More dumb**** liberals...

On Aug 14, 4:29*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

Haig was never president, but he was a take-charge guy, maybe to a
fault. *I kind of like Wes Clark- a guy who knows how to win a war.
Petraeus is similarly impressive. George Bush is president, but
wouldn't make a pimple on the ass of any of them.

Wes Clark is a complete ego-maniacal ass kisser who was about as
popular as syphillis with the folks around him who actually had to get
the job done. His whole later career was based on playing politics and
sucking up to politicians who put pressure on the Pentagon to keep him
moving up, especially the Clintons.
Haig is another hazard. You want wars everywhere put him in charge.
The dude's a whack-a-mole game.

People used to say of Bush "What a leader!" *They'd be talking about
Bush reading a speech someone else wrote, or a stage-managed photo op
choreographed by Karl Rove- the bullhorn on the rubble, dressing up in
a flight suit with a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background,
etc.

Anyone who thought of Bush as a real leader, especially after the
first 4 years was either an idiot, or an ideologue.

No one says "What a leader!" any more. *The beauty of the infamous
"America is under attack" incident is it's pure Bush. *Karl Rove isn't
telling Bush what to do. Dick Cheney is not pulling the strings. *The
CIA can't be blamed for "bad intel".

It's just George Bush and how he handles the news that "America is
under attack." * *It's the most pathetic example of "leadership" I've
ever seen. *It's as if Cancellara froze in the starting gate of the
time trial.
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, his folks are there, he has communications, the actions are
happening, maybe he should run out screqaming "shoot all the ****ing
planes down!!! Quick!!" They already new there weren't missiles
involved, or foreign aircraft. NSA doesn't miss that **** and the
reporting standard is "as fast as humanly possible", in reality that
translates to Washington, the President, and Pentagon have any
criticom in under 3 minutes unless something totally off the board
happens.
Not going to go into the details of the system, but they knew the
scale, and type of attack immediately, he had communication available,
action was taken. You don't like the style he handled it in, that's a
personal opinion. The reality is that noone could've done anything
more effective on that morning. That's my opinion.
Bill C

On Aug 14, 4:37*pm, Scott wrote:

What war did Wes Clark win?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quite a team with psycho bitch Albright. Speaking of non-UN approved,
illegal wars where we are still on the ground. Yeah the fadct that
NATO went to war, without the rest of the world, for reasons that are
non-existant compared to the behavior we ignored in other places.
There's not a damned thing about those two, along with "Legacy" Bill
did that was a good thing. They nicely, and effectively lowered the
bar for Bush and the Neocons to go off on their "legacy" adventures.
SFW if it screws over the people there, and our own troops.
All pinheads sacrificing our troops, and hoirdes of other folks for
their personal glorification and wealth. None of that **** they
sacrificed our folks on had **** to do with our real security, except
Afghanistan, and they are screwing that big time.
April Glaspie still needs to be shot, or was she just the tool Bush
Sr. used to set off his little adventure?
Bill C

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

Anyone who thought of Bush as a real leader, especially after the
first 4 years was either an idiot, or an ideologue.

Duhhh - who were the alternatives? Talking about Bush and how bad he is
still doesn't address the real point - that he was 1000 times better than
the alternative as bad as he is.

Again, his folks are there, he has communications, the actions are
happening, maybe he should run out screaming "shoot all the ****ing
planes down!!! Quick!!"

Imagine the pieces falling all over New York City - would that have caused
even more damage?

While Bush sat and thought - waiting for real information - there was very
little else he could do. The dumb fools here who wanted him to do "something
ANYTHING else" don't seem to actually have anything to suggest.

On Aug 14, 1:55*pm, Scott wrote:
On Aug 14, 2:52*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message
....
On Aug 14, 2:29 pm, "Paul G." wrote:
I kind of like Wes Clark- a guy who knows how to win a war.

What war did Wes Clark win?

You know - the war of words.

I'm guessing Paul was referring to the roaring success of Nato forces
in Kosovo. *Not exactly winning a war, but who knows. *Paul has a
different standard for leadership that many.

Heh heh! You're just sore because he did it with air power alone. The
Serbs were WAY more advanced than the friggin' raggedy Iraqis, and Wes
Clark defeated them with zero American combat deaths, and Milosevic
wound up on trial in the Hague.

Hey, I'm still celebrating your defeat. What kind of moron argues
about stuff when he *knows* he doesn't know anything about it? You're
like Custer at the Little Big Horn, impaling yourself on a sharper
adversary.
-Paul

On Aug 14, 5:10*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message

...



