Here's the transcript:
The hell they did.
177 Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution*.
Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.
President Bush hears… what he wants.
Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."
Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.
And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind-reader.
"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we're attacked again."
The President doesn't just hear what he wants. He hears things, that only he can hear.
It defies belief that this President and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.
Yet they do.
It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any President of this nation.
Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders; Democrats; the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies — of treason.
But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.
Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, quote, "we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."
Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.
If your commitment to "put aside differences and work together" is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they've said, then the questions your critics need to be asking, are no longer about your policies.
They are, instead — solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.
No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to "wait until we're attacked again."
No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate, has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday… nor whatever is next.
You have dishonored your party, sir — you have dishonored your supporters — you have dishonored yourself.
But tonight the stark question we must face is - why?
Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats, now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?
Why have you chosen to go down in history as the President who made things up?
In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity, to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.
If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.
We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size, and party.
We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands.
But the premise of a President who comes across as a compulsive liar — is nothing less than terrifying.
A President who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward's most recent account — evidently has never listened.
A President who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans, that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy.
A President who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack. Attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both — it is now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy is.
But if we know one thing for certain about Mr. Bush, it is this:
This President — in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month — has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies are — they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak, called the Constitution of the United States of America.
How often do we find priceless truth in the unlikeliest of places?
I tonight quote, not Jefferson nor Voltaire — but "Cigar Aficionado Magazine."
On September 11th, 2003, the editor of that publication interviewed General Tommy Franks — at that point, just retired from his post as Commander-In-Chief of U.S. Central Command — of Cent-Com.
And amid his quaint defenses of the-then nagging absence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or the continuing freedom of Osama Bin Laden, General Franks said some of the most profound words of this generation.
He spoke of "the worst thing that can happen" to this country:
First, quoting, a "massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western World — it may be in the United States of America."
Then, the general continued, "the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years, in this grand experiment that we call democracy."
It was this super-patriotic warrior's fear that we would lose that most cherished liberty, because of another attack, one — again quoting General Franks — "that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution."
And here we are, the fabric of our Constitution being unraveled anyway.
Habeus Corpus neutered; the rights of self-defense now as malleable and impermanent as clay; a President stifling all critics by every means available and when he runs out of those, by simply lying about what they said or felt.
And all this, even without the dreaded attack.
General Franks, like all of us, loves this country, and believes not just in its values, but in its continuity. He has been trained to look for threats to that continuity from without.
He has, perhaps been as naive as the rest of us, in failing to keep close enough vigil on the threats to that continuity, from within:
Secretary of State Rice first cannot remember urgent cautionary meetings with counter-terrorism officials before 9/11.
Then within hours of this lie, her spokesman confirms the meetings in question.
Then she dismisses those meetings as nothing new — yet insists she wanted the same cautions expressed to Secretaries Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.
Mr. Rumsfeld, meantime, has been unable to accept the most logical and simple influence, of the most noble and neutral of advisers. He and his employer insist they rely on the 'generals in the field.'
But dozens of those generals have now come forward to say how their words, their experiences, have been ignored.
And, of course, inherent in the Pentagon's war-making functions, is the regulation of Presidential war-lust. Enacting that regulation should include everything up to, symbolically wrestling the Chief Executive to the floor.
Yet — and it is Pentagon transcripts that now tell us this — evidently Mr. Rumsfeld's strongest check on Mr. Bush's ambitions, was to get somebody to excise the phrase "Mission Accomplished" out of the infamous Air Force Carrier speech of May 1st, 2003 - even while the same empty words hung on a banner over the President's shoulder.
And the Vice President is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party's leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public position, are made out of sand.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
But he still says so.
There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.
But he still says so.
And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance and spreads — around him and before him — darkness… like some contagion of fear.
They are never wrong, and they never regret. Admirable in a French torch singer. Cataclysmic in an American leader.
Thus the sickening attempt to blame the Foley Scandal on the negligence of others or "The Clinton Era" — even though the Foley Scandal began before the Lewinsky Scandal.
