Oh I absolutely agree. I don't think the GOP is fundamentally any different from the Dems. It just happened to be who was in power and who wasn't. If the roles were reversed but the character of the individuals involved were the same (scandal-hit GOP President, power-hungry Dem leaders of Congress, etc), it would have played out the same way. (I also feel this way about the Iraq war - if a Dem President had gotten us into it, Dems would be defending it and Republicans would be all about getting out ASAP). The media today certainly makes things so much worse. Just think how different it would be if the primary source of news was about 30 minutes on the nightly evening news and a basic CNN. No bloggers, no daily conference calls by the campaigns, etc. We'd never have heard of Mark Penn, Karl Rove, David Axelrod, etc.
You SEVERELY overestimate the Democrats They are as weak willed and spineless as they come Them controling Congress means NOTHING! As proven time and again with the current President Rocket River
LOL, I agree with your generalization, but not on Iraq this time. Even if he wanted to, there is NO WAY McCain could "stay the course" on Iraq over the frothing opposition of congressional Dems and the American public. What's happening now is simply unsustainable. This concept is known as the "breaking point". Our military has one.
This is too true. I don't know why anyone runs. It is a nightmare. Everyone in the press knew Jack Kennedy was boinking chicks left and right, but it was considered private and they didn't report it. Ike had a mistress during WWII. It was known to some in the press and they kept quiet. Heck, they probably thought he deserved the relaxation. Different times. Look how Watergate played out. I believed it when I first heard about it, but a lot of people didn't. Maybe because they didn't want to. Mostly because it just seemed so incredible. It could be why we've been getting such a limited selection to choose from. Impeach Bush.
I saw an ad via The Washington Post about McCain and Iraq, thumbs, and I really don't see the comparison to the North Carolina ad by the NC GOP. I'm not a fan of MoveOn.org because they frequently can be a "loose cannon" and shoot my party in the foot, but unless there is another ad I haven't seen, I don't see the problem. They may have sharper arrows in their quiver and we'll probably see them, but I haven't seen them yet. Impeach Bush.
Major, I don't think the Dem Congress has been as ruthless in marginalizing the Gop as the Tom Delay Congress was. I don't think Pelosi and Reid are quite as divisive. Of course, they don't have that type of majority. I do agree that the Clinton Impeachment has greatly embittered things. Pgabriel, the 24 hr per day media and the inability to get away with remarks like Obama's "bitter" comments in a small friendly crowd have enabled this politics of personal destruction to escalate as you say.
"My bottom line is that the Army is unraveling, and if we don’t expend significant national energy to reverse that trend, sometime in the next two years we will break the Army just like we did during Vietnam."- Barry McCaffrey "The active Army is about broken" - Colin Powell "This is an army that is not built to sustain a long war - John Abazid "Is the Army broken? Yeah, I think so. We're on the brink. We are in a situation where we are grossly overdeployed, and it is unlike any other period in the 229-year history of the Army. We have never conducted a sustained combat operation with a volunteer force, with a force that we have to compete in the job market to hire every year. Every other force that we've ever done this with, going back to the Vietnam period to something comparable, has been a draftee conscript force." - Thomas White The head of the Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force." etc..ad nauseum,....there's a lot more than that. I suppose you can argue that all these generals (with the exception of the last one) were recently retired when they said this .... but is that the tecnicality you want to hang your hat on? And . . . you DO know how they are making recruiting goals, right?
well you did say "the military" said it. so I don't think its a technicality but i still don't see how the military will be broken if they continue with <150K troop levels. They are meeting them by paying more and accepting more waivers for GED, arrests, etc. This is a bad thing?
I would add to what Sam posted (good post, Sam), which is that the Reserve and National Guard are having their equipment strip-mined. They deploy to Iraq, originally with their Humvees, tanks and the like, and what survives the deployment tends to stay in theatre. The equipment can't be replaced, due to budget considerations, or hasn't been replaced quickly enough, for that reason or others. The units go home, are redeployed, and go back with less equipment. So the units that just left tend to leave their stuff for the replacements that come up "short." After a few deployments, it grows into a serious problem. Impeach Bush.
sorry but this weak sauce gets the That makes you look disingenous, to put it mildly - and by the way Abazaid, CENTCOM commander until 2007, made that statement while giving sworn testimony before congress as CENTCOM commander. Yes. Unless you are saying that having a dumber, more criminal army is a good thing? Pretty much anybody associated with the military would tell you otherwise
its possible they are not dumb but just messed up. After the Army (assuming they are not dead) they have a better shot at a real job. not to mention getting a nice fat bonus for joining. I think they are underpaid so paying them more is a good idea. i don't see how it makes me look "disingenous" I think the rolls eyes is just cause you could not back up your one liner hit to my question And how am I any less sincere if I asked "WTF the military said they are at the breaking point?" and then think less of hearing this news when I find out its just retired generals. seriously I think you are the only person I have ever seen that knows how to run a computer AND spells worse than me
Uhhhh....right. Well, recruits with higher aptitude scores and without criminal backgrounds have much better service records than those that don't, so once again you are butting up against reality and common sense. A one-liner? You said who said the army was broken - I posted testimony from two active generals at the time(Head of CENTCOM and head of the Army Reserves) and three of the more senior generals in recent memory stating such (including a former JCS chair and a former Sec of the Army)....and that was just the absolute tip of the iceberg. I could post a HELL of a lot more (Yingling etc) which would validate this. your response is to say "well Colin POwell was not on ACTIVE duty when he said that, so obviously his opinion is wrong" Advice: Quit while you're ahead . . . or only partially disemboweled.
