shropshire 0 #1 October 13, 2007 Quote Retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez also labelled US political leaders as "incompetent" and "corrupted". He said they would have faced courts martial for dereliction of duty had they been in the military. The best the US could manage under the current approach in Iraq was to "stave off defeat", Gen Sanchez warned. clicky (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gato 0 #2 October 13, 2007 Funny how the administration is all about listening to generals - while they're on active duty. But apparently their opinions are irrelevant once they retire. I guess it's all in the timing, huh?T.I.N.S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 October 13, 2007 QuoteFunny how the administration is all about listening to generals - while they're on active duty. But apparently their opinions are irrelevant once they retire. I guess it's all in the timing, huh? Yeah right... they listen... and if they dont like what they hear.... they retire them and keep going till they find a general that will tell them what THEY WANT TO HEAR Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 October 13, 2007 I guess that they [government] can keep a tighter lead on folk whilst they are active service. IMHO, that fact that he is no longer active makes no difference. He surely knows more about the situation than the "Yes" men in suits that have never seen service. People like him who speak up must scare them. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #5 October 13, 2007 According to Sanchez: "While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," [The administration has ignored messages from field commanders that warned repeatedly that] "our military alone could not achieve victory." "Our National leadership ignored the lessons of World War Two as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone." "From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economical and military power." [The current strategy, which includes a "surge" of troops into Iraq is] "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not been able to communicate effectively that reality to the American people." "Too often, our politicians have been distracted and they have chosen loyalty to their political parties above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power." "Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leadership involved in the management of this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would be immediately relieved or court-martialed." "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," I wonder what he REALLY thinks of Bush ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 October 13, 2007 Surely a rebuttal from the right is in order. I wonder what rushmc is waiting for.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #7 October 14, 2007 Surely a rebuttal from the right is in order. I wonder what rushmc is waiting for.Quote What has the potential to be a great discussion is being led to petty argument before it even gets going, wow. The writer of the article was right, the political leaders that have been making decisions in this war have made the situation FUBAR. I'm on the right and I will agree completely with that(sorry if I didn't take your bait). The leaders on the ground who give positive assessments aren't just doing so in order to keep their jobs and keep politicians happy. Some areas of this country have changed drastically for the good in the last year and a half(Anbar prov.), people just need to understand that contrary to popular belief combat zones aren't populated by unicorns that go around handing out rainbow smiles and gumdrops. It's combat, shit happens, you hang it out there and do what you can to ensure the victories outweigh the losses. As for this general saying there is nothing going on here but military action though, that's completely innacurate. Since the beginning of this endeavor we have been trying to get people from the highest levels of government all the way down to individual citizens to work with us, it has just been that up until recently they hoped that they could ignore the situation and it would go away. I've recently seen a handful of tribes start working with coalition forces to clean up their areas and the results have been amazing, we are pulling out of a lot of areas where our pressence used to be a necessity. People are fed select information by the media and make the assumption that what they have just seen is the whole story. I'm on the tail end of my third deployment over here so I've seen first hand how things have changed. Do we have a long ways to go? Absolutely, but we have also come very far in the yearssince we started this.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #8 October 14, 2007 I like what you say .. it's balanced. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #9 October 14, 2007 I like what you say .. it's balanced.Quote Thanks, 3 trips here gives you quite a unique perspective on the place if you can stop hating the fact that you're here long enough to make on honest assesment.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #10 October 14, 2007 QuoteThe writer of the article was right, the political leaders that have been making decisions in this war have made the situation FUBAR. Agree - I have phrased it that the initial civilian planners of OIF in OSD and WH needed more realists and fewer idealists. The well-recognized lack of planning -- which was a decision -- for Stage 4, 'winning the peace' did not help either. QuoteThe leaders on the ground who give positive assessments aren't just doing so in order to keep their jobs and keep politicians happy. Some areas of this country have changed drastically for the good in the last year and a half(Anbar prov.), people just need to understand that contrary to popular belief combat zones aren't populated by unicorns that go around handing out rainbow smiles and gumdrops. It's combat, shit happens, you hang it out there and do what you can to ensure the victories outweigh the losses. While it may sometimes get lost in the rhetoric, most folks around here get that complexity. One question