Thus last month's enraged attacks on this Administration's predecessors, about Osama Bin Laden — a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.
Thus the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom — the Constitution — a triumph for Al-Qaeda, for which the terrorists could not hope to achieve with a hundred 9/11's.
And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.
It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you re-direct at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.
It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, sir.
It is your own — before 9/11 - (and you alone know this), perhaps afterwards.
Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.
It is not our freedom, nor our country — your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.
You want to preserve a political party's power. And obviously you'll sell this country out, to do it.
These are lies about the Democrats piled atop lies about Iraq which were piled atop lies about your preparations for Al-Qaeda.
To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries.
As crushing. As immovable.
They are not.
If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.
But if you stop — if you stop fabricating quotes, and building straw-men, and inspiring those around you to do the same — you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.
Please, sir, do not throw this country's principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.
—
Good night, and good luck.


Comments: 78
Even the "177 Democrats" sounds like the kind of number that Joe McCarthy pulled out of the air!
Please, at least get the quote right. This was so egregiously misquoted, I have to help you out here :
"The Senate's 65 to 34 vote marked a victory for Bush and fellow Republicans a month before the Nov. 7 elections as their party tries to make anti-terrorism a signature campaign issue. Underscoring that strategy, the House last night voted 232 to 191 to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, with GOP leaders hoping to add it to their list of accomplishments even though it has no chance of Senate passage before this weekend's scheduled adjournment. On the final wiretapping vote, 18 Democrats joined 214 Republicans to win passage. Thirteen Republicans, 177 Democrats and one independent voted nay."
This is what the President was talking about. And it was easy to get at least one name of a Democrat who voted against this. Its all on the Congressional Record.............there were 177 of them, just like the President said.
Don't be lame just to try to smear the President. Get your quotes straight and don't manipulate things just to get the Left Wing riled up.
Oh, and did you see that mustard stain on Olbermann's shirt last night? I thought I was going to die laughing. His producer should be fired for allowing him to go on the air looking like that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824_pf.html
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 1,979,000
FNC GRETA 1,475,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,436,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,135,000
CNN KING 1,107,000
FNC HUME 1,070,000
CNN DOBBS 821,000
CNN COOPER 742,000
CNN BLITZER 716,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 617,000
CNNHN GRACE 556,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 550,000 (dead last as usual)
Keith is great, hope he's able to keep up the good work. In the current political
climate I wonder how long it well take the swift boat bastard's or some group like them to start attacking him.
As to your rant that people should not speak out against the policies of their government because they never served in war, or because such actions of a free people my some how comfort our enemies is ridiculous. Not to mention in world war II .if all the people that where not in uniform didn't do their jobs just like today, our soldiers would have been throwing rocks at our enemies. Who do think supplies and pays for the military Bush and his cronies, or the Wizard of OZ, Surprise it's the people. So think about that before you start saying sit-down and shut up to anyone.
Freedom is not a right , it is a privilege that must be earned and protected.
Your right it is a privilege. Not to be lost in blind obedience or apathetic silence
"My country right or wrong, Nay when wrong make it right.".
Go Sean-Paul Kelley
Go Keith Oberman
I have developed a brand new respect for you both!
(Not that it was lacking before, it's just a little shinier now)
What would you like us to compromise first? Would you like us to say that 1/2 of what Mark Foley (REPUBLICAN) did, or what Hastert (REPUBLICAN) did, or what Rove does (REPUBLICAN) or what the President does with illegal wiretapping and a brutal, disgusting occupation of Iraq is doing is what "slightly on the other side of wrong, wrong wrong"?
Note to Don: Did it ever occur to you that people might watch O'Reilly, et. al. because of the comedic value?
The Progressives would start by telling the truth. The tipping point has been reached you can get in the life boats or go down with this titanic abuse of power and rape of our constitution. Read George Orwells 1984 and tell me he did not forsee this future. Peace!
