you're right. plain and simple. Dems talk down the war hoping that things will go bad... they hate the president more than they hate the terrorists.

wow - this is rich stuff. now the dems are responsible for what else? oh, for the involuntary recall of thousands more troops? i've read some some enormously tenuous CON assertions in the con media but this staggers the imagination. what next - dems responsible for abu ghraib? such reckless accusations simply undermine the moral credibility of those who seek to pass on their mistakes and failures rather than show a bit of courage by admitting that the blame falls squarely on their own shoes.

"on the other hand, Democrats fight tooth and nail to protect them by opposing programs designed to monitor their communications and track their finances. Make no mistake about it."

Matt - the above comment is a typical republican talking point. What the democrats are fighting is WARRANTLESS wiretapping. If what the President is doing is legal and legit, then all he has to do is get the warrants the law requires of him. Stop framing it the way you do. Americans are catching on to this administration's lies and deception and they do not trust this President. Again, if fighting the war on terror requires the President to wiretap, he needs to follow the laws of this country and obtain the warrants needed to wiretap. It's that simple. The courts have made it real easy for him and yet he continues to break the law and refuses to obtain the warrants. Keep framing this issue the way you do and ommitt the real issue, which is ILLEGAL wiretapping and watch your party go down the tubes in November. It's up to you Matt and others to come clean on this but I doubt you will because you don't love your country enough. You don't love what our founding fathers put in place when they wrote the Constitution to secure and safeguard the rights of the people. The FISA laws were put into place to protect the citizens of this country from ILLEGAL wiretapping but obviously you don't respect the laws of this country or American citizens enough. It's just shameful!

gotta protect those terrorists' civil liberties huh? of course, we don't want to offend those terrorists either... so we can't profile... we can't even detain terrorists without democrats pissin' and moanin' about it...

[deleted, violation of comment policy]

The Department of Justice requires warrants. The Department of Defense does not. Justice prosecutes criminals, Defense kills enemies.

Would you require warrants to listen in on the radio conversations of an enemy tank division in Florida? What if they were calling traitorous Americans in Georgia to set up an attack? According to Democrats - yes you would. And hopefully, the FBI could arrest that division after a suitable investigation. This is the logical conclusion to the arguments made by Democrats.

On a different note, I think we shoul take ten or twenty thousand MLRS Missiles up to the Kurds in northern Iraq and tell them to point them East and knock themselves out shooting them at Iran. Then, deny it all.

KCJ - i (like most of america finally) have noticed that all the rightwing has left is fear and fear alone. without the words terror and 9/11, you have nothing to campaign on. when the president breaks the law, you rightwingers proclaim that the law is for "terrorist-lovers and terrorist-sympathizers and america-haters" - since when is the rule of the land such a left-wing agenda? it just plainly does not resonate anymore. cheney, gingrich, hatch, lieberman, and a slew of other wingers such as yourself are trying desperately to play you last and only trump card - fear and terror. if peddling fear is your only means of achieving and maintaining power than indeed we are witnessing the era of a modern tyranny.

uhhh, orangealert.. the Democrats are the ones who are using the politics of fear.. they are the ones saying Bush has made us less safe.

all you know how to do blame is Republicans for everythinf, even though the stuff you say makes absolutely no sense and isn't based on reality.

Funny, none of the CONS here are commenting om the following:

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican Sen. John McCain, a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be “some kind of day at the beach

And trying hard to get elected the following from DeWinr

DeWine said Congress would not have had the chance to authorize the war if the intelligence on Iraq’s military capability and intentions were accurate.

“It would never have come up for a vote so it would have been an entirely different situation,” he said.

i would agree that bush has made us less safe - in every calculable aspect. and keep in mind, it is cheney/rove/bush who have advocated during each election the political employment of;

1. terror alerts to gain political advantage

2. specious claims of terror-related arrests (when the facts of the cases typically reveal nothing more than trumped-up, inflated evidence to create the illusion of terrorist activity)

3. making the UNBELIEVABLE claim that a vote for lamont is a vote for al qaeda

4. making the claim that a democratic victory would only help the terrorists (if that is not the most desperate sounding argument to keep someone's sorry a** in power i don't know what is...)

now, do i deplore the rampant use of terror as a campaign tactic on both sides? yes, of course. it is simply playing into the very strong emotion of fear and i think it is nothing more than feigned concern on display for party gain.