My friend is USMC reserve and for years he had all crappy equipment but the week before Iraq he got all new rifles, kevlar, cammies, everything (this is like 2005). I think vehicles are inventoried on a division level so I don;t really see how your senario would play out.
its good for the guys who get in and get more money. I guess I am just to socialist in this view of vets. yeah the one liner, I responded thinking they may have been asking for more funding or something I never said he is retired thus wrong, its just a BIT different than "the military" I wasn't really trying to "win" i guess thats my problem here. I come in without an agenda (except on gun control where I fully admit my bias)
I disagree with many of Obama's positions to be honest. I think the capital gains should be held the same and if increased only slightly. While he stumbled in the debate when challenged with the notion that lowering the capital gains tax increases revenue and vice versa - the reason for that is so obvious i can't believe the question is asked. (If you are going to raise capital gain tax, everyone will realize theire gains before the tax increase takes effect thus revenues spike right before the increase and drop just after so you have to look at the long term trend and not just the impact right after the tax increase/decrease goes into effect). But I disagree with Obama's position in Iraq. I think we have to stay there and are commited until the country stabalizes. We have to swallow our medicine and finish what we started. Perhaps next time the American people will think twice about supporting destroying another country's military and gov't and leaving a massive vaccum. But to leave that country to chaos before it's ready would be a big mistake. But I support Obama because I am impressed with his approach. I think he's a man who will adjust to realities and new information, and will admit he is wrong and do the right thing. He favored a holiday from the gas tax in Illinois, championed, and when it flopped, he switched positions and ended the holiday. That takes strength of character to do. That's real leadership. Hillary is a panderer. I will always remember how she put on a Yankee hat on and claimed she was always a Yankees fan when that was such an obvious lie. It really showed her true stripes and we see her do it again and again. She will do whatever it takes to be popular and benefit herself. I don't think she really cares about the poor or those blue colared workers. As soon as she is president, good lucky finding her drinking shots with the gentry. And you know what, people are bitter. I AM bitter. I'm bitter at the way the unity after 9/11 was squandered. I'm bitter at the control lobbyists have - that their money counts more then my vote. So why McCain over Hillary - because McCain has character. Because he wants to play fair. He has integrity and while he is a republican and I disagree on many of his views, I can also see a man who truly wants to make the country better and has the intelligence, leadership, experience, and heart to do it. The man was a POW for heaven's sake. That's character. Hillary? She will increase my taxes, she will spend that money on health care and serving her contributers who supported her. I live in New York, and she was a terrible senator for NY in my opinion. She introduced mostly bills to name building or honor people. She did get two 9/11 bills introduced that passed - one to extend unemployment benefits and the other to invest in a few city projects. Other than that there was one about the national forest in puerto rico, and one on landmines. All of her other significant legislative bills she introduced did not pass, nor were they even co-sponsored. She did very little in her tenure as a senator - it's clear it was just a stepping stone to get to the presidency - and the way she got to be a new york senator was kinda of strange - she's not a new yorker, she came up here a few months to get her residency and eligibility to run. It just smacks of a pure power play. Before being a senator - she wasn't even in politics except being first lady. Now, that's who we'd want as commander in cheif? Obama actually has a longer track record than hillary, and the man took risks introducing bills against lead paint that pissed off the toy industry while clinton introduced very safe bills (like cleaning up lead paint) or about helping kids that never got passed. Obama? 570 bills introduced or co-sponsored in TWO years. 15 of them became law. They covered foreign policy, public health, national security, armed services, and ethics / accountability. He also introduced 50 amendments to legislation of which 16 were accepted. In other words, he smashes Hillary to pieces. I mean, she was a do-nothing senator and I think she would jsut be a do-nothing president. Her record doesn't point toward someone who will enact real legislation, but just populist fluff like the gas tax holiday which sounds nice but doesn't do squat. So to me, it's an obvious choice. Who would you appoint as CEO as your company - someone who gets things done that matters (Obama and MCCain do this) or someone who is a great PR person and plays a good game but won't make a real difference based on their previous track record? Forget about party affiliation, I'll take McCain over Clinton any day any week and hour. I'm hope she loses her senate seat too. Why can't she represent Arkansas? If she's so blue collared why did she come to NY to run? She came because they wanted a high profile candidate to go against Guiliani as the only hope to beat him. Lucky for her Rudy self-destructed of course. But she didn't know squate about politics. Obama spent 8 years as a state senator. That's really political experience. So it's clear to me. I really don't like Hillary. I'd vote for her over Bush, but frankly, I was planing on voting on McCain over Hillary before Iowa. While my heart is probably a bit left of center, it's more pragmatic to vote Republican for me. So there you have it. Obama, McCain, and lastly Hillary. I think Hillary would be an improvement over Bush, but not over her husband, and not over Bush Sr.
