How could President Bush move toward something that doesn’t exist; i.e. Kerry’s position on Iraq. Kerry doesn’t have a position on anything. Having a position on something means you have some strong belief about the subject matter at hand—I’ve yet to discern a strong belief on any subject by the Poodle.

Posted by: Bill Roberts at May 27, 2004 10:41 AM

Bill,
You are wrong on the fact that Skerry does not have a position on Iraq. The only problem is that now that the Dumbocrats are moving even further left, he is going to have to be against it, after first being for it. Or something like that.

Posted by: Leo at May 27, 2004 10:49 AM

I’m sorry, but I’m a bit confused by all these vague references: could we be clear on which of Kerry’s positions we’re talking about (he has several). It’ll make the debate a bit more informative.

Posted by: TL at May 27, 2004 10:53 AM

Let’s look at this for a sec…

See from the LAT’s point of view, Bush is moving towards Kerry, and the Demos are moving away from Kerry.

Huh? The Democratic Party and GWB are both moving more Left?

No, it just means that the LAT’s frame of reference is John Kerry and they happen to be writing on a day where Kerry is less in favor of appeasement. Certainly, from that point of view, the Demos and Bush appear to move every day.

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

Posted by: waffles-r-us at May 27, 2004 11:17 AM

Gee this is pathetic. Kerry should explain his position? How about going to his website. Johnkerry.com, clicking the ‘issues’ link, then the Iraq link (its the second issue). Unlike say Kucinich, Kerry does say he wants to try and make Iraq work.

To me it seems completely ridiculous for Kerry to narrowly define his position now becouse circumstances on the ground are subject to change… although with Bush in charge things are undoubtedly only going to get worse.

Hey did you hear Bush’s latest flip flop? Its on Iraqi sovereignty- On June 30 we’re going to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government… (per Bush’s repeated statements on the subject) except they wont actually have any power. (and no one knows who those people might be including Bush, but thats a different issue).
From the Wall Street Journal:

Haider al-Abadi runs Iraq’s Ministry of Communications, but he no longer calls the shots there. Instead, the authority to license Iraq’s television stations, sanction newspapers and regulate cellphone companies was recently transferred to a commission whose members were selected by Washington. The commissioners’ five-year terms stretch far beyond the planned 18-month tenure of the interim Iraqi government that will assume sovereignty on June 30.
The transfer surprised Mr. Abadi, a British-trained engineer who spent nearly two decades in exile before returning to Iraq last year. He found out the commission had been formally signed into law only when a reporter asked him for comment about it. “No one from the U.S. even found time to call and tell me themselves,” he says.

As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make.

In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq’s new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover.

In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials and others familiar with the plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/26/115437/072

Thanks to www.dailykos.com for this one.

Posted by: Loofa at May 27, 2004 11:25 AM

Gee this is pathetic. Kerry should explain his position? How about going to his website. Johnkerry.com, clicking the ‘issues’ link, then the Iraq link (its the second issue). Unlike say Kucinich, Kerry does say he wants to try and make Iraq work.

To me it seems completely ridiculous for Kerry to narrowly define his position now becouse circumstances on the ground are subject to change… although with Bush in charge things are undoubtedly only going to get worse.

Hey did you hear Bush’s latest flip flop? Its on Iraqi sovereignty- On June 30 we’re going to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government… (per Bush’s repeated statements on the subject) except they wont actually have any power. (and no one knows who those people might be including Bush, but thats a different issue).
From the Wall Street Journal:

Haider al-Abadi runs Iraq’s Ministry of Communications, but he no longer calls the shots there. Instead, the authority to license Iraq’s television stations, sanction newspapers and regulate cellphone companies was recently transferred to a commission whose members were selected by Washington. The commissioners’ five-year terms stretch far beyond the planned 18-month tenure of the interim Iraqi government that will assume sovereignty on June 30.
The transfer surprised Mr. Abadi, a British-trained engineer who spent nearly two decades in exile before returning to Iraq last year. He found out the commission had been formally signed into law only when a reporter asked him for comment about it. “No one from the U.S. even found time to call and tell me themselves,” he says.

As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make.

In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq’s new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover.