Nobody has a monopoly on truth - especially in politics. I do thank Keith for making me laugh with his rants... that face he makes before he delivers his last line is the best.
Clearly most people do know that George W. Bush is a liar.
His most recent lie is that the US will build a 700 mile fence on the Mexico and United States border, when there is absolutely no funding at all to do that.
I did not mean that every one should be in the military, I understand this more than you know. You see I am a disabled veteran who served in the Army of the Vietnam era. I was a volunteer in an age when the popular "rant" then was "Hell no, we won't go " and such. I served proudly with men and women in an organization (the Military) that was flawed political incompetance and a total disregard for reality. Nuff said. There were draftees in units, that I will say should have never been inducted from personal experience. I know that we as a people should question our leaders and forcefully if needed. Does anyone remember President Johnson, President Nixon and others. I do. I also, remember coming home after two years "accross the pond" and having some mindless, emotional "flower child" with a peace sign spit in my face and call me a"F--king Baby burner"! I remember Kent State, the Democratic convention, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and his brother John. I remember bodies being sent home in body bags by the dozen, some with my friends in them. I remeber a time of chaos and hell in our own back yard, and here we are again chewing each other up. Pointling fingers and blaming each other will never be an answer without having a solution people say that the Republicans have had 8 years and so they have, if you are mad then VOTE. Clinton had 8 years and people VOTED! It is your choice, do something besides bitch and moan. Here is a question you should ask all political leaders: "If you as congressmember/senator/govenor/president, etc. have to make a decision which is good for the People, but bad for your Political Party, which way will you dicide?? Interesting question, more importantly is the ANSWER. Ask it and listen.
I was refuting the transcipt. Olbermann's absurd rant was full of factual errors - that just proves what we already knew about him : he's a Left Wing propagandist, unaware or uncaring that he knows the truth, but willfully chooses to distort it.
And I'm still laughing about the mustard stain on his shirt. He can't deliver a weak, distorted message like that looking like he shoved a hot dog down at the 30-second break. LOL
First thank you for your service and I'm sorry that you had to pay such a high price for doing what at the time must have seemed like the right thing. I remember all the things you reflected on I lived on the south side of Chicago in 1968 I was 14 at the time. I can remember watching the skies glow orange from the back porch of our house as the ghetto of Woodlawn
burned. Yes your right those were bad times in the history of this country and the way the soldiers and veterans of Vietnam era were treated was wrong. The American people don't blame the soldiers for the wars now days they blame those in power. Which is the way it should be. As bad as it was then politically as well as socially I think the country as whole came out stronger and smarter. I doubt we will see the turmoil of the sixties or anything approaching it for a very long time. But if such conflict is required to improve the lives of the people in this country make it better, Because those in power will not compromise than so be it. As to your question "If you as congressmember/senator/govenor/president, etc. have to make a decision which is good for the People, but bad for your Political Party, which way will you dicide?? to political candidates. I have learned from past experience that what they tell you to start with and what they do are very different.
Cable screwed up and all I have for MSNBC is the picture, and a fuzzy one at that. Thanks for posting the transcript. All I have to say otherwise, is go big O.
You might want to check your stats - Olbermann gets creamed by 3 news shows in his time slot.
The worst thing in the world that could happen would be for AirAmerica to close up shop - even though I hear that's imminent now.
The Left Wing message is so filled with hate and intolerance, that I'd love for them to howl at the moon as long as they have air in their lungs.
Meanwhile, I'll be snickering in the background.
On the same note, I love the fact that Pelosi now touts her 'first 100 hours as majority', and I just Kerry on Bill Maher tonight. Kerry basically said that if he ran for president he would say whatever he need to say just to get elected.... basically saying he would dumb down his message and take the low road. They just don't get it, man. It's fun to watch.
The only thing you are forgetting is that it was just that hate and ranting that got your guy where he is. If it hadn't been for Rush, and a few others, spitting hate, getting their facts wrong on purpose, etc., in the early years, your political machine never would have caught on, and Faux is the rant that keeps it running.