Also imagine the outcries if some Democrat had "faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be “some kind of day at the beach""

Or if some Democrat had said: Congress would not have had the chance to authorize the war if the intelligence on Iraq’s military capability and intentions were accurate.

“It would never have come up for a vote so it would have been an entirely different situation,”

give me a break, orangealert. you sound like one of those tinfoil-hat-wearing looney leftwing wackos.

your politics are dictating your words and claims.. you are suspicious (or at least acting it) of anything this country does to fight the war on terror because that's what you want to believe. you want to believe that the terror alert system is being used for political purposes.. you want to believe that arrests of terror suspects are results of political calculations also.

and don't even get me started on point 4. Do you think the DSCC's ad (i think it was theirs, maybe it was the DNC's) that said "feel safer? time for change." that's the Democrats claiming that a Democratic victory will protect America. will you denounce that rhetoric? will ya? huh?

the fact remains - and i respect matt margolis for bringing items like these up for discussion on in open forum - any claim to the effect that:

Democrats will not only want us to lose the war on terror, but they'll do whatever they can to help us lose it.

is 100 percent inauthentic. no sane individual of sound mind would ever say something like that and actually believe that to be the case. it's nothing more than acrimonious sniping, baiting, and tagging for partisan gain, period. it is similar to ann coulter making the claim that clinton is a f*g - even though she knows her motivations for saying such inane, even arbitrary things are purely inflammatory and for her own commercial gain, nothing more.

Darn those Dems work fast. It wasn't that long ago we were told recruitment was dramatically up and the Dems were once again proven wrong. And in May the official White House story was that all branches, both active duty and reserves, were meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals.

Now, at the same time the Dem party is supposed to be disintegrating, they turned things around and caused the Marines to come up short of volunteers. Oh the irony.

That, of course, assumes there really is a connection -- which I sincerely doubt.

I have often wondered how full of hate youy have to be to bash your own counrty. There are some battles not worth fighting, arguning with hate filled Democrats is one of them.

What do they expect, they win and all will be forgiven and we will all just play nice nice? Donks don't get it, winning will be hell on earth, count on it.

Mark, it's interesting that you bring up the IRR in your update. I served on both active duty and in the Regular Reserves from 1965 to 1989. My career, for all practical purposes, ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. One of my main reasons for making it a career was that I enjoyed what I did, and, not only wouldn't have objected to being recalled, I actually looked forward to it. I stayed in the IRR until my official retirement in 1995 just on the outside chance that I might be recalled. As it turned out, only one member of my last reserve unit, an Arab linguist, was recalled during the first Gulf War. If the Navy would ignore my age, I'd go back in a heartbeat.

bill - here we go again with the so....very...tired "america hating/bashing" default debate response.

it's tired and desperate.

but since you brought the accusation up - why don't you tell us exactly how we 'donks' are bashing our own country?

oh that's right - not standing behind the president means you hate your country.

how about sending 2600 troops to an early grave to fight a bullsh*t war that we were LIED into by your leaders? talk about hating your country? i'll fight you with your own words but please, please try to be more original. no one buys that tired tripe anymore (see my comment above).

Jesus was a leftie,

"Again, if fighting the war on terror requires the President to wiretap, he needs to follow the laws of this country and obtain the warrants needed to wiretap. It's that simple. The courts have made it real easy for him and yet he continues to break the law and refuses to obtain the warrants."

Apparently, you believe that the Bush Administration has not gotten a single warrant to conduct inteercepts of international communications to gather foreign intelligence (a authority vested in the executive branch, according to the FISA Court of Review).

I have a homeowrk assignment for you: Exactly how many FISA warrants were issued to the Bush Administration between Jan 02 and Dec 05? I know the answer. Do you?

I have made the point before that refusing to serve in the military makes Democrats ignorant. And what do you know? Fresh examples.

