I think it's pretty funny.

I pity you.

Now I think it's very funny.

Let's see... We send our kids over there without adequate armor protection and then we charge them for their meals when they get to Walter Reed missing limbs and the boys in charge at the Pentagon are crying like babies over a cartoon?

Gimme a freaking break.

Where's the outrage from you guys over the lack of armor and the fact that we are charging injured service men and women for meals?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does body armor cover limbs? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Not even the "adequate" armor does that. Doug, stop drinking so deeply from the MSM accepted story line.

"We send our "kids" over there...". It use to be that anyone over the age of 16 (YES! In former times they left home and made their way in the world-not on the streets-at age 16 or younger!) was a young man. Certainly people in their twenties are not "kids". I guess in liberal-land (where NO ONE grows up) "kids" can be any age.

Well *someone* got up on the angry side of the bed this morning. What is it, pledge week on your Canadian Mennonite radio station?

Whether armor covers limbs is completely irrelevant.

The question is, where is the outrage over sending troops ill protected for combat and charging them for meals when they are in Walter Reed.

Your point Ryan is like saying a helmet won't protect your leg if you slam into a tree on your motorcycle so don't bother wearing a helmet.

And Colleen, since you feel compelled to twist everything I say into an anti-liberal rant, let me rephrase what I said.

The U.S. sends its troops over there without adequate armor protection and then we charge them for their meals when they get to Walter Reed missing limbs and the boys in charge at the Pentagon are crying like babies over a cartoon?

There... Does that make you feel better or do you still need to deflect and strive to find some other hidden liberal meaning to what I said...?

Um Doug..... The troopers that are in Iraq don't want to wear all of that armor you want sent over. Actually, more then a few want to wear less! As was said in the movie "Hamburger Hill": "We had a short-timer once. Johnny I-forget-his-name. He wore a flak jacket, two helmets and armor underwear. Ashau Valley... your time's up, your time *is* up."

Something tells me the kids in Colleen's neighborhood are *really* careful to keep their balls from going into her yard.

rps informed: "Um Doug..... The troopers that are in Iraq don't want to wear all of that armor you want sent over. Actually, more then a few want to wear less!"

Look Ma, no hands!

"Your point Ryan is like saying a helmet won't protect your leg if you slam into a tree on your motorcycle so don't bother wearing a helmet."

Noooooo, it's more like your point being: "if you wear a helmet, your whole body is protected."

The cartoonist is better described as a liberal whose temper has gotten worse with time. There's no shortage of such.

The cartoon as such is no surprise as too many contemporary liberals have such abject hatred for the military, the physically disabled and those who disagree with them that they can't recognize any such people as being human. They struck a trifecta here.

"Now I think it's very funny."

Let me guess: you support the troops?

Ryan. Except I never said "if you wear a helmet, your whole body is protected."

Don't put something in quotes and ascribe it to me when I never said anything of the sort.

and rps, my son always moans about having to wear his seatbelt in thew car. I still make him wear it.

Yeah, that's what I really want... someone defending my country who's to stupid to defend himself.

If a soldier refuses to wear something that could save his life, maybe we should just let the process of natural selection take it's course.

I disagree with angryclown, I don't think it was 'funny' or even meant to be 'funny'.

I do not think it is 'funny' that our Secretary of Def., not only ignores the relentless ginding down our Army, but tries to spin it as a 'good' thing. I think the cartoon is meant to induce, not laughter, but anger and firm resolve.

So what is "beneath contempt"

Any cartoon depiction of a quad amputee soldier?

or just those that are critical of Donald Rumsfeld?

Change Dr. Rumsfeld to a generic liberal saying "I don't support the war, but I still support the troops". Do you still think the cartoon is 'beneath contempt'?

Doug Sunstroke guessed: "Let me guess: you support the troops?"

I'm for war, but I'm against the troops.

Gregg the Obtuse ventured: "too many contemporary liberals have such abject hatred for the military, the physically disabled and those who disagree with them that they can't recognize any such people as being human."

Heehee, lib'rals hate *the physically disabled* now? They are some bad, bad people, those lib'rals! Where do they stand on sunshine and soft puppies? Don't tell me, bet they're against 'em! Bastards.

RickObtuseDFLer,

What's "beneath contempt" is using injured troops to take a facile and largely (if obviously not legally) defamatory swipe at Rumsfeld's motivations.

Euthanasia in its various forms is generally rooted in hatred for a physically disabled person.

I'm with Clown on this one.

