Oh, liberals aren't opposed to using military force. Clinton mobilized troops all over the planet with whining only coming from the hard-core Ramsey Clark/Noam Chomsky types who deeply hate America with perfect consistency.

See, the problem is that the military was mobilized after 9/11 by a Republican president. Simple, petty partisanship is a huge component of liberals' reluctance to fight terrorism and topple Saddam, and the easiest way to demonstrate this is the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Clinton and voted for by Kerry, which called for regime change in Iraq. Not to mention years of the Clinton Administration fretting over the danger Saddam's WMD programs posed to the US. But when a president from the other party is actually going to attempt to solve the problem, decisively......then they start bitching about how we're rushing to war and that Saddam is just a distraction.

Kind of tragic how Democrats have trashed their credibility about their seriousness in fighting terrorism in the name of partisan politics. It backfired terribly on them.

Hey Ace,

John Stuart Mill once said:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

I believe that there are many "miserable creatures" in the Democrat Party.

The other index of seriousness in the War on Terror is this: If Democrats cannot support the current strategy, what strategy would they propose? If their vision of a terror-free future differs from that of the current administration, could they please describe that alleged vision?

Beyond the most self-serving and politically convenient lip service, Democrat opinion-makers are simply not serious about the War on Terror.

Try to wrap your brain around this logic..

"The Republican party has made it as clear as it possibly can that the war on terror is not vital enough to require either bipartisan support or the support of the rest of the world. They've treated it more like a garden variety electoral wedge issue than a world historical struggle."

To me, it looks more like the Republicans think this issue is too vital to compromise on.

Without compromise of some kind, I don't see how you can obtain "bipartisan support"

I must be missing his point here.

Moonbat makes a good point. The Vietnam War was extremely popular-- until a Republican president was in charge (and actually winning). Then it was a terrible mistake, and it was the mission of the liberal press to prove it to America, even if that meant making up apocryphal quotes like "We had to destroy the village in order to save it," misleading photographs like the famous one with the POW being executed with his hands tied behind his back (most people to this day don't know the man being executed had minutes earlier killed his executor's wife and two chidren), and out-and-out enemy propagandizing such as when Tet was characterized as a huge military defeat for the U.S.

Good thoughts all.

Wow, Ace & Jonah Goldberg. . . it's like peanut butter & chocolate!

Best Saturday Ever!

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I think we can say in all honesty that there are many liberals who do indeed view Islamofascism as a terrible threat to us, and to western civilization. Many who witnessed 9/11 not as the US's comeuppance but as a horrendous crime against the innocent.

That being said, their endless carping about every setback and mistake (motivated by an incoherent loathing of the Bush administration) is backfiring big time. No one who has ever studied history expects perfection at the outset of an action. The American people certainly understand the dues.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Lose a battle, win the war. That's how it goes.

Are you with us or agin' us?

Whenever I hear of setbacks in Iraq I think of two events of WWII:

US soldiers suffered 98,000 casualties in the three months it took to clear the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Russian soldiers suffered 380,000 casualties in clearing the city of Berlin. The battle lasted 6 weeks.

Good piece from both of you. Nothing really new. Liberals are simply cowards. They would sell their own mothers to the Mullahs for a cup of US national power. Remember to vote in 2006 - although they are cowards, damn, there sure are a lot of 'em! But less with each passing day, I suspect. Just look at me - I'm never going back! The liberals' answer to 9/11 MADE me a Republican voting conservative - for life! I watch in astonishment as the lefty nut balls maneuvered for political advantage with nary a concern at the damage that had ALREADY BEEN DONE. They spoke as if nothing had happened except to say that, whatever it was, WE DESERVED IT! Pure irrational, fact starved madness as guys like Kevin Drum display every day.

I don't think that's quite fair Philip. They're not cowards. But the real explanation is not much better. They just hate Bush, period. If Bush is for it, they're agi'n it. Which is sad, as they won't make the case on the merits, just whose ox is being gored.

Though, to be fair, let's look in the mirror. How many conservatives would've supported President Gore if he had invaded Iraq?

Well, ok, lots more than liberals who supoprted Bush, but still. There would've been more dissent from the right. But maybe we should cut them a tiny bit of slack for partisanship motives, as conservatives would've, at least a bit, behaved the same way.

The typical Leftist likes to state that the situation in Iraq is due to incompetence and is a mess. Rarely are examples given, instead it is taken as axiomatic, as if any intelligent, right-thinking person must agree with that assertion, because it's just so obvious. Then, the Leftist proceeds to build an entire argument upon this assertion. What they seem unable to realize, or they don't care about, is that if one does not accept their assertion that "Iraq is a mess", then there's no point in listening to the rest of their argument, because it's disconnected from reality. Yet they expect us to actually to take their arguments seriously, and get all upset when dismissed out of hand.

That dude out in Bezerkly, CA better get his thesaurus out and get to work (you know, pro-peace instead of anti-war, etc.) or the democrats may never win another national election. Certainly it can't be their moral and intellectual bankruptcy that keeps losing elections for them!