You can not criticize EVERY tactical decision without coming across as ignorant America haters. Is recruiting up? Yes. What does that get you? It gets you a new crop of highly motivated and highly patriotic - but inexperienced privates, PFC's and Lance Corporals. Calling back Ready Reserve marines gets you experience Corporals, and Sergeants, and more.

As we (WE, say it liberals WE are in Iraq - get it)shift forces and resources to counter the changing and very dynamic forces in Iraq we need to add force some places and lessen it in other places. You can't complain about every single thing. Yes - there is tension between Sunni (used to rule, have no native oil, not very happy about it) and Shiite (have native oil, hate the Sunni because of a long a brutal rule, and being armed and motivated by Iran). Things change. We need to adapt. It would be good if liberals were on our side. But you are not. You act like it is George Bush's private war over there and anything bad - is good because you get to call him names. George Bush is not at war - we, the People of the United States are. But not in your minds. And there, is the crux of the biscuit.

"the involuntary recall of thousands more troops?"

Um, after you volunteer, every time you are called up, it is not voluntary.

"i would agree that bush has made us less safe - in every calculable aspect."

Which way Orange? How many successful terrorist attacks have happened in the U.S. since 9-11? How many in the rest of the world? Why such a difference considering the U.S. is the number one target? Coincidence? Luck? Or maybe, just maybe, you are full of sh^%.

"why don't you tell us exactly how we 'donks' are bashing our own country?"

Heres one from Howard Dean for starters.

"The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,"

[deleted, violation of comment policy]

Kahn
What gives you the idea that Democrates refuse to serve in the military. There are currently 50 Iraq vets that are running for congress as Democrates, There is one Iraq vet running as a Republican.
You are right that WE are at war. The problem is how do we get out of it without losing the whole middle east. I don't want us to leave if it's going to make the world a more dangerous place, but I don't want to stay it there is no end in sight.

“I don't want us to leave if it's going to make the world a more dangerous place, but I don't want to stay if there is no end in sight.” Posted by: Casper at August 23, 2006 02:16 PM

Well Casper, supposing you could only accept ONE of your proposals. Which would it be?
A.) Stay believing the world would be safer AND with no end in sight - OR-
B.) Leave believing there is no end in sight BUT allowing the world to be a much more dangerous place?

If the choice were your which would you pick? What would be your reasons be? It seems that a good many liberals and democrats want to leave. Their reasons? Regardless of every superficial reason they give for doing so, it all appears to come back to hating Bush and regaining power.

Casper - congressional candidates aside, recruitment in heavily Democratic areas is light. You may also find that several of those candidates were reserve or National Guard who were unhappy about being taken away from lucrative civillian jobs to serve.

Most military who have a preference idetify themselves as Republicans. ROTC is actively battled against on Democrat/liberal controlled campuses and recruiters are picketed and chased off campus. And, the whole northeastern elite Ivy League contribution to the officer corps in all the services can be counted in the tens (for ALL the schools) in every recent year. Many colleges contribute absolutely no people whatsoever.

So, with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, et al not contributing anyone - just were do you see the experience for your party coming from in future decades? The officer corps - the real brains of the military is almost ALL Republican NOW. It gets more so every day. You cite EX-military Democrats running right now (though I'd check that number if I were you). You know why there aren't that many Republicans? Because we ARE STILL IN A WAR AND RATHER THAN GET OUT THEY ARE STAYING IN TO SERVE AND FIGHT!

You actually made my point for me. But again, you are way off with that 50 number - post 50 names and I'll admit I'm wrong. If you can't.... will you?

orangealert,

RE: "i would agree that bush has made us less safe..."

Liberals have made us less safe! Liberals are the ones who encourage terrorists. Terrorists listen to the news just like everyone else. All they hear is run, run, run from the terrorists. And what do the terrorist do in return. They blow up more American soldiers and Iraqi citizens to provide more fodder for the Liberal cries for surrender. And when the Liberals switch to cries of run, run, run, civil war, civil war, what do the terrorist do to aid the liberal Democrats in their calls for surrender? They start blowing up Mosques, the very ones Americans did everything they could do during the war to protect. The more mosques are blown up, the more liberal Democrats holler run, run, run, it's civil war, and the terrorists blow up more mosques, buildings, shops, markets to help get the civil war going to please the liberal Democrats.