1. The target was clearly meant to be Rumsfeld.

2. All sacrosant objects eventually become shields for scoundrels to hide behind, whether its the flag, Christianity, children, trees, the elderly, or whatever. Get over it, you know Toles was pointing his barrel-o'-ink at Rummy and the administration, not some poor wounded schmuck so stop the holier-than-thou routine, it just makes me want to throw up.

And no, I'm also sure the kids are very very careful not to let their balls land in Colleens yard, and yank the leashes on their puppies when they stray over the property line.

"Don't put something in quotes and ascribe it to me when I never said anything of the sort."

I believe a waaaaaahmbulance is needed here.

"What's "beneath contempt" is using injured troops to take a facile and largely (if obviously not legally) defamatory swipe at Rumsfeld's motivations."

Would it be OK to use an injured troop to take a non-facile and non-defamatory swipe at Rumsfeld?

Or do you object to the use of injured troops to make any point at all?

There is nothing obtuse about trying to distinguish two very different issues.

I didn't read that as a whine so much as an admonition to not be stupid, Ryan. You seem like you could use help with your punctuation. I think you should thank Doug.

When Internet debate devolves into someone complaining about incorrect quotation marks in a dashed off comment, yes, a waaaambulance is in order. Grow a skin, people.

Besides, AC, I've written off your comments as petulant wankery since your uninformed rants about a war between blue and red states. Suffice it to say, Angryclown describes you perfectly.

Ryan complimented: "Suffice it to say, Angryclown describes you perfectly."

Why thank you, Ryan! And I think the name "Ryan" perfectly captures the wit and sophistication you bring to this blog.

http://snipurl .com/m7dp

Bill: "I'm with Clown on this one."
Yes, you are. Lucky you. You think it's acceptable to mock someone who took an oath to protect your sorry ass from enemies foreign and domestic. Then you join in Pitifulclown's ad hominen attack on Coleen's presupposed temperment.
"... it just makes me want to throw up"
I'm sure this isn't the only thing that causes this reaction in you, Bill.

Rick asks the deep, meaningful question: "Would it be OK to use an injured troop to take a non-facile and non-defamatory swipe at Rumsfeld?"
To which I would rejoinder "Is it ok to use a slightly moronic mother of a dead American soldier to advance both an anti-war and an anti-Zionist agenda?"
People in glass houses, Rick...

Actually, Kerm, the oath requires soldiers to support and defend *the Constitution* against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I can understand how you right-wing kooks would want to leave that part out.

It's comforting to know you have exempted yourself from it's protections. I doubt Billy has.
Tell me, have you been hearing unusual clicking sounds on your phone lately? I'm sure that drycleaners van that's been parked outside of your dingy brownstone tenement all week is just abandoned.

Beyond contempt, but do please continue.

We applaud your now more circling the drain, ever quicker, as there could be no better exemplar than your callow tripe as to how and why you've lost the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, the Executive, your dignity, and the tolerance of the vast majority of Americans, who will now only more increase your isolation and interment with contempt, in shame, and forever well beyond the gates of power and the bounds of civil society.

The greatest achievement of the blogosphere is to have finally removed the woolly shroud of the liberal news media and its genuflecting, fawning acolytes, to reveal its morbid fascination with horror, its disdain for human life, its hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, and its addiction to exploiting the most base in human ignorance, stupidity, and indifference, which you appear to have in great abundance admiring such vile cartoons.

Even dogs respect their dead and protect their wounded. Not so you, who would hang them from the bridges as easily as a picture because you would not know the difference.

Eracus, I thought you promised you wouldn't use the thesaurus anymore when you're drunk.

Something I'm curious about: What's the tooth to tattoo ratio in Metropolis? Is it more or less than, oh say, Hope Arkansas?
And what does a Menonite look like? I've never seen one. Are they anything like a Metrosexual?

Is there some word you do not understand, AngryClown? No doubt there is, for it would only more illustrate the point.

Do continue.

Thanks Eracus. I understand the words. What I don't get is why you write like a constipated stone-carver.

Maybe it's just the callow tripe talkin', but you might want to increase your period-to-comma ratio.

Work harder. Try to keep up. I don't think everyone here completely comprehends just what a pathetic angry clown you really are yet.

Do continue. Do your worst.

Whenever I read Angry Clown's posts, I think of a line uttered in the movie "Con Air":

He's a fountain of misplaced rage. Name your cliche; Mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry that moments of levity actually cause him pain; give him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.

Eracus wrote: "Work harder. Try to keep up. I don't think everyone here completely comprehends just what a pathetic angry clown you really are yet.

Do continue. Do your worst."

Short, direct sentences - that is so much better, Eracus! I'm giving somebody a smiley face on his homework today!

