Comments Posted By Richard Bottoms
Displaying 331 To 340 Of 362 Comments
>Conspiracy
Exactly what part of noting that Chris Wallace is a smirking tool of the Republicans via Fox News is a shock to anyone but true believers?
It's not a conspiracy, it's just Fox doing what it always does, tilting things to the right.
Clinton told Wallace to get bent. Good for him.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 25.09.2006 @ 16:34
>Was that a Greenwald sockpuppet that posted that or was it not?
Hmm, no response to the substance of what Sentaor Hutcheson said, just snark about the site where the quotes came from.
Typical.
If the quotes aren't about cutting and running from Somalia, what were they then?
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 25.09.2006 @ 15:14
Glenn Reynolds thinks that the Clinton blow-up will affect the elections – negatively for the Democrats.
Umm maybe not so much. Another Glenn disagrees. So who has been revising history now?
My post this morning on Salon concerns the accusation voiced this weekend by Chris Wallace in his Fox News interview with President Clinton (a favorite accusation of neoconservatives) that Clinton "emboldened" Al Qaeda when he withdrew American troops from Somalia as soon as we suffered casualties, which (so the neoconservative mythology contends) led Osama bin Laden to believe that we were weak and could be defeated.
As I document in the Salon post, that defense, if anything, is a profound understatement, because it was Clinton (along with Senate Democrats like John Kerry) who wanted to stay in Somalia because a precipitous withdrawal would be panicky and weak, but it was primarily conservatives in Congress -- mostly Republican Senators and some conservative Southern Democrats -- who were demanding that American troops be withdrawn immediately, and were even threatening to cut off all funds for our troop deployment.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 25.09.2006 @ 10:35GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993
I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . .
ELITES PREPARING US EXIT FROM IRAQ?
The immorality of this strategy is shocking in its implications. The foreign policy elites have apparently decided that the war is unwinnable but that it would harm American interests if we simply up and left.
Let's be clear here.
These are Republican operatives looking for a way for a Republican presidnet to back out of a war without losing face.
Those of us who said don't go in, who later said now that you are in send enough troops to do the job, and who have been saying it's a goat screw for the last year or so are not the least bit surprised.
Only those who thought Bush was the leader he played on TV are shocked.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 17.09.2006 @ 23:22
COWARDLY DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO ENGAGE ON TERROR DEBATE
William Kristol and Rich Lowry called on the Bush administration to send more troops to Iraq recently. I know many of you think it's the evil Democrats who will keep that from happening. However, it seems the the CINC's own mismanagement may be a more likely reason.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 16.09.2006 @ 12:13The only problem with Kristol and Lowry's recommendation is that it is premised on an illusion: In fact, there are no more troops to send to Iraq.
That is the unmistakable message of an Army briefing making the rounds in Washington. According to in-house assessments, fully two-thirds of the Army's operating force, both active and reserve, is now reporting in as "unready"—that is, they lack the equipment, people, or training they need to execute their assigned missions. Not a single one of the Army's Brigade Combat Teams—its core fighting units—currently in the United States is ready to deploy. In short, the Army has no strategic reserve to speak of. The other key U.S. fighting force in Iraq, the Marine Corps, is also hurting, with much of its equipment badly in need of repair or replacement.
No troops to send
Speaking of Afghanistan and our glorious CINC:
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 16.09.2006 @ 04:04There were the 4 of July bombings. In the last 2 weeks, there have been 2 rocket attacks, and 2 blasts that have killed 2 Brits (on Route Violet), and the last one that took those two yesterday. (One was a female E7, Army, and the other one was an E6, Army, just so you know I am not full of shit).
The blame on the upswing in violence can be attributed to the one and only man who has tied our hands. You cannot protect a base from inside the wire.
Since the 2 UK Soldiers died, we got our 1114's back, and we are now allowed to wear our ACH's. We however have for the last 6 months been trying to get armored protection for our gunners -- there currently is none -- & the Warlock IED defeating system. (We currently use something called an Acorn, that jams [x] frequencies).
The largest weapon that we are allowed to mount is an M249 SAW. Our unit has everything that a SecFor unit is supposed to, but our hands are tied. We have Vets from Iraq, Kosovo, and others doing there 2nd tour here in the 'Stan.
Please inform your readers about what is going on, so that no more American or Coalition Soldiers die needlessly.
>Oh, and by the way, I do trust Bush, I’d never >trust a dem at the helm.
Well he has done such a good job of running two wars that Iraq is on the verge of sectarian collapse, meanwhile soldiers are on the fourth tours over there, and our military infrastructure is so chewed up by op tempo that the ability to even train here in the states is suffering.
Afghanistan, a country we should have near total control over is churning out their biggest opium crops in history (which found who???) while the Taliban, yeah those guys, are enganing in standup fights with NATO and the US and anything outside of Kabul is in jeopardy.
The war supporters are calling for more troops, but God knows where they'll come from. And these manpower shortages exist because on September 12, 2001, or there abouts, the CINC declined to issue an calrion call to service and raise gas taxes to pay for it.
Me, I already served my 13.5 years, even tried to re-enlist two years ago because I saw my Army being decimated even then.
George Bush has had control of the agenda and both Houses of Congress for two years, and yet it's come to this.
We are losing two wars. And you may think clapping louder will keep Tinkerbell alive, but the stark nature of the mess we are in is becoming clearer every day.
So I think perhpas it's going to be time for the Democrats to take things for a spin.
P.S.
I am guessing right now about 64,000 Ford Motor Company, soon to be unemployed workers, will likely agree.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 16.09.2006 @ 03:58
>The dems simply want to offer more protection to a bunch of MURDEROUS THUGS than to our military or to us as the peolpe of this great nation.
>>Umm no, we want to live up to the ideals that make us a great nation.
If the president wants to waterboard captives and believes is right he should just come out and say so.
Ten years ago you folks were the same types running off to start militias because you feared the government so much.
Now you're ready to wet your pants, cause the bad guys are so mean. GW says just trust me, so you want to give the president the power throw anyone he pleases into a black hole never to be seen again.
Unchecked power corrupts absolutely.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 15.09.2006 @ 18:10
I believe we abide by these rules of conduct to save our souls, not theirs.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 15.09.2006 @ 11:59
>The US will need to step up and make a greater >commitment.
And that means a draft.
Another,we told you so comming soon.
If we are fighting this generation's version of Hitler how can we not fully mobilize for war? What rationale is there for not raising the tax on the commodity that enriches our enemies, oil? Why doesn't the CINC outright ask young people to join up and send his own offspring off as an example of the sacrifices to be made?
Hell, even Prince Harry will go do his bit as a service to his country.
Why are we asking so much less here?
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 15.09.2006 @ 11:58