In reading about the battle of Fallujah in the CS Monitor, I was struck by how few men have really carried the brunt of the combat load in 3 years of War. One Marine Company spent 7 months in the Afghanistan mountains in winter, then the Iraq War deployed from Nov 2002 to Sept 2003, back in Iraq in April 2004 for a promised 6 month-only tour, extended to a full year last Fall. In the battle of Fallujah, their company had a 20% casualty rate. Only 1% of America is involved in this fight abroad, and only 1/10 of 1% are seeing the really tough, deadly, maiming, incredibly demanding combat and incredibly long hours and brutal living conditions.

Now, Phillip, I am sure that there are liberal cowards who have no desire in the world to ever step up and sacrifice for this nation.

But so too, many conservatives exist who think buying a magnetic yellow ribbon for their car, whooping it up as the 3rd big fat tax cut is given to them, and maybe attending & cheering at the nation's most lavish corporate-sponsored Presidential Inaugural ever -means that they have discharged their patriotic duty....People that would would scream if Bush ever thought of depriving their sons and daughters of the legal or business careers they were entitled to - to do a risky, poor paying, lower middle class job of sweating and slogging through a desert surrounded by hostile Muslims.

Oh look, Cedarford has just called everyone here who hasn't joined the military a chickenhawk. That's so cute.

What the fuck does Cedarford have against tax cuts anyway? Do they benefit Jooooooooos too much, or something?

Horrible Bush tax cut. Just horrible. I bet Cedarford gave *his* back to the government because he's such a good citizen.

I know he's much more compassionate than any of those evil nasty Repugnicans who personally sent supplies to our brave jackbooted thu... I mean soldiers, wonderful soldiers.

You know, those civilian-killing monst... I mean, honorable underpaid men and women forced to volunteer to shoot and bomb chil... sorry, I mean serve their country in scorching deserts fighting the Middle East's Minuteme.. I mean, Islamofascist terrorists.

Isn't that right, Cedarford?

Andrea Harris - Well, honey, just keep waving the flag and going; "Yeah Troops, Rah-Rah!!". I'm sure that's enough for you rather than sacrifice anything.

Zetetic - What the fuck does Cedarford have against tax cuts anyway? Do they benefit Jooooooooos too much, or something?

Just the obvious fact that the Pentagon resisted armoring Humvees for a while, with streams of Congressmen who had their ears chewed off by constituent families with a member in Irag pouring into the Pentagon to demand action. And even now, we are finding that they failed to go beyond 80% of armor factory capacity because the armoring "will enentually get done". And resisted adding 2 Army and half a Marine division strength since late 2003 because it would jeopardize Bush's tax cuts - and anyday, the Iraqi Army and police were supposed to take over between Nov 2003 and now....given that the insurgency was being totally crushed as early as Sept 2003, according to the Pentagon civvies already looking past Iraq and earmarking budget items for "Transformation of the Military".

As for Jooooos, given we took out Israel's main enemy, as they repeatedly urged us to, at a cost to us of 1200 lives and 6,000 badly wounded and 250 billion so far , while Israel didn't lose a single person or spend an extra shekel - maybe it would be fair just to slap a 5% extra war income tax surcharge on Jooooos for a few years as partial payment for the benefit the US just gave Israel.

Sue - Same for you as Andrea. Shake those pom-poms. "Go Troops Go!!!" (just don't ask me to have to pay for it!!)

I have family over there. My fucking tax cut, Zepetic, helped buy side body armor panels for a nephew in the Army from the civilian suppliers who had lots of it while the Army was only able to supply full armor to front line riflemen in his company - not the other half in arty and support (like truck drivers). And they lost one truck driver back in August who came from a poorer family that didn't have money to buy him extra armor and who died when IED shrapnel went through where my nephew was protected, and shredded a lung.

"Andrea Harris - Well, honey, just keep waving the flag and going; "Yeah Troops, Rah-Rah!!". I'm sure that's enough for you rather than sacrifice anything."

What a stupid, childish, pointless thing to say. I'll bet you smirked and giggled as you typed that.

Well gosh, I didn't know that 100% of the federal budget went to military procurement, and that when said budget doesn't get to be as bloated as our politicians would like, their only alternative is to start issuing cap guns and water pistols.

I also was unaware that the US had conquered Israel's chief enemy, given that their enemy seems to be Palestine. (But I'll come scurrying back to Ace's comment section if the US intervenes in the Sudan, to hear Cedarford advocate special taxes on blacks.)

Oh, and you say you have relatives in Iraq. Well, I won't ask you to prove it; I'll take your word for it. All I wonder is do you really think this attitude of yours is helping your nephew? Not to mention, do you think that no one else here knows anyone who is in Iraq? You act like you are the only one who has ever suffered a loss or worried about someone in the armed forces. I'm sorry that you have decided to take your anger out on people that are supporting what your nephew is doing. It's pretty sad that you are using them as a shield to excuse your ungracious and frankly disgraceful attack on people here.