Yes, the terrorists hear you liberals and your calls for surrender. They hear them even louder with each American soldier they blow up or injure, with each Iraqi family they blow up, and with each terrorist attack that tries to start a civil war. Yes the terrorists know what you liberal Democrats want and need to continue your campaign of hate and surrender. You need more bodies -- Americans, Iraqis, and Israelis -- so you can help terrorists achieve your mutual objective.

Terrorists want the U.S. out of Iraq and liberal Democrats want the U.S. out of Iraq. Terrorists read the polls and are casting their votes for Democrats. Each American soldier who it killed or wounded is a vote by terrorists for Democrats. Each Iraqi family and group of children blown to bits by the terrorists is a vote for Democrats. As we get closer to the elections, terrorists will be casting even more votes for you liberal Democrats. And with each vote they cast, terrorists can count on you liberals making the most of it in your anti-Bush, anti-American, and pro-terrorist propaganda.

Is it that liberals can't understand, are too naive to understand, are too stupid to understand, or just don't care. I think it is the latter. The means justifies the end, and to a liberal Democrat the end it to regain power, no matter how many American soldiers, Iraqis, or even American citizens are killed or put at risk to achieve that end!

RE: "1. terror alerts to gain political advantage"

Contact your Dimocrat members of Congress and tell they that you do not want terror alerts and ask them to introduce a bill in Congress to cancel them! I'm sure the American people will agree with you wholeheartedly!

RE: "2. specious claims of terror-related arrests"

Again, contact your Dimocrat members of Congress and ask them to see if they can stop such useless information from being provided to the American public. The American public have no reason to hear about any successes. After all, that just clutters the news from the liberals about America's failures. Liberals don't want to know about success -- it is failures that really count.

RE: "3. making the UNBELIEVABLE claim that a vote for lamont is a vote for al qaeda"

Unbelievable claim? Pull your head out of wherever you have it stuck. Terrorist around the world are hoping for liberals like Lamont to be elected. The know liberal Democrats will raise their yellow and white flag and leave Iraq and the rest of the world to terrorists so they can rebuild their forces for another attack. Terrorists in Iraq are counting on a Democrat victory to further weaken President Bush and America's resolve. Terrorists have no better friend than the ultra left wing liberal Democrats. Check the papers between now and election day. As I said before, you will see the terrorist's votes piling up -- literally -- for the Democrats. And the more you liberal cry for surrender, the more American soldiers and Iraqi men, women, and children will pay for those votes with their lives!

RE: "4. making the claim that a democratic victory would only help the terrorists"

See all of the above. Terrorists are COUNTING on a Democrat victory! Terrorists would like nothing better than to have Democrats elected who would vote to impeach President Bush for trying to protect the American people while liberals release our defense secrets through the press to terrorists around the world. Terrorists would like nothing more than for Democrats to win and surrender Iraq with all of it's oil reserves to terrorists as their new homeland, linking with Iran and Syria to form a band of terrorist controlled or terror supporting, oil rich nations across the middle east. That will be just great for the security of the world -- NOT!.

The absolute last thing America and the World needs is a bunch of wimpy liberals helping the terrorists! The last thing America needs is more liberal Democrats trying to impose their religion of Liberalism and their liberal agenda on America. Liberals have already weakened America... we don't need it destroyed by them!!!

AAR

Kahn,

Me thinks Casper has his sources a bit mixed up. From a 12 Mar 06 Time article, "one of more than 50 veterans running for Congress as Democrats this year, eight of whom are Iraq-combat veterans". Not 50 Iraqi veterans running for Congress as Democrats, 50 who are veterans of any military service. Only 8 are Iraqi War vets.

Of course, some of those Iraqi veterans were defeated in the primaries by incumbant Democrats, so the figure of 8 is probably even lower now.

Terrorist around the world are hoping for liberals like Lamont to be elected.