For a very short time I was a member of Alternet and Daily Kos... those do NOT like dissenting view - I was kicked off within two days. I prefer sites like these where we can go toe to toe. I like balance.
Did you see Olbermann's diatribe on "Mr. President, why is this hole here?" or something like that. I almost burst a lung I was laughing so hard. Keith really laced up his colostomy bag that night.
So many horrible distortions of the truth, so many strange leaps of faith, and so much pure BS. And the faces he makes - I just love how he puts on that look of indignance when he exhorts the Lemmings on the Left.
No, he should always be on the air, just to point to someone who has crossed way over the line.
My guy? Who are you referring to?
Although Fox is one of the many news shows I watch, I do notice one thing they do that I've only rarely seen other newscasts do : when they offer an opinion or diatribe from one side of the political spectrum, they offer an opposing view from a bonafide member of the other side.
I don't think I ever saw that on ABC or CBS. Its also rare on MSNBC. I've noticed that the BBC would never dream of such a thing - its unthinkable....lol. CNN is the one news show that recently took a hint. They saw that it was working on Fox, so within the last couple of months, they started doing it. And what happened when they made an effort to be more unbiased? Their ratings went up. Doy!
Bret,
Not Ready For Prime Time always has a dissenting view, has since he started. And if you're talking about the little bow tied guy on Fox, his purpose there is to be mocked, not present a serious dissenting view. They even picked the most nerdy little geek milquetoast guy they could find, to further make it look bad.
Your guy Bush. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.
You think Rush Limbaugh is my guy? I haven't heard his show in at least 3 years - so sorry, he's not my guy.
Like I told you before, I watch about 5 news shows and read 4 newspapers. I get a smorgasbord of information.
You :
Bret, Not Ready For Prime Time always has a dissenting view, has since he started. And if you're talking about the little bow tied guy on Fox, his purpose there is to be mocked, not present a serious dissenting view. They even picked the most nerdy little geek milquetoast guy they could find, to further make it look bad.
Me :
I wasn't talking about just one show – I'm assuming you're talking about the Hannity & Colmes show (Alan Colmes must be the bow-tied geek you're talking about).
If you watched the entire afternoon lineup (which, unfortunately, I don't have the time to do), you'd see that the entire network – all the shows – have implemented this strategy. If a Right Winger comes on and spouts off, then a Left Winger or Moderate is given equal airtime. Only CNN does this obviously copycat behavior for the ratings – not because they believe in balance.
I want Keith to keep going too...........but for far different reasons.
He is the voice of the Wild-Eyed Left. He makes you all look like tin-foil hat wearing Conspiracy Theory loving nutjobs. And all of us Moderates and Conservatives want Keith up on stage with a bright white spotlight on every one of his hateful ranting words. He de-legitimizes you with every hilarious diatribe.
Go Keith go! LMAO!
Rush and others sounded just as ridiculous as Oberman, actually more so, when they started, and my point was that all the ranting not withstanding, as Bush has proved many times, just get the message out there, over and over, lies or not, people will start believing it. Rush put it out there, and your whole neocon movement got off the ground. Oberman might do the same for us, so you might be careful what you wish for.......my only point on that. LOL
link to felon and gang member, etc. recruitment:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL
nice of you to turn me on to this webpage way back when.
I quote Liberal newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle just so you Liberals will not question my sourcing – since your own people are reporting on it. You can't do the same to me unless you were quoting a Conservative source. Well, you can, but the effect is not the same.
A hit piece by the SF Chronicle? Not surprising. And with help from our own hometown Socialist news-rag, the Sun-Times of Chicago. You couldn't have done worse on the sourcing, if I'd told you where NOT to go. LOL
"Separately, the Defense Department announced that all other services met or exceeded their goals in July. The Navy and Air Force were at 100 percent, signing 4,043 and 2,130, respectively. The Marine Corps was at 112 percent, signing 3,197 recruits against a goal of under 2,900."
http://www.kfmb.com/printable/?id=59603
I agree with you, the extremists are funny to listen to, but are not to be relied on. Personally, I haven't heard a Rush program in over 3 years.
