many forum members like to point out how we have to few troops, and always conviently forget to mention the facts of the matter. It is not bushs fault we dont have enough troops. he is using the army he was left by the previous administration. you can argue he using it incorrectly or whatever, but the fact is it is not bushs fault we have a small military.



stat sheet (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm)

Yes the troops were reduced during the Clinton administration. The plans for the troop reductions were drawn up during the George H.W. Bush administration. The reason for the reduction in troops was that with the cold war won, we could reduce the size of our military. The plan was drawn up by Dick Cheney. I guess what this proves is that no one knows what the future will bring.

It may not be the shrubs doing that we are short of military personell, but he is the dumbass that started a war while we were short of them. A true leader would have beefed up the troops BEFORE going to war. This is a no brainer.

Blame it all on Clinton. That's what gw has been doing for four years. When in fact it was the Reagon era that decided to downsize the military because the cold war was over.

Originally posted by Travh20
many forum members like to point out how we have to few troops, and always conviently forget to mention the facts of the matter.

Many??

I have heard very few people here complaining about our having "too few" troops, but they may well have done so.

As to **forgetting to mention the facts**.....aren't you forgetting to mention that Mr Bush has had four YEARS in which he could have increased troop strength if he'd considered it important to do so?!?!?

_________________________________

Bush will continue to occupy Arab soil and fight a limited war that lasts interminably. On the negative side, many more Americans will die and terrorism will increase. On the positive side, the Petroleum industry in the US will enjoy record profits, and the Conservative faction will be able to argue forever that we are just one really firm military response away from solving the entire problem.

Originally posted by Travh20
many forum members like to point out how we have to few troops, and always conviently forget to mention the facts of the matter. It is not bushs fault we dont have enough troops. he is using the army he was left by the previous administration.
Agreed!!!!!!


People who cut weapons-systems (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040429/news_1n29cheney.html) are AS guilty!

There was still ample troops to have sent the right number to Iraq initially as the military had said was needed, but ignored by Rummy.

There is a real issue though that was not addressed by Clinton - the forces were reduced due to the closure of the cold war, but the structure & focus of the military remained as if the cold war was still in-place.

Instead of reactionary forces we have forces designed to fight WWII style battles. The Bush administration is trying to fix that issue now. This was ignored completely by the Clinton administration even though the cold war was over & it was already clear what the future threats would look like - even before 9/11 occured.

We almost always fight our wars starting with a military that was designed to win the last war. This is because conventional wisdom always says that the next war will be like the last one. The military tends to be conservative in trying new ideas in peacetime. In war that quickly changes of course.
When we entered WW II, we had a navy that consisted mainly of Battleships and Cruisers. We had only a few aircraft carriers, and those only because FDR had insisted, even though it had been obvious from the time Gen. Billy Mitchell sank an old battleship that the next naval war would be one of aircraft and submarines. Submarines had proven themselves in WW I, and we had a reasonable number of those.
Our land army had good artillery, but a drastic shortage of armor. We were well equipped for another go at trench warfare, but poorly equipped for mobile warfare with the Germans.
It took a half the war just to design and build the weapons we would need to win it.
It is always safe to support building weapons to fight the last war. It is a safe choice, and easier to get the funding. You can always make the case by pointing to the last war, as opposed to trying to persuade Congress by pointing to possible future scenarios.

LISTEN, ! GEORGE SENT THEM OVER THERE !!!!!! HOW DARE YOU TRAVH ! HE WAS IN CHARGE !! HE SHOULD HAVE PAID MORE ATTENTION TO DETAIL, RATHER THAN SPENDING HIS TIME CONVINCING THE IDIOTS THAT VOTED HIM IN, TO BELIEVE E V E R Y F U C K I N THING HE SAYS ......THIS IS RIDICULOUS....DONT YOU BLAME THAT JERK FOR ANYTHING ? I MEAN, THE MORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH DEFENDING HIM, THE LESS INTELLIGENT YOU LOOK TRAVH.....IM SORRY MAN, ITS JUST PLAIN STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT HE COULDNT HAVE KNOWN OUR SITUATION BEFORE GOING TO WAR !!! sorry i sound so angry, but its just getting stupid..........he's at fault !

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Agreed!!!!!!

People who cut weapons-systems (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040429/news_1n29cheney.html) are AS guilty! are you on crack !? he should have known that when he was told how many troops it would take to do that ! he DIDNT LISTEN ! ITS ALLLLLLLL HIS DAMN FAULT.........DAMMIT ! no one republican says that clinton was left a bunch of bullshit to clean up by hwbush..........but EVERY EXCUSE THAT THEY CAN MAKE FOR FUCKIN HOWDY DAMN DOODY, THEY FIND IT AND BLAME EVERYONE BUT HIM !!!

Originally posted by korg
LISTEN, ! GEORGE SENT THEM OVER THERE !!!!!! HOW DARE YOU TRAVH ! HE WAS IN CHARGE !! HE SHOULD HAVE PAID MORE ATTENTION TO DETAIL, RATHER THAN SPENDING HIS TIME CONVINCING THE IDIOTS THAT VOTED HIM IN, TO BELIEVE E V E R Y F U C K I N THING HE SAYS ......THIS IS RIDICULOUS....DONT YOU BLAME THAT JERK FOR ANYTHING ? I MEAN, THE MORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH DEFENDING HIM, THE LESS INTELLIGENT YOU LOOK TRAVH.....IM SORRY MAN, ITS JUST PLAIN STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT HE COULDNT HAVE KNOWN OUR SITUATION BEFORE GOING TO WAR !!! sorry i sound so angry, but its just getting stupid..........he's at fault !