Which is exactly why Osama bin Laden did Bush the tremendous favor of making that tape right before the election. Whoops.

tsk, tsk AAR - don't you understand who has been in power the last 6 years? i'll give you one guess - that's right, your team.

you can say liberal and terrorist all you want, you can jump up and down and scream it as loud as you wish, you can ever devote 16 column inches of drivel (see above) to repeating the same old desperate canard, but it still does not make-up for the very real fact that, under the watch of the GOP, the world has become a place seeething with venom directed at the good ol US of A. god i can only hope we get some dems in office soon so that we can refocus on protecting our own citizens on our own shores between our own borders. i'm sick and tired of paying for the security for a country thousands of miles away that had not one thing to do with 9/11.
americans agree with me (NOT YOU AAR) that its time to start protecting americans here at home.
its time to get the adults back in office!

tsk, tsk AAR - don't you understand who has been in power the last 6 years? i'll give you one guess - that's right, your team.

you can say liberal and terrorist all you want, you can jump up and down and scream it as loud as you wish, you can ever devote 16 column inches of drivel (see above) to repeating the same old desperate canard, but it still does not make-up for the very real fact that, under the watch of the GOP, the world has become a place seeething with venom directed at the good ol US of A. god i can only hope we get some dems in office soon so that we can refocus on protecting our own citizens on our own shores between our own borders. i'm sick and tired of paying for the security for a country thousands of miles away that had not one thing to do with 9/11.
americans agree with me (NOT YOU AAR) that its time to start protecting americans here at home.
its time to get the adults back in office!

OG:McCain is a RINO, no need to comment.

agent orange. Do you feel in danger?

orangealert,

And who is it screaming get out of Iraq, run, run, run? In case you missed the news, orange, it's the lunatic left wing Dimocrats! And there is nothing the Republicans can do to stop the 24/7 hate-America campaign you liberals have conducted for the past 6 years. You know -- it's that free speech thing -- protected by the Constitution! It allows you to continue your anti-Bush, anti-American hate propaganda, even when it encourages our enemies. Personally, I think it's time to put a cap on some of your left's speech when it affects America's security, but we can't do that... just yet.

What do the terrorists want? The same thing as the Dimocrats. They want the U.S. out of Iraq so they can use it as their base!

What does Iran want? The same thing as the Dimocrats want! They want the U.S. our of Iraq so they can have another nation under their control and a straight land route Syria and to Hezbollah!

The fact is the Dimocrats will pull the U.S. out of Iraq -- and Afghanistan -- as quickly as you can and probably reduce support for Israel. Dimocrats have said that's their plan -- it's their campaign! Dimocrats will allow the entire region to become what Afghanistan was before we took out the Taliban. Dimocrats will allow the entire region to become a haven and training ground for terrorism, funded by oil, and lead by Iran! There is no other answer. There is no other conclusion.

You Dimocrats fully intend to cut and run -- it's the liberal way!

AAR

*GASP*

Heaven forbid a free-thinker should be in the ranks of the Republican Party!!!

Just like Lewis Black says, when you vote, you are choosing between two bowls of shit...The two parties are failing our country.

Matt, why waste your time with "war on terror" threads? These trolls have been fed so many lies by the hate-America DemocRATs in Washington, that they believe them.

They believe the Kerry's, Kennedy's, Reid's, and Piglosi's when those commies say "We're no safer than we were on 9/10."

Okay, troll pukes--we're no safer. We haven't been hit since 9/11 because the terrorists haven't tried to hit us. Is that what you believe? So be it.

You know, I would agree with the donks, and let our guard down, if it meant that only those who ignore the threat would be the ones killed the next time we get hit. Unfortunately, too many innocents would perish along with the pukes who hate this country, including most of you troll asshats.

Matt, this blog needs cleaning out. It was a great place to chat, back when only adults participated.

GF - bull. I don't buy the both are bad everybody does it argument. Thanks for admitting your party is a bowl of sh*t though...

GF - bull. I don't buy the both are bad everybody does it argument. Thanks for admitting your party is a bowl of sh*t though...