that I have (& it's not directed at anyone specifically), for the high capability level of the US military and the amount of American taxpayer dollars being sent to the sandbox, should we not expect something positive be occurring? Many folks have issue with the rate of change. Quote Since the beginning of this endeavor we have been trying to get people from the highest levels of government all the way down to individual citizens to work with us, it has just been that up until recently they hoped that they could ignore the situation and it would go away. I've recently seen a handful of tribes start working with coalition forces to clean up their areas and the results have been amazing, we are pulling out of a lot of areas where our pressence used to be a necessity. This is the issue of stabilization and reconstruction ops (that I keep harping on). Could you show some examples of folks who advocated ignoring the post-invasion situation? As counterexamples, I can describe lots of non-uniformed folks who have been involved from before OIF started through today. These are efforts by individual citizens inside and outside the USG whose renumerations are a lot closer to service members than what the private military contractors receive (less seen and less unrecognized, perhaps?) -- From the State Dept experts on Iraqi ethnic divisions who were sent back to the State Dept by the civilian OSD Policy leadership during the planning stages of the war. -- To the group that I worked with in Sulaymania in 2004 to bring Iraqi profs up to speed on advancements in science & technology during the previous 15 year of sanctions. -- To folks like Montgomery McFate, (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/CMGHQP19VD1.DTL), Larry Diamond (http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/), and Skip Burkle (http://www.jephc.com/Profiles/skip2.cfm) Quote Do we have a long ways to go? Absolutely, but we have also come very far in the yearssince we started this. Agree. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ScottishJohn 25 #11 October 15, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301676,00.html QuoteSanchez, on the other hand, isn't done talking. He has reportedly considering writing a book and promises to name names in his blunt talk about the handling of the Iraq war by government officials and the media. I think his book should make an intresting read.---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #12 October 15, 2007 Quote Surely a rebuttal from the right is in order. I wonder what rushmc is waiting for. From the Strategy Page: Iraq, September 2007 October 15, 2007: On September 13th, Ramadan began the Islamic calendar year of 1428. In previous years, Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) activity increased during Ramadan. This year, activity decreased due to reconciliation efforts, the Mahdi Army cease-fire, and continued pressure on Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Most activity occurred in Central and Northern Iraq. During the month, American force levels were reduced in Anbar Province. The most notable activity for AQI for September has been the loss of key leadership in the organization. This has resulted in an overall weakened organization. On September 25, Abu Usama al-Tunisi, the emir for foreign fighters in Iraq, was killed in an air strike near Musayyib. He was considered the likely replacement for Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the current emir of AQI. AQI also lost other key leaders and high value individuals. The recent statement by Osama bin Laden focused on the American public and mentioned Iraq in passing. The statement used a Constructivist/ Neo-Marxist argument for the Global Jihad. Bin Laden’s call for fighters was directed at theaters other than Iraq, indicating that Al Qaeda Senior Leaders may be losing faith in AQI. Since November 2006, 9,300 members of the group have been killed or captured, including at least three top tier leaders. This month, replacement levels were announced to have been cut in half, to 30 to 40 fighters entering the country per month. At the end of August, Muqtada al Sadr called for a cease-fire. Since then, a decrease in his Mahdi Army related activity has been noticed. The cease-fire was the result of the fighting between the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades (Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, or SIIC) in Karbala in August, and the Mahdi Army becoming the next government target after AQI is crushed, and the loss of key leaders within the organization. Possibilities for Mahdi Army reconciliation have been discussed. Due to the cease-fire, Coalition Forces have continued to target illegal groups that have split from Mahdi Army. Some splinter groups with Iranian backing, labeled as Special Groups, have continued attacks on American and Iraqi troops. They have been responsible for a large number of Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), kidnapping, and murder attacks and for transporting personnel and weapons from Iran into Iraq. Other splinter groups have been labeled as “Shia Extremists”. These are likely groups which have splintered from Mahdi Army and operate independently. Their small size and level of activity will likely cause these groups to be reduced while activity levels remain low. Within the past months, predicted AIF offensives have not materialized. During the summer, a predicted massive offensive never materialized. Again during Ramadan, an increase in activity was predicted but, during September, activity levels decreased. AQI continues to lose large numbers of personnel and key leaders on a monthly basis. Mahdi Army has entered and has continued to honor its cease-fire. Concerned Local Citizens (CLC) groups have helped greatly in improving security and developing the Iraqi Army and Police. If current trends continue, a large reduction of AIF activity will occur before the end of the year. --Jonathan Henry ([email protected]) --------------------------------------------"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #13 October 15, 2007 ......consider writing a book .... Unless he slips on a bar of soap first!!! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #14 October 15, 2007 All well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #15 October 19, 2007 All well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #16 October 19, 2007 QuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #17 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that.... Yeah, it's just too bad that even Petraus' own boss says his report was BS, that at least 3 other generals disagree with him, and that we just had that article from 12 different commaners in Iraq who also disagree with him................but Petraus must be right. That's why the british announced they were pulling troops out the moment blair left office. Maybe the dems were thinking that Petraus was going to give a non-bias report, but they figured out that wasn't the case when it was discovered that the white house was writing the Petraus report and that Petraus was just going to present it, but then at the last second they changed the story on that and claimed that Petraus wrote the report....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #18 October 19, 2007 Funny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #19 October 20, 2007 I don't believe the Dems have anything against supporting the troops..........they're fighting to get them home safe. I do believe they have a problem with the leaders that are trying to keep the troops there for profit though. Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. So who is really not looking out for our troops? Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". QuoteFunny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 October 20, 2007 Quote Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who killed the military appropriations bill that would've given the troops the supplies they needed? Oh yeah...the Dems. Quote Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Which, of course, is why troops from all over the world have been part of the coalition - just making sure they get their share of convictions in the war trials, I guess! Quote Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. Looking up the list of quotes from the Democrats about Iraq's WMD programs is left as an assignment to the student. Quote So who is really not looking out for our troops? The Dems look after them just fine...as long as they fulfill the expectations I mentioned above. Quote Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html Leftist sites and blogs...that's going to be info that shows both sides, I'm sure.... what, nothing from the Kos kids? Quote It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". Like how you just did with your little laundry list, above?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
shropshire 0 #8 October 14, 2007 I like what you say .. it's balanced. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #9 October 14, 2007 I like what you say .. it's balanced.Quote Thanks, 3 trips here gives you quite a unique perspective on the place if you can stop hating the fact that you're here long enough to make on honest assesment.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #10 October 14, 2007 QuoteThe writer of the article was right, the political leaders that have been making decisions in this war have made the situation FUBAR. Agree - I have phrased it that the initial civilian planners of OIF in OSD and WH needed more realists and fewer idealists. The well-recognized lack of planning -- which was a decision -- for Stage 4, 'winning the peace' did not help either. QuoteThe leaders on the ground who give positive assessments aren't just doing so in order to keep their jobs and keep politicians happy. Some areas of this country have changed drastically for the good in the last year and a half(Anbar prov.), people just need to understand that contrary to popular belief combat zones aren't populated by unicorns that go around handing out rainbow smiles and gumdrops. It's combat, shit happens, you hang it out there and do what you can to ensure the victories outweigh the losses. While it may sometimes get lost in the rhetoric, most folks around here get that complexity. One question that I have (& it's not directed at anyone specifically), for the high capability level of the US military and the amount of American taxpayer dollars being sent to the sandbox, should we not expect something positive be occurring? Many folks have issue with the rate of change. Quote Since the beginning of this endeavor we have been trying to get people from the highest levels of government all the way down to individual citizens to work with us, it has just been that up until recently they hoped that they could ignore the situation and it would go away. I've recently seen a handful of tribes start working with coalition forces to clean up their areas and the results have been amazing, we are pulling out of a lot of areas where our pressence used to be a necessity. This is the issue of stabilization and reconstruction ops (that I keep harping on). Could you show some examples of folks who advocated ignoring the post-invasion situation? As counterexamples, I can describe lots of non-uniformed folks who have been involved from before OIF started through today. These are efforts by individual citizens inside and outside the USG whose renumerations are a lot closer to service members than what the private military contractors receive (less seen and less unrecognized, perhaps?) -- From the State Dept experts on Iraqi ethnic divisions who were sent back to the State Dept by the civilian OSD Policy leadership during the planning stages of the war. -- To the group that I worked with in Sulaymania in 2004 to bring Iraqi profs up to speed on advancements in science & technology during the previous 15 year of sanctions. -- To folks like Montgomery McFate, (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/CMGHQP19VD1.DTL), Larry Diamond (http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/), and Skip Burkle (http://www.jephc.com/Profiles/skip2.cfm) Quote Do we have a long ways to go? Absolutely, but we have also come very far in the yearssince we started this. Agree. