[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

Just so long as you "botch" it. We all do once in a while.

With Kerry's talent, its more like he "batched" it (and all its multitude of cousins).

Where are all these Quotes?

I was expecting something more than testimony, a 35 year old quote about the UN, and votes supporting President George HW Bush's budget, as developed by Cheney . . .

[tripleblack]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

Where are all these Quotes?

I was expecting something more than testimony, a 35 year old quote about the UN, and votes supporting President George HW Bush's budget, as developed by Cheney . . .

Hey, I got the one about the Marines kicking down doors - which was my cite.

In the context of my comment above, its about gaffs - and are you seriously saying Kerry didn't make a ton of these (particularly during 2004)? General mis-spoken goofo's, not specific to the troop topic, especially?

Also, I just went out of my way (twice) to point out what a worthless endeavor arguing over Kerry was (pro and con).

Next time he's a contender for anything I can vote for, we'll discuss this again.

KS, I'm a little surprised you'd expend valuable time on a loser like Kerry - or do you really think he still has a shot at the nomination in 06?

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

Hey, I got the one about the Marines kicking down doors - which was my cite.

In the context of my comment above, its about gaffs - and are you seriously saying Kerry didn't make a ton of these (particularly during 2004)? General mis-spoken goofo's, not specific to the troop topic, especially?

Also, I just went out of my way (twice) to point out what a worthless endeavor arguing over Kerry was (pro and con).

Next time he's a contender for anything I can vote for, we'll discuss this again.

KS, I'm a little surprised you'd expend valuable time on a loser like Kerry - or do you really think he still has a shot at the nomination in 06?

I have a fixation with setting the record straight -It's an illness, really.

You're suggesting the Marines WEREN'T kicking down doors, and that that should probably be a job for Iraqi forces? -Especially, since we have few people who speak arabic?

_________________________________________

I reckon Kerry thinks he has a chance. I don't really care . . .

The latest bunch of goofballs all drive me crazy, but it's hard to say if any of them have any merit with all the spin and propaganda flying around.

Given the current tabloid/yellow journalism, I don't think anyone would make it through a campaign as a beacon of light.


_______________________________________


I know I'd look like a goofball . . .

[tripleblack]

Sigh.

Kerry was being critical of troops doing their jobs - and yes, that job ocassionally involves kicking down doors (knocking down walls, blowing up buildings, etc.). Kerry was being critical in the interview of my troops (I always take them under my wing, regardless of the ocasison), and I took umbrage at his insinuation. Taken with the simultaneously expressed nonsense flowing from his fellow democrats at the time (Durbin as you pointed out earlier), it was a form of piling on - on soldiers who cannot fight back or present their own case to counteract the accusations of misdeeds.

If it was just another gaff, he hasn't said so.

Kerry is one of this country's leaders. He MUST differentiate between insinuating that the actions of our troops are immoral and wrong AND criticizing the man sitting in the office he very much wants to occupy himself.

He failed to do this in this case.

Notice I am not criticizing his "I voted for the war before I voted against funding the war" nonsense drivel - now, there's a gaff for you. Funny too. I really don't mind such things - they are valuable indications of the true state of the confused C minus mind lurking inside that enormous skull.

More wasted paragraphs about the man with the worst attendance record in the history of the Senate. An utter waste of two normally politically astute minds!

Originally Posted by kscoyote

I have a fixation with setting the record straight -It's an illness, really.

You're suggesting the Marines WEREN'T kicking down doors, and that that should probably be a job for Iraqi forces? -Especially, since we have few people who speak arabic?

_________________________________________

I reckon Kerry thinks he has a chance. I don't really care . . .

The latest bunch of goofballs all drive me crazy, but it's hard to say if any of them have any merit with all the spin and propaganda flying around.

Given the current tabloid/yellow journalism, I don't think anyone would make it through a campaign as a beacon of light.


_______________________________________


I know I'd look like a goofball . . .

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

Sigh.

Kerry was being critical of troops doing their jobs - and yes, that job ocassionally involves kicking down doors (knocking down walls, blowing up buildings, etc.). Kerry was being critical in the interview of my troops (I always take them under my wing, regardless of the ocasison), and I took umbrage at his insinuation. Taken with the simultaneously expressed nonsense flowing from his fellow democrats at the time (Durbin as you pointed out earlier), it was a form of piling on - on soldiers who cannot fight back or present their own case to counteract the accusations of misdeeds.

If it was just another gaff, he hasn't said so.

Kerry is one of this country's leaders. He MUST differentiate between insinuating that the actions of our troops are immoral and wrong AND criticizing the man sitting in the office he very much wants to occupy himself.

He failed to do this in this case.