Whats with all the capitals ??

It's hard to blame Bush for the state of the military - changing a huge institution like the military takes not only time but a driving reason to do so. We have the reason now and even now it will still be hard. Bush has been in power 4 years - in that time the Military has been a great success. The post war Iraq situation is not the fault of the military - it is the fault of civilian planners.

Sure, Bush has created a lot of big problems, but the military is not one of them.

Originally posted by Freethinker

As to **forgetting to mention the facts**.....aren't you forgetting to mention that Mr Bush has had four YEARS in which he could have increased troop strength if he'd considered it important to do so?!?!?

Very naive. As patriotically motivated as the typical soldier is, try increasing recruitment during a controversial war. Unless, like some democrats in congess, you are for a draft. Is that what you think he should have done?

Uh trav ... the dude's only had 4 friggin years to fix the problem. When is he gonna do just that and quit blaming it on Clinton?

Dop

hey, like I said, you can argue all you want but facts are facts. I never mentioned clinton or anyone else. the fact is Bush is using the military left him by the previous administration. if Bush 1 and Cheney drew up the plans then they is just as guilty as Clinton for not scrapping those plans.

you can all say he should have increased the military before he went to war but we all know what you same people would have said about that once it was suggested we increase the size of the military. you can all talk big but facts are facts. the military dropped a lot of people in the 90's, and if bush said he wanted to raise a bunch more troops for the invasion of iraq you people would have had a heart attack and called him a war monger. there is no pleasing the left, thats why no one will try to any longer.

Originally posted by Brooks
Very naive. As patriotically motivated as the typical soldier is, try increasing recruitment during a controversial war.

Bush is the one who decided to WAGE the goddamned *controversial war*, so if the war is causing recruitment problems, it seems insane to blame the "former administration" for things that are happening now under Bush.

Originally posted by Brooks
Unless, like some democrats in congess, you are for a draft. Is that what you think he should have done?

No. I am not one of those who think we have "too few" troops. If this country were not trying to shove its imperialist aims and agenda down the rest of the world's throat, we wouldn't need the mega-Trillion dollar military that we taxpayers have been robbed to pay for.

I am for cutting by 50% the budget for what is euphemistically refered to as our "Defense", and beginning unilateral disarmament.

_______________________________

The colonial, racist, imperialist strategy of the U.S. is based on a philosophy in which the Corporation is god, in which so-called “free markets” are protected by the CIA and the Military in order to promote huge Oil and Defense industry interests. America uses its superior weapons of mass destruction, CIA subversion, IMF, WB, and WTO loans to rob and steal from small nations, in order to feed the insatiable consumerist appetite of the American Public.

thats a good plan freethinker, if we hav no army at all we wont have to fight wars :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Freethinker

The colonial, racist, imperialist strategy of the U.S. is based on a philosophy in which the Corporation is god, in which so-called “free markets” are protected by the CIA and the Military in order to promote huge Oil and Defense industry interests.

We need a "Godwin's Law" corollary pertaining to corporations. How about the Paranoid Lunatic's Rule.

Originally posted by Brooks
We need a "Godwin's Law" corollary pertaining to corporations. How about the Paranoid Lunatic's Rule.

Are you kidding? He took a major step forward today: no use of the word "fascist."

Originally posted by Brooks
We need a "Godwin's Law" corollary pertaining to corporations. How about the Paranoid Lunatic's Rule.

?!?!?

Surely you are not so ignorant of the way things work in this country that you think that this sentence ---

"The United States is driven by a colonial, racist, imperialist strategy, and....the so-called “free markets” are protected by the CIA and the Military in order to promote huge Oil and Defense industry interests"

---does NOT describe EXACTLY the U.S. political system and the ideology of the Powers-That-Be....

Are you?!?!?!?

I'm gonna kick myself for responding, but here goes. The greatest military victory of the 20th century, WWII, gave the United States ample opportunity and the right to become the "colonial" and "imperialist" nation you so deride. The USSR certainly grabbed the opportunity.

What did the colonial, racist and imperialist United States do with that opportunity?

**Hums Jeopardy Theme**

Originally posted by Freethinker

The colonial, racist, imperialist strategy of the U.S. is based on a philosophy in which the Corporation is god, in which so-called “free markets” are protected by the CIA and the Military in order to promote huge Oil and Defense industry interests.

I dont see why these people like freethinker and shaman dont do something about all this injustice they always talk about. are they cowards or just not as convinced of all the evil they claim exisits in the US? If I truly believed as freethinker does I would have tried to start a revolution by now. obvioulsy he isnt as concerned about it as he lets on or he would have shut and done something by now. like the Cracker song says "get off this, get on with it, if you want to change the world, shut your mouth and start this minute."

Originally posted by DrewM
Sure, Bush has created a lot of big problems, but the military is not one of them.
Yeah...........he had other priorities, when he served.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_serving_beer.jpg

"Yeah........war is Hell, alright. Can I get you another one?"

