Rumsfeld Encounters Friendly Fire

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

I think it does, at the end of their statement they should also mention this War in Iraq has the lowest casualty rate of any war in American history. they get that wrong too?

are we talking before or after Bush declared "mission accomplished"?

[jcmd62]

Liberals.........Best you can do is throw "think tank" around like its anything more than hypocritical, self absorbed and self proclaimed "experts" that sit around wasting time and money using "HINDSIGHT" to nit pick apart and second guess the job someone else had to perform WITHOUT all the answers laid out for them in advance.

And just like a bunch of liberals you won't use the very same hindsight to SEE that 8 years of Clinton and billions of dollars in defense cuts later is WHY our troops are so poorly equipped. Thats right it's CLINTON's defense cuts that have our soldiers riding around in un-armoured hum-vees that were slated for replacement/updating until Clinton decided that they were "good enough" and weren't needed. Now Bush is expected to rebuild in 4 years what Billy spent 8 years tearing down.

This is why the Dems lost. Spent too much time BLAMING BUSH for EVERYTHING. Flat out refused to accept responsibility for ANYTHING. Stop blaming Bush for 8 years of Terror attacks that Clinton let go unanswered and military cuts that left us barely able to pay our soldiers much less replace the outdated equipment they are now FORCED to use in combat.

There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Rumsfeld said.........

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have," Rumsfeld said. "They're not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time"

As usual liberals can't handle the fukin TRUTH. He didn't skate or duck the question. Thats as honest and straight-forward as it gets and yet you whiny bastards are still crying and most of all BLAMING.

This isn't the first time we as a nation went to war with what we "have" and not what we would like to have had. It's not that hard to understand what Rumsfeld was referring to. We sure as hell didn't WAIT until the atom bomb was perfected to enter WWII. Even after waiting 2 years after Hitlers initial aggression, we feverishly tried to rebuild a very weak and poorly equipped military, BEFORE we went to war, that was suffering severly from the effects of the great depression, when we were forced into the war by an unprovoked terror attack that killed thousands.

This is where I BLAME Bush. Unlike in WWII, Bush failed and still has yet to organize both our own industry and our allies industries to provide these hum-vees and other things our soldiers are lacking. There is no excuse that he hasn't set aside at least a couple of auto plants in the US alone to produce NOTHING but this needed military equipment. This goes for any other type of industry both local and abroad that can supply our troops with the tools they need to perform their jobs with the highest degree of safety possible.

We've got Auto plants closing down and laying off thousands, why hasn't Bush put these people and plants to work building Hum-vees? We would be keeping these people employed, supplying our troops with this much needed equipment and at the same time be putting some of those billions of war dollars back into revitalising our own economy.

Clinton may be why we initially went to war with out-dated eqiupment and poor intelligence gathering capabilities, but if Bush doesn't soon deliver the equipment and fresh troops needed then he alone bears the responsibility for our men being ill equipped and dying needlessly because of it. We should be delivering new armoured Hum-vees and everything else our guys need by now instead of just starting to talk about how we are going to supply them.

[multi]

This isn't the first time we as a nation went to war with what we "have" and not what we would like to have had. It's not that hard to understand what Rumsfeld was referring to. We sure as hell didn't WAIT until the atom bomb was perfected to enter WWII. Even after waiting 2 years after Hitlers initial aggression, we feverishly tried to rebuild a very weak and poorly equipped military, BEFORE we went to war, that was suffering severly from the effects of the great depression, when we were forced into the war by an unprovoked terror attack that killed thousands.

This is where I BLAME Bush. Unlike in WWII, Bush failed and still has yet to organize both our own industry and our allies industries to provide these hum-vees and other things our soldiers are lacking. There is no excuse that he hasn't set aside at least a couple of auto plants in the US alone to produce NOTHING but this needed military equipment. This goes for any other type of industry both local and abroad that can supply our troops with the tools they need to perform their jobs with the highest degree of safety possible

i was always under the impression that the US navy was easily the most powerful navy at the time (i understand you are talking army and not navy -but a defence budget is a defence budget)..or was in a cold war type of arms race with japans navy in a race to build the biggest and strongest war ship..

