Rudy Looks Good To Christians, Democrats skipping briefings on Iraq Updates and Obama’s Foreign Policy Speech
What a day…
Reid: Bush in denial over war in Iraq :
WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said Monday President Bush is in a state of denial over Iraq, “and the new Congress will show him the way.” Holding his ground, Bush renewed his staunch opposition to timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals.
Dems Defy Veto, Keep Troop Timetables in War Bill:
The emphasis of the legislation is on a timetable, specifically the requirement that troops begin withdrawing by Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal, though not a mandate, to withdraw all combat forces within the subsequent six months. Troops could come out as early as this summer if the Iraqi government does not enact political and security reforms.
The bill also places restrictions on how the president can deploy troops that lack sufficient training or have not spent at least one year at home before rotating back into combat. The legislation includes an additional 60-day reporting requirement on Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq, to state how well Iraqis are doing on meeting Bush administration benchmarks.
Democrats skipping briefings on Iraq Updates :
The Democrats did the same thing on April 9: Only one Democrat Senator attended a video conference with Gen. Petraeus which was an update and progress report on the war.
What can be a higher priority than hearing from Gen. Petraeus? Can’t they make Petraeus’ briefings a priority, just for show? Apparently they would rather meet with Code Pink than Gen. Petraeus.
The Democrats wanted power but didn’t want any responsibility, but in winning power they have also earned responsibility. This war is being fought on their watch now, too. If they support the troops as they always say that they do, the least that they could do is treat the war as a priority worth studying and understanding, and worth hearing about from the man most responsible for its execution. They shouldn’t rely on media reports or groups like Iraq Body Count, but that’s apparently just what they’re doing.
I hope he enjoys this while it lasts because Fred’s right behind him in the same poll among the same demographic with 22%. Once he jumps in and starts campaigning in earnest, he’s going to own the conservative Christian vote. And as hard as that’ll make things for Rudy and McCain, it makes them impossible for Mitt, doesn’t it? We keep cutting him slack for lack of name recognition, but if he hasn’t been able to command a lead yet among the innermost core of his would-be core demographic, what hope does he have?  ÂNo doubt anticipating the imminent arrival of Fredmania!, Rudy himself has belatedly found religion on immigration:
April 24, 2007 - 06:59 AM on April 24th, 2007
Peejz,
Please publish or pass back that link I sent you this morning. I really think everyone ought to read that story of the Hollywood producer who went to Iraq and changed his mind about the war losing all his Hollywood “friends” for publicly stating his support for the War in Iraq and why. It would be something for Tofu, AKD, and shitto to read in the least.
Maybe John Galt, the Insurgent Detergent, would care to comment.
April 24, 2007 - 11:34 AM on April 24th, 2007
I think Guiliani will get my vote- I don’t agree with him on 100% of the issues, but he’s the closest I’ve seen..
I didn’t think he’d have a chance of getting out of ther Republican primaries alive, but now it seems he has a fighting chance.
April 24, 2007 - 11:52 AM on April 24th, 2007
Man, but can you imagine an election that came down to Hilary vs. Rudy? I’ll be that there’s more dirt on those two than any other ten candidates combined. There were mini-scandals featuring Guiliani popping up in the NY papers every couple days during his time as mayor, while the right has had close to two decades to dig up dirt on Hilary. Things would get ugly fast…
April 24, 2007 - 12:38 PM on April 24th, 2007
This Christian won’t be voting for Giuliani. I’m usually a “vote for the lesser of the evils” person, but there are times when I draw the line. If worst comes to worst, I will write in a presidential candidate. When Arlen Specter was up for re-election, I voted for the Constitutional Party candidate. I didn’t think there would be a lot of difference between Specter (who changed from Dem to Repub just to get elected) and the Democratic candidate.
April 24, 2007 - 12:49 PM on April 24th, 2007
3.
“Man, but can you imagine an election that came down to Hilary vs. Rudy?”
Yep- part of the curious reality, like watching a train wreck. Hard to turn away, even as much as I HATE to see that kind of campaigning. I was so sick of it the last few times around. I wasn’t even going to vote this time, because I was so disgusted with the candidates last time.
But from what I have seen, Rudy’s assets far out weigh his liabilities IMO. As I said- I don’t agree with him 100%.
I really don’t see that though with Hillary.
April 24, 2007 - 03:05 PM on April 24th, 2007
I really don’t see that though with Hillary.
I honestly can’t stand her. I’m not sure about Giuliani.