Originally posted by Travh20
hey, like I said, you can argue all you want but facts are facts. I never mentioned clinton or anyone else. the fact is Bush is using the military left him by the previous administration. if Bush 1 and Cheney drew up the plans then they is just as guilty as Clinton for not scrapping those plans.
Yeah.......besides.......the BIG BUCK$ are in Star Wars (http://www.metaphoria.org/ac4t0007.html) , anyhow...........and, weapons-systems investors DO APPRECIATE IT!! ;)

those weapons systems employees make big bucks, you wouldnt want to send them to a mcjob would you shaman?

Originally posted by Brooks
We need a "Godwin's Law" corollary pertaining to corporations. How about the Paranoid Lunatic's Rule.
I think that's called The Perle Rule (http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759), presently.......and, it's been privatized (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Uh trav ... the dude's only had 4 friggin years to fix the problem.
I guess you haven't heard. It's haaard work!!!


http://logo.cafepress.com/0/420242.65560.jpg

Originally posted by Brooks
I'm gonna kick myself for responding, but here goes. The greatest military victory of the 20th century, WWII, gave the United States ample opportunity and the right to become the "colonial" and "imperialist" nation you so deride.
Yeah..........and, we've made reeeeaaaalllly good use of it!!!

Just ask France!!!!!! (http://www.vvaw.org/about/warhistory.php)


"Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination. However, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War. In France, where communists had led the resistance to the Nazi occupation, American policy supported General Charles de Gaulle and his anti-communist "Free French." De Gaulle aimed to restore the glory of France, which meant the return of all former French colonies. U.S. relations with the Vietnamese turned sour. President Truman refused to answer letters or cables from Ho. Instead, the U.S. began to ship military aid to the French forces in Indochina."

Originally posted by Travh20
Originally posted by Freethinker

The colonial, racist, imperialist strategy of the U.S. is based on a philosophy in which the Corporation is god, in which so-called “free markets” are protected by the CIA and the Military in order to promote huge Oil and Defense industry interests.

I dont see why these people like freethinker and shaman dont do something about all this injustice they always talk about. are they cowards or just not as convinced of all the evil they claim exisits in the US?
Evil is a fairy-tale concept!

It's allllllllllllllllll about bu$ine$$ (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp), in the NeoCons' minds........no matter what (http://icasualties.org/oif/) the cost..........to others!!

Originally posted by Travh20
those weapons systems employees make big bucks......
Yeah........no doubt......to the investors!!

Whatta shame the don't WORK!!!!


http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/gallery/gwmissiletoy.jpg

Originally posted by Brooks
The greatest military victory of the 20th century, WWII, gave the United States ample opportunity and the right to become the "colonial" and "imperialist" nation you so deride......
What did the colonial, racist and imperialist United States do with that opportunity?


I'll tell you exactly what the racist, imperialist United States did with their 'oportunity'.

Since the end of WW2, US intelligence agencies such as the CIA have --at the direction of the political leadership in the US-- quashed scores of democratically elected governments and have --whemever it served to increase the profits of some US Corporation operating in that country-- courted and supported numerous murderous thugs, including (but not limited to) Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia and Marcos in the Philippines. William Blum, the former State Department official and author of "Rogue State" has estimated that the US has tried ---sometimes clandestinely, but sometimes not even bothering to try to hide the theft--- to overthrow at least 40 foreign governments since 1945.

Ummmmmmm...........blame Clinton! It's all the Republicans have left!

If Bush is going to go to war, he better increase the amount of troops we have before launching war...or else don't do it at all.

Did Clinton have wars to fight? No. So he had no real need for a lot of troops. Bush did. So Bush should create me troops before launching war.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I'll tell you exactly what the racist, imperialist United States did with their 'oportunity'.

Since the end of WW2, US intelligence agencies such as the CIA have --at the direction of the political leadership in the US-- quashed scores of democratically elected governments and have --whemever it served to increase the profits of some US Corporation operating in that country-- courted and supported numerous murderous thugs, including (but not limited to) Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia and Marcos in the Philippines. William Blum, the former State Department official and author of "Rogue State" has estimated that the US has tried ---sometimes clandestinely, but sometimes not even bothering to try to hide the theft--- to overthrow at least 40 foreign governments since 1945.

Enlighten me. Here's your list: "including but not limited to" Chile, Indonesia, Philippines. Tell me the corporations and how they benefitted

Originally posted by Overdose


Did Clinton have wars to fight? No. So he had no real need for a lot of troops. Bush did. So Bush should create me troops before launching war.

To be fair, President Clinton never attempted anything difficult that would risk his political capital or legacy. Unfortunately, he DID have wars to fight, but didn't.

Originally posted by Brooks
To be fair, President Clinton never attempted anything difficult that would risk his political capital or legacy. Unfortunately, he DID have wars to fight, but didn't.
He didn't? Really? What wars would those be?

Originally posted by Overdose
Did Clinton have wars to fight? No. So he had no real need for a lot of troops. Bush did. So Bush should create me troops before launching war.

No president can flick a switch and make fast changes in the military. It takes years to make any real change. 9/11 occured 9 months after Bush came into office.

The only way Bush could magically create more troops would be to implement a draft.

