Comments Posted By Richard Bottoms
Displaying 291 To 300 Of 362 Comments
BUSH VETOES CONGRESSIONAL INVITATION TO AL QAEDA TO SLAUGHTER IRAQIS
BTW, what should really scare you isn't the scale of the next attack.
It's their discipline in NOT having attacked us yet.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 3.05.2007 @ 06:15
But since you seem to know everything, maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to why our avowed enemy hasn’t struck our homeland again in any meaningful way.
I'm guessing they made a poltical calculation that it is better to have us in Iraq with world opinion against the US than to drum up the type of sympathy and national unity that existed after 9/11.
Why have the entire country howling for blood again when their objectives of drawing us further into a generational fight seems to be working?
And besides, when it comes to barrrom boasts, you could probably coast of the 9/11 attacks for quite sometime before anyone tops you.
A landmark erased, 3,000 dead, trillions in economic damage, plus the US Army bogged down in two wars, 3500 KIA, 24,000 wounded, and they just have to wait out the corrupt Iraqi government's collapse on its own.
Why would they have to attack us again?
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 3.05.2007 @ 06:09
>For God’s sake Grow the F**k Up!
So the president HAS called for young people to join the armed forces for the sake of war, called for higher taxes on oil, and given that war footing speech? What a fool I've been. Surely we Democrats are doomed at the polls next year.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 2.05.2007 @ 20:14
No need to wait, I'll say it now. We freakin' told you so.
We told you Bush would't send enoguh troops.
We told you inept ideolouges more worried about abortion than foreign policy were running the occupation.
We told you to make the Army bigger, to not misuse the National Guard, and to learn the lessons of Vietnam when it came to the VA.
We told you that toppling Saddam without regard to how that benefitted Iran was not going to turn out well.
We told you shooting families at checkpoints, kicking in doors, and being disrepectful of their religion would not win hearts and minds.
We told you that phrases like fight them there so we don't fight them here were silly, as if Al Queda couldn't spare one or two foot soldiers to blow up a tanker truck if they really felt like it.
And we are telling you now that the surge won't work because we can never outlast our enemies there without the political will to do so
And, most importantly that the indicator of that lack of will isn't calls by the Democrats to set time tables. It is the unwillingness of the president to call for real sacrifice, setting this country on a war footing to achieve his stated goals.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 2.05.2007 @ 16:06
The recalcitrant Iraqi government seems perfectly content to expend American lives to increase their own legitimacy with the Iraqi people as the violence begins to subside while not doing what is necessary to validate our men’s sacrifices by bringing the warring factions together in order to form a viable state.
Amazingly, some people realize this.
They are mostly called Democrats.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 2.05.2007 @ 08:23
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 2.05.2007 @ 08:20War is not a penny pinching enterprise, as we are now discovering, you go in with everything and get it over. If that is asking too much then don’t go to war.
If only someone had said something like that before the invasion.
Oh wait. I did.
So did hundreds of other vets who knew this war would be a disaster, not because it had zero chance on its face.
It had zero chance because George Bush was leading it.
You may say cheap, but I think he thought we had enough resources to do the job...
Unfortunately he was wrong.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 2.05.2007 @ 08:18
Could you imagine maintaining a force in Iraq the size Shinseki wanted for any length of time?
Yes.
If you are serious that this is a battle of modernity over barbarism that must not be lost.
You might even go so far as to raise the price of gas a quarter or two to pay for it.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 1.05.2007 @ 23:19
If you want someone to blame for not building a military up to the task, you need to blame Congress.
You mean the Congress controlled by Republicans until four months ago?
Okay.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 1.05.2007 @ 22:45
Eventually some of you folks will have to learn that "the left" has more than a few folks who have worn this country's uniform.
We are particularly irked by keyboard commandoes willing to fight to last man, as long as that man isn't them.
I am simply asking the question, if this the fight for our very survival Bus says it is why the steps necessary to win it aren't being taken.
Shot up Humvees, crashed helicopters, and maimed soldiers are price to be paid in war.
What I don't see in the $.05 extra in gas taxes to pay for it or the commander in chief asking the mass of the public to sacrifice for it.
This 'Defeatocrat' says $40,000 re-enlistment bonuses to fill out the front ranks is unsupportable and even Prince Harry is headed off to fight this war.
Meanwhile GW wants the comfortable to party like it's 1999.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 1.05.2007 @ 12:14