As re:

" Now he's so angry that moments of levity actually cause him pain; give him headaches."

I gotta jump to Angryclown's defense. He's relentlessly wrong on all things political and most thing social, but he's fine with levity.

Out outta three ain't bad.

Short, direct sentences - that is so much better, Eracus!
------------
Thus proving your inability to maintain any train of thought beyond the length of a nursery rhyme. Not impressive, just more pathetic.

Please, do continue.

He's relentlessly wrong on all things political and most thing social, but he's fine with levity.
------------------
It's the bong then.

"Out outta three ain't bad."

Actually, that ratio may perfectly represent AC's hit-or-miss ratio for humor.

Probably better than most blog commenters, to be fair.

Bill: "I'm with Clown on this one."
Yes, you are. Lucky you. You think it's acceptable to mock someone who took an oath to protect your sorry ass from enemies foreign and domestic. Then you join in Pitifulclown's ad hominen attack on Coleen's presupposed temperment.

Kevin: I'd like my words back, please, when you're done playing with them.

As for AC: I'm actually developing more and more respect for him (although not enough, apparently, to use the 1st person and not the third...)

Very Daily Show'esq, pricking hyper-inflated sechulptured egos.

Democracy grows, when people are free to speak their minds. It allows people to be fools. Democracy dies, just a little bit, when someone is told "You can not say that".

Every construction of a sacred, guilded cow, every elevation of a totemistic fetish, whether it is wounded soldiers, school children, the environment, God's big-little instruction book, the flag, the disabled; everything a scoundrel like Rumsfeld and Cheney, or Clinton, can hide behind is an opportunity to stifle speech, and wound democracy. Value the person, not the symbol - when blowhards go on about the value of a symbol, I am only reminded of bearded and turbaned angry old men, who vow death for any who let the Quoram touch the ground.

For the record:

I'm not a Mennonite...I listen to a radio station based out of a heavily Mennonite community in southern Manitoba. It plays all kinds of music...criminy.
I get along very well with kids-and pretty near everyone else. I happen to think leftists are in a perpetual state of arrested development or victimhood....Rush said the other day (yes, that "horrible" person) that protest marches are a form of therapy for the left. BINGO! Grow up...get a spine, THINK...don't just FEEL.

I don't want to sound clueless (like good ol' Teena always did), but why am I painted as mean when I think that people in their twenties should be classified as grown-ups?!! BTW, my son is a 28 yr old Sheriff's Deputy who is protecting our community every time he's on duty. I want him as safe as every parent who has a son or daughter in a war zone-he wears a vest on the job and I'd like to think it's well-made....but, he is NOT a child nor are the soldiers.

Finally, when I start reading a post I know it's Eracus right away because there's a literate tone...sensible, educated (although he probably has three teeth and drools since he's a red-stater-ha ha). All that seems to bother the smart-ass contingent..but, what doesn't?

Kermit:

"To which I would rejoinder "Is it ok to use a slightly moronic mother of a dead American soldier to advance both an anti-war and an anti-Zionist agenda?"
People in glass houses, Rick..."

First, you properly respond to a question with an answer not a rejoinder. That is unless you do not have an answer.

Second, I suppose the answer to your question depends on whether you approve of an anti-war or anti-Zionist message. If you are pro-war and / or pro-zionist, your are not going to like the message no matter who it comes from. If you are anti-war and / or anti-Zionist, I suppose it depends on whether you think the spokeperson effectively conveys the message.

For the talk about defending the troops I have not read anything here so far that is not a defense of Rumsfeld. People seem to be angry because the cartoon so effectively conveys the idea of Rumsfeld's willful indifference to the long-term health of the U.S. Army as an institution.

You may disagree with the assesment of Rumsfeld, but lets be clear that you are not defending the troops, your are defending Rumsfeld.

Ryan, I wasn't admonishing you for poor punctuation usage. I was admonishing you for being a putz.

You put something in quotes and suggested that I said it.

That's a little trick your side always uses to try to win a debate. It is the first step in setting up a strawman argument and you guys do it all the time.

You can't debate on merit so you make sh*t up.

"That's a little trick your side always uses to try to win a debate."

Sure, Doug, only the *other* side uses strawmen and makes shit up.

(Not to say that's what Ryan was doing. He was exaggerating for effect, as far as I can tell. And BTW, if I remember right the whole "charging for meals" thing was worked out eventually...)