Andrea, you silly ninny. I am describing what the realities are, to hopefully go beyond your vacuous cheerleading. "Oooo, so anyone that hasn't joined is a chickenhawk. That's so cute!"

IMO, just saying "I support our troops" is so painless and oh so trite.

Ever since 9/11, conservatives in particular should have been all over Bush for saying the best and only way Americans should or were asked to contribute was to - "Travel, spend money, enjoy your tax cuts, and love your neighbor." That is not the spirit of common sacrifice that has gotten America through other tough times.

With Iraq, instead of saying it was going to be tough, the neocons marketed it as a cakewalk, and the intimation was that the only Humvee attachment needed was a plow to get through the masses of rose petals trown at our guys. And when it all went sour, as it became clear America was utterly without a plan for the Post-war, not a single idiot, like Doug Feith, in charge of post-war planning, was canned.

As a vet who has one nephew in Iraq, a son who was in the 2003 invasion, and another nephew just back from Iraq, the 2 nephews re-enlisting, I say Situation: UNSAT!! From the Washingtontimes, from another Vet:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041211-101046-1917r.htm

Now the gov't is going to reimburse families for side body armor purchased for their sons, something I wrote about and pleaded for since last summer to my Reps - but not for the chunks of Soviet tank amor some Army companies have bought from Iranian scrap merchants to tack-weld on the Humvees and truck bottoms and sides, an act they were warned half-heartedly about by commanders willing to look the other way - that unauthorized alterations of gov't property will be punished.

Yeah, sure....

As for my nephew, he was plenty pissed that he didn't think of lending the additional ceramic body armor we chipped in on for him - to give to the KIA truck driver, because he was on base with the extra protection hanging uselessly, brand new, never used - in his barracks above his bed at the time - but then he said that maybe 8 of the 10 drivers in that day's convoy didn't have it...so how could he know was going to get tagged???

I think that it is inexcusable that our biggest flag-wavers are instantly in a "squeal mode" when any talk of rescinding their precious tax cuts comes up to pay for wartime necessities instead of relying on soldiers families for body armor, or support their resourcefullness at welding or strapping Soviet metal to protect them in defiance of orders, or dudes that have done 3 short-cycled and stop-loss grueling tours at the front lines because our military is now fighting a 14 division war with only 10 divisions. And the conservatives that think no one should be accountable for any mistake - despite America's past record of canning Pentagon civilians and top brass that screw up and cost lives.

Yeah Andrea, go for it! "You're the best, you're are heroes! Sis Boom Bah!! Rummy, Rummy he's my warstud bud! What say girls!! Lets give these guys a biiiig parade! Shame we splurged on all that Chinese-made stuff or we'd contribute too!"

Andrea wiggles her right-wing stuff and gets lathered....

"OOooo, George, George, you're our man, if you can't give guns and butter, no one can!! Go, troops Go! All the Waaaay!! yeah."

What is the paleotroll getting out of being here, I wonder? Commenting is pretty much essentially a resentful activity, but this is ridiculous.

Well, someone, it looks like Cedarford relishes the idea of putting words in other peoples' mouths and being a troll. Not that it makes much of a difference.

I mean, mocking Andrea Harris by having her say " Rummy, Rummy he's my warstud bud!" might have a little more impact if she'd, you know, actually said anything about Rumsfeld, but hey, let's just assume that people who disagree with us are vapid cheerleaders. And the fact that she says she supports the troops in Iraq without adding a "but..." like a lot of liberals--well, I guess that's just so much hollow bullshit unless she (and everyone else who's here stateside supporting the war) reports to boot camp. Or maybe if she'd refuse that tax cut. Having read her blog, I know what a heartless plutocrat Andrea is.

And, Cedarford, I've seen a number of posts where you've tried to defend yourself against charges that you're an anti-semite. That's all well and good, but before you advocate an idea like "maybe it would be fair just to slap a 5% extra war income tax surcharge on Jooooos for a few years as partial payment for the benefit the US just gave Israel," you should stop, count to ten, and ask yourself whether or not you're about to endorse an idea out of the Heinrich Himmler playbook. That might keep people like zetetic from jumping to conclusions about you.

I can't think of a better way of starting the day then watching cedartroll get beaten like a red-headed stepchild! Life is good!

(ok, I can think of at least one better way but you all get my point)

Thanks, Sean M. As for Cedarfool's frothing.... (stares at the disgraceful and embarrassing display and backs slowly away...) Someone needs a bib and a fresh diaper, is all I can say.

Lets look at infantile behavior and denial. The liberals have no lock on it. Several conservative posters also appear to be afflicted with it.

1. Right after 9/11, the Bush Administration said there was absolutely no need to increase America's military and jeopardize the tax cuts. Plenty of allies will join us, and instead of more regular Army & Marines, we will just supplement the active duty folks with a little temporary help from Reservists so tax cuts can continue. When Congress said how temporary, the neocons said no more than 24 months of any 5 year period, so Reservists can go about their lives. Congress said OK.