blaming clinton is a bit weak (i could imagine the cleaning up after reagan/bush years was quite a task)
and comparisons to ww2 are all pretty vauge and distorted
the UK& US seem to be playing the role of the nazis this time if anything
the invaders of a whole region wich has been in constant state of resistance towards the west for at least the last 100 years..this is no new war that started in 2001,
the seeds of this war were planted before and during ww2
and the situations post 911 and post pearl harbour totaly different
back then without that huge navy support the US could not of carried out most of its
most important operations..not to mention the airforce...wich i believe at the time was the worlds strongest as well..
all i am trying to say is that for quite a while the army gets the backseat when handing out the defence spending...
the blame goes back a long way on both sides imo

[theknife]

Originally Posted by jcmd62

Liberals.........Best you can do is throw "think tank" around like its anything more than hypocritical, self absorbed and self proclaimed "experts" that sit around wasting time and money using "HINDSIGHT" to nit pick apart and second guess the job someone else had to perform WITHOUT all the answers laid out for them in advance.

And just like a bunch of liberals you won't use the very same hindsight to SEE that 8 years of Clinton and billions of dollars in defense cuts later is WHY our troops are so poorly equipped. Thats right it's CLINTON's defense cuts that have our soldiers riding around in un-armoured hum-vees that were slated for replacement/updating until Clinton decided that they were "good enough" and weren't needed. Now Bush is expected to rebuild in 4 years what Billy spent 8 years tearing down.

This is why the Dems lost. Spent too much time BLAMING BUSH for EVERYTHING. Flat out refused to accept responsibility for ANYTHING. Stop blaming Bush for 8 years of Terror attacks that Clinton let go unanswered and military cuts that left us barely able to pay our soldiers much less replace the outdated equipment they are now FORCED to use in combat.

There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Rumsfeld said.........

As usual liberals can't handle the fukin TRUTH. He didn't skate or duck the question. Thats as honest and straight-forward as it gets and yet you whiny bastards are still crying and most of all BLAMING.

This isn't the first time we as a nation went to war with what we "have" and not what we would like to have had. It's not that hard to understand what Rumsfeld was referring to. We sure as hell didn't WAIT until the atom bomb was perfected to enter WWII. Even after waiting 2 years after Hitlers initial aggression, we feverishly tried to rebuild a very weak and poorly equipped military, BEFORE we went to war, that was suffering severly from the effects of the great depression, when we were forced into the war by an unprovoked terror attack that killed thousands.

This is where I BLAME Bush. Unlike in WWII, Bush failed and still has yet to organize both our own industry and our allies industries to provide these hum-vees and other things our soldiers are lacking. There is no excuse that he hasn't set aside at least a couple of auto plants in the US alone to produce NOTHING but this needed military equipment. This goes for any other type of industry both local and abroad that can supply our troops with the tools they need to perform their jobs with the highest degree of safety possible.

We've got Auto plants closing down and laying off thousands, why hasn't Bush put these people and plants to work building Hum-vees? We would be keeping these people employed, supplying our troops with this much needed equipment and at the same time be putting some of those billions of war dollars back into revitalising our own economy.

Clinton may be why we initially went to war with out-dated eqiupment and poor intelligence gathering capabilities, but if Bush doesn't soon deliver the equipment and fresh troops needed then he alone bears the responsibility for our men being ill equipped and dying needlessly because of it. We should be delivering new armoured Hum-vees and everything else our guys need by now instead of just starting to talk about how we are going to supply them.

you miss the point, JC, try to stop ranting about Clinton this and Clinton that, coz nothing Clinton did or didn't do has anything to do with what has transpired in Iraq. in Iraq, Bush bears responsibility for it all, from a to z...and Rumsfeld too, by delegation.

Iraq a Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney & Co operation... we didn't have to go in March '03 but we did solely coz a bunch of aging neocons simply couldn't contain their throbbing erections for Saddam Hussein any longer...
- so if we did it with a shitty plan, with poorly equipped troops, unprepared for what we got into, then who really fucked up here? your boys in the White House, that's who.

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by theknife

you miss the point, JC, try to stop ranting about Clinton this and Clinton that, coz nothing Clinton did or didn't do has anything to do with what has transpired in Iraq. in Iraq, Bush bears responsibility for it all, from a to z...and Rumsfeld too, by delegation.