In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials and others familiar with the plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/26/115437/072

Posted by: Loofa at May 27, 2004 11:25 AM

Gee this is pathetic. Kerry should explain his position? How about going to his website. Johnkerry.com, clicking the ‘issues’ link, then the Iraq link (its the second issue). Unlike say Kucinich, Kerry does say he wants to try and make Iraq work.

To me it seems completely ridiculous for Kerry to narrowly define his position now becouse circumstances on the ground are subject to change… although with Bush in charge things are undoubtedly only going to get worse.

Hey did you hear Bush’s latest flip flop? Its on Iraqi sovereignty- On June 30 we’re going to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government… (per Bush’s repeated statements on the subject) except they wont actually have any power. (and no one knows who those people might be including Bush, but thats a different issue).
From the Wall Street Journal:

Haider al-Abadi runs Iraq’s Ministry of Communications, but he no longer calls the shots there. Instead, the authority to license Iraq’s television stations, sanction newspapers and regulate cellphone companies was recently transferred to a commission whose members were selected by Washington. The commissioners’ five-year terms stretch far beyond the planned 18-month tenure of the interim Iraqi government that will assume sovereignty on June 30.
The transfer surprised Mr. Abadi, a British-trained engineer who spent nearly two decades in exile before returning to Iraq last year. He found out the commission had been formally signed into law only when a reporter asked him for comment about it. “No one from the U.S. even found time to call and tell me themselves,” he says.

As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make.

In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq’s new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover.

In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials and others familiar with the plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/26/115437/072

Posted by: Loofa at May 27, 2004 11:25 AM

I will not post 3 times.

Instead, I will say:

1) MAGNIFICENT;

2) AWESOME;

3) UP YOURS, FRANCE !!

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 27, 2004 12:23 PM

all I have to say is go to www.google.com, type in waffles and select the button “I’m Feeling Lucky”

Posted by: web at May 27, 2004 12:47 PM

OK, let me get this straight: The LA times is telling us that the administration’s policy is shifting toward Kerry’s position. Kerry’s position is pretty much whatever opposes the administration’s policy, and that “Bush sucks”. I’m not seeing the adminstration shifting in that direction. Naturally if Kerry’s position is based on opposing Bush’s position, it will change every time the administration does anything he didn’t see coming. The next time it happens he’ll move again. and since by definition his policy opposes the administration, he’ll keep moving left. Just another indication that Kerry is a follower, not a leader. The Bush administration is in the driver’s seat of Kerry’s campaign.

Posted by: Warmonger at May 27, 2004 12:57 PM

So let me get this straight Warmonger, your position is that you cant be bothered to actually read Kerry’s position on Iraq, but youve seen enough Republican ads to know that regardless of what he’s actually said, his positions must be the diametric opposite of Bush? and of course its horific to think that unlike Bush, Kerry might actually be thinking, and consequently- coming to new conclusions as circumstances develop…Does that about sum up you lack of understanding? Sounds like a real informed opinion.

And lets be clear- Kerry has been calling for more internationization, and now Bush is moving toward more internationization? So Kerry is right?

Sure the Bush administration is in the drivers seat- he’s the incumbent. And Bush is staying the course. And driving off a cliff.

Posted by: Loofa at May 27, 2004 01:25 PM

Loofa,

Your opinion is NOT based on facts on the ground in Iraq.

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 27, 2004 02:37 PM

I don’t know if anybody’s especially interested, but I live-blogged the Senator’s foreign policy speech about an hour ago. You can read my notes and some follow-up here, if’n you feel like it.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at May 27, 2004 03:07 PM

Loofa,
When not bragging about the support he recieves and the good relations he has with unnamed foreign leaders, Kerry has at times demanded we recall our troops, send more in, or get more international troops.

Bush has consistantly followed the same process. 1. attempt to get international support, 2. accomplish task at hand with avaliable support.

Bush went to the UN several times before the war and again during the occupation. Only in the demented world of the LA times does his next UN resolution mean he is moving towards Kerry’s position.

Moreover, Kerry changed his position from Clinton’s invasion from Kosovo to Bush’s Iraq, even though many of the arguments put forward by Clinton can be easily applied to Bush.

The truth is Kerry has been moving towards Bush. In the early dem debates all the candidates echoed “Screaming Dean’s” anti war rhetoric and demanded troops return home immediately. Now Kerry wants more troops sent in.

You are wrong.