April 24, 2007 - 10:26 PM on April 24th, 2007
Hi, everyone. I haven’t commented in a LONG time (since last fall, I believe; I haven’t had time for blogs), but I had to make a comment on Hillary. My husband is pretty liberal, and he is terrified at the idea of her getting the democrat nomination. A lot of our friends are also pretty liberal, and they also can’t stand her. I think people tend to see her name and somehow automatically transfer any love they had for her husband over to her, which is sad. They’re very different people, and as much as one may disagree with how Clinton ran the country when he was POTUS, I think they would be shocked at how bad of a president she would make in comparison.
April 24, 2007 - 10:42 PM on April 24th, 2007
I do have one question for these liberals. Exactly how do you expect to grow the military after you’ve spent the last few years stabbing them in the back? Do you really think that the people joining the military are going to re/enlist to be stabbed in the back or used as pawns in one international social experiment after another? I realize that idiotic liberals think these guys are stupid as a rock, but they really need to look at the educational levels of these guys. Dumb guys don’t get in anymore. The equipment is entirely too sophisticated for morons to operate.
April 25, 2007 - 02:52 AM on April 25th, 2007
I do have one question for these liberals. Exactly how do you expect to grow the military after you’ve spent the last few years stabbing them in the back?
Well, presumably if there’s a stop to the sort of military adventurism we’ve seen over the last 6 years, we won’t require such a massive and costly military. Actually, if all of the smart men and women who would join the military could know for certain that they weren’t being sent off to die for some bad intelligence (WMDs? A link between Saddam and Osama?) they might be more likely to enlist.
Dumb guys don’t get in anymore. The equipment is entirely too sophisticated for morons to operate.
I don’t think that the troops are idiots; however, here’s some info from a recent NYT article:
The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.
During that time, the Army has employed a variety of tactics to expand its diminishing pool of recruits. It has offered larger enlistment cash bonuses, allowed more high school dropouts and applicants with low scores on its aptitude test to join, and loosened weight and age restrictions.
It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers”to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.
The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent.
. . . more than 125,000 service members with criminal histories have joined the military in the last three years[.]
April 25, 2007 - 05:38 AM on April 25th, 2007
“Well, presumably if there’s a stop to the sort of military adventurism we’ve seen over the last 6 years, we won’t require such a massive and costly military.”
I completely disgree. The “military adventurism” (as you;ve out it) has only served to highlight the need to go back to the 2 million+ standing army figure we had during the eighties.
“Actually, if all of the smart men and women who would join the military could know for certain that they weren’t being sent off to die for some bad intelligence (WMDs? A link between Saddam and Osama?) they might be more likely to enlist.”
From this statement, I don’t really think you understand why most people serve in the military. Perhaps FAO or John Gault could enlighten you better than I.
April 25, 2007 - 07:00 AM on April 25th, 2007
10, Ted, AKD and his fellow travellers do not understand patriotism and pride for your country. They are too busy undermining and tearing down the country to stop and think.
April 25, 2007 - 07:39 AM on April 25th, 2007
I don’t think that the troops are idiots; however, here’s some info from a recent NYT article:
The New York Times is not a credible source. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. They’ve done it to themselves.
Today’s NYT is dependable only as a source of material for a bird cage liner, or a fish wrapper.
April 25, 2007 - 07:45 AM on April 25th, 2007
11, Ted, I’ve just read what I posted. Please understand and accept that I did not lump you in with AKD. Maybe I should have put quotation marks around “AKD and his fellow travellers”.
Ted, my apologies.
April 25, 2007 - 08:31 AM on April 25th, 2007
14.
No worries PCD. I dodn’t take it as such.
April 25, 2007 - 01:54 PM on April 25th, 2007
The “military adventurism”(as you;ve out it) has only served to highlight the need to go back to the 2 million+ standing army figure we had during the eighties.
Then we could really get a few quagmires going. Where should we spread democracy next?
The New York Times is not a credible source.
Care to show me how they’ve falsified they’re information? Or why their source (the DOD) is not reliable?
April 25, 2007 - 02:04 PM on April 25th, 2007
AKD, you really must read here much other than your own postings. The lies of the NYT are regularly exposed here. Just search the archives a bit. Hint: What was the name of that reporter fired by the NYT for making up complete stories that got editors to resign?
April 25, 2007 - 02:12 PM on April 25th, 2007
Care to show me how they’ve falsified they’re information? Or why their source (the DOD) is not reliable?