Iraq a Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney & Co operation... we didn't have to go in March '03 but we did solely coz a bunch of aging neocons simply couldn't contain their throbbing erections for Saddam Hussein any longer...
- so if we did it with a shitty plan, with poorly equipped troops, unprepared for what we got into, then who really fucked up here? your boys in the White House, that's who.

Wrong. Iraq is a UNITED STATES of AMERICA operation. As usual liberal rhetoric turns a few whiny idiots that are crying because they will now have to do the very jobs they volunteered, trained and accepted payment to do, a job who's expectations and dangers were fully explained in advance. Only a few select liberal sore losers and Monday morning quarterbacks like you are using hindsight to second guess the PRESIDENT on his plan of attack. Yes wouldn't we all go back and change mistakes IF we had the luxury of watching someone else make them first. This is the basis of every liberal argument.......what if????

We are the best equipped military in the world. Only a complete moron would turn a few crybaby's sobs into our troops being "poorly" equipped. Even more ignorant is this "unprepared" lie. The excellent job that our troops have done so far is testiment alone to just how well prepared we were and still are prepared to deal with diseases like Saddam.

Once again its you that refuses to take any credit for the 8 years you liberal cowards spent in one huge heads buried safely in the sand circle jerk with a leader who couldn't contain his throbbing erections for fat ugly chicks, and playing "joe" Celebrity on talk shows. 8 years Clinton did NOTHING when we were attacked by Terrorists. For 8 years he did NOTHING every time Saddam refused to allow inspectors access. Which directly affected the information gathering process that was to allow the current President and the FUTURE one that he knew full well would replace him to KNOW what Capabilities Saddam had or hadn't rebuilt/replaced.

Do you think Bush kept "No Fly" zones in place to just baby sit Saddam for the next 10 years? Hell no! Bush wanted to follow the murderer back to Baghdad and deal with him while we had the 3 times the forces, manpower, and equipment on the ground in Iraq/Kuwait than the weak military we were left with today after 8 years of liberal neglect. He only stopped the war after Saddam exited Kuwait to appease the world and especially the UN. He actively planned to take out Saddam and pushed for UN approval to do so the first time Saddam broke his UN agreement. No doubt we would have and SHOULD have dealt with Saddam a lot sooner than March 03 had Bush been re-elected.

Thats right narrow eyes see only the small picture that suits your fantasies. We didn't have to go in march 03, we could still be using the liberal " ignore it and hope like hell it goes away" process even though most of our ancestors learned before we populated this continent that this only made matters worse and was like ignoring an infection and letting it fester until it becomes gangrenous. History clearly has shown that ACTIONS speak louder than words and that apathy is NOT the way to stop another's aggression. Thank god the American people saw this and elected a President that understood this, and now re-elected him to finish the job.

If for no other reason Saddam was a boil that needed lancing long, long ago. Thanx to Mr. clinton and the UN Saddam was allowed 10+ more years of murder, sodomy, rape and crimes against humanity. Had complete freedom to finance and commit Terrorism abroad and against his own people.

I agree with you that this far into the conflict, IF and its a big IF, our troops are running short on equipment and ANYTHING else they need to operate as safely as possible then Bush is solely to blame because he has had more than enough time and manpower to have manufactured and be delivering these materials to our men as they are needed. I have a little brother and an 18 year old nephew over there, and neither confirm these complaints. No one is ever or will ever be "prepared" for the horrors of WAR. We take to battle what we "think" is needed and we "adapt" to every situation as it plays out.

I am sick of this liberal second guessing and hindsight screams of "I would have known better and done it different" after the fact. America re-elected Bush, get the fuck over it and join the team. History alone will dictate George W. Bush's performance as President as well as his performance in Iraq as our Commander in Chief.

[floydian slip]

If for no other reason Saddam was a boil that needed lancing long, long ago. Thanx to Mr. clinton and the UN Saddam was allowed 10+ more years of murder, sodomy, rape and crimes against humanity. Had complete freedom to finance and commit Terrorism abroad and against his own people.

