"When will the 3rd Infantry come home? Not in August as expected. Not in September as promised. For Christmas? Well, we can't say. Army spokesman Richard Olsen at Ft. Stewart described it in this oblique way: 'The time frame has gone away, and there is no time frame.'"
This is the third time in recent weeks that I've read of angry and worried military families. Newsday did a nice bit on it a few weeks ago, and the Times did as well, and here it is in the Augusta Chronicle. I can't find the other two articles, but apparently the wives of about 800 soldiers freaked out on a colonel at a base in Georgia to the extent that the poor sap had to be escorted from the briefing room.
So Americans are getting picked off at about 1 or 2 per day in Iraq. Well, this patriotic American says "so what?" There are a LOT of Americans; we're a big country. The administration makes a lot of the fact that Iraq is a big country, "the size of California," but America is even bigger than THAT! America is a country that is so big, California only represents a portionof the country, and not even the biggest (in the lower 48, that distinction goes to Texas, although Alaska is the largest land mass). If we all get together and fuck like bunnies, we can climb out of this hole. Instead of "Bring 'em on," Mr. Bush will be able to use a tried and true corporate motto: "Kill all you want, we'll make more!"
Now to be fair to the poor sap in Georgia who got yelled, there is a line of thinking coming out that the military themselves were duped. You keep hearing soldiers saying things like "we were sent to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, and we're not trained to be peacekeepers; when can I come home," suggesting that people weren't exactly adequately informed. Of course, with no postwar plan in place, how could they have been?
Andf by the way, speaking of lies, does ANYONE read Max Boot's idiotic rantings in the LA Times without barfing?
Let's go over some of Max's "points" (I can't promise you how far we'll get, because one gets tired of reading such claptrap).
"I'm outraged. I can't believe the president would try to distract attention from his domestic problems by attacking foreign regimes based on suspect intelligence. He should be impeached!
Actually he already was. I'm referring of course to Bill Clinton, who in 1998 bombed terrorist bases in Afghanistan, a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and various sites in Iraq in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky mess.
The evidence that the Sudanese plant was actually making nerve gas for Osama bin Laden — as Clinton claimed — was subsequently discredited. Yet Democrats rushed to his defense. "We believe the president acted correctly and responsibly," House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said in a joint statement."
OK... first of all, I think the events of September 11 have vindicated Mr. Clinton's attack on Osama bin Laden. And let us also NOT forget Republican naysayers on Kosovo, Bosnia, and the rest of the Balkan affair.
Second of all, Mr. Clinton's lies about Ms. Lewinsky hurt only his family and Ms. Lewinsky (for which he was impeached although not convicted). Mr. Bush's lies have already killed upwards of 100 US Troops and injured over 1000 more. plus, Mr. Bush was warned by the Clinton administration about bin Laden and did nothing, so that's 3,000 more Americans killed under Mr. Bush's watch.
But it's quite a leap to go from faulty information to charges that the president deliberately lied.
Yes Maxy, but Joseph Wilson told Mr. Cheney the evidence was bogus. And Mr. Tenet did the same, despite his bizarre falling on his sword for an illegitamte president who didn't even appoint him. And Rand Beers says Mr. Bush is full of shit. Does Mr. Bush's cabinet not share any information with him? or is Mr. Bush asleep at the wheel? Either way, Mr. Boot, the evidence is pretty damning.
Those 16 words were carefully hedged. Bush didn't claim that Hussein tried to get uranium in Africa; he claimed that the British government said he had. Which is perfectly true.
I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is. Oh wait, no one accepted that line from Clinton; why do you accept it from Mr. Bush? Oh, that's right, I remember now: it's because you live up to your last name. You Mr. Boot, are a toadying, bootlicking, partisan hack scumbag.
What about the Democrats? Have they concluded that the war was all a big mistake and we should hand Iraq back to Hussein? I think not. In other words, they want to launch ad hominem attacks on the president while basically supporting his policies. Isn't that what they accused Republicans of doing in the 1990s?
Sigh... Mr. Boot, the alternative would be to let Iraq descend even further into a morass. Which means more terrorism and instability. Holding one's nose and dealing with reality is not the same as "supporting" the policies. Max, you ignorant slut.