PCD beat me to it. But does it require any more explanation? Any source has a trust factor. The NYT has outright falsified, lied, and mischaracterized so many times now on major stories/issues that how can they be accorded and trust? They have demonstrated they have NO integrity? What more do you need to know?
April 25, 2007 - 02:18 PM on April 25th, 2007
PCD beat me to it. But does it require any more explanation? Any source has a trust factor. The NYT has outright falsified, lied, and mischaracterized so many times now on major stories/issues that how can they be accorded and trust? They have demonstrated they have NO integrity? What more do you need to know?
I need you to demonstrate that the information that I cited did not come from the DOD, that the statistics are false. “I don’t like the NYT” is not an argument. Sorry.
April 25, 2007 - 02:18 PM on April 25th, 2007
Robert, the NYT is pre-soiled paper. Ft. Howard, er excuse me, Ft. James won’t even accept it to make recycled paper.
April 25, 2007 - 04:41 PM on April 25th, 2007
What I am saying is: Use the NYT for bird cage liner, fish wrapper, painting masking, starting fires, or toilet paper. It has no other useful purpose. It is not worth discussing in any other context. Period.
April 25, 2007 - 04:48 PM on April 25th, 2007
20. So I guess you don’t have an argument.
April 25, 2007 - 06:31 PM on April 25th, 2007
I merely injected (post 12) into this discussion the observation that the NYT was of absolutely no use whatsoever as a source for anything.
I made that argument quite completely.
Any more questions?
April 25, 2007 - 11:30 PM on April 25th, 2007
So if you do have a High School dropout what do you WANT to happen to this person? Welfare? Low paying job at a fast food joint? Maybe a life of crime?
Is it sooo terrible for them to join the military, be forced to get at least a GED, learn a trade that will one day actually offer them a REAL opportunity in the civilian sector?
Yep…that’s just HORRIBLE huh?
What happens to MOST high school drop outs? Honestly…what happens to them? How successful do they become? How hard is their life?
It’s just bitch bitch bitch with some folks huh?
April 26, 2007 - 02:45 AM on April 26th, 2007
I made that argument quite completely.
No, you posted an uninformed opinion with no facts to back it up. It’s sad that you don’t know the difference snowy… er, I mean, Robert.
So if you do have a High School dropout what do you WANT to happen to this person? Welfare? Low paying job at a fast food joint? Maybe a life of crime?
See above for what my post actually refered to.
April 26, 2007 - 03:12 AM on April 26th, 2007
Well I have read the above posts and it’s all over the place but the fact that you even put in quotations this excerpt from the NYT highly suggests to me that you agree with it and maybe you were suggesting that if troops were “smarter” they wouldn’t join up to go fight in Iraq or be too smart to be “lied” to?
First you can’t honestly take ONE newspaper article and really use that ONE source as an argument. You have to take into consideration some of the more key elements involved in recruiting folks and what it actually takes to join.
AFQT”the Armed Forces Qualification Test. I haven’t heard of those standards being lowered and the Physical fitness of people is NOT being lowered if anything ALL the branches of service are getting tougher and tougher on that. I haven’t heard ONE person say that their weight limit has been upped. Would you like to go to the gym on Ramstein AB and see all the folks sweating it off because their weight limit has DECREASED this past year?
Do you know how heavy the armor is the people have to wear? Do you think an out of shape person could walk through a desert all day with close to 80lbs of equipment strapped to them?
You put this article up for us to read. I am simply taking issue with it’s contents. If you don’t want to discuss what YOU put up then I’m sorry. I’m taking direct issue with it. I find it to be very one sided.
Here’s a link from Army.Com that completely disgarees with your NYT article.
April 27, 2007 - 08:16 PM on April 27th, 2007
I can tell you from recent experience that they have raised the age limits for rejoining, but they have NOT lowered the bar for weight or body fat. I passed those but because I had been on blood pressure meds two years ago (I haven’t taken them in 2 years, I simply went on a diet and lost 30 lbs) I was medically disqualified despite maxing the ASVAB and having a mechanical skills score that one recruiter referred to as “Off the chart”. In fact the Body Fat percentage for prior service is tougher than for new recruits. I had to have a lower body fat percentage than a new recruit 7-10 years younger than I am. So don’t tell me that they’re handing out waivers willy nilly. I tried to get one and couldn’t.