GHWBush had nothing to do with that eh? Or did he realize like 'Clinton' that invading Iraq is/was a mistake. To bad the king of all think tanks (The PNAC) was pushing for war with Iraq since 92 and since the members of the PNAC held all of the high cabinet positions after the 2000 elections who was going to stop them?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by jcmd62

I am sick of this liberal second guessing and hindsight screams of "I would have known better and done it different" after the fact. America re-elected Bush, get the fuck over it and join the team. History alone will dictate George W. Bush's performance as President as well as his performance in Iraq as our Commander in Chief.

who's second guessing? i called this a clusterfuck from day one and before....and as for history and Bush's performance, i'll save you the wait: his record of performance in Iraq is dismal, by virtue of the fact that he put us there.

[RoBoBoy]

Both Rumsfeld and jcmd have demonstrated the principle of plausible deniability very effectively, I think.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

you miss the point, JC, try to stop ranting about Clinton this and Clinton that, coz nothing Clinton did or didn't do has anything to do with what has transpired in Iraq. in Iraq, Bush bears responsibility for it all, from a to z...and Rumsfeld too, by delegation.

Iraq a Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney & Co operation... we didn't have to go in March '03 but we did solely coz a bunch of aging neocons simply couldn't contain their throbbing erections for Saddam Hussein any longer...
- so if we did it with a shitty plan, with poorly equipped troops, unprepared for what we got into, then who really fucked up here? your boys in the White House, that's who.

Bush didn't make the war plan for Iraq. Neither did Cheny or Rumsfield. Try to find the right people to blame if your intense hatred can be put aside long enough.

Nobody wants to mention how it was a civilian reporter that gave the question/comment about scrounging scrapyards to a national guardsman to ask Rumsfield. It apparently wasn't a big enough problem for them to bother without prompting.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

Bush didn't make the war plan for Iraq. Neither did Cheny or Rumsfield. Try to find the right people to blame if your intense hatred can be put aside long enough.

Nobody wants to mention how it was a civilian reporter that gave the question/comment about scrounging scrapyards to a national guardsman to ask Rumsfield. It apparently wasn't a big enough problem for them to bother without prompting.

ah, that's right...i forgot, we no longer hold these people accountable for their decisions. reality cannot coexist with responsiblity in the faith-based presidency.

[albed]

Who's we? And who's "these people"? I'd tell you who put together the war plan but it wouldn't make any difference in your hate filled brain. Ignore the facts and just gush out propaganda; the pathetic balm of a very sore loser.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

Who's we? And who's "these people"? I'd tell you who put together the war plan but it wouldn't make any difference in your hate filled brain. Ignore the facts and just gush out propaganda; the pathetic balm of a very sore loser.

it's Bush's war - deal with it, everybody else has to.

[albed]

By whining, bitching, pissing and moaning on a grand scale. Your dealing with it especially well knife.

Just forget all the congressmen who supported it.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

By whining, bitching, pissing and moaning on a grand scale. Your dealing with it especially well knife.

Just forget all the congressmen who supported it.

i actually do try to forget all the congressmen who supported it. i deal with it by using my pathetic balm, which i apply generously to all my sensitive areas. in the summer, i use pathetic balm with sunscreen and aloe vera.

[zombywoof]

Taking out Hussein is a good but his war won't mean much unless Bush gets the mastermind behind the sept 11 attacks.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

Taking out Hussein is a good but his war won't mean much unless Bush gets the mastermind behind the sept 11 attacks.

I fail to see how invading Iraq would cease to be 'meaningless', if a Saudi terrorist, living in Afghanistan, holidaying in Pakistan, were to be caught?

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

I fail to see how invading Iraq would cease to be 'meaningless', if a Saudi terrorist, living in Afghanistan, holidaying in Pakistan, were to be caught?

Those are positive things but they still have to catch bin laden.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

are we talking before or after Bush declared "mission accomplished"?

Well i believe Bush never did declare Mission Accomplished. I do re-call sailors aboard the USS Lincoln putting a banner up with those very words but I do not re-call Bush saying them. Now I do not know what the sailors ment by Mission Accomplished, maybe you do? Could just mean Mission Accomplished for the fact Bush is the first President to land on an AirCraft Carrier by jet????