A commentor at The Strata Sphere asked the following questions:

All I hear from the left is calls for immediate or near term withdrawl from Iraq.

What is the followup step??

How is this supposed to achieve success?

Any of you Libs want to take a stab at it? My guess is that you haven't thought that far ahead.

So MARK -

The Marine Corps will soon begin ordering thousands of its troops back to active duty because of a shortage of volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan — the first involuntary recall since the early days of the war.

Does that mean that your posts here, here, etc, claiming that the military is meeting recruitment goals, was incorrect? You know, the recruitment goals that were artifically lowered to prime talking heads with DoD press releases claiming fantastic recruitment?

Tsk, tsk. Time to admit an error.

Retired - remeber that joke? Only 20% of high school graduates can find Iraq on a map of the world? Too bad for Sadaam they're all in the Marine Corps.

Of course, it's not true. The Army, Air Force, and Navy have their share also.

The hardest part about "arguing" with liberals here, or anywhere is that they don't know what their talking about. They run on groupthink. Big city political machines in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and others deliver the vote to the Democrats. They're paid for with government jobs, contracts, and handouts. The really radical left has a myopic hatred personified in George Bush but actually grounded in the fact that they are not in power.

Very infrequently you can actually argue a liberal into a logical corner (because it is very hard to get one to say what he believes or what his solutions are). When you do, they respond with hate filled insults. Or, they change the subject. Or, both.

Look here. Democrats refuse to acknowledge that WE, the people of the United States are in Iraq. They don't join the military - so they can't relate. It's all academic to them. They don't get it. They just can't accept that the people who want to kill us are real. Thet they can't be bought off with hydro-electric projects (LBJ reference, look it up libby's). Why can't they understand the commitment of our enemies? Simple - because THEY don't have it themselves.

Winnow,

Not at all - recruitment is fine...but for a unit heading to a war zone, recruits aren't always what is needed...the men being called up have various specialised skills that a "boot" just doesn't have...You're confusing two different issues.

Mark - as I've said many times. The liberals refusal to serve in the military is already vident by their evident lack of knowledge on military affairs. I made the same point you did ealier in this string. Apparently. they can't be bothered to read either.

Kahn,

You're absolutely right. Because so few liberals have served in the military or take the time to do some simple research, they do not know how anything military works.

They do not know that recruiting numbers and the number of available forces to deploy are not related. They do not know that Congress sets the end strength authorization for the Active and Reserve Forces. If additional forces are needed to meet our foreign policy objectives, it is not because of the state of recruiting, but the end strength authorizations.

The various services' recruiting forces are close to meeting their end strength objectives. However, that end strength authorization may fall short of the number necessary to meet our foreign policy needs. The answer? Congress needs to raise the end strength of the Active and Reserve Components.

Of course, the liberals will cry for a draft to fill these new positions. But a draft is not needed. The Active and Reserve Components were successful in maintaining a much higher end strength in the '80's. I know. I served in a National Guard Recruiting Command from 84-90. Our state's authorized and assigned end strength was about 5,000 greater than it is today. And we were growning. But as Congress reduced the size of the authorized force under the "Peace Dividend", the force shrunk. Units were deactivated. Personnel opted to get out, rather than drive 75-100 miles to one of the remaining units.

At the time, I thought it was ironic that several of the units that were deactivated were recent veterans of Gulf War I. They were needed to fight a shooting war, but when they returned, the units were deactivated. Go figure.

If Congress were to increase the end strength authorization to meet the deployment needs, both Active Duty and Reserve assigned strength would increase. For the Reserve forces, the reason is simple: there are more jobs available with a greater variety. For the Active forces, recruiting incentives would be increased to attract more recruits. Also, reenlistment rates would go up as new units provide upward mobility and promotions. A lot of service members get out after their term of service because they are deadended in their unit and there aren't opportunities for promotion elsewhere. Additional units provide that upward mobility.