2. So the part-time soldiers were activated right away to show the flag at airports, power plants. Then Afghanistan. Then the Iraq "cakewalk". Now they are 40% of the American forces in Iraq. All the time, the Pentagon said no more active duty forces were needed and the Reservists were getting all they required. Then the huge supplementals - originally declared un-needed since Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the war, but no tax cut rescinsion was necessary since we could borrow the money from China and pay it off later once millions of new high-paying jobs were created by supply side economics.

3. Whoops, Reservists were found living in squalor by the media on several bases not equipped to handle mobilization. Grumbling, the Pentagon built more barracks. Then the complaints about lack of armor and ammo went on for a year while the Pentagon said it's not that bad because the troops are doing a magnificent job and re-enlistment rates are high, then finally had to ramp up armor and ammo production.

4. Now the #1 Bush-Rove objective is to make the tax cuts permanent...because we all know that only wealthy people not involved in any war sacrifices can create those millions of high-paying jobs! Still no agreement to increase the Army strength.

5. But in the last year, we have used up most of the 24 month active duty obligation of the Reservists. By mid-2005, we will only have about 100,000 of the 600K Reservists available for greater than a 6-month tour. Of course, the talk is now about abandoning the 2 year rule. Something that Congress will hate to vote on and screw the Reservists further while the rest of the country makes no sacrifices. And equally reluctant to scale back the tax cuts that Bush claims he has a mandate to make permanent.

6. Which leads us finally to our "infantile" conservatives who cheer "Go Troops Go!, but not another cent for you if it cuts my take home pay." "Maybe the Chinese or Saudis will lend more us more money for you instead." And we must attack Syria! That's where all the WMDs went. And we must attack Iran next, before they threaten Israel!! And we can do it all and occupy 2 more countries, oh, say with a few thousand special forces until the wildly enthusiastic Iranians and Syrians rise and insitute democracy. And we will also invade Lebanon to clean that terrorist nest out that has troubled Israel for years. And maybe we should hit the focus of Islamic evil, Saudi Arabia....And we will have permanent tax cuts! And bigger bank accounts! "And no Draft or any sacrifice necessary other than buying a new flag to replace the one I've tattered from vigorous waving!!"

7. OK folks - time for a little reality check as you act like kids in the global domination neocon candy store. Who occupies Iraq after the Guard dries up their obligated time in mid-2005? Or do you just screw them and activate them for the duration, to save your wallet? You want to attack Syria, Iran, Lebanon, maybe Saudi Arabia soon? OK, with what military? The 10 Division one we have now? Would you accept a 2 year national service obligation to be instituted to provide the manpower needed for your quests? Would you accept that you have to pay for the proferred neocon candy? Or do you insist your candy be free - even preferably with spare change given to you as well??? I can hear the Whaaaas!

"Bad liberal! Bad traditional conservative! Shut up! We are the Hyperpower the world bows to, and I am focused on buying tons of Chinese stuff for Christmas on my credit card until I can pay it off with my tax rebate. Go troops! God, I love those guys so much for sacrificing for folks like me, keeping us and Israel safe! Guns 'n butter! Guns 'n butter!"

*yawn*

1) Bush was disappointed in our alleged "allies" allowing themselves to get bribed rather than doing the right thing. And, hate to break it to you, Bush SPECIFICALLY said this wouldn't be easy. He (you know, the only "neo-con" whose opinion MATTERS in this regard) said this would not be quick.

You can gripe about "neo-cons" said all you wish --- THE PRESIDENT said something completely different and you seem to wish to ignore that.

2) Boo-frickin-hoo for the "part-time soldiers". THEY SIGNED UP FOR THIS. They knew this was a possibility. I'm supposed to pity somebody who is asked to do what they agreed to do when they took the money?

Sorry, that's not the way the world works.

Like it or not, Bush had TWO big problems to deal with at once: an economy in the toilet left to him by his predecessor AND a massive terrorist problem.

In fact, Bush's handling of the dual crises is incredibly impressive. I doubt anybody else could have done the same.

3) Well, the lack of armor is being rectified --- as they had to GET PLANTS BUILT AND ON-LINE to actually produce it. Hard to armor vehicles when the armor does not exist. The military has done a commendable job of rectifying the situation.

4) You can always refuse your tax cut if you wish. Nobody is stopping you. Yet, somehow, I doubt you are.

Bush has an economy in recovery. Whether you like it or not, he has to worry about domestic issues in addition to the War on Terror. He can't have a one-track mind here.

However, it is great to know that rescinding the tax cuts will solve all of the problems the military presently has. If only all problems were so easily solved...

5) Reservists, again, have no problem accepting the money --- knowing that what is presently happening is a possibility. Again, boo-frickin-hoo that they are being asked to do the job they are being paid for.