"That's a little trick your side always uses to try to win a debate. It is the first step in setting up a strawman argument and you guys do it all the time. You can't debate on merit so you make sh*t up." --Doug
----------------
Oh, do you mean like this?
----------------
"You may disagree with the assesment of Rumsfeld, but lets be clear that you are not defending the troops, your are defending Rumsfeld." --RickDFL
----------------
Rumsfeld is quite capable of defending himself and does so regularly, admirably, whether you agree with him or not. Of course if you have no cognizance of the near centuries old debate over military force structure, national security strategy, and the economic policies required to address the clear and present danger, assuming you recognize a clear and present danger, then of course you would assume the objection is in defense of Donald Rumsfeld -- because personal insults are the only ideas you understand and can present in a debate.

Would the message be any different if the "doctor" were Mother Teresa, Jesse Jackson, or Al Franken? No, it would not. It would remain just another despicable example of the Left's depravity and indifference to their fellow man, in this case, the human being who lost his arms and legs to secure, in this war or the last, your 1st Amendment privilege to ridicule and defame the very sacrifice by which your freedom was obtained.

Any fool can live like a pig in a barnyard. Aim higher, if you dare.

Ricky! I am truely sorry if my use of rejoinder was too complex of a response. To be direct may I say NO! I do not approve of an anti-war or anti-Zionist message. I am unashamedly, unabashedly pro-Zionist and pro-war. There's just a whole lot of really bad people out there who want to kill me and you. And Angryclown (That's understandable, but I still object).
As regards Secretary Rumsfeld, he is an element of the U.S. military (like it or not) and accusing him of "willful indifference to the long-term health of the U.S. Army as an institution" is such a despicable slander that it only reflects on the true nature of those on the left who would applaud such craven, disgusting cartoons (much like Ted Kennedy), as this thread was targeting.

Bill: "Kevin: I'd like my words back, please, when you're done playing with them."

First, it's Kermit. Kevin is my older brother. Be nice or I'll send him over there to beat you up. He's really big, and he thinks Eugene McCarthy was a fag.
Second PLEASE!!! Keep on speaking! Shout your antiquated leftist pap from the rooftops! Between moldy old DFLer's like you and the Cindy Sheehan's of the world undecided people are turning to conservatism in increasing numbers.
When My 19 year old son looks at the FICA and useless union dues taken out of his pay-check he can't wait for the chance to vote Republican.
And Bill, he's not the only one.

And Bill, it's Quran not Quoram.

It's funny in an "Al Franken funny" way. I'm waiting for angry to describe this as "satire" and hide behind that. Well, satire in that "Al Franken mean spirited, lacking irony and wit" way.

No painted, It's funny in a George Bush kind of way.

Remember this whole outrage started in response to Rumsfelds rejection of a Pentagon commissioned study that warned that the military was becoming stretched too thin.

It reminds me of something Bush said. Something to the effect, and I'm paraphrasing, "we had no way of knowing that someone would fly an airplane into a building..." or "nobody could have predicted the levees breaking..."

Come to think of it, it's funny in a Bill Frist sort of way too... Diagnosing a woman from the floor of the Senate off of a videotape and concluding something different from all of the experts that had direct and personal contact with her.

Thank you Doug for proving my point. I submit for the record Doug's humorless post, lack of wit and topped off with gigantic leaps in logic. Thanks Doug, you're best!

I said it was funny in a George Bush kind of way.

I never claimed it would be humorous now did I.

Perhaps if you owned a dictionary, you would know that there are a couple different meanings to the word, funny.

The use I suggest goes something like this...

"no one could have predicted 9/11".

"funny, what is the title of that PDB sitting on your desk Mr. President"?

or

"no one could have predicted the levees breaking"

"funny, What does that 41 page assessment produced by your own Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), on your desk say Mr. President."

See Painted? Isn't that "funny"?

Yeah, I'm not laughing either.

Getting all apolectic over a cartoon is nothing more than a cheap diversionary tactic to distract people away from the real debate about how Rumsfeld is running the Pentagon.

Do you know what's really funny, painteddog? Poor Doug thinks there was a department of Homeland Security prior to 9/11.

"funny, What does that 41 page assessment produced by your own Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), on your desk say Mr. President."

He can do acronyms, but facts are a little beyond his grasp.
Doug, straighten and face aisle 8, would you?
You are becoming a second-rate pb.

Eracus pontificated: "It would remain just another despicable example of the Left's depravity and indifference to their fellow man, in this case, the human being who lost his arms and legs to secure, in this war or the last, your 1st Amendment privilege to ridicule and defame the very sacrifice by which your freedom was obtained."

