Why is Rumsfeld still here?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 3 2006, 05:27 AM) [snapback]327212[/snapback]</div>

Wow nicely said <Standing ovation>

The ones complaining are why america is going to hell in a hand basket..

It kills me we are truley in kindegarden chickenhawk, neocon, Bushie. Wanna know how to tell if your an EXTREME LEFTY look at the Lefty posts on the thread. :lol: :lol:

Guns do not kill people, people kill other people with guns... If you take away guns only criminals will have guns, then it will be knives, then sticks, ect. ect. (make scence?) if not move to canada.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 3 2006, 05:27 AM) [snapback]327212[/snapback]</div>

I am a former US Army Reserve NCO. I served 15 years. I wasn't in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield / Desert Storm. I was, however, in Iraq for ten months and was (involuntarily) part of the intelligence unit that was blamed for the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib.

I didn't help deliver ground troops to battle or help wounded soldiers going in the opposite direction. I did know one of two guys from my battalion that was killed there, though. The one I didn't know was killed by an IED in a slow-moving convoy. The one I knew was killed in a mortar attack at the prison.

FWIW, I think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, were/are all f**k-ups, and far worse than anyone in any recent Democrat administration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Oct 1 2006, 07:38 PM) [snapback]326688[/snapback]</div>

The reason for this is that traditional conservatives wanted to maintain the status quo and they were fiscally conservative, going so far as to advocate a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that the government would not be allowed to spend more money than it took in. They opposed such changes as civil and human rights for people of color, the right of workers to organize, minimum wage laws, etc. They opposed any government interference in the economy, believing in "old-fashioned" capitalism.

Today's new conservatives (i.e. neoconservatives, shortened for ease of typing to neocons), while keeping the old conservatives' belief in unfettered capitalism and opposition to rights for people of color, have totally abandoned fiscal conservatism, advocating instead profligate spending of borrowed money on projects that produce no lasting value, and rather than trying to maintain the status quo, they are attempting to push America headlong into a new future in which all political power moves from the individual nation-states to the conglomerate trans-national corporations. The old conservatives wanted government to stay out of business. The new conservatives want business to run government.

The term "neocon" simply refers to these new-style conservatives, who are so unlike the old-style conservatives, principally on fiscal issues and issues of the role of government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 3 2006, 07:29 AM) [snapback]327268[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for your service. 15 years . . . just five to go for a retirement? Ouch!!!!

For what it's worth, your political views are your constitutionally given right . . . and, I personally feel you are more deserving of those rights than many because you put your life on the line protecting that constitution. . . . EVEN IF I many not personally agree with your views. That is democracy.

As an NCO, you knew you had the right to be political. Want to attend a political rally or protest? Great . . . just not while in uniform. And, as you also know, it is not the enlisted ranks which make military policy. You voicing your political views are/were not prejudicial to the military command and control structure. It's a different story within the officer ranks. Could you imagine an officer saying, “He's not my president,” or “I don't agree with these orders because I think they are politically motivated.” How confusing and demoralizing would THAT be to the ranks!

Did you have the same experience of the military being obnoxious in making sure you, and all other enlisted members, voted?
All military units have a Voting Assistance Officer.
http://www.fvap.gov/vao/vao.html
Even my reserve unit's VAOs were obnoxious . . . “But I'm a civilian sir, I don't need help with my voting rights :lol: .”

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 3 2006, 02:27 AM) [snapback]327212[/snapback]</div>

I asked if you served, I didn't say you hadn't. But I like to ask this of folks who have such strong opinions about war and fighting. Most of them have zero service, except in the Flapping Mouth Division.

You did good and I respect that. That's a lot of time given to our country and I honor and thank you. Your word is gold with me. No need for proof or bets.

What did I do? Not nearly so much, as I didn't make the military my career. I served 7 years as a SAC bomber pilot and switched to the Navy Reserve when I left active duty to fly A-4 attack planes. I never got sent to a war but would have gone anywhere my orders directed at any time. If they recalled me now, a desperate measure, I'd go. I was a little before Vietnam. Talk about old!

That being said, I think calling my views "liberal lies, propaganda and denials" is a trifle partisan. Books abound these days with extremely well-sourced documentation attesting to whopping lies told by every level of this administration. They aren't proved wrong. The right just complains about us telling these things in the first place. How can any thinking person just ignore them? If Bush's lips are moving, suspect a lie, half-truth or evasion. What do you think of his military service record? If you had to write a fitness report on him, how would it look? (Clinton's is awful too. But, these days at least, he doesn't deny it.) And Cheney had "higher priorities" than you or I did. What was it, seven deferments? And he's a tough-talking gun-toter these days. Iraq could use him as a platoon leader.

Military recruiters are regularly getting into trouble for enlisting troops who don't meet specs in order to meet unrealistic goals. Police records are being overlooked, education is trumped up. Hell, one gang back east was trying to get its members to "up" so they would be well trained when they returned to their 'hoods! Most 40 year olds are never going to complete the Marine's Crucible. Probably not even my Air Force Prima Donna training!

BTW, the Air Force isn't a good example of enlistee qualifications. Airmen, by and large, aren't getting killed. It's easier to recruit them than a future grunt. In the AF, it is the pilots, all officers, who get sent into danger, mostly. I don't see a lot of AF activity in Iraq. Mostly support, but I'm not saying there is no danger there. Just not as much as street patrols. Look at Marine, Army and Navy quals for a better picture.

If you think our troops are receiving what they need to do the job safely, you can join me under my rock. It is they who are complaining. The majority of returning vets who got out and are running for office are on the Democratic slate. Why? Did the military make them liberals? Not the one I was in.

My airline used to fly troops to Vietnam and I saw the look in their eyes also, and the fear when they deplaned looking at the body bags lined up for the trip back. I'm not against war. WWII was essential for the survival of the world. I'm against the terrible way that this one is being fought, with insufficient troops, lacking proper defenses, fighting a no-win battle in the middle of a tribal and religious civil war, and with no overall strategy. You've got to look at this as more than a "hate America" diatribe on our part. I teach these days near Pendleton and get Marines in my classes sometimes who have been there and may soon go back. They're my friends. I address them by rank in public. I want them to do their job with a good chance of coming back. Rumsfeld isn't on this page.

We're more on the same side than it appears. I want our military to be used to get an important job done, not get ground up as fodder for amateur experiments.

Thanks again, Chief.

 

No other country will take him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 29 2006, 07:08 PM) [snapback]325810[/snapback]</div>

Because sometimes you have to go to war with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the Secretary of Defense you want.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 29 2006, 06:08 PM) [snapback]325810[/snapback]</div>

Rumsfeld for President, 2008!!!!!

He'd be a great commander in chief. I'd vote for him.

He'd totally out wit hillary in the debates... that would be so fun to watch!