The Reservists aren't being "screwed" --- they're being asked to honor their commitment.

And Bush has a mandate to do just about anything he wants. The gift of winning a majority and all.

6) Just checking, which side was bitching the most about the cost of the war? WHICH side nominated a candidate who refused to vote to fund such things as armor for the troops, after stating it'd be irresponsible to vote against it? Which side's first option in cutting spending WHENEVER they're in power is to slash military spending?

Is it the conservatives?

Also, which side has bitched that we HAVEN'T attacked Iran or N. Korea yet? As I assumed, that same side would bitch if we did the exact same thing.

Just to give you a hint --- the "insurgents" would kill you if given the chance.

7) We solve the problem when we get there. We can always do something that pisses off the left --- namely, use their suggestion at removing troops from areas where they're not needed (remember the uproar over removing troops from Germay?) and deploying them where they ARE needed.

We can always increase benefits (which, yes, you'd bitch about incessantly).

Heck, Bush should cancel the Medicare drug benefit and use it for something truly necessary.

You rant and rave far too much, Cedarford, and present no possible alternatives.

But, let me guess, you "support" the war, just not the way we're doing it, right?
-=Mike

And while we're at it, why should the taxpayers be the only ones to shoulder the burden of an expanded army or a new offensive in the War on Terror?

Why shouldn't any of the people getting free money from the government have their money stream curtailed for the duration? Why should we go for tax hikes first, last, and always, and not do any domestic spending cuts to free up more resources for the military?

Hell, the taxpayers have been paying rates more appropriate for wartime for decades, even during peacetime. I think they've long been paying their fair share.

Wrong, Ken - The top income tax rate was 91% in WWII. It was 70% in the Vietnam years. It is 32.5% now.

Discretionary domestic spending is 7% of the budget. What shall you cut rather than see your taxes go up to a fraction of what we had when we had to fund previous wars? National Parks? NASA? The pork that Republican Congress allocated that Bush is too scared to raise a peep about??

Why thanks MikeSC, for illustrating my point that many conservatives cheer war on, as long as they get the bling-bling. And have a "fuck 'em" approach to the overstretched military:

Boo-frickin-hoo for the "part-time soldiers". THEY SIGNED UP FOR THIS

Thanks for your honesty in showing what you really think about Reservists who signed up with a contractutal understanding that they would be committed to a max of 2 years out of 5 - and with America having "spent" that mostly rather than add to the regular military - now talk of escape words in the contract like "full mobilization" "national emergency", to jack the Guardsmen into full-time active duty, instead of Reserve service. So what if the Reservists are deceived as long as you have a war to cheer for, a tax cut, and even more "bling-bling" in your stocking, eh, Mike SC???

The Reservists aren't being "screwed" --- they're being asked to honor their commitment

Earth to MikeSC, their commitment was 2 years active and there are already 3 brigades that have been told they will likely be ordered to go over that length, and the real crunch comes when a majority of reservists reach that 2 year point in mid-2005..

Otherwise, congrats on a good defense of the infallible leadership of Maximum Beloved War Leader.

Funny that you don't find the government taking FAR MORE than half of anybody's money is not a big issue. Again, you can always pay MORE in taxes if you wish to do so.

Yet, I doubt you do.

Now, let's continue:

"Why thanks MikeSC, for illustrating my point that many conservatives cheer war on, as long as they get the bling-bling. And have a "fuck 'em" approach to the overstretched military:

Boo-frickin-hoo for the "part-time soldiers". THEY SIGNED UP FOR THIS

Thanks for your honesty in showing what you really think about Reservists who signed up with a contractutal understanding that they would be committed to a max of 2 years out of 5 - and with America having "spent" that mostly rather than add to the regular military - now talk of escape words in the contract like "full mobilization" "national emergency", to jack the Guardsmen into full-time active duty, instead of Reserve service. So what if the Reservists are deceived as long as you have a war to cheer for, a tax cut, and even more "bling-bling" in your stocking, eh, Mike SC???"

They SIGNED up for it. They were not drafted. They had every right to say "No", not take the money, and not get involved.

They CHOSE to do it. So be it. They took the money. They took the benefits. They have to deal with their choices. You know how many Reservists I knew for years who'd boast that they got money for doing virtually nothing? Well, they have to EARN the money they've been paid now.

If people are allowed to abandon their responsibilities whenever it is convenient for them to do so, then the country has a wealth of problems. Maybe a dad decides he doesn't want to support his child anymore. In the world of Cedarford, he should be permitted to simply walk away. After all, maybe his girlfriend told him she wasn't fertile at that point and it's just bloody unfair to expect him to honor an obligation he was "deceived" to make.

They have agreements they have to honor and are being expected to do so. If there was a draft going on, you MIGHT have a point.

But there isn't. And ya don't, skippy.

If you wish to refer to somebody being expected to honor their obligations as "Screw you", so be it. I do long for the days when the left at least PRETENDED to give a damn about human rights.