Posted by: Brian at May 27, 2004 03:10 PM

Sorry to follow up to my own comment, but I see now that the transcript of the Senator’s remarks is available on his web site. I had trouble following the narrative flow of the speech when I listened to it, so I’m going to go back and read it from the top to see if it becomes more apparent to me. Later, though; I’ve had enough of policy for one day.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at May 27, 2004 03:11 PM

Loofa, the difference is clear: Kerry wants international troops (whatever they are) and a special UN high commissioner to supplant the coalition in Iraq.

Bush is playing UN rope a dope once again. Basically by introducing this resolution he’s offering our former friends and allies and opportunity to remind us why we dislike them so much. As this resolution gets hammered in various sessions we will once again see the valuelessness of the folks at turtle bay.

So what’s the difference: Bush is asking for UN recognition of the interim Iraqi government. While the press has said that this will somehow magically “clear the way” for other countries to send troops that won’t happen. That’s just more press blather.

What’s wrong with Kerry’s position?

The only other instance of a UN special high commissioner is the Palestinian refugee camps. And look how quickly the UN got these folks back on their feet and out of the camps.

To this observer, the hue and cry for more UN involvment is coming from folks who’ve watched too much star trek and now think we should have one global government. This push for UN involvement can’t possibly stem from a rational look at the UN’s track record.

Next, the international troops have a very poor record as well. Everything from allowing genocide in Rwanda and Kosovo to the new sex for food scandal in Africa, these soldiers aren’t somehow better humans or even better soldiers.

Its a shame that the left can’t realize that the only effective way for America to protect itself is for America to protect itself.

Posted by: skip at May 27, 2004 03:48 PM

Skip,

Duh! Me left! Me no gotta brain! Me whine!

Bye!

Well, that at least beats the Rap stuff many of them use. Ha!

Seriously, you are absolutely correct!

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 27, 2004 04:09 PM

Thanks Dog I’m taking a pretty good beating over on another thread, oh well.

It seems that some of the trolls have gone away, or maybe they just log on after I quit for the day. It’s too bad because I love reading something so stupid it makes my blood boil.

I guess I can always listen to NPR, right?

Posted by: skip at May 27, 2004 05:04 PM

I am a huge supporter of action in Iraq. But, if they can be believed, the Kerry speech was a good one. He said the right things anyway. Now, of course the big hang up is whether or not he really means it, or is paying lip service.

Posted by: jku at May 27, 2004 06:04 PM

“regardless of what he’s actually said, his positions must be the diametric opposite of Bush?”

Kerry’s policy on Iraq from his site:
I. Make Iraq a Part of NATO’s Global Mission
II. Authorize a High Commissioner for Governance and Reconstruction
III. Launch a Massive Effort to Build an Iraqi Security Force

Pretty thin. Of course more is coming, but up to this point I’ve been seeing far less in the way of substance than I’ve seen in way of sniping at the Bush administration.

Stuff like “failed diplomacy”, “sharply opposing the administration on Iraq”, ad nauseum. Does the term “stunningly ineffective” ring a bell?

“And lets be clear- Kerry has been calling for more internationization, and now Bush is moving toward more internationization? So Kerry is right?”

Bush has been talking with the international community the whole time. The left has taken his willingness to move forward without their approval and twisted it into unilateralism. Kerry has been riding that rhetoric the whole time, and continues to do so. Bush isn’t moving toward more internationalization, he’s continuing what he’s been doing all along.

I’ll wait a while and see what his proposed policy looks like next week.

“If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.”
—John F. Kerry

Posted by: Warmonger at May 27, 2004 06:14 PM

Kerry doesn’t have a plan. But Al Gore sure screeched yesterday about his plan! Al just finished up his course on ‘How to Speak like Adolph’ from the internet that he invented. And he tried it out on a rabid liberal crowd. In his own mind he has become the comic ‘fearless leader’. In my mind he is now as fat as Teddy, and should enter a pig calling contest together. They would surely win, but the pig wouldnt be very happy because them boys be big pork eaters huh?? They are for gay rights because I can’t imagine any woman who would actually think those masses of smarmy gelatin would be subjects of lust. Liberalism isnt only a psycological disease, it attacks the fat nodes too.