OK, enough of this tendentious business. Max Boot sucks.
Concentration camps in Baghdad? Some Canadia site says so. I don't doubt it.
This is the third time in recent weeks that I've read of angry and worried military families. Newsday did a nice bit on it a few weeks ago, and the Times did as well, and here it is in the Augusta Chronicle. I can't find the other two articles, but apparently the wives of about 800 soldiers freaked out on a colonel at a base in Georgia to the extent that the poor sap had to be escorted from the briefing room.
So Americans are getting picked off at about 1 or 2 per day in Iraq. Well, this patriotic American says "so what?" There are a LOT of Americans; we're a big country. The administration makes a lot of the fact that Iraq is a big country, "the size of California," but America is even bigger than THAT! America is a country that is so big, California only represents a portionof the country, and not even the biggest (in the lower 48, that distinction goes to Texas, although Alaska is the largest land mass). If we all get together and fuck like bunnies, we can climb out of this hole. Instead of "Bring 'em on," Mr. Bush will be able to use a tried and true corporate motto: "Kill all you want, we'll make more!"
Now to be fair to the poor sap in Georgia who got yelled, there is a line of thinking coming out that the military themselves were duped. You keep hearing soldiers saying things like "we were sent to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, and we're not trained to be peacekeepers; when can I come home," suggesting that people weren't exactly adequately informed. Of course, with no postwar plan in place, how could they have been?
Andf by the way, speaking of lies, does ANYONE read Max Boot's idiotic rantings in the LA Times without barfing?
Let's go over some of Max's "points" (I can't promise you how far we'll get, because one gets tired of reading such claptrap).
"I'm outraged. I can't believe the president would try to distract attention from his domestic problems by attacking foreign regimes based on suspect intelligence. He should be impeached!
Actually he already was. I'm referring of course to Bill Clinton, who in 1998 bombed terrorist bases in Afghanistan, a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and various sites in Iraq in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky mess.
The evidence that the Sudanese plant was actually making nerve gas for Osama bin Laden — as Clinton claimed — was subsequently discredited. Yet Democrats rushed to his defense. "We believe the president acted correctly and responsibly," House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said in a joint statement."
OK... first of all, I think the events of September 11 have vindicated Mr. Clinton's attack on Osama bin Laden. And let us also NOT forget Republican naysayers on Kosovo, Bosnia, and the rest of the Balkan affair.
Second of all, Mr. Clinton's lies about Ms. Lewinsky hurt only his family and Ms. Lewinsky (for which he was impeached although not convicted). Mr. Bush's lies have already killed upwards of 100 US Troops and injured over 1000 more. plus, Mr. Bush was warned by the Clinton administration about bin Laden and did nothing, so that's 3,000 more Americans killed under Mr. Bush's watch.
But it's quite a leap to go from faulty information to charges that the president deliberately lied.
Yes Maxy, but Joseph Wilson told Mr. Cheney the evidence was bogus. And Mr. Tenet did the same, despite his bizarre falling on his sword for an illegitamte president who didn't even appoint him. And Rand Beers says Mr. Bush is full of shit. Does Mr. Bush's cabinet not share any information with him? or is Mr. Bush asleep at the wheel? Either way, Mr. Boot, the evidence is pretty damning.
Those 16 words were carefully hedged. Bush didn't claim that Hussein tried to get uranium in Africa; he claimed that the British government said he had. Which is perfectly true.
I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is. Oh wait, no one accepted that line from Clinton; why do you accept it from Mr. Bush? Oh, that's right, I remember now: it's because you live up to your last name. You Mr. Boot, are a toadying, bootlicking, partisan hack scumbag.
What about the Democrats? Have they concluded that the war was all a big mistake and we should hand Iraq back to Hussein? I think not. In other words, they want to launch ad hominem attacks on the president while basically supporting his policies. Isn't that what they accused Republicans of doing in the 1990s?
Sigh... Mr. Boot, the alternative would be to let Iraq descend even further into a morass. Which means more terrorism and instability. Holding one's nose and dealing with reality is not the same as "supporting" the policies. Max, you ignorant slut.
OK, enough of this tendentious business. Max Boot sucks.
Concentration camps in Baghdad? Some Canadia site says so. I don't doubt it.
<< Home