Actually professor, it wasn't so much a "human being" as a "cartoon character." I'd be interested to see how bent out of shape you get when an anvil falls on Wily Coyote and he's forced to walk all accordian-like.

"Oh the humanity!"

You know, Kerm, I hate to correct you for being flat-out, no-defense, dumb-assed wrong in your attempt to mock Doug...

Did I say "hate"? Oh man, I'm so embarassed. I meant "love." I "love" to correct you in this situation. Let's go to the instant replay:

Doug, conducting a mock conversation with the president, said: "no one could have predicted the levees breaking"

"funny, What does that 41 page assessment produced by your own Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), on your desk say Mr. President."

You see, the "levee" reference makes me think Doug was talking about a big flood of some kind. I'm gonna guess Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans. Remember? It was on TV a lot at the time.

Here's a link to a story about the Homeland Security report, in case you're interested in getting up to speed with Doug: http://snipurl.co m/m8hb

You might also want to look into the "Hooked on Phonics." The reading comprehension level on this blog is distressingly low.

"Hooked on Phonics", good one angry! But you're right, we do need it, we went to public school. I was taught to hate Reagan and Bush Sr., just not with correct spelling.

AngryClown, do please continue. The more asinine your posts, the more you illustrate the Left's depravity and indifference, like a braying ass.

Afterall, it's a two-fer! You get to indulge your narcissistic infantalism and the rest of us can see you've nothing else to offer.

It's no certainty everyone realizes your complete self-absorption, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem yet, so please, do continue. There's a war on.

Kermit. We've got a special this week on "clues". Maybe you should stop in this week and pick one up.

Eracus repeated:

"Beyond contempt, but do please continue."

"Do continue. "

"Do continue. Do your worst."

"Please, do continue. "

"AngryClown, do please continue. "

Eracus, please don't continue.

Now you're just whining, AC, implying free speech is only for thee but not for me.

Isn't that just what the mullahs are saying?

If I recall correctly the mullahs are currently incensed by and making death threats over an editorial cartoon.

Not at all, Eracus. Just trying to get you to limit the windbaggery a bit.

Nice dodge. Elemenatary. You initiated this thread by declaring,"I think it's pretty funny," referring to the Toles' cartoon.

Tell us. Exactly what do you think is funny?

Clown's right. Doug conflated 9/11 and Katrina in a truely pbian feat of logic.

Eracus:
"Of course if you have no cognizance of the near centuries old debate over military force structure, national security strategy, and the economic policies required to address the clear and present danger"

Quick answers?.
What percentage of FY2006 recruits are rated Category 4? What was the percentage 10 years ago?

What percentage of Captains were promoted to Major last time around, what was the percentage 10 years ago?

When the units currently in Iraq redeploy home and their troops are no longer covered by a stop-loss order, how many thousands of troops does the Army expect to lose almost overnight?

What was the year over year decrease in monthly recruiting figures from Oct. 2004 to Oct. 2005?

How many combat brigades has Rumsfeld cut from the National Guard?

There is more to military strategy than watching Charlie Sheen in 'Navy Seals' for the twentieth time.

If you want me to aim higher, you have to get off the ground.

"There is more to military strategy than watching Charlie Sheen in 'Navy Seals' for the twentieth time."
-------------------
Yes, and there is more to military strategy than coughing up a tirade of obscure statistical verbiage, none of which has anything to do with national security strategy other than to recommend the failure of the McNamara approach by the likes of William Perry and The Washington Post. But if you want a parlor game, hotshot, here we go....

What percentage of FY2006 recruits are rated Category 4? What was the percentage 10 years ago?
-------------------
Category IV represents the lower skilled, less educated recruit, reporting the failure of the public education system. The percentage was doubled, from 2% to 4%, to allow more people to obtain employment in the kitchens, quartermasters and motorpools of the U.S. military. What, you think they fly tanks? Each year the Army recruits about 80,000 new troops. Even if 12 percent of recruits were Category IV for the entire coming year, they would swell the ranks of Cat IV soldiers overall by less than 2%.
--------------------
What percentage of Captains were promoted to Major last time around, what was the percentage 10 years ago?
--------------------
Selection opportunity for captain and major topped 95 percent last year, and is expected to go higher. There has never been a better opportunity for career advancement in the U.S. military than there is today.
--------------------
When the units currently in Iraq redeploy home and their troops are no longer covered by a stop-loss order, how many thousands of troops does the Army expect to lose almost overnight?
--------------------
What a silly question. It is a volunteer army. If it "redeploys home" it is demobilizing. It does not "lose troops," it aligns supply with demand like any other business.
-------------------
What was the year over year decrease in monthly recruiting figures from Oct. 2004 to Oct. 2005?
-------------------
ACTIVE DUTY RECRUITING: The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force all met or exceeded their recruiting goals. The Navy’s was 100%. The Marine Corps’ was 103%. The Air Force's was 101%. The Army missed its recruiting goal of 6,700 by 1,661 recruits or about 25%, because the economic boom in private sector jobs and competition from the other service branches make it less financially attractive. This is not news.

