What next goal is Bush?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Those Amazon lists are a sales ploy. What they think you might fall for. I've seen some pretty bizarre lists that are no way in hell related to the feature choice. Example, Dr Seuss and Anal sex.

Perhaps the Lt Col wasn't a good military man and got busted for doing the right thing instead of sucking up.(pun intended)

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by tw
Its rather difficult to give the book any credibity when those who buy the book clearly have that right wing extremist Replublican agenda.

Clearly, huh? How do you <B>clearly</B> know the agendas of the people who buy his book? Maybe they're a bunch of liberals doing a report for class on the "other" side. If that is all the evidence you need to make a "clear" conclusion, many of your other arguments make much more sense now.

At any rate, what bearing does any of that have on the book's credibility?

He could not even get full bird Colonel? Most good military men with lifetime service at least become Brigader Generals.

What rank did you retire at?

[richlevy]

Originally posted by wolf


No, I don't agree.

Read Derelection of Duty.

Get back to us after ...

Hmmm, angry Lt. Col. So if he's upset about Clinton forgetting the codes, where's the expose from the Reagan White House about the president being so out of it he didn't remember ordering an unconstitutional covert operation?

Finding someone in the military who liked Clinton, or any Democrat, is always going to be tough. Deserved or not, Democrats have the reputation for not being as hawkish as Republicans. Personally, I can live with that. Most of what keeps this country together is domestic issues, like keeping deficits down and employment up.

I still find it amazing that a president who was in a virtual coma in his last years in office is remembered fondly. Conservatives always accused Hillary of having too much say in the White House. At least she didn't do it by consulting a psychic like Nancy Reagan.

As far as the accusation about the Clinton administration helping to release one of the 9/11 terrorists, I'll place it in context with the Bush administration mishandling intelligence on the actual attack and the Reagan administration helping to train Bin Laden. It would be nice if there really were psychics to tell us where our actions would lead. Unfortunately, there aren't.

Most of the accusations against Clinton boil down to this, the man is a natural politician. This is both an insult and a credit. G.W. Bush may be an honest man, but he is not a politician. This is both an accolade and a criticism. Because sometimes you need a politician to help keep the wheels on.

Bush is trying to spend his way out of the hole we are in by racking up a massive debt. Our credibility with our allies and neutrals is at a historic low.

Clinton may have been a morally-challenged sneak, but he was our morally-challenged sneak and he racked up less of a body count in 8 years than Bush has in 3. We were able to aid Kosovo without taking responsibility for rebuilding an entire country while Bush has us trying to rebuild two nations.

I'm sure that Clinton really pissed off the Lt. Col. Truman pissed off McArthur even more. Good presidents are not warriors. We are one of the few countries of the world in which the Commander-in-Chief is usually a civilian with no military training. We are also one of the few countries whose military swears an oath to a Constitution and not an individual, because that is their job.

The military is supposed to defend this country and the Constitution. The whole point is for us to win the peace.

9/11 was a shock, but our reaction has not improved the world's stability. I am personally very happy that Iraq is liberated, and I did not like the Taliban at all, but the future price will be high in terms of our credibility. We had more substantial links to Bin Laden than Hussein did, at least when he was a mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and yet we tried to sell the terrorist connection as an excuse for the invasion.

G.W. Bush is a very action-oriented president, and I'm sure that some military men are happy to be able to do something, go somewhere. But the more time our troops are out of this country, the more time they are away from their real job, which is winning the peace by being productive at home.

BTW, I'm not up on code of conduct, but if I remember correctly, members of the military may not publicly criticize their Commander-in-Cheif while in uniform. This means that any President, even Clinton, can always be guaranteed a warm welcome in public by uniformed servicemen and women. It's an easy play. One of the great sacrifices members of the armed forces make is in accepting less of the privileges and protections civilians take for granted while in uniform, including the first amendment. In extreme cases, this has even meant being used as lab rats in experiments with radiation and drugs with maybe an apology years later.

BTW, I heard that the Bush adminstration is cutting veterans benefits. I guess he has to pay for that tax cut somewhere.

Anyway, I know that it has become very stylish to praise the armed forces, but I really do want to thank them. I believe that the Constitution is the greatest American document, and I still remember some of the words to the loyalty oath I swore more than two decades ago (no, I was never in uniform). The Declaration of Independence is ok, but as we can see all around us, it doesn't take much to tear something down in a revolution. Its what gets built in its place that really counts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Clinton may have been a morally-challenged sneak, but he was our morally-challenged sneak

I keep hearing Clinton was a bum because he got a blow job or two. As I remember, at the time, the rest of the world didn't give a shit. As a matter of fact they were laughing at us for the whole Bruhaha.
Yeah, I know he lied. He lied when people were asking questions that were none of their business.

[tw]

Originally posted by richlevy
Finding someone in the military who liked Clinton, or any Democrat, is always going to be tough. Deserved or not, Democrats have the reputation for not being as hawkish as Republicans. Personally, I can live with that. Most of what keeps this country together is domestic issues, like keeping deficits down and employment up.

Top military people loved Clinton because he got many of their defective weapons systems working (B-1 bomber, B-2 bomber, Patriot missile system, useless aircraft carriers were finally made functional and finally got an airplane that could attack something, etc). Clinton also asked the right questions in meetings. He made, what they regard, as good, decisive, and explicit decisions on Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Military brass likes that. Clinton kept the US out of boondoggles such as Somolia. Clinton advocated the Powell doctrine which military brass likes.

But relations between the George Jr administration and military are quite foul. Administration had to go to find a new Chairman for the Joint Chiefs. Every current three and four star general was considered unacceptable to this administration. They had to get a general out of retirement because relations between the George Jr administration and military are that foul. Relations between the current joint chief and George Jr administration is about a foul as can be as demonstrated by how often the military opinion had to be expressed among the ranks of retired military personnel.

We know the Joint Cheif Chairman was correct when he said we needed up to 200,000 troops in Iraq to maintain order. Third and Fourth Infantry and 101st Airborne have their tours of duty extended 3 more months because not enough troops were sent - as the joint cheifs predicted and as this administration poo-pooed. Since the Iraq war, we have increased (not decreased) troop strength to 150,000 because as Central Command general said but a few weeks ago - the war is still not over regardless of what the administration is telling the Pentagon. Even worse, we don't have the right troops for the job. Heavy infantry is not trained for civilian affairs and police functions.

Relations between this adminstration and the military are quite foul. Some of what Rumsfled is doing is quite necessary and long overdue. But to say the miliatry likes George Jr over Clinton is totally erroneous. They loved Clinton at the highest levels because the got what they wanted most - except a defense budget larger than any cold war budget. But under Clinton, the military became more agile and more competent with less troops and material. Why could the new military operate in Afganistan? Clinton got them the transports they needed and the advanced weapons they preferred. Military liked both Clinton and George Sr. better than this George Jr administration.

[ScottSolomon]

Quite the contrary, WOMD have proved to be a magnet for attack.

On the contrary, it seems that oil proved to be a magnet for attack - lack of WMDs could not deter and attack. North Korea had nothing to worry about - since they already posses WMDs.