Anyone who thought of Bush as a real leader, especially after the
first 4 years was either an idiot, or an ideologue.

Duhhh - who were the alternatives? Talking about Bush and how bad he is
still doesn't address the real point - that he was 1000 times better than
the alternative as bad as he is.

Not sure he would have been/is 1000 times worse but there's no way in
hell they should've run yet another, anti-military, far left,
northeast/massachusetts elitist ****head, except those are the values
they seem to choose. Paul is a perfect example.
Lots of really good Democrats out there that are centrist, such as
any of the members of the "gang of 10", but they are just below
Lieberman on the to be hated list.
You remember I had huge hopes for Obama. All the PR, and rhetoric
sounded great. Then you start looking at his voting record, his record
all the way back to Chicago it's clear that he's WAY out on the left
wing, and it's absolutely pitiful that the media, and all those people
who hammered the media for being soft on Bush, seem to have no problem
with Obama getting a free pass, and taking "Oh yeah, I changed my mind
since the campaign started" more or less, on fundamental issues all
over the map. Even the folks on the left who loved him are concerned
that his swerve to the center might be for real and are ****ed, I'm
convinced he's lieing his ass off about being anywhere near the
center, so they don't need to worry IMO.
I don't trust McCain as far as I can throw him either, and he's been
racing to pander to the rightwing neocon nutjobs so I'm voting for
Howard Stern, or Donald Duck.
Bill C

On Aug 14, 1:50*pm, ST wrote:
On 8/14/08 1:55 PM, in article
, "Scott"

wrote:
On Aug 14, 2:52*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
....
On Aug 14, 2:29 pm, "Paul G." wrote:
I kind of like Wes Clark- a guy who knows how to win a war.

What war did Wes Clark win?

You know - the war of words.

I'm guessing Paul was referring to the roaring success of Nato forces
in Kosovo. *Not exactly winning a war, but who knows. *Paul has a
different standard for leadership that many.

Just like the Russians kickin butt in Georgia. It is an expected result.

Yeah, just like the Americans kickin butt in Iraq. It is an expected
result. But I doubt the Russians are going to turn Georgia into the
kind of FUBAR the Bush admin created in Iraq. But don't take my word
for it, read the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) After Action
Report - Operation Iraqi Freedom

Excerpt:

"Many of the issues identified in the SASO portion of this Chapter
resulted from the lack of a plan for Phase IV operations. 3ID (M)
transitioned into Phase IV SASO with no plan from higher headquarters.
There was no guidance for restoring order in Baghdad, creating an
interim government, hiring government and essential services
employees, and ensuring the judicial system was operational." There
you have it, straight from our troops: "lack of a plan".
http://www.strategypage.com/articles/3IDAAR/chap31.asp

There' no excuse for starting a war with no plan. Dumb****
"conservatives"... What a misnomer for these pathetic losers.
Conservative is going in with TWICE the force you figure you'll need,
not the bare minimum.
-Paul

On Aug 14, 2:10*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


While Bush sat and thought - waiting for real information - there was very
little else he could do. The dumb fools here who wanted him to do "something
ANYTHING else" don't seem to actually have anything to suggest.

This level of denial just amazes me. I said what Bush should have done
was "excuse himself, assess the situation, consult with his advisers
and order the
appropriate actions."

Why don't you go back to making up bull**** about all the Medal of
Honor winners you used to hang out with? You and Rambo Scott are
quite a pair. Even in usenet one rarely sees bull**** of this purity:

"When I was on Guam during the Viet Nam War the NCO in charge of the
parts department was an ex-jarhead. One day it came out that he and
another sergeant in the squadron were both in the invasion of Guam and
were two of the three Medals of Honor awarded in that invasion."
-Tom "Bull****ter" Kuntitch

On Aug 14, 1:59*pm, Bill C wrote:


*Again, his folks are there, he has communications, the actions are
happening, maybe he should run out screqaming "shoot all the ****ing
planes down!!! Quick!!" They already new there weren't missiles
involved, or foreign aircraft. NSA doesn't miss that **** and the
reporting standard is "as fast as humanly possible", in reality that
translates to Washington, the President, and Pentagon have any
criticom in under 3 minutes unless something totally off the board
happens.

So you're saying "in reality that translates to Washington, the
President, and Pentagon have any criticom in under 3 minutes unless
something totally off the board happens." Something totally off the
board... you mean the President would have that criticom in under 3
minutes UNLESS he didn't respond when told "America is under attack"
and sat on his ass as the minutes dragged on? Well gee, Bill,
that's what happened, and I'm saying it's totally off the board.