ACTIVE DUTY RETENTION: All services met or exceeded their overall retention goals.

RESERVE FORCES RECRUITING: The Air Force Reserve surpassed its recruiting goal. The Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve brought aboard more recruits than in any previous fiscal year, but still fell short. The Army Reserve enlisted 82%, the Navy Reserve brought aboard 94%, and the Marine Corps Reserve had 88%. The Army National Guard recruited 71%. Although the Air National Guard also fell short of its recruiting mission by enlisting 78%, its year-to-date recruiting posture remains constant, and within 1% of its objective, consistent with the other service branches.

RESERVE FORCES RETENTION: Army National Guard retention was 106.5% and Air National Guard retention was 105%.
--------------------
How many combat brigades has Rumsfeld cut from the National Guard?
--------------------
The US Army, not just Rumsfeld, has proposed cutting its budgeted Guard strength by some 17,000 positions by replacing 6 combat brigades supporting roughly 4,000 troops with brigade headquarters that have only a few hundred. It's called dead wood. They want to cut it.
--------------------
Look, over the past 10 years, Les Aspin was disgraced, William Perry was a bureaucratic global tourist, and William Cohen spent 4 years trading tea for cookies with his friends in Congress worrying about homosexuals in the military, the role of women in combat, racism, and sexual harassment. The liberal Democrats' penchant for using the military as a petrie dish for social engineering was well-indulged. Now we are at war, in no small part thanks to Bill Clinton's "I loathe the military" approach to national security policy. Now Donald Rumsfeld must revive an army that can fight and win against a determined enemy that has long been attacking Western civilization, and which is about to go nuclear any time now. Yet all you and your liberal Democratic friends have in mind these days is to fight the last war and, of course, play politics with Donald Rumsfeld.

And you wonder why you're out of power.

Fighting the last war isn't such a bad idea, now that you mention it. We won that one.

Kermit said,

"Doug conflated 9/11 and Katrina in a truely pbian feat of logic."

Kermit, I gave two examples of the President claiming something that he knew to be false. He knew it because he had facts presented to him prior to the events and still got up in front of the world and told a big ole' fat lie about it.

BTW Kermit, conflate is sure a pretty fancy word for someone who clearly is incapable of understanding plain English.

When you're in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging. You might want to put the shovel down Einstein.

sex toy best prices

It's amazing how easy it is to lose sight of that one simple truth. "Sex toy best prices." Thank you, Sex Toy. You've given all of us a lot to think about.

What a crock of BS and you know it angryclown. I'm sick and tired of coming here and seeing you willfully and ignorantly parroting the same old liberal crap. Sex toy best prices? One simple truth??? You're an idiot. Wasn't it your beloved Bill Clintoon that proved a $1.50 cigar is Sex toy best prices?

Wasn't it?

Come on angry? Can't you answer the question or are you going to come back with some evasive sarchastic drivel like usual. I know you have absolute contempt for the military but this is pathetic.

Haha, stupid Doug has conflated a Bill Clinton cigar with Sex toy best prices! I insult your intelligence! I unflatteringly compare you to a supermarket employee! To pb!

Eracus:

"And you wonder why you're out of power."

I look forward to the GOP platform statement. According to your statistics it should read 'we eliminated combat infantry units, reduced the number of infantry troops, recruited dumber solidiers, and stoped the pernicious policy of weeding out incompetant officers'. Good luck at the polls. Anytime you want to argue that those four policies are the basis of a strong national defense, I am sure you will find a Democrat happy to give you the floor.

Cry me a river, Ricky.

They are not "my statistics," they're your own. Your "leaders" have merely misrepresented them to you as a fundraising ploy, courtesy of the DNC and its usual handmaidens, namely the NYTimes and The Washington Post. Don't believe everything you read.

Meanwhile, you cannot dispute the reality, which is probably why now you're just pounding your shoe -- like the rest of your party these days, which lost the floor 6 years ago and has been flailing away over every jot and tittle ever since.

And failing miserably.

RickDFLer said "According to your statistics it should read 'we eliminated combat infantry units, reduced the number of infantry troops, recruited dumber solidiers, and stoped the pernicious policy of weeding out incompetant officers'."