But all of this is lost on our liberal, armchair generals. As usual, they see one article and jump to the wrong conclusion.

this about sums things up:

We are spending $8 billion a month in Iraq. That's $2 billion each week, $267 million each day, or $11 million each hour. For what we spend in three weeks, we could make needed improvements in order to properly secure our public transportation systems. For what we spend in five days, we could put radiation detectors in all of our ports. And for two days in Iraq, we could screen all air cargo.

and in answer to YOU, kahn - since you are stuck on who has served in the military and who has not - why don't you tell me who out of the following have served:
cheney? - NOPE
bush? - NOPE
rummy? - NOPE
feith? - NOPE
frist? - NOPE
gingrich? -NOPE
Hastert? - NOPE avoided drafft
Delay? - NOPE avoided the draft
Lott? - NOPE
Santorum? - NOPE

murtha? - damn right
kerry? - YES
clark? - with flying colors
gore? - YES
cleland? - um YES
rangel? - YES
Kennedy (Ted)? - YES
harkin? - YES

Units were deactivated. Personnel opted to get out, rather than drive 75-100 miles to one of the remaining units.

A-10, I alluded to this in my original comment in this thread. This is what happened on a large scale in the late 80's when the Cold War ended. Between 1974 and '89 I was affiliated with 3 NRSG units in Indiana and Ohio, including the CO billet in all three, and traveled an average of 150 miles each way, 1 weekend a month for over 15 years. When I transferred to the IRR in '89, the nearest pay billet was over 300 miles away. The promotion opportunities had evaporated with the implosion of the USSR, and a lot of 04's, 05's and 06's just hung it up, me included. It was fun while it lasted, and I still miss being privy to some pretty cool stuff.

orangealert,

You just hit zero on the credibility meter:

Bush - 1LT in the TX ANG, over 300 hours in a F-102, flew fighter-interceptor missions as part of the North American air defense network.

Rumsfeld - He served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as an aviator and flight instructor, transferred to the Ready Reserve in 1957 and continued flying as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Navy Captain in 1989. That would be 35 years of military service.

Senator Frist - the guy's a heart surgeon for Christ's sake.

---------------------------

Murtha - Being investigated for receiving medals under questionable circumstances (I can call him on this as I am a former-Marine, and a retired LTC)

Kerry - Purple Hearts given under questionable circumstances (no hostile action, no lost time), Silver Star given under quentionable circumstances.

Gore - Served as a journalist in the Army.

Kennedy - The icon of the left enlisted in the Army after being expelled from Harvard for cheating. Enlisted for 4 years. When his dad found out, pulled strings to get the term of enlistment reduced to two years and assignment to France. Never rose above the rank of Private.

Should we go on?

Dick Cheney - Married and too old for the draft.

Bill Clinton - Joined ROTC. When his draft status was changed, he quit ROTC and went to England where he participated in protest against the US.

Howard Dean - Never served.

Robert Byrd - Never served, although he was of the proper age for service in WWII and Korea. Instead he joined the Ku Klux Klan.

Harry Reid - Never Served.

John McCain - Fighter Pilot during Vietnam. Silver Star, a Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and a Distinguished Flying Cross.

Chuck Hagel - Infantryman during Vietnam.

"Bush - 1LT in the TX ANG, over 300 hours in a F-102, flew fighter-interceptor missions as part of the North American air defense network."

ah ha ha!

orangeanus - Obviously, you personally know nothng of military affairs.

Don't you realize that I and others here are posting from personal experience? We don't go to liberal (or conservative) web sites to get a list we can post as part of the argument? We've been there. Hell, some of us are still there.

If you deny the military the victory they've earned in Iraq there will be powerful ramifications for the nation in the coming decades. Believe it or not - I don't care.

I know that my Viet Nam war veteran friends already (for the most part, not all) hate the liberals for losing that war. They are still alive and their kids, grand kids, neices and nephews are serving. This generation has heard the stories of the betrayal of our armed forces by the Democrats and the press. Now, they are seeing it again.

In 15 years the only people with guns and who know how to use them will be Republican. You will have NO military experience in your rank and file or your leadership. All the major liberal universities actively work against the military. High schools in liberal areas shut out recruiters. The ACLU loves to sue the military for whatever reason. Liberal politicians call our Marines and soldiers war criminals and liken them to the SS.