I have too many other, more believable, less partisan news shows to watch.
Like Olbermann, and Al Franken!
LOL
By now I'm sure you heard about the recruiting elsewhere, since it's made it's way all over, but as usual, facts roll right off your back, especially when you're wrong. I have never listened to Air America, myself, I listen to very little radio, total. I do turn it off if I get around one with Rush talking on it. No patience for the lies. Did you ever find the info on them pulling troops out of Anbar to go to Baghdad?
Go all the way up to the top, to where I address my post to Sean-Paul. The reference to the 177 Democrats that Mr. Bush cited. Olbermann tried to say that Mr. Bush lied about something, when clearly he was referring to these 177 that voted against the bill.
Olbermann looks stupid on that one. He had a few good points when he talked about pure opposition to Mr. Bush as his opinion, but then he goes and says that Mr. Bush lies...............and Olbermann ends up looking like the Left Wing bomb-throwing toadie we all know him to be.
"Liberals - hard on fetuses, soft on terrorists"
So far nothing on RECRUITING gang bangers and drug dealers (unless you believe rumors............which you know I don't), although I've often heard individual stories on those sorts of people somehow sneaking into the military. Nothing new there.
And yes, I heard that thousands of troops from al-Anbar are being redeployed into Baghdad during Ramadan. I'm not so sure of the wisdom of that, but maybe it will be a smart play since they're coupling it with a dawn to dusk curfew of Baghdad. We'll see how that plays out...............but already I heard over the weekend that the violence is down in Baghdad. Not zero, just down.
You know I was kidding when I said they were taking 40 year olds? Well, it's worse than that, they are now taking recruits up to 42 years of age, and I'm not joking. In their own reports, the army is now taking people with tattoos (gang members), and people with morals waivers that include one conviction in their youth, with the bulk of them being misdemeanors, so when they say the bulk of them, I have to take that to mean they ARE recruiting felons, too, obviously. The brackets are mine, but that's what it means. They also are taking candidates that couldn't formerly pass the tests, and have lowered the standard on that, as well. It's getting pretty desperate, obviously. I suspect he's downplaying it some, actually. That doesn't please me, I assure you, but it is accurate. Read this interview with Maj. Gen. Thomas Bostick, head of recruitment:
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGB5G6QHZSE.html
I assume you'll accept the info from this guy, since he is the officer in charge of it. LOL
I can just see it all now - when you lose you'll be claiming another election voting machine Conspiracy..........LOL!
Actually I EXPECT voting machine fraud on a scale we haven't seen before. And as for laughing, do you realize that a statistical analysis of the 2004 election showed a discrepancy between exit polling and count totals that was evidence of election fraud on a scale greater than the discrepancy of the same statistics in the election in the Ukraine that we demanded they recount? If the UN had monitored our election, it would have pronounced it invalid. Laugh all you want, still not my president. Did you read the article yet?
- "We are not bringing anybody in that is unqualified," Bostick said. "Once they're in, the attrition is drastically reduced."
- "So there's a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth," Bostick said, "but we're not going to break the Army by having 2,840 soldiers that did not test well."
- The bulk of the waivers are for misdemeanors and the Army says it will not give passes to those with drug or sex crimes on their records.
From your own article. Still no mention of active recruitment of gang members. They mentioned that some are in the military, but that was well known long ago.
So why did all 50 states and our territories all certify every election?
Aren't they supposed to de-certify at the slightest infraction?
On the voting issue - I think a lot of people stayed home for the primaries, but a lot will turn out for the actual election. I think the prospect of a House Speaker Pelosi during wartime has a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle terrified.
Blackwell, was the election official involved in Ohio, and is a highly partisan Republican.