Now if you could just make the connection between your own words and
reality, we'd be done here.

You clowns keep babbling about "running screaming". I've never
suggested anything of the sort, why would I? That's a strawman. I
clearly said what Bush should have done is "excuse himself, assess the
situation, consult with his advisers and order the appropriate
actions." There's no screaming in any of that. I challenge anyone to
find any fault with any of those action items:

1. Excuse himself.
2. Assess the situation
3. Consult with his advisers
4. Order the appropriate actions

I have no idea why that is remotely controversial. It's common sense
that the President should IMMEDIATELY look into the matter when told
"American is under attack".
-Paul

On Aug 14, 8:09*pm, "Paul G." wrote:


You clowns keep babbling about "running screaming". *I've never
suggested anything of the sort, why would I? *That's a strawman. *I
clearly said what Bush should have done is "excuse himself, assess the
situation, consult with his advisers and order the appropriate
actions." * There's no screaming in any of that. I challenge anyone to
find any fault with any of those action items:

1. Excuse himself.
2. Assess the situation
3. Consult with his advisers
4. Order the appropriate actions

I have no idea why that is remotely controversial. *It's common sense
that the President should IMMEDIATELY look into the matter when told
"American is under attack".
-Paul

Now that your rhetoric has wound down, and you are presenting clear
steps, I agree that taking those exact steps would've been better than
what he did, and would've left him in a better position to respond to
any new events. As it worked out he didn't have to respond to anything
else so he got away with it.
As for there being a war plan by the neocon nitwits there was one.
We'd smash them from the air, and then they'd welcome us wiith open
arms, throw rose petals, and sign over their country in gratitude.
Unfortunately the nitwits ignored all the military and intel folks
who told them they were out of their minds, needed several hundred
thousand more troops for a successful occupation, and to expect
continued fighting, and tribal and sectarian violence, then, of
course, the Iraqis didn't get the neocon program, and didn't follow it
and their chief source, and conman was working for Iran. :

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...watch.list.cnn

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. officials believe they have "rock solid"
evidence that Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi (search),
once a darling of the American government, passed secrets to Iran, Fox
News has learned.

"There is no need for an investigation because we're quite certain he
did it," one senior Bush administration official said.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/141009

previously undisclosed CIA report written in the summer of 2002
questioned the "credibility" and "truthfulness" of an Al Qaeda
detainee who became a key source for the Bush administration's claims
about links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.


Among the new nuggets in the report: the Defense Intelligence Agency
was concerned that a key corroborating source for the claim that Iraq
had developed mobile biological weapons labs "was being coached" by
Ahmad Chalabi's controversial Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National
Congress, "to further its political agenda." In May 2002, the DIA cut
off contact with the source, an Iraqi officer identified only as
"Major General al-Assaf," and issued a warning notice about him after
determining his information was "assessed as unreliable and, in some
instances, [is] pure fabrication."


Other than that "Mission Accomplished!!"

Bill C

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

On Aug 14, 1:59*pm, Bill C wrote:


*Again, his folks are there, he has communications, the actions are
happening, maybe he should run out screqaming "shoot all the ****ing
planes down!!! Quick!!" They already new there weren't missiles
involved, or foreign aircraft. NSA doesn't miss that **** and the
reporting standard is "as fast as humanly possible", in reality that
translates to Washington, the President, and Pentagon have any
criticom in under 3 minutes unless something totally off the board
happens.

So you're saying "in reality that translates to Washington, the
President, and Pentagon have any criticom in under 3 minutes unless
something totally off the board happens." Something totally off the
board... you mean the President would have that criticom in under 3
minutes UNLESS he didn't respond when told "America is under attack"
and sat on his ass as the minutes dragged on? Well gee, Bill,
that's what happened, and I'm saying it's totally off the board.

Now if you could just make the connection between your own words and
reality, we'd be done here.

You clowns keep babbling about "running screaming". I've never
suggested anything of the sort, why would I? That's a strawman. I
clearly said what Bush should have done is "excuse himself, assess the
situation, consult with his advisers and order the appropriate
actions." There's no screaming in any of that. I challenge anyone to
find any fault with any of those action items:

1. Excuse himself.
2. Assess the situation
3. Consult with his advisers
4. Order the appropriate actions

I have no idea why that is remotely controversial. It's common sense
that the President should IMMEDIATELY look into the matter when told
"American is under attack".

After the first plane hit the WTC: "That's some bad pilot."

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sheehy01.htm