"The Reservists aren't being "screwed" --- they're being asked to honor their commitment

Earth to MikeSC, their commitment was 2 years active and there are already 3 brigades that have been told they will likely be ordered to go over that length, and the real crunch comes when a majority of reservists reach that 2 year point in mid-2005.."

I will guarantee that if you look at the paperwork they sign, the whole "a max of 2 years out of 5" does not appear. They have obligations and requirements.

Hell, read up on this topic a little: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-irr.htm

A tiny few are just getting pissy that they are expected to live up to it. Oh well.

And your Bush bitching, honestly, is childish. Do you live in Boca Raton? You seem to have a nice case of PEST.
-=Mike

MikeSC - It's a little late in the game to engage in blind worship of your Maximum War Leader when you have Republican Senators on this weekend saying it is clear the Pentagon badly misunderstood the scope of the insurgency, failed to boster regular forces fighting strength, and as Sen Lindsay Graham said - clearly did an inadequate job over the last year in getting armor on trucks and Humvees, though Graham said they are finally beginning to do an adequate job now...

And revealed that only 78% of humvees and only 15% of military supply trucks have armor protection - blaming lack of armor, or more accurately, lack of realistic Pentagon armor planning for 20% of the casualties - or 240 or so deaths and 1200 of the wounds suffered.

And like all too many selfish flag-wavers, you go on demanding that you have no measure of sacrifice placed on yourself - just on the 1% that serve our nation as volunteers or to cut outlays to poorer Americans to keep your precious wartime tax cuts intact...

As for those "fuck 'em, they volunteered" soldiers, their contracts state that they would be activated in times of national emergency, but otherwise, would not serve on active duty so as to be able to maintain a civilian job and some semblance of family life. After 9/11 when there was talk of cancelling the tax cuts and beefing up the military - the Bushies said that would not be necessary beccause of several reasons, including the Reserves being used sparingly to fill critical needs on a temporary basis. Now - Congress and state governors have huge regard for their Guard and Reserve people - so they proposed a law limiting activation so as to prevent abuse of the volunteers, since the war on terror could last decades and the Bushies did not want a larger regular military threatening "Transformation" or tax cuts. They passed a law limiting the Guard and Reserves to no more than 2 years active duty every 5 years.
Bush signed it.

Crunch time approaches. We overstretched our military and burned up 80% of the Reservists agreed to length of service in the last 3 years. 100% in some critical specialties. And are hitting the regular troops with 6 month deployments becoming 12 month, then 14 month combat tours, and issuing stop loss orders to prevent deployed officers and enlisteds from leaving when their time is up..

And that's just with the Iraq war. Before any neocon dreams of invading and occupying Syria, Iran, Lebanon are factored in.

It breaks my heart to think of your squealing when the next war supplemental comes up, Congress authorizes the US military to ramp up staffing, and Bush has to raise taxes to pay for it because foreign lenders are about done footing the huge US deficits.

Then you have to suck it up and do your duty and pay your taxes, patriot boy. No one said you had a right to get rich in wartime. The thought would have nauseated past generations.

Wow, aren't you the cute little attention whore?

Do you think politicians saying something politically convenient is anything impressive? A politician finds it easier to say "We should have had it" than "We had to spend the time to actually get the plants up to manufacture it in sufficient quantities". I know, a shocking revelation.

78% of the humvees have armor? Wow, how horrendous. Over 3/4 of them are armored? Man, we ought to string somebody up over that!

And, suffice to say, I imagine you have proof to back up the 240 deaths caused by this. You surely wouldn't have pulled the numbers out of thin air.

Actually, thanks to the legacy of the left, this country won't sacrifice for anything. If World War II was fought today, people like YOU would bitch about every little thing and fight every inch of the way over every little policy.

I know, the concept of TWO problems at once is a difficult one to grasp --- but please try. I know tax hikes are your preferred solution to every single problem out there, but for people living in the real world, they are not all that useful.

"As for those "fuck 'em, they volunteered" soldiers, their contracts state that they would be activated in times of national emergency, but otherwise, would not serve on active duty so as to be able to maintain a civilian job and some semblance of family life."

Shockingly, 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror is a "national emergency". But, hey, screw the full-time military --- we should just give money to the Reserves to not do anything remotely strenuous. Yeah, the Reserves are part of the military --- but they aren't "really" the military, right?

If you honestly believe that 150,000 troops is a huge chunk of our entire military, you're just being foolish.

"After 9/11 when there was talk of cancelling the tax cuts and beefing up the military - the Bushies said that would not be necessary beccause of several reasons, including the Reserves being used sparingly to fill critical needs on a temporary basis."

We know, the Dems think that raising taxes solves ALL problems. It's in the playbook.

As for beefing up the military --- considering that prominent Dems, including a certain candidate for President, vote AGAINST it --- it takes a special level of chutzpah to argue that. Try getting your supreme collective of a party to actually do the right thing, rather than cut military spending while forcing them to play the role of sitting duck in a umber of pointless locales.