Clinton had many years of post cold war reality, plus he had multiple terrorist attacks, including one to blow up the twin towers.

The real problem is the US is not very proactive - it takes a fire to wake up the sleeping tiger.

Originally posted by DrewM
No president can flick a switch and make fast changes in the military. It takes years to make any real change. 9/11 occured 9 months after Bush came into office.
Yes, and we had enough troops and world support to go into Afghanistan.

Originally posted by DrewM
The only way Bush could magically create more troops would be to implement a draft.
Or get proper world support, which he didn’t.

Originally posted by DrewM
Clinton had many years of post cold war reality, plus he had multiple terrorist attacks, including one to blow up the twin towers.
One of the attacks was only 28 days after he was in office…

The issue is not that we don't have enough troops - we have enough, they just did it on the cheap by not sending enough to begin with. We should have sent 250,000 troops from day1. Cheney & Rummy really believed we would walk in - be welcomed with open arms and it would be a walk in the park. The chiefs wanted 250,000 troops - the Iraq invasion plan has been on the shelf for 15 years and it called for 250,000 troops. Rummey thought better. He is a screw up - he'll be fired in Jan - watch. Bush has only kept him on because he is the perfect scape goat. When he is drained of all possible scape goat potential he will have no value. That arrogant old prick certainly has no actual value as sec of Defense.

Truth is the insurgency we have now is our own fault - we disbanded the Iraqi army and didn't have enough men on the ground to start reconstruction - the population got pissed off and now we have a royal mess.

Yesterday Bush commented that the so called new Iraqi army was pretty much worthless. If the Iraqi's do not step up to the plate then we are fucked - this will be a new vietnam - just watch. And also - watch there be a draft - it's coming, so overdose you better get an over night bag packed - you are either going to Canada or Iraq. Your choice.

I do agree with you though that having a coalition would have provided the right level of troops and world support. But - lets face it, there was no way a real coalition could be built because the case to go into Iraq was a case only relevant to US power as theorized by the neo-cons. 9/11 was a golden opportunity for them to move ahead with what they have wanted for years.

And also - watch there be a draft - it's coming, so overdose you better get an over night bag packed - you are either going to Canada or Iraq. Your choice.

Oh please, Overdose will play the gay card and get kicked out faster than a tree chasing a dog on a dry day. He'll be sitting right here typing how wrong war is and soaking up various government benefits while his peers are out busting their ass and the rest of us are making tax dollars to support them.

Damn it seems wrong for us to be forced to support people like that!

Originally posted by Overdose

One of the attacks was only 28 days after he was in office…

True, the attacks that took place immediately after President Clinton took office couldn't have been prevented by his administration.

The problem was their reaction to them. After the World Trade Center bombers of '93 were caught what did they do? They sat around high-fiving each other. *Hooray for us. We did it.* They never dreamed there might be a much larger conspiracy. Oh that's right, they arrested the head of a local mosque. And the times they passed on bin Laden are now legendary.

The lack of reaction to this, the Cole, Kobar Towers and the quick Mogadishu withdrawal are the hallmarks of a President that didn't want to risk bad news. These contributed to future terrorist attacks (not solely responsible, just contributed)

Had he been more aggressive and preemptive toward terrorism, some of you would have screamed bloody murder, but think of what it might have prevented.

Originally posted by DrewM
No president can flick a switch and make fast changes in the military. It takes years to make any real change. 9/11 occured 9 months after Bush came into office.

The only way Bush could magically create more troops would be to implement a draft.

Clinton had many years of post cold war reality, plus he had multiple terrorist attacks, including one to blow up the twin towers.

The real problem is the US is not very proactive - it takes a fire to wake up the sleeping tiger. it didnt take long for bush to cut their benefits !!

Originally posted by Brooks
True, the attacks that took place immediately after President Clinton took office couldn't have been prevented by his administration.

The problem was their reaction to them. After the World Trade Center bombers of '93 were caught what did they do? They sat around high-fiving each other. *Hooray for us. We did it.* They never dreamed there might be a much larger conspiracy. Oh that's right, they arrested the head of a local mosque. And the times they passed on bin Laden are now legendary.

The lack of reaction to this, the Cole, Kobar Towers and the quick Mogadishu withdrawal are the hallmarks of a President that didn't want to risk bad news. These contributed to future terrorist attacks (not solely responsible, just contributed)

Had he been more aggressive and preemptive toward terrorism, some of you would have screamed bloody murder, but think of what it might have prevented. at least they went after THE RIGHT DAMN PEOPLE !

korg, the people who are responsible for 9-11 died in the attack. kind of hard to arrest a dead guy

Senator Chuck Hagel, possibly our next president, implies a draft may be needed. Better pay attention to this one folks, especially if your 18-37 -- this guy is for real and will probably be the republican '08 presidential candidate ...

snippet from the article ...
Hagel told the students increasing deployment of a downsized military, with heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve troops, eventually may force future consideration of a military draft.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/12/21/local/doc41c79eaabbbb4005447499.txt

Dop

Note to trav

The people responsible for 9/11 are living a life of luxury spending all those short options on american and united airlines stock that still today have not been explained to the american public.

Don't you find it amazing they can catch me making an illegal investment of $50.00 but can't track a multi-billion dollar illegal investment.

