, 5 months ago

          Bobo,

          Sorry, you don't understand war and its twists and turns. If you have been in a war that lasts for over 3 years especially when ethnic tension is involved, you can tell me that the surge is working. It will never work period. No outsider can solve an ethnic problem by putting his army in the mist. Tell me in your own words what your final objective is in Iraq - freedom and democracy? You have failed woefully!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Reply
        • 0%

          bobo-in-texas1 year, 5 months ago

          I'd interested to know why a link to an ABC News report gets so many negative votes. Has anyone even bothered to take a look?

          Reply
      • 0%

        JustCallMeV1 year, 5 months ago

        "The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." - Gen William C. Westmoreland

        Billions have been made in this war: dollars for companies and tears for the American people. Travesty is the word for this flailing occupation.

        -V-

        Reply

        14 Replies

        • 100%

          SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

          Why do you try and talk in trite coffee house song lyrics all the time?

          Why not just say things out right instead of sounding like its open mic night at the Baldwin's house?

          And you sign your posts? Aside from how OUTLANDISHLY lame it is to name yourself after even lamer film characters... your picture and handle are ON TOP OF EVERY POST! NO ONE'S CONFUSED!

          Reply

          10 Replies

          • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.7 Replies

            • 90%

              SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

              yeah. we should go blow up the capitol building!

              idiot.

              Reply

              6 Replies

              • 0%

                HannibalBarca1 year, 5 months ago

                Love that word. Used to use it all the time until I had to take a drilling course in Abberdeen Scotland,now I use numpty,Scottish idiom of the sane word.Kinda has a ring to it.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  JustCallMeV1 year, 5 months ago

                  I have always wanted to use UK slang. Now I have another word for the arsenal.

                  -V-

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    HannibalBarca1 year, 5 months ago

                    well Ihope you don't go to a gun fight with a knife it will hurt

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      HannibalBarca1 year, 5 months ago

                      -v-do you know who the "heros??" role model was.Don't answer for him earthlover

                      Reply

              • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

                • 0%

                  SantaM1 year, 5 months ago

                  the underlying message? that the gradual elimination of freedoms to protect freedoms creates a state without freedoms and unworthy of being protected? if that's what you were referring to than that wasnt the underlying message. that was the overt, ripped off of 1984 and james Madison's federal papers, message. it ws the message they egrandized themselves by telling themselves they were putting across... but the message they really sent, the underlying message so to speak, s that if you disagree with yoru government, domestic terrorism is justified. that was the underlying message. dont kid yourself and think that you picked up on some beatiful politcal allegory. you didnt. it glorifed terrorism over intellectual rebellion. malcolm x over martin luther king. it was a shallow, egotistical, self-important, bastardized rip-off of a plot many other artists have told much better.

                  Reply
          • 0%

            JustCallMeV1 year, 5 months ago

            SantaM: Still fuming over your lack of prose and unimpressive command of the English language. Instead of commenting on the article, you make a crude and embarrassing attempt to slight me.

            All a sordid ruse to cover your in ability to intelligently comment on the article and gain, even but a bit, of attention - like a small child being ignored. Now, you had your audience, move along little one and let the grown-ups talk.

            That avatar does fit your demeanor...is that a dove of prey or a cowardly seagull?

            -V-

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
        • 77%

          AnvilHead1 year, 5 months ago

          I don't think that fraud constitutes making money it's just shifting the publics money into private pockets.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            JustCallMeV1 year, 5 months ago

            That is a good observation...

            -V-

            Reply
        • 50%

          rimbaud1 year, 5 months ago

          We could probably end the war (buy th peace) by giving the opposing factions the money we spend there, daily.

          Reply
    • 0%

      AnvilHead1 year, 5 months ago

      You mean there's a plan, what a concept!

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago

        Yeah just not bobos. What if we concentrated on the people who actually attacked us on 9-11 instead of the folly of nation building? Didn't Bush promise he wasn't going to engage in Nation Building? Yet at the first opportunity he and the PNAC cabel morphed the legitemate effort to kill or capture those resposible for 9-11 into the ill-advise, blunderous invasion and the disasterous occupation of an oil rich Arab nation that did not particpate in 9-11. And they wonder who is to blame for the shape of the military.....go figure.