You are a brainless troll. Little more. You, quite frankly, should go to dailykos or DU, as you CLEARLY fit in there exceptionally well.
-=Mike

Yep, just as I thought, this "selfish patriot" has started his squealing.

When I originally wrote about some conservatives who were as bad as the liberals because they would wave the flag and cheer the Troops only if it meant no personal sacrifice, I had MikeSC in mind to a "T".

His posts amply show it, from his "fuck 'em, they volunteered" attitude to his half-sincere pleas that unlike other wars, it is essential that in this one, MikeSC gets a fatter wallet...To help the nation, no doubt..since liberals...but not him, mind you, would not sacrifice. Then he says that well, this is really sorta a national emergency since 9/11 so all Reservists, Guardsman should be on full-time duty for 2,3, 5, maybe 7 straight years in order to help keep our fair weather patriot's wallet fat.

That ignores the law that Congress and Bush agreed to rather than expand the military after 9/11. There is no way Congress will repeal the law and break all faith with America's Reservist volunteers simply so some of the 99% of other Americans doing nothing now but cheering can avoid wartime financial sacrifice.

Then he all but gushes that after 2 years of mobilizing and fighting we have managed to get 78% of the Humvees armored. Conveniently ignoring the 15% supply truck armor rates. Yep, MikeSC, pretty good for a country that managed to build 240,000 armored trucks, APCs, and tanks from scratch in the 1st year of WWII.

It would have taken steel companies a few months to produce kits for every truck and humvee of the Pentagon was serious - and the top military brass apparantly not muzzled by Rummy on the issue. And if the call had gone out for welders in every state to report to the NG Armories and military truck depots to help weld the kits on if they wanted to volunteer - the lines would have stretched for blocks.

But like in postwar planning, it seems that Rumsfeld and staff, in high arrogance, ignored Congress and other agencies input. Now that a Guardsman had the balls to finally confront Rumsfeld on the subject, as opposed his sackless superiors, we find out that Humvee uparmor production can be ramped up by 40% with no additional capacity ("The Pentagon never asked us to armor as many as we could") and money has just been magically found for armor kits for the trucks in theater so they can stop slicing up old Soviet tank parts in Iraq for improvised "hillbilly armor".

As for deaths and injuries due to lack of armor, it's 20% of the total as stated. MikeSC demands to know where the figure of 240 deaths comes from. MikeSC will no doubt remember his 4th grade class skill of multiplying by fractions....but given his stupidity in assuming anyone who criticizes the Iraq War details or the failed neocon policies must be a liberal democrat instead of a fiscally conservative Republican who wants more than 1% of our population to sacrifice.....lets not take a risk and go ahead and do the math for Mikey! 1200 deaths X 20% = 240 dead soldiers due to lack of armor.

I expect this, ongoing neocon stupidities, and other acts of obstruction will show Rummy the door in 2005.

Something else for MikeSC to squeal about.

Oh, and MikeSC - you'll love this! Bush's Social Security plans 1-2 trillion in transition costs will not be paid for by the Euros, the Chinese, or the Saudis. They have banking rules based on the World bank and some past insolvent nations pension fiascos - about not ever investing in propping up another nations pension fund's obligations. Bush was talking about a national sales tax to fund it, but that falls on the poor the hardest, not that Bush cares....But what is emerging is a coalition of fiscal conservative REpublicans and Democrats saying that if the 89,700 cap after which the wealthy get untaxed on earnings goes away, the 12.4% payroll tax they are now exempt from on all income earnings above 90K will pay for the transition in about 10 years.

I can't wait to see how that plays out with the faux patriot conservatives willing to let soldiers die or lose faces and limbs to keep their tax cuts intact. Taxing every dollar a rich person earned at a similar rate to a middle class schlub who pays the 12.4% payroll tax on every dollar they earn?? I predict a bigger squealing from those fatted pigs than when the idea of scaling back their tax cuts to pay for a bigger military came up.

Yes. Squealing is EXACTLY it. I could mention how utterly shocked I am that a leftist resorts to insults within one sentence of his first reply --- but, lord, we are all used to that.

And nice to know you had me in mind, considering that, as a leftie, you wouldn't CONSIDER stereotyping somebody you have never met, spoken to, or even know. Thank God we have you to enlighten us.

"His posts amply show it, from his "fuck 'em, they volunteered" attitude to his half-sincere pleas that unlike other wars, it is essential that in this one, MikeSC gets a fatter wallet...To help the nation, no doubt..since liberals...but not him, mind you, would not sacrifice. Then he says that well, this is really sorta a national emergency since 9/11 so all Reservists, Guardsman should be on full-time duty for 2,3, 5, maybe 7 straight years in order to help keep our fair weather patriot's wallet fat."

(breaks out violin)

So, let's see if I get this straight. It's HORRIBLE that people who SIGN a piece of paper and TAKE the money given are expected to HONOR their commitment. Yeah, pure and adultered hell there.