Spin-----Spin------Spin-----Spin

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by theknife

who's second guessing? i called this a clusterfuck from day one and before....and as for history and Bush's performance, i'll save you the wait: his record of performance in Iraq is dismal, by virtue of the fact that he put us there.

Well now your just lying. You had no way of knowing what would or will Iraqs fate be. You "predicted" all kinds of ridiculous scenarios. I remember horror stories about Iraq being the next Vietnam. Not even close. You disagreed with the war and were against it but on a military standpoint your opinion, and yes it's only your feeble opinion, "clusterfuck" is only your limited emotional response brought forth from the obvious mental trauma you suffered with Kerry's loss that you have yet to come to terms with.

Fact is you and the rest of your prophets of doom made all sorts of baseless uneducated and just plain crazy paranoid "predictions", You should all have your own cable shows since TV is the only place your reality will ever exist. Remember that "dismal" is only a sore losers opinion of the better teams superior performance and continued success given right after the LOSER'S own dismal defeat by the better team....usually just referred to as "SOUR GRAPES"

You really are pathetic......I don't know how you look your imaginary girlfriend in the face.

Just like this Mission Accomplished crap. Every little phrase, every mispoken word nit picked, blown out of proportion and made into a huge conspiracy like a bunch of old women gossiping at the beauty salon. Ok fine....during the election all the lying and deceit was because you wanted your Man to win the election. The election is OVER now. Hate to announce the obvious but some of you haven't figured it out. Are you really going to spend the next 4+ years pouting like a bunch of spoiled children that didn't get their way. Did Daddy Kerry drive away from the bank and forget to get you a lolli-pop? Get over it.

Mission Accomplished. Wasn't this vessel headed home for refit/resupply "after" a successful mission. I may not have paid enough attention to this little scrap of news since I'm not a whiny ass liberal looking for something to cry foul about, but I understood that President Bush was coming aboard to praise the ships crew for doing a good job or how they say in the military "Mission Well Accomplished".

This couldn't possibly be what the crew was referring to eh? Their particular "MISSION" being accomplished? The last act of which was catching the plane carrying the Commander in Chief, obviously an important honor for any ships crew. Might explain their actions, they were probably pretty pumped up for the Presidents arrival.

Regardless.. it hardly warranted the bravado it was given, just like the way the president arrived aboard the ship didn't. Like any of you whiny liberals were to become president you wouldn't also see the photo op it was and utilize it just like the president did. Seems most voters saw it for the innocent act it was despite all the liberal screaming. JUST like Rumsfelds comments......

Rumsfeld may be an ass, but the job pretty much requires it. His answer to those "men" may have been short and matter of fact, but it was the damn truth, something those men may not have "wanted" but damn well "needed" to hear. No since he didn't sugar coat it and give an hour long 14 page summation of political double speak on the question, it's a huge tramatic event in those poor military men who actually got a truthful to the point like it or not answer.........and the liberals still bitch......and will continue to cry until they get their way just like a bunch spoiled brats.

There's always a certain few that join the military and then have second thoughts, most of these are weeded out and let go before they finish boot camp and are permanently assigned to units, unfortunately some can handle the discipline and routine until they find out that their 4 years of service won't be just easy war games with their buddies where no one gets hurt or killed. This was a few scared soldiers whining to the media. The fact is in any WAR we will always need/want better and safer means to wage it. We need a trauma suit that protects our soldiers from head to toe. We still wage war with what we have.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

That's right Jiggles the Clown, narrow eyes see only the small picture that suits their fantasies, and how quickly they forget.

President Bush Proclaims End To Major Combat Ops in Iraq
By Kathleen T. Rhem / American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 — Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

"In this battle we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment," Bush said aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln as the sun set on the Pacific Ocean. "Yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.

"Because of you our nation is more secure," the commander in chief said to cheering sailors. "Because of you, the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free."

With a huge red, white and blue banner declaring "Mission Accomplished" hanging in the background, Bush told the crew that the American military's precision, speed and boldness led to "one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history."

The Lincoln has been at sea for 10 months. She was ready to head home after duty in the Afghan theater during Operation Enduring Freedom, when the ship and her 5,000- member crew were turned around to support Operation Iraqi Freedom.