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ScottishJohn 25 #11 October 15, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301676,00.html QuoteSanchez, on the other hand, isn't done talking. He has reportedly considering writing a book and promises to name names in his blunt talk about the handling of the Iraq war by government officials and the media. I think his book should make an intresting read.---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #12 October 15, 2007 Quote Surely a rebuttal from the right is in order. I wonder what rushmc is waiting for. From the Strategy Page: Iraq, September 2007 October 15, 2007: On September 13th, Ramadan began the Islamic calendar year of 1428. In previous years, Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) activity increased during Ramadan. This year, activity decreased due to reconciliation efforts, the Mahdi Army cease-fire, and continued pressure on Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Most activity occurred in Central and Northern Iraq. During the month, American force levels were reduced in Anbar Province. The most notable activity for AQI for September has been the loss of key leadership in the organization. This has resulted in an overall weakened organization. On September 25, Abu Usama al-Tunisi, the emir for foreign fighters in Iraq, was killed in an air strike near Musayyib. He was considered the likely replacement for Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the current emir of AQI. AQI also lost other key leaders and high value individuals. The recent statement by Osama bin Laden focused on the American public and mentioned Iraq in passing. The statement used a Constructivist/ Neo-Marxist argument for the Global Jihad. Bin Laden’s call for fighters was directed at theaters other than Iraq, indicating that Al Qaeda Senior Leaders may be losing faith in AQI. Since November 2006, 9,300 members of the group have been killed or captured, including at least three top tier leaders. This month, replacement levels were announced to have been cut in half, to 30 to 40 fighters entering the country per month. At the end of August, Muqtada al Sadr called for a cease-fire. Since then, a decrease in his Mahdi Army related activity has been noticed. The cease-fire was the result of the fighting between the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades (Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, or SIIC) in Karbala in August, and the Mahdi Army becoming the next government target after AQI is crushed, and the loss of key leaders within the organization. Possibilities for Mahdi Army reconciliation have been discussed. Due to the cease-fire, Coalition Forces have continued to target illegal groups that have split from Mahdi Army. Some splinter groups with Iranian backing, labeled as Special Groups, have continued attacks on American and Iraqi troops. They have been responsible for a large number of Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), kidnapping, and murder attacks and for transporting personnel and weapons from Iran into Iraq. Other splinter groups have been labeled as “Shia Extremists”. These are likely groups which have splintered from Mahdi Army and operate independently. Their small size and level of activity will likely cause these groups to be reduced while activity levels remain low. Within the past months, predicted AIF offensives have not materialized. During the summer, a predicted massive offensive never materialized. Again during Ramadan, an increase in activity was predicted but, during September, activity levels decreased. AQI continues to lose large numbers of personnel and key leaders on a monthly basis. Mahdi Army has entered and has continued to honor its cease-fire. Concerned Local Citizens (CLC) groups have helped greatly in improving security and developing the Iraqi Army and Police. If current trends continue, a large reduction of AIF activity will occur before the end of the year. --Jonathan Henry ([email protected]) --------------------------------------------"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #13 October 15, 2007 ......consider writing a book .... Unless he slips on a bar of soap first!!! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #14 October 15, 2007 All well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #15 October 19, 2007 All well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #16 October 19, 2007 QuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #17 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that.... Yeah, it's just too bad that even Petraus' own boss says his report was BS, that at least 3 other generals disagree with him, and that we just had that article from 12 different commaners in Iraq who also disagree with him................but Petraus must be right. That's why the british announced they were pulling troops out the moment blair left office. Maybe the dems were thinking that Petraus was going to give a non-bias report, but they figured out that wasn't the case when it was discovered that the white house was writing the Petraus report and that Petraus was just going to present it, but then at the last second they changed the story on that and claimed that Petraus wrote the report....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #18 October 19, 2007 Funny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #19 October 20, 2007 I don't believe the Dems have anything against supporting the troops..........they're fighting to get them home safe. I do believe they have a problem with the leaders that are trying to keep the troops there for profit though. Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. So who is really not looking out for our troops? Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". QuoteFunny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 October 20, 2007 Quote Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who killed the military appropriations bill that would've given the troops the supplies they needed? Oh yeah...the Dems. Quote Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Which, of course, is why troops from all over the world have been part of the coalition - just making sure they get their share of convictions in the war trials, I guess! Quote Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. Looking up the list of quotes from the Democrats about Iraq's WMD programs is left as an assignment to the student. Quote So who is really not looking out for our troops? The Dems look after them just fine...as long as they fulfill the expectations I mentioned above. Quote Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html Leftist sites and blogs...that's going to be info that shows both sides, I'm sure.... what, nothing from the Kos kids? Quote It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". Like how you just did with your little laundry list, above?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nerdgirl 0 #10 October 14, 2007 QuoteThe writer of the article was right, the political leaders that have been making decisions in this war have made the situation FUBAR. Agree - I have phrased it that the initial civilian planners of OIF in OSD and WH needed more realists and fewer idealists. The well-recognized lack of planning -- which was a decision -- for Stage 4, 'winning the peace' did not help either. QuoteThe leaders on the ground who give positive assessments aren't just doing so in order to keep their jobs and keep politicians happy. Some areas of this country have changed drastically for the good in the last year and a half(Anbar prov.), people just need to understand that contrary to popular belief combat zones aren't populated by unicorns that go around handing out rainbow smiles and gumdrops. It's combat, shit happens, you hang it out there and do what you can to ensure the victories outweigh the losses. While it may sometimes get lost in the rhetoric, most folks around here get that complexity. One question that I have (& it's not directed at anyone specifically), for the high capability level of the US military and the amount of American taxpayer dollars being sent to the sandbox, should we not expect something positive be occurring? Many folks have issue with the rate of change. Quote Since the beginning of this endeavor we have been trying to get people from the highest levels of government all the way down to individual citizens to work with us, it has just been that up until recently they hoped that they could ignore the situation and it would go away. I've recently seen a handful of tribes start working with coalition forces to clean up their areas and the results have been amazing, we are pulling out of a lot of areas where our pressence used to be a necessity. This is the issue of stabilization and reconstruction ops (that I keep harping on). Could you show some examples of folks who advocated ignoring the post-invasion situation? As counterexamples, I can describe lots of non-uniformed folks who have been involved from before OIF started through today. These are efforts by individual citizens inside and outside the USG whose renumerations are a lot closer to service members than what the private military contractors receive (less seen and less unrecognized, perhaps?) -- From the State Dept experts on Iraqi ethnic divisions who were sent back to the State Dept by the civilian OSD Policy leadership during the planning stages of the war. -- To the group that I worked with in Sulaymania in 2004 to bring Iraqi profs up to speed on advancements in science & technology during the previous 15 year of sanctions. -- To folks like Montgomery McFate, (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/CMGHQP19VD1.DTL), Larry Diamond (http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/), and Skip Burkle (http://www.jephc.com/Profiles/skip2.cfm) Quote Do we have a long ways to go? Absolutely, but we have also come very far in the yearssince we started this. Agree. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #11 October 15, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301676,00.html QuoteSanchez, on the other hand, isn't done talking. He has reportedly considering writing a book and promises to name names in his blunt talk about the handling of the Iraq war by government officials and the media. I think his book should make an intresting read.---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #12 October 15, 2007 Quote Surely a rebuttal from the right is in order. I wonder what rushmc is waiting for. From the Strategy Page: Iraq, September 2007 October 15, 2007: On September 13th, Ramadan began the Islamic calendar year of 1428. In previous years, Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) activity increased during Ramadan. This year, activity decreased due to reconciliation efforts, the Mahdi Army cease-fire, and continued pressure on Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Most activity occurred in Central and Northern Iraq. During the month, American force levels were reduced in Anbar Province. The most notable activity for AQI for September has been the loss of key leadership in the organization. This has resulted in an overall weakened organization. On September 25, Abu Usama al-Tunisi, the emir for foreign fighters in Iraq, was killed in an air strike near Musayyib. He was considered the likely replacement for Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the current emir of AQI. AQI also lost other key leaders and high value individuals. The recent statement by Osama bin Laden focused on the American public and mentioned Iraq in passing. The statement used a Constructivist/ Neo-Marxist argument for the Global Jihad. Bin Laden’s call for fighters was directed at theaters other than Iraq, indicating that Al Qaeda Senior Leaders may be losing faith in AQI. Since November 2006, 9,300 members of the group have been killed or captured, including at least three top tier leaders. This month, replacement levels were announced to have been cut in half, to 30 to 40 fighters entering the country per month. At the end of August, Muqtada al Sadr called for a cease-fire. Since then, a decrease in his Mahdi Army related activity has been noticed. The cease-fire was the result of the fighting between the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades (Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, or