But, yes, it's ALL about my money. BLING-BLING, bee-yotch!

"That ignores the law that Congress and Bush agreed to rather than expand the military after 9/11. There is no way Congress will repeal the law and break all faith with America's Reservist volunteers simply so some of the 99% of other Americans doing nothing now but cheering can avoid wartime financial sacrifice.

Then he all but gushes that after 2 years of mobilizing and fighting we have managed to get 78% of the Humvees armored. Conveniently ignoring the 15% supply truck armor rates. Yep, MikeSC, pretty good for a country that managed to build 240,000 armored trucks, APCs, and tanks from scratch in the 1st year of WWII. "

Considering that humvees need the armor considerably more than freight trucks. Don't let REALITY slow down your demonization.

Considering that the Democratic Party has become a party of weak pacifists, what happened in World War II is impossible now.

Again, we actually had a DEMORATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT who voted against funding for armor --- and then had the audacity to bitch about the lack of armor.

"It would have taken steel companies a few months to produce kits for every truck and humvee of the Pentagon was serious - and the top military brass apparantly not muzzled by Rummy on the issue. And if the call had gone out for welders in every state to report to the NG Armories and military truck depots to help weld the kits on if they wanted to volunteer - the lines would have stretched for blocks."

Go ahead and reveal how the top military brass was muzzled. Come on, back up your inane gibberish.

And how dare they ask welders TO HELP WITH THE PROBLEM. Screw them --- FOR DOING WHAT I WANT!

ARRGGGHHH!

"As for deaths and injuries due to lack of armor, it's 20% of the total as stated. MikeSC demands to know where the figure of 240 deaths comes from. MikeSC will no doubt remember his 4th grade class skill of multiplying by fractions....but given his stupidity in assuming anyone who criticizes the Iraq War details or the failed neocon policies must be a liberal democrat instead of a fiscally conservative Republican who wants more than 1% of our population to sacrifice.....lets not take a risk and go ahead and do the math for Mikey! 1200 deaths X 20% = 240 dead soldiers due to lack of armor."

Oh sorry --- you seem to mistake your WORD for, you know, ACTUAL PROOF.

Such as --- PROVE that 240 deaths were caused by armor.

Is evidence a foreign concept for ya, skippy?

"Oh, and MikeSC - you'll love this! Bush's Social Security plans 1-2 trillion in transition costs will not be paid for by the Euros, the Chinese, or the Saudis."

Considering that WE own the vast majority of all US debt --- that is a lovely shade of red herring ya got there.

"Bush was talking about a national sales tax to fund it, but that falls on the poor the hardest, not that Bush cares."

Which is, you know, unmitigated bullshit. But, hey, don't let reality slow you down.

Hint: The rich BUY MORE than the poor --- A LOT more.

"ut what is emerging is a coalition of fiscal conservative REpublicans and Democrats saying that if the 89,700 cap after which the wealthy get untaxed on earnings goes away, the 12.4% payroll tax they are now exempt from on all income earnings above 90K will pay for the transition in about 10 years."

Of course, ignoring that Congress has put Social Security money in the general budget and will CONTINUE to spend it as they do now if they did that. There is no lock box --- hasn't been in MANY years and that will never change.

Personally, I'd support an increase in the retirement age and a reduction in the benefits. But, that's just being heartless --- commenting that a Ponzi scheme where you get much more than you put into it on the backs of younger people might not be a good thing.

Hey, though, you're the "fiscal conservative" --- who seems a little oblivious to the whole "the stock market gives you a remarkably greater return on your investment than the present Social Security system."

Continue griping that your horrible solutions --- which will never solve the problem --- aren't taken seriously. Curse that whole "logical thought" thing that stands in the way of your plans.

"I can't wait to see how that plays out with the faux patriot conservatives willing to let soldiers die or lose faces and limbs to keep their tax cuts intact."

I find it funny that you think raising taxes wil make sure no soldiers get hurt again.

Tax cuts --- they'll KILL you!

"Taxing every dollar a rich person earned at a similar rate to a middle class schlub who pays the 12.4% payroll tax on every dollar they earn??"

How dare we TREAT ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY!!!!

We are evil. Evil, I tell ya.

"I predict a bigger squealing from those fatted pigs than when the idea of scaling back their tax cuts to pay for a bigger military came up."

Let me guess --- you're broke.

Because you're not in entertainment and lack the mental faculties to do much of anything else.
-=Mike

Hey, look ..... some triumphalist troll hijacked a thread. That hardly EVER happens!

Yeah, backing away slowly, circling the troll with our armored backs turned to it, keeping a firm foot on its protruding lower lip, that's the ticket. How quickly we forget that Gollum feeds indiscirminately on attention and is unresponsive to logic or facts.

Wish we could establish just one conspiracy, not to answer them. They don't want to winnow facts and get to some kind of shared truth. Nor do they play by any rules. Ignore their ugly selves.