It happened on Bush's watch.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

why is it that the facts about Democrats actually trying to get a draft going earlier this year always seem to slip your mind dop? wasnt it the Republicans who voted the Democrat draft bill down?

who actually tried to start a draft dop? the democrats or republicans? just answer dem or rep please

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Note to trav

The people responsible for 9/11 are living a life of luxury spending all those short options on american and united airlines stock that still today have not been explained to the american public.

Don't you find it amazing they can catch me making an illegal investment of $50.00 but can't track a multi-billion dollar illegal investment.

It happened on Bush's watch.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

you know what else is amazing dop? that Clinton spent more money trying to bring down Microsoft then he did trying to catch Bin laden

It doesn't matter what clinton did -- it only matters that it happened on bush's watch and it will be recorded that way in the history books. In fact, years in the future, students will respond to your microsoft comment with ...

"Microsoft? What's that?"

Bush knew - planes flew
Bush lied - troops died

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Senator Chuck Hagel, possibly our next president, implies a draft may be needed. Better pay attention to this one folks, especially if your 18-37 -- this guy is for real and will probably be the republican '08 presidential candidate ...

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/12/21/local/doc41c79eaabbbb4005447499.txt

Dop

Puh-lease. Chuck Hagel? He's trying to be the next John McCain. The press loves Republicans who eat their own. The press didn't even know this guy's name until he started going after the president.

As we can see through the campaigns of McCain and Howard Dean, the nomination process abhors "mavericks", even publicity hounds like mcCain and Hagel.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It doesn't matter what clinton did -- it only matters that it happened on bush's watch Dop

There was a very long nominating and approval process for President Bush's inner circle (remember the anti-Ashcroft campaign?). There was only eight months between the new administration taking office and an attack that was five years in the making. And during many of those months, some cabinet officers, aids and advisors weren't even approved yet. In this case Clinton's inaction during the prior 4 1/3 years are relevant.

I'm afraid you're reading this one wrong brooks ...

Chuck Hagel has a huge favor coming his way from the republican party and he's gonna call it in during the '08 campaign.

He is the ex-ceo of ES&S which produces 60% of our new voting machines -- he is still a major investor in that company and is privileged to the code that runs the machines ... something that no one else outside the company has seen, including congress or any of the organizations that monitor elections.

This guy can arrange for anyone to lose an election and can arrange for anyone to win an election. Simple as that.

He'll be the gop runner in '08 or he will make sure the gop loses the white house.

Needless to say, between now and '08, he should probably avoid small planes, skiing trips in the alps and soap bars in the bathtub.

ROTF

Dop

I can see it now, some obscure nutjob republican will get elected in 08 and everything he does wrong will still be clintons fault. You guys crack me up. Fifty years from now when this country is in shambles you'll be blamming it on clinton.

It rained in Portland last night. It is Clintons fault because he didn't do anything about the whether when he was in ofice. That evil man!

From now on, anytime anything goes wrong I am going to say outloud

BLAME IT ON CLINTON!

Intellegent people will get the joke.

I incourage all democrats to use this phrase as often as posible.

it seems the democrats are the ones who like to hide behind the blame it on clinton thing. when all else fails,a ccuse your opponents of blaming things on clinton

Wrong again brooks ...

Doesn't matter if there was 8 months or 8 years for the new admin to take over ... national security never sleeps and never takes a holiday (vacation for us yanks :)). Simple as that.

Team bush either dropped the ball in their all-out-quest to undo anything clinton or they were directly involved or knowledgeable of the coming attacks or are just plain stupid. Pick one.

It's also quite obvious that you know little about military affairs ... yes bush is our military leader -- that's why we call him our Commander In Chief.

It works like this ... if I'm the captain of a ship that has a mishap or does something wrong I don't get to blame it on the previous captain. That's not allowed, not accepted and not even considered. BTW: That's where the expression "happened on 'X' watch" came from ...

Bush was president when it happened -- he has to take responsibility. The history books will make sure he does just that.

Dop

Originally posted by Echo2

BLAME IT ON CLINTON!

Intellegent people will get the joke.

I incourage all democrats to use this phrase as often as posible.

a freaking moron would get that joke echo, dont flatter yourself. it was a dumb joke too

Actually echo -- and you may already know this ... most of the other fourms around the internets [sic] have been using it as a joke for months if not years...

The expression they use is ... "blame it on Clenis" which refers to Clinton's penis ...

It really cracks me up when I see this expression and especially when some evangelical, homophobe doesn't understand or know what it means. They don't realize the joke is on them.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing


This guy can arrange for anyone to lose an election and can arrange for anyone to win an election. Simple as that.


Dop

You get today's Freethinker Award

Bush's motto...

The Buck Stops There. (points finger at clinton)

ROTFLMAO.

so you believe Clinton is free and clear of any responsiblilty for anything that happened after he left office?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

It works like this ... if I'm the captain of a ship that has a mishap or does something wrong I don't get to blame it on the previous captain. That's not allowed, not accepted and not even considered. BTW: That's where the expression "happened on 'X' watch" came from ...

Bush was president when it happened -- he has to take responsibility. The history books will make sure he does just that.