Posted by: dickD at May 27, 2004 07:56 PM

Sorry Dick, I disagree on one thing. I am Conservative, but have reduced my exercise program because I got busy. That is NO EXCUSE of course, but IN MY MIND I am also over-weight.

How does a “mean Texas javelina” grab ya? We can still run you know. Ha!

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 27, 2004 09:32 PM

Kerry is not feeling a squeeze, it’s a hug. Let’s be more nuanced, please.

[sarcasm off]

Posted by: Max Darkside at May 27, 2004 10:31 PM

Skip- if you bothered to read his position he’s talking about Nato… and if Bush were concerned about protecting Americans, he wouldnt have critically weakened the army and marines by sending them our forces to Iraq

And Brian- Kerry doesnt have to brag about which foreign leaders support him. Becouse the answer is they all do. To a one. With the exception of Osama, Alquida, and The Suadi rulling family… Hell, not even Blair wants Bush reelected becouse the association will take blair down. the german spanish and south korean government ran on an anti-bush platform…

It just contiues to amaze me what an oblivious bunch of mentally challenged suckers righties are. You still think Bush is doing a good job? amazing. And the idea that Iraq is going well is just laughable. Hey look, we’ve turned Fallujah over to Sadr! He’s turning it in an Islamic theocrary. Now were doing the same thing in Najaf and the poor section of Baghdad. Yup, George Bush is making the world safe for Islamic theocracy. Very impressive.

Posted by: Loofa at May 27, 2004 11:38 PM

Loofa

Have you ever heard of up to date info. Read some news, get out a little. We just arrested one of Sadr’s top thugs IN Najaf, and are conducting patrols in Fallujah. Sadr is done. Get up to date. That is a big part of the lefts problem right now. While the other side is getting stuff done your bitching about the past.

Chads

Posted by: chads at May 28, 2004 12:52 AM

Loofa,
Please, I know you just love rolling in your imaginary quagmire. But please, please please, if you’re going to make statements check your facts.
If in your world Sadr is running Fallugah then please take a reality pill. Get your basic facts straight, we’ll still laugh at your outlandish views, but we won’t be embarrased by your ill informed ignorance.
Thanking you in anticipation.

Posted by: Max at May 28, 2004 05:36 AM

The concern is that Kerry is insufficiently pacifist for the Democratic Party. IMHO, that’s true, Kerry is insufficiently pacifist for the Democratic Party.

Posted by: popd at May 28, 2004 09:05 AM

..today,tomorrow,next week,next month,flipper will change directions more times than the wind..scrrech really showed one thing; thank Florida for hanging Chad…

Posted by: Rob..NC at May 28, 2004 09:20 AM

Loofa,

Get some knowledge. Go find out about the Number of Army divisions that were eliminated under Clinton.

Now the same idiots who forced that have been calling for more troops, more troops …… the Blithering Idiots are Democrats, of course.

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 28, 2004 11:13 AM

Lead dog- army divisions eliminated under clinton? Gee, would that have been under the bipartisan consensus that existed at the time? Hell, Cheney along with many Republicans were calling for reducing the size of the military when he was still in congress. But hey, blame Clinton. Everyone needs a hobby.

As for Najaf-

Under the agreement, the Americans can maintain a handful of posts inside the city and may still run patrols through the city center.

As for Fallujah-

The deal, which would leave the Mahdi Army intact, represents another significant compromise agreed to by American leaders to bring an end to the armed revolt that sprang up across much of the country early last month. In the city of Falluja, the scene of heavy fighting last month, the Americans agreed to include anti-American insurgents into a local “security force” as part of an agreement to end the violence there.

The deal in Falluja, which has brought a significant measure of calm to the city, has been sharply criticized by Shiite leaders, who say the Americans made a dangerous miscalculation that will likely explode some time in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/international/middleeast/27CND-IRAQ.html?ex=1401076800&en=4446f75f0de6e3a4&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Sure. We’re in control there. Now just click your heels together 3 times and say “I wish we were winning”

As for Kerry- I know its tough for you righties to think, but Kerry does, and as circumstances change so does his vision- To be clear, he’s been saying all along that we should give Iraq our best effort compared to the ‘pull out now’ view of say Kucinich. Last year in August Kerry was saying we should keep American troops at present levels. Earlier this year Kerry supported higher troop levels. Here’s an explanantion I liked:

To see what’s going on here you need to look back at the state of the debate in early fall 2003. It was clear by then that the mission in Iraq needed more troops, and especially needed more troops in certain vital areas like military police and civil affairs. Back then, it also looked like it would be possible to secure significant contributions of foreign troops to the operation if the United States was willing to cede control of the political process to the United Nations.
One school of thought, associated with John McCain and Bill Kristol, was that this was a bad deal and we ought to send more American troops and keep control for ourselves. Another school of thought, to which Kerry adhered, was that ceding control was the right way to go. On the one hand, it would get us more troops, and on the other hand it would increase the mission’s political legitimacy. Kerry, in other words, has been “consistently right on the need for troops” in Iraq which, if you look at it, is exactly what Berger said. So why the switch from more foreign troops to more American troops?

Well, there was a third school of thought represented by George W. Bush, who exercized his patented strong leadership in times of change by refusing to acknowledge that the problem existed at all. As a result, the situation continued to deteriorate. Eventually, things got so bad that Bush was forced to cede political control to the UN in exchange for nothing at all. So right now, gaining many more international troops is off the table and so Kerry’s no longer counting on that. His positioned changed, in other words, when the circumstances changed. Bush, on the other hand, stuck with his original fantasyland plan until it was far too late, and eventually wound up accepting the worst of both worlds.

Posted by: Loofa at May 28, 2004 12:02 PM

And the Gore speach- is someone trying to say that Bush really did bring honor integrity to the whitehouse by rejecting the Geneva convention, and having prisoners raped, tortured and killed?
Be sure to speak up when you have some rebuttle on the facts.

Posted by: Loofa at May 28, 2004 12:07 PM

Skip, where’s this thread that you’re taking a beating? The calvary has arrived.

Posted by: Jeff B at May 28, 2004 12:10 PM

Hey, thanks Jeff, I handled it. It was over on the Sadr thread.

Let me see if I can react to Loofa:

Your contention M. Loofa is that more UN involvement would somehow magically increase the “mission’s political legitimacy”. For most Americans the mission is now and ever shall be legitimate.

The left has this Franco prussian Russophile thing that most clear thinkers aren’t effected by. We don’t see how these three countries have an exclusive hold on “legitimacy” In fact given the UNSCAM scandal, the current situtation in the Ivory Coast and the brutal war with Chechnaya, these countries have little claim to legitimacy.

the only theory I can come up with is that the left hated the thought of war, knew it was going to happen, knew that these countries would oppose it for their own reasons and so insisted that France Germany and Russia be part of the co alition.

What is amazing about this is how folks like Loofa don’t expect us to see this shell game for what it is.

another theory: a variant on the golden rule. The golden rule states: the folks with gold make the rules. Who’s “got the gold”? america! Who hates America? The American left! So preventing America from using it’s vast military resources in its own self interest is job one.

What the left is really saying is this: America, as the strongest country out there right now is basically able to “make the rules”. America is a terrible place filled with terrible people, so it cannot be allowed to act unilateraly on the world stage. So, find some enemies of America and insist, over and over again, that these enemies must agree with everything America plans to do.

Posted by: skip at May 28, 2004 12:40 PM

OK, today Kerry says “more troops” to be paid for by “Cutting Defense Spending”. Can you say incompetent freak and waste of air? Can anyone with anything resembling brains in that vapid space upstairs care to defend this?

Posted by: Gerry Owen at May 28, 2004 01:56 PM

Loofa,
Bush was wise not to give the UN a controlling interest in Iraq’s future. Look how fast the UN booked out of Iraq after one bombing. How can you argue that we need the UN when the UN can’t even keep a neutral observer in country?

In Najaf and Falluja the Mahdi “army” is becoming ever more marginalized, while the support for the US is increasing. Sadr expected us to level the city, which would drive Iraq into his hands. We didn’t, and now most Mullahs are withdrawing support for his actions, and some are even opposing him.

The US army and marines are not “Critically Weakened” We still have large contingents in Europe, South Korea, Japan and the US, large enough to deal with any conventional threat to US. Recruitment is also up, so the draft is unecessary and unwanted.
Less then 600 troops have died, that is less then one battleship crew in the navy! What other foe is out there that the US army cannot handle? Where is the weakness?