SIIC) in Karbala in August, and the Mahdi Army becoming the next government target after AQI is crushed, and the loss of key leaders within the organization. Possibilities for Mahdi Army reconciliation have been discussed. Due to the cease-fire, Coalition Forces have continued to target illegal groups that have split from Mahdi Army. Some splinter groups with Iranian backing, labeled as Special Groups, have continued attacks on American and Iraqi troops. They have been responsible for a large number of Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), kidnapping, and murder attacks and for transporting personnel and weapons from Iran into Iraq. Other splinter groups have been labeled as “Shia Extremists”. These are likely groups which have splintered from Mahdi Army and operate independently. Their small size and level of activity will likely cause these groups to be reduced while activity levels remain low. Within the past months, predicted AIF offensives have not materialized. During the summer, a predicted massive offensive never materialized. Again during Ramadan, an increase in activity was predicted but, during September, activity levels decreased. AQI continues to lose large numbers of personnel and key leaders on a monthly basis. Mahdi Army has entered and has continued to honor its cease-fire. Concerned Local Citizens (CLC) groups have helped greatly in improving security and developing the Iraqi Army and Police. If current trends continue, a large reduction of AIF activity will occur before the end of the year. --Jonathan Henry ([email protected]) --------------------------------------------"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #13 October 15, 2007 ......consider writing a book .... Unless he slips on a bar of soap first!!! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #14 October 15, 2007 All well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #15 October 19, 2007 All well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #16 October 19, 2007 QuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #17 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that.... Yeah, it's just too bad that even Petraus' own boss says his report was BS, that at least 3 other generals disagree with him, and that we just had that article from 12 different commaners in Iraq who also disagree with him................but Petraus must be right. That's why the british announced they were pulling troops out the moment blair left office. Maybe the dems were thinking that Petraus was going to give a non-bias report, but they figured out that wasn't the case when it was discovered that the white house was writing the Petraus report and that Petraus was just going to present it, but then at the last second they changed the story on that and claimed that Petraus wrote the report....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #18 October 19, 2007 Funny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #19 October 20, 2007 I don't believe the Dems have anything against supporting the troops..........they're fighting to get them home safe. I do believe they have a problem with the leaders that are trying to keep the troops there for profit though. Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. So who is really not looking out for our troops? Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". QuoteFunny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 October 20, 2007 Quote Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who killed the military appropriations bill that would've given the troops the supplies they needed? Oh yeah...the Dems. Quote Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Which, of course, is why troops from all over the world have been part of the coalition - just making sure they get their share of convictions in the war trials, I guess! Quote Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. Looking up the list of quotes from the Democrats about Iraq's WMD programs is left as an assignment to the student. Quote So who is really not looking out for our troops? The Dems look after them just fine...as long as they fulfill the expectations I mentioned above. Quote Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html Leftist sites and blogs...that's going to be info that shows both sides, I'm sure.... what, nothing from the Kos kids? Quote It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". Like how you just did with your little laundry list, above?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #16 October 19, 2007 QuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #17 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that.... Yeah, it's just too bad that even Petraus' own boss says his report was BS, that at least 3 other generals disagree with him, and that we just had that article from 12 different commaners in Iraq who also disagree with him................but Petraus must be right. That's why the british announced they were pulling troops out the moment blair left office. Maybe the dems were thinking that Petraus was going to give a non-bias report, but they figured out that wasn't the case when it was discovered that the white house was writing the Petraus report and that Petraus was just going to present it, but then at the last second they changed the story on that and claimed that Petraus wrote the report....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #18 October 19, 2007 Funny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #19 October 20, 2007 I don't believe the Dems have anything against supporting the troops..........they're fighting to get them home safe. I do believe they have a problem with the leaders that are trying to keep the troops there for profit though. Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. So who is really not looking out for our troops? Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". QuoteFunny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 October 20, 2007 Quote Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who killed the military appropriations bill that would've given the troops the supplies they needed? Oh yeah...the Dems. Quote Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Which, of course, is why troops from all over the world have been part of the coalition - just making sure they get their share of convictions in the war trials, I guess! Quote Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. Looking up the list of quotes from the Democrats about Iraq's WMD programs is left as an assignment to the student. Quote So who is really not looking out for our troops? The Dems look after them just fine...as long as they fulfill the expectations I mentioned above. Quote Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html Leftist sites and blogs...that's going to be info that shows both sides, I'm sure.... what, nothing from the Kos kids? Quote It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". Like how you just did with your little laundry list, above?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