Pelosi not my favorite either, but I'm not scared of her, she would do as good as anyone else, I think. Going to bed, stayed up too late last night.
Lots of Democrats were Secretaries of State, and they ALL certified the elections, under penalty of perjury and racketeering. I guess that's enough to keep things honest.
You may not have a problem with a Speaker Pelosi, but TONS of others do. Moderate Democrats do not see her as credible, and Republicans just see her as another Left Wing loudmouth. She is great at ranting and screaming, but not good at idea generation or leadership. Her foreign policy experience is a zero.
Pelosi is not my first choice, as I said, but I do think she would report a fellow Congressman that was hitting on pages, so I think she could do as good, or better than what we've got in leadership positions right now, is all I meant. You have this wonderful talent of playing dumb when you know what I'm talking about sometimes, because it suits your argument, but because you claim not to understand......There were numerous election irregularities, but in the two states that were vital to get elected in 2004, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, much more. Swing states, both of them. Also, now we find out that after a lawsuit to allow access to the election database by the Dems, they finally got it, and found changes had been made in 2006 to the database, after the suit was filed, in Alaska. There was one race there originally decided by 56 votes. So things may have been even more widespread than we thought. I know as long as your side keeps winning you could care less, but I think sometime soon, you will be on the other end of this issue. One last note, penalty of perjury and racketeering? We're talking politicians here, when did the law ever get in the way of what Republicans wanted, don't you remember Watergate? I see much less integrity in the Republican party now, than I saw then, have much less faith in Bush, than I did Nixon, at the time, and as for the Congress, their integrity has slid to almost nothing, as we seem to be seeing, week after week.
Also, didn't I read somewhere that as part of the NATO treaties we are committed to keeping a certain troop level in Europe?
Bill Maher this week was hysterically funny and right on point discussing FOley and other issues like the FAILURE IN IRAQ.
I'm sure there were election irregularities, as there always are. However, I always look to see if the election was certified. If it was, that usually means the irregularities were so small as to not have affected the election. If that's done, I put it to rest..............as should anyone of reasonable mind would do.
However, I think if there are any ongoing complaints in the voting system, that should be corrected with a verifiable paper trail. I don't want you to misunderstand me here, Ron. I want transparency. I want the Left Wing to know it was beaten. But I think going way overboard to give them a warm-fuzzy is stupid.
This past week when I spoke to Sgt. Thomas Bilo, a recruiter here in Chicago, he told me that they have never recruited anyone over 40. Never. I'm not saying its never happened, because I've read a few cute stories about a Mom and her son graduating boot camp together..............and other similar stories. But really, how often do you think this happens?
Sgt. Bilo told me what they typically look for : 21-30 year old males, high school (or higher) educations, and medium to high intelligence with some technical skills. Gang members and felons of any kind do not give the Armed Forces the kind of fighting force it desires. Isn't this just common sense?
Ron - the camps that encircle Baghdad are the focus right now. Al-Anbar troops are being pulled in during Ramadan, and coupled with the curfew, maybe they've found a new tactic that might work............we'll see. At least they're trying something new that sounds reasonable, and has a chance at working. My nephew will be pulled in from Al-Qaim to one of the Baghdad camps within the next 3 days. Fortunately, they have one of the best locations, with lots of armored reinforcement - which has proven quite effective at keeping enemy hits down.
As far as NATO commitments are concerned, troop numbers are fairly variable, especially for temporary hot-spot deployments. NATO is a far more equitable organization than say, the U.N......lol.
I just talked to 3 soldiers yesterday online who had been out in West Baghdad, a notoriously hostile area for American troops. These guys told me that the curfew has completely shut the area down on violence. Good news? We'll see.