"we", little feller?

When I fought in the Gulf in 1991, the Army had 16 divisions. Less than a decade later, when Dubya took office, we were down to ten; my old unit had been disbanded. Beyond that, life in the Army during the Clinton years sucked; pay lagged badly (the stories you heard about guys on food stamps were the tip of the iceberg).

I challenge you, Rick, to show that you know what you're talking about. Bush has held the line on reductions. Rumsfeld's restructuring might de-emphasize big heavy divisions like the one I fought in for smaller units and more special forces. That has its ups and downs. And, Rick, I suspect you don't know the first thing about the changes, the ups OR the downs.

There may be a stop-loss for officers - but I can tell you that the incompetent ones are no more likely to be leading troops into action now than they ever were.

It sounds like you're reciting rote talking points you don't understand, Rick.

Eracus:

The statistics may be mine or they may be yours, but nothing in your post says that they are false.

Alan Rossbach argued: "Bush has held the line on reductions."

Sure, and deployments are pretty similar to those of the Clinton era. You know, except for the two large Middle Eastern countries we currently occupy. You know, the ones with the Mohammedan enthusiasts and the shooting and the kabooming.

Good thing Roosevelt did more than hold the line on war spending relative to Hoover.

Alan:

Thanks for your Gulf War I service. You guys did a great job.

The reduction of Regular Army divisions from 16-10 orginated with George Bush and his SecDef Dick Cheny. As far as I know Clinton never significantly altered the force structure approved under Bush I.

The restructuring issues are interesting but they are being used to conceal an overall decrease in groundpounders.

Check out this article.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1089773.php/19000_fewer_young_soldiers_than_in_2001

'Stop Loss' does not just apply to officers. It applies to enlisted too.

From the article

'When the first rotation came back, the Army fell more than 10,000, from about 309,000 to 297,000 (junior enlisted) in the course of three months, October to December,' McGinnis said.

'There is a hidden time bomb sitting there. When stop loss is finally stopped and people held over are allowed to leave, there are another 10,000 to 16,000 that are almost going to disappear overnight,' he told UPI. 'Once stop-loss is over, the Army is going to be short 30,000 junior enlisted men they had in September 2001.'

The statistics may be mine or they may be yours, but nothing in your post says that they are false.
----------------
That's because the statistics are accurate, Ricky. You don't get to just make up your own or complain when they don't fit your opinion.

Your efforts to reiterate the views of a debutante UPI beat reporter at the Pentagon are laughably unpersuasive as well. Here's basically how you get your "news," in the words of the aspiring journalist herself:

HESS: ".....You have limited amounts of time to do other stuff. But those other things do pop up, which are stories -- we call them "enterprise stories." Stories that you sort of generate on your own, and do on your own. Those are actually more fun, and we all like to do them more. But they're also sort of scary and hard to do because you don't know where they are going to come from, and you don't know where they are going to go. But my bread-and-butter is what's going on at the Pentagon that day. It's definitely not rewriting press releases. And you don't just take verbatim what they say and report it unless it's in very short sort of news articles -- just saying, "Rumsfeld said 'this' on this day." You definitely run it through filters, and you get people who know things to comment. And you talk to folks on background, which is, you sort of walk around the building and find people that are involved that maybe don't want to have their names appear in print, but are willing to talk to you a little bit to provide some context or some history to what you're doing. And then you put that all together in a story.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And how does The New York Times and Washington Post -- what they cover -- Do you follow what they're covering? And how does that affect the balance?

HESS: Yeah, The New York Times and The Washington Post actually tend to set the agenda for most daily news reporters. They're very good -- for the most part -- their reporters are the best -- that's how they get to be there, because they become the best and then they get hired. And at the same time, these are sort of the hometown newspapers of the most powerful people in the country, so they are what get read. It's almost a circle. This is not to say that every important news story -- or every great news story, or even the best journalism appears in these journals -- but they have the most powerful readership. And so it does set the agenda. So that stuff becomes "This is what we're going to talk about this day." And then Rumsfeld will respond to something that was in the paper, and then it generates what we end up writing.

http://www.echochamberproject.com/hess

You know, like playing "Telephone" at a slumber party. Pretty neat, ain't it?? And this is how you get your information, from a glorified gossip columnist who just wants to make the world a better place.......

And that's how, as far as you know, Clinton never significantly altered the force structure approved under Bush I.

In other words, Ricky, as Alan pointed out, you are just reciting talking points you do not understand and otherwise have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Eracus:
You lost me buddy. I ask if you deny the statistics I cited. You admit they are "accurate". Then there is a lot a moaning about reporters.