sv3n 0 #17 October 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteAll well and good, but it has nothing whatever to do with Sanchez's criticisms of the administration's incompetence and poor planning. Quote And quite a few soldiers are spun up about those comments at the moment. If he knew things weren't being done right why not make those comments when he was in a position to make more of an impact? Sounds like someone was guarding their career and not their soldiers. Too right. I also like how the Dems were all in favor of appointing Petraus when they thought he'd be their lapdog and push to bring the troops back...then change to 'BetrayUs' when he didn't do that.... Yeah, it's just too bad that even Petraus' own boss says his report was BS, that at least 3 other generals disagree with him, and that we just had that article from 12 different commaners in Iraq who also disagree with him................but Petraus must be right. That's why the british announced they were pulling troops out the moment blair left office. Maybe the dems were thinking that Petraus was going to give a non-bias report, but they figured out that wasn't the case when it was discovered that the white house was writing the Petraus report and that Petraus was just going to present it, but then at the last second they changed the story on that and claimed that Petraus wrote the report....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #18 October 19, 2007 Funny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sv3n 0 #19 October 20, 2007 I don't believe the Dems have anything against supporting the troops..........they're fighting to get them home safe. I do believe they have a problem with the leaders that are trying to keep the troops there for profit though. Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. So who is really not looking out for our troops? Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". QuoteFunny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 October 20, 2007 Quote Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who killed the military appropriations bill that would've given the troops the supplies they needed? Oh yeah...the Dems. Quote Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Which, of course, is why troops from all over the world have been part of the coalition - just making sure they get their share of convictions in the war trials, I guess! Quote Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. Looking up the list of quotes from the Democrats about Iraq's WMD programs is left as an assignment to the student. Quote So who is really not looking out for our troops? The Dems look after them just fine...as long as they fulfill the expectations I mentioned above. Quote Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html Leftist sites and blogs...that's going to be info that shows both sides, I'm sure.... what, nothing from the Kos kids? Quote It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". Like how you just did with your little laundry list, above?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #18 October 19, 2007 Funny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #19 October 20, 2007 I don't believe the Dems have anything against supporting the troops..........they're fighting to get them home safe. I do believe they have a problem with the leaders that are trying to keep the troops there for profit though. Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. So who is really not looking out for our troops? Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". QuoteFunny how the Dems are all for supporting the troops....as long as they're saying bad things about what's happening in Iraq and about the current administration....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 October 20, 2007 Quote Who sent the troops over without adequate supplies..........not the dems. Who killed the military appropriations bill that would've given the troops the supplies they needed? Oh yeah...the Dems. Quote Who is keeping the troops over there in a war that the rest of the world considers illegal.............not the dems. Which, of course, is why troops from all over the world have been part of the coalition - just making sure they get their share of convictions in the war trials, I guess! Quote Who invaded a country under false pretenses that their intelligence told them to be false.........once again, not the dems. Looking up the list of quotes from the Democrats about Iraq's WMD programs is left as an assignment to the student. Quote So who is really not looking out for our troops? The Dems look after them just fine...as long as they fulfill the expectations I mentioned above. Quote Here's some info for you........ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0812-11.htm http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-does-bush-hate-troops.html http://blog.masslive.com/leftbank/2007/08/president_bush_hates_the_troop.html Leftist sites and blogs...that's going to be info that shows both sides, I'm sure.... what, nothing from the Kos kids? Quote It's also funny how you have no repsonse other than some generalized...."oh look a different subject over here". Like how you just did with your little laundry list, above?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