        Reply
    • 0%

      dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago

      Yeah why not tell us how things are really so great over there and its all the liberal media fault. Wonderful choice we'll use the Custer strategy.

      Kinda odd tho how the minute the Dems took control of Congress we had all the right wingers out demanding they fix a list of problems immediately. After years of telling us everythng was OK. Me thinks they been lieing to us.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        dunkirk1 year, 5 months ago

        ROFLMAO, gotta luv the anal-retentives as they spell check posts on a message board. ROFLMAO.

        Reply
    • 0%

      mesodude1 year, 5 months ago

      "We" don't have a problem because "we" aren't in Iraq. If "we" were in Iraq, the war would be over in a flash.

      Reply
    • 0%

      RedstateLib1 year, 5 months ago

      "We have a problem so let's retreat and surrender. Nice plan."

      Yes we keep hitting a brick wall. Lets back up and drive at the wall even faster. That always works. NOT! LOL. Lets try something really outragous. Lets talk to the interested nations in the region, lets see if they have any ideas that we haven't thought of, lets see if they can help us get Iraq stable and able to stand on it's own. Unless we really don't want a self supported stable Iraq. Unless we really do want to occupy it forever. If thats the case I believe the people have a right to know.

      Reply

    • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      Twistoflex1 year, 5 months ago

      The only retreat and surrender I see is the retreat from the rule of law and the surrender to dictatorship. On the contrary, time4change was advancing some proactive steps to preserve our blood and treasure. I agree with him, but I think we should go full speed ahead: impeach the inveterate liars in the Dumbya dictatorship and commence full criminal investigations into that cesspool of corruption at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

      Reply
    • 80%

      AntiNeoCon1 year, 5 months ago

      BoBo your favorite sheep is calling...

      Reply
    • 0%

      AntiNeoCon1 year, 5 months ago

      I don't think anyone said anything about surrender. Getting out of a war we can't win is only using common sense. You can volunteer if you like loosing a war so well.

      Reply
    • 0%

      ETproductions1 year, 5 months ago

      Good point, Colonel Custer. Let's bravely ride forth with 113 men and surround 35,000 heavily armed Indians.

      Reply
  • 0%

    NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

    This is on the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, you know the same losers that ruined our intelligence agencies? President Bush inherited this problem.

    That being said, the US is still the worlds UNQUESTIONED...and only..true SUPERPOWER. Its not rocket science as to why Iran didnt try to take US sailors.

    Reply

    24 Replies

    • 0%

      MonkeyBiz1 year, 5 months ago

      Ruined them how? There is a new neocon talking point that is beginning to pick up steam lately..."The war in Iraq is the Dems fault, especially because Bill Clinton was President."

      There is a long list of incompetence and dereliction associated with the current administration, THEY are in charge, THEY are responsible.

      BTW, These people were going to reduce the combat pay for the troops on the ground because they thought the troops were making too much money. David Chu, a Rummy assistant, testified to congress that the cost of paying benefits to veterans and widows was "taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself."

      The Bush neocons speak with forked tongues, they care little for the troops, a lot for Haliburton. Troops are only a convenient political cover that provides great photo ops.

      Reply

      16 Replies

      • 0%

        BravoSierra1 year, 5 months ago

        The military was in good shape 6 years ago. It's breaking now...or haven't you listened to the testimony of some of the Army's top Generals to Congress? What is broken is Bush's ability to manage the State Department to accomplish the civilian components of a Low Intensity Conflict. Please to study the doctrine before you sling insults.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        MonkeyBiz1 year, 5 months ago

        You must be confused, I didn't write the article we are discussing. Besides that, if toppling Saddam had been left to military planners, it would have only taken a week.

        Why don't you try an intelligent response and present your viewpoint with out the BS insults once in a while. If I were a conservative or a republican, I'd be embarrassed by you. Being rude and belligerent is not a defensible, cohesive, political position.

        BTW, its OK then that your neos treat the troops that way?

        Reply
      • 0%

        donald511 year, 5 months ago

        Libs, you really are a disqusting person.