As for high school drop outs being so bad off by going into the military, I just have to laugh at that comment. Have you looked at the military pay scale lately? Anyone coming out of high school or college without a technical degree who is not looking at the military as an option is crazy. A high school drop out who gets his GED on active duty, advances normally and gets married or has dependents, will be making $30000 after 3 years and even more after 4. If he’s not married or have dependents, he’ll be making $22000+ and will have rent, utilities and meals provided. And that’s not including any combat pay. That’s for someone like the Radiology Techs I deliver x-rays to at the local AF base hospital. They not only get experience and training for a lucrative career outside of the military, they get full benefits including 30 days paid vacation while in the military. They also get their college tuition paid for while on active duty. Not a bad compensation package for a high school drop out is it?
A college graduate that becomes an officer starts at over $30k and is over $50k after 3 years and pushing $70k after 5. That’s a hell of a lot better than most jobs. They’ll even pay for a Master’s degree (you’ll need one to make it past Captain). At least on Active Duty. Reservists might be able to eventually make Major without one.
April 27, 2007 - 09:31 PM on April 27th, 2007
I recently looked into rejoining the USAR and was amazed at how stringent the Army Physical Fitness Test standards were even for old guys (over 40). I used to max the APFT regularly. I am much older now and while I’m not Charles Atlas, I’m not a slug. And I would have to work pretty hard to get in good enough shape to pass it even for my age group.
Today’s U.S. military is the best educated, best-trained in history, as FAO pointed out.
So much for the lowered standards notion…
btw I was unable to sell my spouse on the idea of rejoining the USAR because they told me up front that as soon as I was processed I would be getting orders for 15 months in the sandbox. I have no problem with that whatsoever, but couldn’t get approval. I am perfectly willing to serve (again) like FAO is.
I’d love to be a sniper. I’d carve little turbans in the stock of my weapon. My personal goal would be to take out 10 of theirs for every one of ours they get. A lofty goal, but you have to think positive, right?
April 28, 2007 - 12:08 AM on April 28th, 2007
Today’s U.S. military is the best educated, best-trained in history, as FAO pointed out.
He didn’t point this out. He said that you can’t be fat if you want to join (if you’re older). That’s it. He didn’t respond to any of the other points.
He went on to say that the pay is good. The article I cited also lists cash bonuses for new recruits, etc. So he’s actually agreeing with me there. I never said it was a bad decision for drop-outs (though its difficult to weigh the decent pay vs. the threat of death/mutilation).
As for the link to the Army’s own website, it doesn’t refer to the data reported on by the NYT (which came from the DoD; read again if you’re confused).
April 28, 2007 - 08:57 AM on April 28th, 2007
Your argument AKD is a cousin to the recently (discredited) myth that the military is disproportionately filled with poor and minority recruits.
The Heritage Foundation has done studies that dispel that notion, and support what FAO and I are saying.
Oh but the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing propaganda organ of Karl Rove and the Bush War Machine, right?
April 28, 2007 - 09:04 AM on April 28th, 2007
And just in case you can’t stand reading that material, here is a quote that sums it up:
“The current findings show that the demoÂgraphic characteristics of volunteers have continÂued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality.”
April 28, 2007 - 05:15 PM on April 28th, 2007
AKD you also failed to reference the fact that I stated that the pay scale includes technical jobs with little or no exposure to combat. Yes there are larger bonuses for combat related jobs, but still there are no requirements that people go into them. You, like so many of the hate America/military crowd, are too busy pushing your idiotic agenda that facts that disagree with your pre/ill conceived ideas are ignored. For your information, the majority of positions in the military are NON COMBAT support positions. At one point in time, the military was 70% support personnel and only 30% combat personnel. The enlistment and reenlistment bonuses were cut severely during the Clinton administration, and they would not permit prior service military to rejoin. THAT is the reason why we don’t have the Arabic and Farsi translaters we need. It’s not because they won’t allow gays to serve, it’s because the Clinton administration cut their reenlistment bonuses from $25,000 for a 5 yr tour to around $5000. It was simply much more lucrative for them to leave the service and go to work elsewhere. The logic behind this was that new recruits cost less because they have a lower pay rate, never mind the fact that interpreters with 10 yrs experience are far more likely to understand the nuances in a language than someone who has just graduated from the Defense Language Institute.
April 28, 2007 - 05:29 PM on April 28th, 2007
BTW Robert, I was put on the Fat Boy program a week after maxing the APRT at Ft Carson. AKA 2 miles in under 12:30 at 6300 ft elevation. Imagine being told “You’re two pounds overweight and I’m putting you on the fat boy program. If you don’t lose 15 lbs, I’m going to throw you out of the Army.” My response to that was one of the reasons why I ended up making a tenuous at best relationship with my CO an untenable one. I was the ONLY platoon leader with a 300 APRT score. Had I known then, what I know now, I would’ve immediately requested a transfer to another battery if not another battalion.