Is this just a perception on my part? Maybe, I guess. I don't think so. If it is, then you'll have to convince me and others that you care about our volunteer boys and girls. I don't think you do. Attacking me back probably won't do it.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

"The Air National Guard has often been ridiculed as a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. However, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted. Air Force F-102 squadrons had been stationed in Thailand since 1961 and South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the region as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion."

"ANG members of the period who we've been able to locate indicate that only highly qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, and the rate was especially high during the early years of the plane's service.

This poor safety record may have been due in part to a deadly flaw in the aircraft's design that caused an engine stall and loss of control under a certain combination of angle of attack and airspeed frequently encountered during takeoff. According to a former F-102 pilot we've interviewed, this problem caused the plane to roll inverted and resulted in several fatal crashes. Numerous accidents were also encountered during landing because of the plane's high angle of attack and airspeed that reduced the pilot's visibility and reaction time. These factors have traditionally been two of the primary disadvantages of delta wing aircraft and explain why the pure delta wing design was later abandoned. Today's delta wing aircraft are typically equipped with leading edge extensions or canards that improve safety and performance. Luckily, F-102 operators overcame these deficiencies thanks to good pilot training and control lockouts that prevented the plane from reaching extreme conditions, and the F-102 went on to become one of the safer fighters of its day.

Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

"Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. Air National Guard pilots from the 147th FIG, where Bush was stationed, even served combat duty in Vietnam routinely under a volunteer program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for three to six months of frontline service. This program was instituted because the Air Force lacked sufficient pilots of its own for duty in Vietnam but was unable to activate ANG units since Presidents Johnson and Nixon had decided not to do so for political reasons. Thanks to Palace Alert, the Air Force was able to transfer much-needed National Guard pilots to Vietnam on a voluntary basis while not actually activating any ANG squadrons.

Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants."

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

"The Air National Guard has often been ridiculed as a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. However, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted. Air Force F-102 squadrons had been stationed in Thailand since 1961 and South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the region as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion."

"ANG members of the period who we've been able to locate indicate that only highly qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, and the rate was especially high during the early years of the plane's service.

This poor safety record may have been due in part to a deadly flaw in the aircraft's design that caused an engine stall and loss of control under a certain combination of angle of attack and airspeed frequently encountered during takeoff. According to a former F-102 pilot we've interviewed, this problem caused the plane to roll inverted and resulted in several fatal crashes. Numerous accidents were also encountered during landing because of the plane's high angle of attack and airspeed that reduced the pilot's visibility and reaction time. These factors have traditionally been two of the primary disadvantages of delta wing aircraft and explain why the pure delta wing design was later abandoned. Today's delta wing aircraft are typically equipped with leading edge extensions or canards that improve safety and performance. Luckily, F-102 operators overcame these deficiencies thanks to good pilot training and control lockouts that prevented the plane from reaching extreme conditions, and the F-102 went on to become one of the safer fighters of its day.

Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

"Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. Air National Guard pilots from the 147th FIG, where Bush was stationed, even served combat duty in Vietnam routinely under a volunteer program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for three to six months of frontline service. This program was instituted because the Air Force lacked sufficient pilots of its own for duty in Vietnam but was unable to activate ANG units since Presidents Johnson and Nixon had decided not to do so for political reasons. Thanks to Palace Alert, the Air Force was able to transfer much-needed National Guard pilots to Vietnam on a voluntary basis while not actually activating any ANG squadrons.

Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants."

So MARK -

The Marine Corps will soon begin ordering thousands of its troops back to active duty because of a shortage of volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan — the first involuntary recall since the early days of the war.
Does that mean that your posts here, here, etc, claiming that the military is meeting recruitment goals, was incorrect? You know, the recruitment goals that were artifically lowered to prime talking heads with DoD press releases claiming fantastic recruitment?

Tsk, tsk. Time to admit an error.

Posted by: winnowhead at August 23, 2006 09:48 PM

Wow, what naivity & ......ignorance! Has anyone told you libs lately how very entertaining and just downright funny you are.......No? O.K. well consider yourselves told! Bwahahaaahahaaahaaaaa!