Dop

OVERDOSE defending President Clinton: "One of the attacks was only 28 days after he was in office…"

I have to agree with OD on this one. Yes it happened on President Bush's watch, but these guys were already underground waiting for the word by the time the administration was in place. I defended President Clinton and the '93 bombing for the same reason a few posts back.

PS - I have never automatically blamed anything on President Clinton. But if he does have some culpability, we shouldn't be afraid of saying so.

Yep. And if you were in the military (as you say) you would understand this concept.

True leaders take responsibility for what happens on their watch. They do not point at the last guy and say "it was his fault". A true leader re-asseses everything when he takes command and changes what he doesn't like. In business, in the military and in politics. If you have ever been in a position of command you would know this.

Bush took command and either

A) Didn't bother to even asses our military situation at all
B) Assesses it and determined it was OK.
C) Assesed it, found it lacking but didn't bother to make any changes before going to war.

Whichever one he did, he was wrong.

when did bush point a finger at clinton ever? like it or not, clintons inaction is also to blame for 9-11, as was the adminstration before his. its all the fault of everyone in government. you seem to want to place all the blame on bvush and put none on clinton, so you are jsut as bad as you claim I am echo. hypocrite

If it had happened durring Clintons watch or Gore or Kerry or Reagon - it wouldn't matter. A true leader assesses his charge when he takes control and makes the appropriate adjustments. So if Gore had won and it had happened on his watch it would have been HIS mistake.

With power comes responsibility.

what the hell are you blabbering about? save your speechs for someone else echo. 9-11 happened because bush didnt do enough to stop it, it also happened beasue clinton didnt do enough to stop it, or bush 1 and reagan and carter. stop trying to be the freaking high and mighty dictator of all that is just ad moral in the world. go out and try and deter some more young men from volunteering for their country. hopefull one of them laughs in you self righteous face and tells you to go to hell

Yeah really Echo. I mentioned Clinton's partial responsibility. President Bush never did. He has never mentioned the prior administration in any negative way. You're making things up. I wish he would once in a while.

I hate to repeat but with his full team up and running with only about 5 months before Sep 11th (not including learning curve), you're being unrealistic about the chances of stopping the attack.

but brooks, dont forget clinton left a note on Bushs desk warning him Bin Ladin was his biggest threat.

Yep, that's what we all want for president. A man who has no idea how the different branches of his government are doing. A man that sends his military off to fight a WAR OF CHOICE when they are under staffed, under funded, and under supplied.

You can't deny the fact that bush CHOSE to go to war with an understaffed, under funded and under supplied military. It was HIS decision to start this war. It had nothing to do with anyone that held office before him. He made the CHOICE to send our young men and women into battle unprepared. How that translates into being anyone elses fault is a mystery.

so its bushs fault the military is under funded? try looking at our own party

and the men and women are not unprepared. you should learn a bit about history. we prepare for what we can. no one can read the future. thats why we have a flexible military, to adapt to changing situations. are there things we should have forseen? of course. are there things we could not have anticipated? yes. you seem to think we can just make a plan and have it work without a hitch you are wrong. if you were in the military (as you claim to have been) you would know that no plan survives the first contact.

Ecch 2, A minute ago his biggest flaw was blaming the prior administration. That tale kinda fell apart, huh.

What should he have done, called a quick draft and told the Taliban to wait a year? Apparently what you're saying is having an Army at 2001 levels means you can't use it. If I say to check the chart that Trav posted would you scream "BLAME CLINTON BLAME CLINTON BLAME CLINTON". I have to admit, it's a good strategy on your part. I guess I can't win.

Here's your choices on why 9/11 happened ...

choice 1:
======
9/11 happened because Israel said so and because team bush needed a mandate to invade a-stan to shore up the caspian sea oil deals and put the warlords back in the drug business and to have an excuse to invade Iraq and to have an excuse to take away our civil and constitutional rights and so Halliburton could rebuild Iraq and a-stan every time we bomb the crap out of them and to create a windfall of billions on the illegally traded American/United airlines short options.

choice 2:
======
9/11 was perpertrated by Saddam, who had nuclear wmd's that he could launch to our shores on 45 minutes notice and he hated us for our freedoms.

choice 3:
======
9/11 happened because of the clinton/lewinski white house scandal and because hollywood actors vote democrat.

choice 4:
======
9/11 happened because Tommy Chong was selling bongs over the internet(s) and Martha Stewart made $25K on a hot stock tip which the republicans assure us has never been done before ... all their stock transactions are on the up-n-up.

choice 5:
======
9/11 happened because the courts forced the 10 commandements monument to be taken down in Georgia (Alabama?) and it was discovered that behind that monument stood a statue of a woman with bare breasts. ROTF

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Here's your choices on why 9/11 happened ...

choice 1:
======
9/11 happened because Israel said so...

You never disappoint me.

Israel has benefited more from 9/11 and Iraq war than any country on the planet.

This is simply a matter of calling it the way I see it.

Dop

when did you get on this israel kick dop? its the first I have heard you mention of it.

israel benifited becasue the suicide bombers are no longer getting funds from sadaams oil for food money. suicide bombing have practically stopped in israel. they are benefiting.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Israel has benefited more from 9/11 and Iraq war than any country on the planet.

This is simply a matter of calling it the way I see it.