(Excerpt of article from the US Department of Defense website)

I guess you'd still like to see this as nitpicking about a 'slip of the tongue,' but I see it more as a deliberately false stunt, with a budget and premeditation probably rivaling the average day of any Hollywood shooting.

...an interview Bush gave Bill O'Reilly of Fox News in which O'Reilly asked Bush whether he would still do the carrier landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner. At the time, 16 months ago, Bush referred to Iraq as a "victory" and declared an end to major combat there.

"Absolutely," the president replied in the interview, to air on Monday's "O'Reilly Factor." O'Reilly, apparently surprised, replied, "You would?" "Of course," Bush continued. "I'm saying to the troops, on this carrier and elsewhere, 'Thanks for serving America.' Absolutely. And by the way, those sailors and airmen loved seeing the commander in chief. . . . You bet I'd do it again."

In April, White House senior adviser Karl Rove told an editorial board meeting with the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio that the "Mission Accomplished" sign had been a mistake. "I wish the banner was not up there," Rove said. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols."

(source:washingtonpost.com)

He's not even bright enough to admit it was a mistake, but at least Karl, the puppetmaster is. Hardly surprising since Bush himself is a man who can't think of anything he's ever done wrong, being on a mission from God an all.

As of today, (12/14/04) 1,289 American soldiers have died since the start of the Iraq war. A total of 114 U.S. soldiers were killed between the start of the war March 20, 2003, and President Bush's declaration of the end of major combat operations May 1, 2003. Since then, 898 U.S. soldiers have been killed by hostile fire.
(source: detnews.com (Detroit News))

Obviously to such little street preachers such as your self, the death of nearly 900 'whiny idiot' soldiers is negligible. Your spiritually appointed master was perhaps just speaking in strange texas tongues.

Talk about fucking spin.

Meanwhile you insist time and time again on reminding us that 900 killed is no big deal and certainly 'no Vietnam', but you seem to want to overlook a few other key statistics.

transcribed excerpts from NPR audio, today (12/15/04):

...only 10% of wounded soldiers result in fatalities, a figure down from previous wars (including the Gulf War, where the figure was 25%) due to surgical teams moving closer to the front than ever before..

...But as fatalities decrease the military is faced with an influx of the severely wounded...

...There are more than 9000 wounded from Iraq or Afghanistan...

...(brief interview with Sgt. Michael McNaughton, who lost his right leg above the knee, almost lost left leg with severe shrapnel wounds, lost fingers on right hand and had a concussion--interviews with army surgeons)...

...We've been hearing about the possibility of shortage of troops what about getting medical personnel?...

Col. Paul Cordts, director of Health Policy and Services at the Office of the Army Surgeon General:

"Here we are a country of close to ten thousand surgeons and we now have had more than a million troops go through Iraq. It's certainly not been in our experience as a country to have to manage a war where there have been now close to ten thousand total who've been wounded in battle, and we're doing this on the basis of a voluntary force--and they are doing a tremendous job just as is reflected by the fact that this many people are surviving--but how to sustain it over the next two or three years if this battle goes on that long, you know, this is already at this point a war where there are as many people wounded as in the first four years of Vietnam or as in the Revolutionary War... ...they're doing a remarkable job, but it seems there will be continuing challenges for them..."

Now, accuse the Army of spin if you like.

Now, on the subject of Clinton, using your own logic, (laughingly referred) and words, I could say I am sick of this so-called-conservative second guessing and hindsight which screams of "I would have known better and done it different" after the fact.

America elected and reelected Clinton just like it elected and reelected Bush, so get the fuck over it and join the team--the team that REMEMBERS that Clinton presided over the creation of 22 million new jobs while the Bush aligned media constantly scrabbles over reports of ten thousand jobs created here and there because they know the administration is overseeing the highest unemployment rate in 70 years. Join the team that REMEMBERS that Clinton presided over the highest percentage of home ownership in American history while Bush's unsustainable economic policies threaten to effectively end the housing boom by driving mortgage rates into the sky, and which may mark the very end of the dollar's reign as the world's reserve currency. The team that REMEMBERS that Clinton presided over higher incomes in every sector, the largest budget deficit in American history converted into the largest surplus, and the lowest government spending and the lowest federal tax burdens since Kennedy--all with a predominantly Republican and often hostile congress.