If you need a spotter Robert, I’ll bring the popcorn, spotting scope and ghilli suit. Hell, I may bring my own rifle. I was printing decent groups with my newest FAL this afternoon despite it needing service to correct a jamming problem. It was the first time I’ve had it out, but it seems accurate enough once I get it torn apart and properly cleaned it should work fine. Of course I also blew half a day’s pay in 9mm and 380 ammo, but it was great high capacity therapy. I am SOOOO glad I buy in bulk. Nothing like blowing off some stress by punching holes in targets. It’s just as theurapeutic as a psychologist, costs less and actually helps develop a real skill that might save your life one day. LOL Now let’s see how many libs go crazy over that last paragraph… ROFLMAO
April 29, 2007 - 05:04 PM on April 29th, 2007
30. “The current findings show that the demoÂgraphic characteristics of volunteers have continÂued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality.”
Great stuff, Robert, except that the article you’re citing doesn’t repsond to any of the information from the NYT article—and how could it, it came out a year before. At least check the date before you try to use the heritage foundation to refute information that came from the DoD.
As for the heritage foundation… Let’s let them describe themselves, shall we: they state on their website that their goal is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”
31. AKD you also failed to reference the fact that I stated that the pay scale includes technical jobs with little or no exposure to combat.
Because it’s not relevant to the initial argument. Here’s an idea FAO: Before you post one of your incredibly long rambling e-mails where you bitch and moan about Clinton, Mexicans, Ted Kennedy, or whoever else you think is hiding under your bed, try checking to see if any of it is at all relevant.
32. Now let’s see how many libs go crazy over that last paragraph:
Five words for you manly gun nuts: Tweezers and a magnifying glass.
May 5, 2007 - 12:40 AM on May 5th, 2007
AKD, my posts are far more relevant than any of your pathetic drivel. Mine are generally based on first hand knowledge or reliable sources that don’t have a history of being the employer of choice for discredited wannabe journalists, unlike the NYT. Ever hear of the book “Shattered Glass”? This guy was the pride and joy of the NYT for his stories.And that’s what they were, stories. The NYT editorial staff was so on the ball that he fed them bogus stories for MONTHS before another reporter realized the details of the stories didn’t add up. The very editors who were signing his expense reports weren’t smart enough to realize that the numbers didn’t add up.There is a reason why virtually every major paper in this country is losing circulation.
You know AKD without MEN like Robert and I who are willing to defend this country, little obnoxious boys like you wouldn’t be able to make your inane childish comments.
May 5, 2007 - 01:12 AM on May 5th, 2007
Great stuff, Robert, except that the article you’re citing doesn’t repsond to any of the information from the NYT article.
Like I said, the NYT can be dismissed without further comment. I don’t care what they or you claim their sources are it doesn’t matter. The NYT is a known, proven propagandist pos, period. End of story. The fact that you would even cite them shows how vapid your position is.
As for the heritage foundation: Let’s let them describe themselves, shall we: they state on their website that their goal is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.â€
Yes, free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense…all things that are anathema to the Left. Like showing a cross to Dracula, they are all hated by the Left. No surprise that you would oppose them too AKD…
FAO nailed it when he pointed out how it is because of the service of others that the Freedom exists in this nation for armchair prognosticators like AKD to post their warped opinions.
Personally, I think AKD is really either an operative paid for by Soros/Democrite money, or Achmed the Insurgent posting from some anti-America boiler room in the sandbox.
He poses as some kind of Libertarian uber intellectual Patriot free thinker when it seems from his posts that he hates everything traditionally American and instead seeks to undermine America. His reasoning is so steeped in Leftist/Democrite talking points that I’d say he must certainly be a paid Democrite operative. But then the terrorists have learned them well too, reaping a generous bounty of rhetoric and Anti-American propaganda served up to them by the words of Democrite leaders themselves. Words the terrorists parrot and turn into propaganda weapons against America.
May 5, 2007 - 02:04 AM on May 5th, 2007
34, 35:
No arguments. No statistics. Just a bunch a hot air. Pretty sad you brave, manly bloggers, you.
With folks like you defending it, it’s not surprising that the right-wing has become the domain of a loud, whiny—but now, very maginal—minority.