Dop

Keep going, this is great stuff. Bring up Hollywood and the banks now.

Israel has been America's little love child for decades. No matter what happens, what they do, we stand behind them. Ever wonder why? Look to your politicians and a strong jewish influence in high government places. Israel wanted Sadamn taken out. He was their enemy, not ours.

Originally posted by Travh20
israel benifited becasue the suicide bombers are no longer getting funds from sadaams oil for food money. suicide bombing have practically stopped in israel. they are benefiting.

That might also have something with the wall.

Originally posted by Echo2
Israel has been America's little love child for decades. No matter what happens, what they do, we stand behind them. Ever wonder why?

Hmmm, could be because we are addicted to oil and don't have another ally in the area.

Also, please explain the strong Jewish influence to me, or at least post some links.

I suppose we should ally ourselves with syria and the other dictators right? wait, I though we got shit for that last time with saddam? oh you cant win with the opportunistic liberals looking to drag you through the mud for things they praised just yesterday

You're kidding brooks right?

Try Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and just about every other member of either PNAC or the civilians in the pentagon that run this war.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
You're kidding brooks right?

Try Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and just about every other member of either PNAC or the civilians in the pentagon that run this war.

Dop

Because they're Jewish? That's why we favor Israel? Please, please keep going.

wow dop is getting more and more like the anti semetic, anti american islamo-fascists every day. next thing he will be saying if hitler was allowed to finish his work in 1944, 9-11 would have never happened.

Originally posted by Brooks
Enlighten me. Here's your list: "including but not limited to" Chile, Indonesia, Philippines. Tell me the corporations and how they benefitted

It's the same story everywhere that US Corporations are operating, and a democratcally eleted leader threatens to make changes that would cut into US Corporate profits.

In 1973,Chile's democratically elected leader, Salvadore Allende, nationalized foreign-owned interests, like Chile’s copper mines and telephone system. International Telephone & Telegraph offered the CIA $1 million to overthrow Allende while payig $350,000 to his political opponents. The CIA responded with a coup that murdered Allende and replaced him with a tyrant --and puppet of US Corporate State intersts-- General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet ---all while being the bestest buddy of the parliment of corporate WHORES in Washington--- tortured and murdered thousands of leftists, union members and political opponents as a "free market" economy was installed. Since then, income inequality has soared higher in Chile than anywhere else in Latin America.

A classic case of the democracy-despising CIA/US Corporate interests arranging things to benefit themselves, while overseeing the murder of countless civilians, happened in Guatemala in 1954.

They used their customary charade of ''There's a Commy threat there rtha we have to stop!!"

There was no communist threat. The only threat was to Guatemala’s United Fruit Company, a Rockefeller-owned firm whose stockholders included CIA Director Allen Dulles. Arbenz threatened to nationalize the company. In response, the CIA initiated a coup that overthrew Arbenz and installed the murderous thug Castillo Armas, who was --as usual-- a willing puppet of US Corporate State interests. For four decades, CIA-backed dicatators there tortured and murder hundreds of thousands of leftists, union members and others who fought for a more equitable distribution of the country’s resources.

Once again, citing a so-called "communist threat", the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mussadegh government in Iran in 1953.
There was no communist threat. What really happened was that Mussadegh threatened to nationalize British and American oil companies in Iran. Consequently, the CIA toppled Mussadegh and replaced him with a puppet government, headed by the Shah of Iran and his murderous secret police, SAVAK.

It has happebed over and over and over again, yet fools like you keep their head firmly planted in the sand and simper-- "Where did it happen? Who did anything to any foreign government?!....I didn't see anything!!"

Do a bit of research on the web, and you'll see that the three examples above barely scratch the surface of the many decades of despicable, inhuman actions carried out by the U.S.'s protector-of-Corporate-wealth; the CIA.

Former CIA officer Philip Agee put it best: "The CIA is the President's secret army."

Originally posted by Brooks
Because they're Jewish? That's why we favor Israel? Please, please keep going.

Exactly when did I say jewish? or didn't I and you are putting words in my mouth?

It's alright -- you can say it -- go ahead and admit you don't want to discuss the Israeli ties so you (and trav) will label me as anti-semitic, hoping I will pull out of the argument.

Nice try on the strawman though.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

again the liberal tactic of "imply everything, say nothing" rears its ugly head. we are not stupid dop, we know what the implication was. its not just a coincidence you named those men. you were saying they were all jews and thats why they wanted to run this war for israel. I guess with idiot libs and teenagers you could have played that out, but conservatives are on to your childish head games.

I'm sure all the names I pointed to have their curriculum vitae available on the web. It might be an interesting excercise to dig them out and see what ties each has/had to Israel.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to go to that trouble trav just to find out your wrong so, as usual, leave the heavy lifting to me.

Dop

Originally posted by Travh20
again the liberal tactic of "imply everything, say nothing" rears its ugly head.

You just keep getting funnier and funnier. Ever tried stand-up? I'll bet some of the rednecks in those trailer parks in Alabama would love your routine. You could rant all day, say nothing and they'd give you a standing ovation.

Don't bother, I'll post it for you........

Echo - STFU you g*dd*nm commie, tree hugging, war hateing liberal b*tch.