Notice I am not criticizing his "I voted for the war before I voted against funding the war" nonsense drivel - now, there's a gaff for you. Funny too. I really don't mind such things - they are valuable indications of the true state of the confused C minus mind lurking inside that enormous skull.

More wasted paragraphs about the man with the worst attendance record in the history of the Senate. An utter waste of two normally politically astute minds!

I seem to remember the quote coming from a larger question of

1) the troops having to inflame the population, which is against long term goals to win hearts and minds

and

2) the inability of the administration to train native populations in police work and military capabilities.


________________________________
Both of which are inadequate, still.

[tripleblack]

I think that's pretty much correct - setting-wise.

Kerry needs to focus on the ball. Just as when Bush wanders off on non-prepared territory, Kerry's stupid bias creeps in when he loses track, and he reverts to type.

I always imagine the two of them graduating from Yale.

Just goes to prove you don't have to graduate in the top 60% to amount to something.

Of course the list of what they DID have to do is rather nauseating, so lets forego that.

Another wasted topic. Might have been germane in 2004 - just raking over dead ashes in 2006.

Originally Posted by kscoyote

I seem to remember the quote coming from a larger question of

1) the troops having to inflame the population, which is against long term goals to win hearts and minds

and

2) the inability of the administration to train native populations in police work and military capabilities.


________________________________
Both of which are inadequate, still.

[WITELITENIN]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

Sigh.

Kerry was being critical of troops doing their jobs - and yes, that job ocassionally involves kicking down doors (knocking down walls, blowing up buildings, etc.). Kerry was being critical in the interview of my troops (I always take them under my wing, regardless of the ocasison), and I took umbrage at his insinuation. Taken with the simultaneously expressed nonsense flowing from his fellow democrats at the time (Durbin as you pointed out earlier), it was a form of piling on - on soldiers who cannot fight back or present their own case to counteract the accusations of misdeeds.

If it was just another gaff, he hasn't said so.

Kerry is one of this country's leaders. He MUST differentiate between insinuating that the actions of our troops are immoral and wrong AND criticizing the man sitting in the office he very much wants to occupy himself.

He failed to do this in this case.

Notice I am not criticizing his "I voted for the war before I voted against funding the war" nonsense drivel - now, there's a gaff for you. Funny too. I really don't mind such things - they are valuable indications of the true state of the confused C minus mind lurking inside that enormous skull.

More wasted paragraphs about the man with the worst attendance record in the history of the Senate. An utter waste of two normally politically astute minds!

I still think this is a wasted point. We are arguing whether or not we think the guy is a douche. Obviously, there is only one person here who thinks he is not, and neither side is budging. Oh well....I guess I'll join in too:

Kerry POO-POO!!!

[Babii C]

Originally Posted by WITELITENIN

...and neither side is budging. Oh well....I guess I'll join in too:

Kerry POO-POO!!!

Lol I like your stand, even though i have no clue who it is you guys are 'conversing' about.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

I think that's pretty much correct - setting-wise.

Kerry needs to focus on the ball. Just as when Bush wanders off on non-prepared territory, Kerry's stupid bias creeps in when he loses track, and he reverts to type.

I always imagine the two of them graduating from Yale.

Just goes to prove you don't have to graduate in the top 60% to amount to something.

Of course the list of what they DID have to do is rather nauseating, so lets forego that.

Another wasted topic. Might have been germane in 2004 - just raking over dead ashes in 2006.

The Ivy League schools are easier to graduate from. When I went to UC Berekeley, there were several people in my program who went to Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. They didn't know how to do research, and expected the professors to hand them reading lists, and the librarians to find them information.

They couldn't do research to save their lives.

The Ivy Leagues exist for the networking of scions of the elite's loins. That's about it.

[kscoyote]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2333360.php

Editorial
Time for Rumsfeld to go

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld —

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.” That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

[kscoyote]

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2333360.php

[kscoyote]

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money. And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand. Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads. These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.p...25-2333360.php

[kscoyote]

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...25-2333360.php

[kscoyote]

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html

November 20, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative

GOP Must Go

Next week Americans will vote for candidates who have spent much of their campaigns addressing state and local issues. But no future historian will linger over the ideas put forth for improving schools or directing funds to highway projects.

The meaning of this election will be interpreted in one of two ways: the American people endorsed the Bush presidency or they did what they could to repudiate it. Such an interpretation will be simplistic, even unfairly so. Nevertheless, the fact that will matter is the raw number of Republicans and Democrats elected to the House and Senate.

It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen—in America and the world at large—as a decisive “No” vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush’s failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration’s endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.

As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.

[Babii C]

wow KS I think you jsut posted alot..