        And, Rummy wanted to cut two more active Army Divisions and only changed his mind as a result of 911. Cheney as a Congressmen approved all the same downsizing as John Kerry after the fall of the Soviet Bloc. Finally, how about all of Clinton's requests for anti-terror efforts funding being denied by the Repug Congress. There are a lot of reasons our current state can be blamed moreso on Republicans.

        Reply

        9 Replies

        • 0%

          NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

          more lib name callers. Can you people even start a discussion without having to make personal remarks towards other posters?

          Reply

          8 Replies

          • 100%

            vettenut1 year, 5 months ago

            Wow, how profound and gracious.........

            I wonder how long you pondered and re-arranged your thoughts before you felt confident enough to state both of them so eloquently????

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

              • 0%

                vettenut1 year, 5 months ago

                JQP: And then sometimes the "simplists (sic) of words" actually reveals the true shallowness of the bucket from which they were poured........

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
              • 0%

                NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

                kinda like, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about...ever?..ok, thats nine words.

                Reply
          • 100%

            NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

            thanks for making my point

            Reply

          • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

            • 0%

              NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

              thats three words. LOL, typical liberal math.

              Reply
      • 0%

        NoSpinDave1 year, 5 months ago

        whooo their chief! When did I say the war in Iraq was the Demos fault? Could you even READ my post? Please post ONE QUOTE where I said that!

        Now chill the F out long enough to read again. I sad the smaller military and the whittled down intelligence agencies were CLINTONS FAULT. If you want to infer the rest, thats on you chief.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          MonkeyBiz1 year, 5 months ago

          Show me where I said you said that. I didn't quote you, I said there was a new neocon talking point picking up steam. You're blaming clinton for the military's condition, and neocons are now attempting to blame Iraq on the dems. YOU need to re-read the post.

          I see above where you are excoriating "libs" about personal remarks, yet you are exceptionally rude. "Now chill the F out long enough to read again." That makes you a hypocrite ya think?

          See, you can get all ******y and some of us "libs" aren't going to go quietly into the night. That authoritarian neocon chest thumping macho BS doesn't impress or intimidate me. If you were to order me around like a nazi to my face, you wouldn't be nospindave, you would be davesheadspinning.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      Twistoflex1 year, 5 months ago

      You make this up, right? Dumbya got 56 warnings of impending terrorist attacks before 9/11. On February 13, 2001 Dumbya issued his first National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD-1), in which he radically overhauled the national security complex. This order stovepiped intelligence - directing it away from interagency sharing and shooting it directly up to the NSA which was Chaired by Chevron Condi and closely monitored and manipulated by Dick Cheney. The FBI was forbidden to attend NSA meetings except by invitation, according to Dumbya's order. The National Economic Council was merged with the NSA, placing the intelligence and military capabilities of the US at the disposal of elite transnational corporate interests. This is all documented and anyone can actually read this order (and others in the series) by Googling "NSPD-1".

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

    • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
    • 20%

      AntiNeoCon1 year, 5 months ago

      Its always Clintons fault, he is still president isn't he? Come on, grit your teeth and try to say it, "Bush is president now, he is responsible for his own actions" Now don't you feel better.

      Reply
    • 0%

      HannibalBarca1 year, 5 months ago

      Goverment intelligence is an oxymoron

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        vettenut1 year, 5 months ago

        HB: Perhaps you should clarify if you mean your own government, or the U.S. Government, or just governments in general.......

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          HannibalBarca1 year, 5 months ago

          All

          Reply

  • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    philogical1 year, 5 months ago

    OMG Marry and Joseph, the English have a saying when confronted with this kind of information, it called a gross inexactitude. In the states here we just call it what it is, a lie. It's been 40 years since anti-war, anti-military and anti American protestors trampled upon the hearts and spirits of America's troops who served in Vietnam. The soldiers are the ones that carry the burden for you slackers out there, and you can't stand it. You and your leftist friends, who hate this country will do and say anything, no matter how foolish to make us look bad. For the defeat-retreat-surrender crowd there is only one way to win and that is for us to lose. The problem for the cut-and-run crowd is that a hearty group of American patriots (Our Soldiers) won't sit back and allow another generation of America's troops to be denigrated and disrespected. They keep volunteering and they keep on fighting because they know that failure is not a choice that any true American would want to live with.