Jewish 'Neocons' Tilt U.S. Policy Toward Israel

By Ron Csillag
Canadian Jewish News

The editor of a left-wing Vancouver-based magazine is defending his own recent article that singles out prominent American neo-conservative Jews for, he says, tilting the Mideast policies of President George W. Bush toward Israel. The March/April issue of Adbusters checked off the names of 26 Jews on a list of 50 hawkish "neocons" said to have cozy relations with the war-minded U.S. Defence Department. The Jewish names include writers Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol; Deputy U.S. Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; former arms negotiators Richard Perle; and academic Daniel Pipes.
They appear alongside U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney and former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. But the religions of those people are not identified.

"A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and the fact that a disproportionate percentage of them are Jewish," states the article, titled "Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?" "Some commentators are worried that these individuals -- labeled 'Likudniks' for their links to Israel's right-wing Likud party -- do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests," it goes on.

"For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?" Adbusters, an alternative bi-monthly known for its biting anti-consumerist, anti-globalization stance, says it decided "to tackle the issue head on." What those on the list share "is the view that the U.S. is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of them are Jewish."

Kalle Lasn, the article's author and the magazine's editor, told The CJN he felt compelled to write the piece because "the mainstream and alternative media are somehow scared of talking about the Jewishness of the neocons and the Zionism there and the influence this has on American foreign policy in the Middle East." Other media outlets "just don't have the guts because they're afraid of this kind of vociferous backlash that I have experienced over the past few weeks." Lasn said he's received much abusive mail and even personal threats. "I really do understand what it feels like to be targeted by people who hate you."

He said the negative responses show a "kneejerk political correctness. It's almost as if many of them are Jews themselves. They're in some sort of denial. They really think that somehow it is wrong to have a debate about the Jewishness of the neocons who are, after all, the most powerful political/intellectual group in the world today. "They [neocons] literally have the power to start wars and stop wars and they are the driving force behind the Bush administration's foreign policy, not just in the Middle East, but throughout the world. They're the people who make it possible for the American administration to give $3 billion a year to Israel, and many of them are connected to the Likud party. "It's almost as though we have become so politically correct that we don't even want to discuss the obvious anymore." Lasn said he has "an incredible amount of respect" for Jews, who, owing to the Holocaust's "deep imprint" on them, have developed a keen ability to spot dictators such as Saddam Hussein. "In that way, Jewish influence is wonderful." However, "if 50 percent of the neo-cons were Arabs or Palestinian, then this war [in Iraq] would not have started."

http://www.rense.com/general51/tef.htm

so what exactly were you saying dop? why dont you stop beating around the bush and just say it

Correct Dop. You never used the word "Jewish", you did it in a more cowardly way.

How about this quote: "I'm beginning to have a better understanding of Hitler" - Echo 2.

The word "Jewish" wasn't used there either, therefore no anti-Jewish sentiment was expressed, huh?

You can believe what you want, but don't be a coward.

Although It's much more complicated, in a nutshell, and IMHO, our foreign policy and pentagon has been hijacked by certain ***NOTE THE USE OF THE KEY WORD CERTAIN*** elements of the state of Israel.

Brooks

Are you jewish? Just asking cause you seem to be terribly sensitive to anyone using the word (or not using the word which seems to be the case you have against me).

You also are quick to pull the trigger with the old "you're a racist, anti-semite because you called someone a jew" and worse part is you apply that to jews in Israel.

WTF dude ... the people in Israel are for the most part Jews ... so anyone that refers to them as such is an anti-semite ???? Please explain that one to me.

OTOH, if you are Jewish and I have in some way offended you then, 1st I apologize even though I'm not aware of my crime, and 2nd, just tell me to STFU and I'll do just that. I know plenty of Jews that will discuss Israel with me and not get all ticked off and take my words out of context.

Otherwise, I have to assume you don't have a very good grasp of the history of the state of Israel and it's connection to the Jewish faith.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

Are you jewish?
You also are quick to pull the trigger with the old "you're a racist, anti-semite because you called someone a jew" and worse part is you apply that to jews in Israel.



(I never called you any of those things, I just asked you to keep talking)

I'm not Jewish. I support Israel as our only ally in the Middle East. Echo's Hitler comment bothers me because I'm human.

It's weird, if I said I supported France's decision in the Iraq war, you wouldn't ask me if I was French.

Living on Long Island, I can say with a little authority that there is almost no connection between the Jewish vote and Israel. John Kerry announced that he would seek out James Baker and Jimmy Carter as Middle East advisers and still won the Jewish vote handily.

The most pro-Israel Senator was defeated here several years ago because he ran against a Jewish Democrat.

I don't make any connection between typical American Jews and Israel, so when you rattled off the Jewish sounding names in the Bush Administration, to show a policy connection, it just leaped off the page. I felt it was knee-jerk

Based on you living on LI, I fully respect your understanding of the Jewish/Israel connection or non-connections ... that is .. if you've been paying attention and I will assume you have.

I spent a few days myself (up to my teenager years) travelling down Ocean ave in Brooklyn, crossing all the 'letter avenues' through Flatbush and on to Sheepshead Bay where I used to go fishing. Doesn't get much more Jewish than that ... at least back then in the 50's.

Off-topic with a little personal nostalgia.

Dop

I think that's a nice way to finish this. Merry Christmas

Same to you brooks.

Dop