If Chicago has enough recruits to fill quotas, and has historically, then maybe they don't take them there yet, but they ARE taking them, and my Major General outranks your Sargent, so I know what I believe LOL If what you say about getting more people in there is true, it's very good news, but the curfew has been in effect, and hasn't done much good up till now. The guys in this interview had been being shuffled from neighborhood to neighborhood, and the people loved seeing them because the violence would go down where ever they were, naturally, but they would just go to other neighborhoods, so they'd move these guys and the old neighborhood would go back to what it was, and on, and on, in an endless circle and these guys were taking hits, and getting tired, it was just sad. The guys all tried to sound upbeat, but you could tell, it was knocking their d*** in the dirt. These guys weren't going back to a camp, they were setting up points actually in the neighborhoods, from what I gathered. They'd been there from almost the beginning of all the trouble. They had been fighting Moqtada al Sadars Shiite militia, or whatever that fat little turbin tramp's name is, the day before, and had been hit by Sunnis and jihadists as well in the past week. They are all fighting each other, until they run into Americans, then they fight us. Crazy. All I can say is, if we have troops to spare, why in the hell isn't Bush putting them in?, he's needed them for quite a while now, and knows it. And equipment. I read a report from the military that said that they are using 65% functional vehicles, and still don't have enough to accomplish all planned missions. Whatever 65% functional means. Obviously we don't have a handle on things though, as 100 attacks a day comes out to four an hour. The thing that comes to my mind, though, is what are these guys going to go back to find when they quell this violence in Baghdad, and return to their normal areas. This is exactly what was wrong with Vietnam, we'd go in, sweep an area and clear it, and then go back to base and give it right back to Charlie. Stupid way to fight a war if you want to win. Supposedly there are now 300,000 trained Iraqis, but whenever we commit them, they change sides when faced with fighting their own sects, so that isn't working at all, at least not for the most part. There are exceptions in a few units I guess. I still don't feel we can win this, in the long run. Not unless we're prepared to stay forever, and we aren't. We can't, even if we wanted to.
My guy outranks your guy because I went and actually talked to him to get the skinny on what's really going on. We can talk hypothetical all day long, but when you go and talk to a flesh and blood human, you get the truth.
Chicago, with its extremely liberal background has no problem getting troops. Back in the days of Vietnam, it wasn't that way. But apparently, the incentives, the education, and the job outweigh all the partisan nonsense.
The vehicles, the body armor, the weapons - we have everything up and running. I just chatted with an armored patrol mechanic and he told me we're at 92% efficiency for the city of Baghdad. Don't know where you're getting your info from, but its wrong.
I'll agree with you that getting the Iraqis to fight their own will be tough. But someday they'll be doing it, not us. So they better get some training now.
Ron, we won't be here forever. You do realize that, right?
The Iraqis do. They seem to think we're pulling out at the end of 2006. At least that's what the boys on the ground tell me.
Hypothetically? The man said it. You are Mr. Sunshine aren't you? The Major General in charge of recruiting for the Army says what I said, and you cling to what a Sargent in Chicago says? Did you ever consider, if they're making their goals, no one told them, as it doesn't need to apply to them? Elsewhere they know about it, and are doing it, obviously. I got the 65% figure from a release from the Department of the Army. Also the 13 billion dollars needed for repair of vehicles in Iraq from their figures, and I assume they would know, now wouldn't they? Sheesh! As for getting out by the end of 2006, unless something markedly changes, I just have to say this. Not unless Bush cuts and runs. LOL That's what Bush is saying the dems would do, and they don't even take office, if they win, till January!That's only 2 months away Bret, come on! What are you thinking today? Down through every war, rumors about what was going on, what the status of things were, always circulate through the troops, and they've mostly been wrong. It was that way in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and I doubt it's different now, so depending too much on scuttlebutt, may not be wise in many cases.
I am Mr. Sunshine. Thanks for noticing.
However, I am not a Pollyana during wartime. I hear what's going on and it doesn't make me jump for joy.
13 billion for repairs? Sounds normal, especially during wartime in a foreign country.
I didn't say that we were leaving Iraq at the end of 2006. I said the Iraqis think we're going to do that. Personally, I think we'll start removing massive amounts of troops in late Summer or early Fall 2007.