Lastly, the US is winning over the people of Iraq. More and more are turning Sadr’s men in and assisting the US forces in the rebulding of the country. You just have to read the iraqi weblogs to see that.

So, your still wrong. Bush’s decision not to leave everything in the hands of a corrupt UN was well founded, US forces remain on the offensive, Iraqi reconstruction continues, and a new government is on its way.

Liberals truth status: Not handling it.

Posted by: Brian at May 28, 2004 02:00 PM

Loofa, I agree with you, the Dems did a MUCH better job of taking on the terrorists. It was Clinton that brought Sadaam to his knees, took down the Taliban and cleared the WMD in Libya. I am positive it was… err I think it was… anyway ill just check KOS and find out for sure.. BTW my tinfoil hat got ruined, can I borrow yours??

Posted by: Jeffro at May 28, 2004 02:24 PM

“…did bring honor integrity to the whitehouse by rejecting the Geneva convention, and having prisoners raped, tortured and killed?” Posted by Loofa at May 28, 2004 12:07 PM

Let’s see now… “Having” implies ordered.

Breathtaking.

I’m ready to take a shower and I can’t find my Loofa. Oooops. There it is, hiding under a pair of panties…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at May 28, 2004 02:39 PM

Yes, the capacity for self delusion illustrated by the left is exceeded only by thier ability to repeat the same lies over and over and over and over and over and over.

and over.

Posted by: skip at May 28, 2004 03:04 PM

Hey Loofa, you sure know a lot about the military, maybe you could identify this country for me?

709,000 regular army
293,000 reserves
8 regular army divisions
2 reserve divisions
20 air force & navy air wings (approx. 2000 aircraft)
232 strategic bombers
13 ballistic missile submarines (3114 nuke warheads)
500 ICBMs (1950 nuke warheads)
4 aircraft carriers
121 naval surface ships and attack subs

China? Nope. France & Germany together? Nope.
How about India and Pakistan together? No, not them either.

What I’ve listed is the reduction in US military forces under Clinton between 1990 and 1998. Most before the golden age of ‘consensus’ (when they lost the House). This was all accomplished, as Al Gore would say, in their effort to ‘shrink the size of government’. So while Al and Bill touted this as “shrinking Big Government” few realized all the losses were in the Pentagon. Meanwhile the rest of the bureaucracy grew and grew and grew.

Add to this the dismantling of human intelligence under that sanctimonious pencil-dick, Jimmy Carter, and you’ve dug a strategic trench from which we have yet to crawl out.

Kudos to the surviving military for getting as far as they have.

Like you said, everyone needs a hobby. I suggest you take up reading. Start with Aviation Week & Space Technology or the briefs from the Naval Institute. It’ll keep you from sounding like a no-talent ass clown on defense.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at May 28, 2004 03:31 PM

Thank you Torpedo for that information. I quit giving it out last year.

I hate to tell you this, but Loofa will argue with you again. You know, I got tired of arguing with Left-wing flakes years ago. Now, I just poke fun and laugh at them. It is more fun for me and really makes them sweat to try to exercise their shared brain. (You know the one they have rented from the nut-house. Did you know our Trolls here get to use it once every 30 days or so)?

That is why they offer such disjointed and way-out stuff for discussions. Oh well, just consider their sources. How pitiful!

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 28, 2004 04:21 PM

Well its certainly nice to know the rights capacity for self delusion is limitless.

What do these names have in common t-8?
Chester Nimitz
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Carl Vinson
Theodore Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
George Washtington
John Stennis
Harry Truman
Enterprise
Constellation
John F. Kennedy
America
Kitty Hawk

They are full size (75,000tons +) aircraft carriers. And all but 2 of them (the 7th &8th) were operational throught Clintons presidency. The other 2 joined the fleet in 93 and 98 respectively replacing 1 or 2 other aircraft carriers that were decomisioned. Thats thirteen aricraft carriers. Not 4.

Now T-8 how about showing some integrity and admitting you were wrong ya no talent ass clown flake?

Posted by: Loofa at May 28, 2004 11:32 PM

Hey T-8 What do these names have in common?