Who's really a sore loser here when you haven't stopped bitching about the DUELY ELECTED Mr. Clinton for YEARS after the fact?

You might also REMEMBER that Clinton's liberal-mindless-apathetic-do-nothing, hope-it-goes-away foreign policy included deploying troops in Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo, as well as launching several military strikes on Iraq itself in response to violations of UN sanctions. You might REMEMBER that Clinton signed several antiterrorism acts including The Iraqi Liberation Act. Maybe you should read that again and REMEMBER that it states, in part, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

But no, I'm giving you too much credit. Your incessant need to exalt yourself over the liberal sore-loser rabble would be utterly unsupportable if you couldn't insist on the absurd notion that liberals just want to sit on their hands, be unpatriotic, and write poetry and send flowers to their terrorist lovers. You share this tendency so completely with albed that it's no wonder you can't get along with him, we usually hate seeing our own faults in other people.

And I realize that anything positive about the Clinton administration is going to be hard for you to grasp and hold on to, since the UN is an obsolete collection of pussies and 'terrorists' have been effectively redefined almost exclusively as the 'freedom-hating Iraqi insurgency,' in what has to be one of the most masterfully Orwellian linguistic manipulations in living memory, (along with "Reality TV")--and made all the more ironic since we directly experienced real terrorism on Bush's watch and should so easily REMEMBER that it had absolutely fucking nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or the dead in Fallujah or Mosul today.

It's boringly predictable though that you REMEMBER so well that Clinton made a feeble attempt to deny that he got his dick sucked--or that he got his dick sucked--whichever aspect bothers you the most, I can't tell and don't really even care. But this type of deflective bullshit and rewriting of the past is certainly what we've come to expect from those who seem completely unable to admit of the slightest error of judgement or impulse in their present fearless leader, even when it's baldly obvious, or criticism of him even when it's entirely warranted. One tries to give people the benefit of the doubt, but your incessant knee jerking defensiveness and insistence of his infallibity is merely laughable.

But then the beautiful thing about such pointless polarity, of which you are the poster child, is its symmetry, specifically in this case the fact that your blanket caricature of any and all criticism as being part of a the omnipresent liberal agenda and therefore lacking all credibility from the outset, has the result of divesting you of all credibility just as cartoonishly.

By the way, calling a soldier reporting ad hoc salvaging operations on the ground out of concern for his fellow soldiers a whiney idiot is a royally over-the-top fucking example of that principle and exactly the kind of disloyalty denounced by your 'support the troops' bumper-sticker mentality. I suppose if one weren't a self avowed superior black-fonted conservative on steroids who knows absolutely everything better than everyone else people would find it seditious, if not treasonous. Of course you could jump on your buddy albed's little bandwagon and suggest that since it was prompted by a member of the press, it must not be true.

To return to the subject of the thread, I just have to say that whether or not the troops on the ground are prepared or properly equipped seems but a minor ramification of the larger fact that our economy itself, not to mention our resources, both material and human, may be neither prepared nor properly equipped to sustain the policing of Iraq and the growing insurgencies--at least not with the economic damage occurring in every other sector under the present administration. Sending men into battle unprepared is one thing, sending them on missions of utterly futile pretense seems altogether another.

Having your ignorant blowhard president to this day issue 'warnings' to Iran and Syria, as if we are not stressing our potentials already and are actually prepared to singlehandedly kick the ass of the entire Middle East, is just another example of the chronic habit this administration has developed for exhaling smoke directly into the public rectum.

Perhaps they can shit in their free hand while wishing they had another army in the other--after all the people that believe that a couple of plants producing Hum-vees would solve the problem would probably eat just as readily out of either.

And as far as Rumsfeld's rancid arrogance and petulance indifference--well surprise surprise, just look at the man's face. He reminds one of some constipated film noire Nazi henchman with Alzheimer's on a perfect mixture of morphine, Prozac and crack and a hell bent quest for the grail, or an angry little pedophilic nun in drag. Here is a man who obviously hasn't had his dick sucked in about 40 years.

...what a perfect choice for these enlightened times...