So please tell me why it is wrong to base my position on facts that you admit are accurate?

In the only potential challenge to a fact I cite you say "And that's how, as far as you know, Clinton never significantly altered the force structure approved under Bush I."

From this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/division.htm

it looks like there were 14 Regular Army Divisions under Carter. Reagan increased it to 16 and under Bush I it topped out at 18. Still under Bush I it dropped back down to at least 14 and maybe to 12. Af far as I can tell Clinton's 1993 program called for cutting from 12-10 (whether that implemented a cut already planned under Bush I can not tell).

Currently Bush II and Rumsfeld have not asked to increase the number of Divisons and given the lack of recruitment it would be impossible to fill the ranks of any new divisions.

"Currently Bush II and Rumsfeld have not asked to increase the number of Divisons"

Misleading metric.

One of Rumsfeld's reforms is de-emphasizing the "division", and focusing on smaller units. While there've been no new divisions created under Bush, there have been several new Brigades (about 1/4 of a division), a smaller, more flexible unit in line with Rumsfeld's proposed transformations.

Ricky, you're just making stuff up now.

You didn't cite any statistics, I did. You didn't ask if I denied them, you implied that they were false. They are not. Then I showed you where and how you got your information, which is baloney, and now you wish to change the subject.

If you want to believe everything you read in liberal newspapers, go ahead. Just remember even if a billion people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing and not informed opinion.

It seems clear you neither know your facts nor your history, that you're just talking through your hat repeating Democratic talking points. Meanwhile, the debate over military force structure has been raging for the last century. It didn't just spring up when your side lost the elections and decided to use it to attack the side that won.

If your point is you don't think the force structure is robust enough, that's a valid argument, but it has been defeated at the polls and obviously at the highest levels of government. For the time being, the "leaner, meaner" argument has carried the day and while you may oppose it, merely repeating the liberal canard suggesting "the military is broken" does not advance the debate because it is not credible and therefore not persuasive.

The implication, meanwhile, that the Democrats in any way sincerely favor a more robust military force structure, the increased level of defense spending it would require, and the higher recruitment levels necessary to fill the ranks is absolutely ludicrous, especially when their national security "strategy" is to cut and run in Iraq, extend the Bill of Rights to Islamic terrorists, and expose American surveillance programs to assist their cause.

Who do you think you're kidding?

Mitch:
"Misleading metric.

One of Rumsfeld's reforms is de-emphasizing the "division", and focusing on smaller units. While there've been no new divisions created under Bush, there have been several new Brigades (about 1/4 of a division), a smaller, more flexible unit in line with Rumsfeld's proposed transformations."

But there is no net increase in the number of infantry battalions. Three brigades of three battalions each is pretty much the same as one 9 battalion division. Rumsfeld may be getting a marginal efficiency improvement from the new stucture but he is not adding new troops or units. In fact the Reserves/National Guard converting certain infantry brigages to a support role because of recruitment problems.

Finally there remains a simple overwhelming point. No matter how you want to structure the Army, the Army can not fill its existing spots.

Finally there remains a simple overwhelming point. No matter how you want to structure the Army, the Army can not fill its existing spots.
----------
So what? It never has and is beside the point. You're equating recruiting objectives with readiness and proficiency, which as Mitch pointed out, is a misleading metric.

Eracus:

Recruitment is a 'misleading metric' for readiness? Wow! Who knew we could fight without soldiers. I must have missed the memo. Are we cloning soldliers on Kamino?

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/kamino/

You should let the Army know because these guys must have missed the memo too.

"The U.S. Army Recruiting Command is responsible for manning both the Active Army and the U.S. Army Reserve, ensuring security and readiness for our Nation."

http://www.usarec.army.mil/info.html

That's just casuistry. Are you suggesting if the Corps is short a few Marines, it ain't ready, can't fight, and might as well surrender?

Your resort to sarcasm and misuse of terms clearly indicates you do not understand your own argument but rely instead on just the politics behind it. Under Clinton, the Dems argued the military was too robust and overfunded. Rejected at the ballot box, they now argue it isn't capable of the mission it's been given, is failing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should be withdrawn.

All of which reveals the duplicity of your party leadership, its intellectual dishonesty, and its allegiance to special interest groups opposed to the right of the United States to defend itself. Were it otherwise, they'd be pounding the table to increase military spending. They are not, of course, but instead have set about undermining the military mission and American national security ever since the first boots hit the ground.

Their Fellow Travelers might be impressed, but the rest of us are not persuaded.