Los Angeles
Baton Rouge
Philadelphia
Memphis
Omaha
Cincinnati
Groton
Birmingham
New York City
Indianapolis
Bremerton
Jacksonville
Dallas
La Jolla
Phoenix
Boston
Baltimore
City Of Corpus Christi
Albuquerque
Portsmouth
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Hyman G. Rickover
Augusta
San Francisco
Atlanta
Houston
Norfolk
Buffalo
Salt Lake City
Olympia
Honolulu
Providence
Pittsburgh
Chicago
Key West
Oklahoma City
Louisville
Helena
Newport News
San Juan
Pasadena
Albany
Topeka
Miami
Scranton
Alexandria
Asheville
Jefferson City
Annapolis
Springfield
Columbus
Santa Fe
Boise
Montpelier
Charlotte
Hampton
Hartford
Toledo

Seawolf
Connecticut
Jimmy Carter

And the answer is- American nuclear attack submarines operational at the end of the Clinton administration. I count 61. Now if add the following

35 Arleigh Burk class
27 Spruance Class
7 short OHPerry
30 long OHPerry class
27 Ticonderoga

Im counting 126 primary surface combatants.

And thats not counting the 13 aircraft carriers
And that doesnt include numerous other surface combatants.

And that doesnt include the aforementioned 61 attack submarines.

And that doesnt include the SSBN fleet (ballistic missile subs).

And that doesnt include the marines amphib assault ships- (which are Navy ships)- there were 11 at 2000. Those were the big ones- small size aircraft carriers (small being relative to our aircraft carriers. theyre still bigger then the British primary carriers, and the smaller french VTOL (smaller)carriers.

And that doesnt include the sea lift fleet.

And that doesnt include the Amphibious ships (no not air and land- Marine delivery ships)

And that doesnt include the Command, Intel, Mine Warfare, Auxiliaries, Cutters, and other ships.

Now T-8, you were saying that the navy declined to “121 naval surface ships and attack subs”
Now how about an admiting your wrong?

Posted by: Loofa at May 29, 2004 12:42 AM

Getting back to the bigger picture- So here are the Righties spinning the most blatent of lies- that somehow Republicans are strong on defense and its pretty f—ing incredible. Im a democrat. You might remember my party from such military adventures as the WWII, the Korean war, and the Cuban missile crisis.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a broad bipartisan consensus to draw down US military forces from a high of over 3 million troops in the 60’s and 70’s down to around 2 million(or less, Im having difficulty finding figures)… This included such notables a former congressman Dick Cheney, who is now the vice president. Now we could have beaten Saddam in 91 but Bush1 wasnt a moron and realized we didnt want to bear the cost (becouse in part, members of our alliance were committed to keeping saddam in power and in another part, becouse he didnt want to bear the huge cost both in dollars and men of such an occupation). Now Bush2 has commited to the US to the sole occupation of Iraq (fine the US and 15% more in foreign troops). Let me briefly mention some of the reasons you righties have been making some pretty stupid comments:

Bush hired Rumsfeld whos goal is “leaner and meaner”- that means less troops.

We didnt build a military for such extended foreign commitments. Again that was a bipartisan consensus.

Bush2 said he was opposed to nation building. (He also said his idea of a good intervention was lebanon where 283 (?) marines got killed for no military purpose). So Bush2 decides to invade Iraq right from the start. Later we actually starts the war, in late fall/early winter 2002 under cover of enforceing the no fly zones. What does he do to prepare for the war? Does he increase the size of the military? No. Does he make sure all the troops going have the latest body armor? no. Does he come up with a viable occupation plan? no. Now Kerry has been calling for increasing the size of the military to deal with the enlarged peacekeeping role. Now, finally Bush has cought up with Kerry and is proposing an increase in the military size by 30,000. After we’ve been in Iraq for over a year!

Gen. Zinni who said we needed 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq was shitcanned by Bush.

Now we could have internationalized (called in the UN and Nato) right after the first month or so in Iraq, and gotten substantial numbers of foreign troops. We could have internationalized in fall of last year and gotten substantial numbers of troops. Now Bush is finally asking the internalional help, and whats he getting in return? Nothing. no foreign troops at all. And Spains troops have left. Thats not an improvement.

Oh look, Bush has told the homeland security department to expect budget cuts in its next budget year…

Anyway Back in Iraq- So in response to Sadr, we caved. We agreed that Fallujah and now Najaf are going to be subect to very limited patrols but day to day security will be handled locals- who are also pro sadr, who are now imposing Sharia- islamic law. Men are being told to grow beards, women are being told to wear Burkahs… Which is why we invaded Afghanistan! And now we’re probably going to do the same to Sadr city!

I could go on but its getting late.

Posted by: Loofa at May 29, 2004 02:04 AM

Brian-
There are no current active US battleships, but the last ones -the Iowa class were running 1500+ crew. During WWII this was substantially higher.

US Iraq military casualties are over 800 now, and over 1000 with our allies. Not the ‘less then 600’ that you claim. Clearly you dont know what your talking about.

Posted by: Loofa at May 29, 2004 02:09 AM

Oh and Brian- latest polling shows Iraq support running for the occupation running 2-1 against us.

Posted by: Loofa at May 29, 2004 02:10 AM

Oh and we’re now so desparate for troops that we’re depolying the national training center’s opfor.

Posted by: Loofa at May 29, 2004 02:16 AM

Okay, last one for tonight…

Cap- Was the torture in Iraq authorized by the president you ask? Yes, that was the meaning of Bush ask the office of special counsel for a legal brief that says we dont have to obey the geneva conventions. And the resulting policies filtered down the chain o’command. Sexual assault, torture, murder. Thanks to the policy choices of George W. Bush.

Posted by: Loofa at May 29, 2004 02:22 AM

Loofa, wasn’t he listing the reduction in armed forces, not current standing forces? You seem to have misread his post and responded in the most ugly fashion possible. Way to take the high road, and thanks for confirming my thought that all it takes is a single careless mistake to whip up liberals into a frenzy.

Also, I’m very interested to see how you think Bush’s request for a legal brief constitutes standing orders to rape, murder, and torture. I still haven’t seen any murder or rape evidence, all I saw was humiliation. What are the resulting policies you mention? I imagine this would be front-page news, you should take this proof to the press!

Posted by: Alex Dale at May 29, 2004 03:42 AM

I see the unreality bubble is in full effect! Bush is strong on defense?! Thats the funniest thing I’ve heard in years. Most of our defense spending is wasted on things like a useless missile defense & fighter jets with no long-range bombing capability (who are we going to dogfight with? NATO?), while at the same time we deploy people to combat zones in unarmored Humvees without Ceramic plate bullet-proof vests, resulting in thousands of long-term expensive injuries. That’s a real smart use of $$$. When the republican party gets out of the pocket of the defense industry, maybe then they could do something productive….

Posted by: crazy at May 29, 2004 05:31 AM

Loofa,

I am an Attorney and a former prosecutor. I will be polite. Your “legal comments” make you seem like someone who is still on a bad LSD trip and probably has been for the last 20 years.

The rest of your stuff. Ha! The real military experts here will respond if they choose to waste some time.

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 29, 2004 11:14 AM

Crazy, if a soldier was shot and injured without ceramic plates on, it’s likely that the plates wouldn’t have stopped that injury. They are usually located such that they only protect vital organs, because they are freakin’ heavy and need to be as small and light as possible for mobility.

I don’t know if you realize this either, but Bush can’t snap his fingers and make tens of thousands of ceramic plates overnight, nor can he create enough Humvee armor in such a fashion. In fact, I don’t think Humvees have been armored as such traditionally, making this a learning experience for the military. Good arm-chair quarterbacking, though.

Posted by: Alex Dale at May 29, 2004 02:43 PM

the lat is creating a sistah soulja moment for kerry. by claiming bush is moving towards kerry would supposedly make kerry more appealing to swing voters. the dims are going to vote for kerry regardless of what he says or does between now and november.

Posted by: ron at May 29, 2004 10:56 PM

the lat is creating a sistah soulja moment for kerry. by claiming bush is moving towards kerry would supposedly make kerry more appealing to swing voters. the dims are going to vote for kerry regardless of what he says or does between now and november.

Posted by: ron at May 29, 2004 10:56 PM

the lat is creating a sistah soulja moment for kerry. by claiming bush is moving towards kerry would supposedly make kerry more appealing to swing voters. the dims are going to vote for kerry regardless of what he says or does between now and november.

Posted by: ron at May 29, 2004 10:56 PM

pinning Kerry down would be like catching a greased pig dressed like the King of France.

Posted by: brown-nosed texan at May 30, 2004 04:26 PM