Will they start coming home from Iraq?
-
The generals say they should.[^] Will Bush listen? Alvaro
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Will Bush listen? of course he will. he'll bundle up what people have been saying for years, slap a BushCo™ sticker on the side of it and the True Believers will rush out to be the first on their block with a copy of the New Plan. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
The generals say they should.[^] Will Bush listen? Alvaro
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Will Bush listen? to what? If you read the article you see no consensus, what you see are different generals offering different assessments and opinions. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Will Bush listen? of course he will. he'll bundle up what people have been saying for years, slap a BushCo™ sticker on the side of it and the True Believers will rush out to be the first on their block with a copy of the New Plan. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
We do have the '06 elections to get ready for you know. Bringing the boys back home is just what people are clamoring for. BW
Meanwhile, behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore...
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Will Bush listen? of course he will. he'll bundle up what people have been saying for years, slap a BushCo™ sticker on the side of it and the True Believers will rush out to be the first on their block with a copy of the New Plan. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
We do have the '06 elections to get ready for you know. Bringing the boys back home is just what people are clamoring for. BW
Meanwhile, behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore...
brianwelsch wrote: We do have the '06 elections to get ready for you know. Bringing the boys back home is just what people are clamoring for. Okay... But isn't Bush not up for another election? I could be a little old-fashioned here, but can't a President only run for two terms? What exactly would Bush get out of bringing the boys home? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
brianwelsch wrote: We do have the '06 elections to get ready for you know. Bringing the boys back home is just what people are clamoring for. Okay... But isn't Bush not up for another election? I could be a little old-fashioned here, but can't a President only run for two terms? What exactly would Bush get out of bringing the boys home? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote: What exactly would Bush get out of bringing the boys home? the 2006 elections are for Senators and Congressmen - Bush helps them his party by getting Iraq (which they've all vocally supported) off the table. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 9:39 Monday 3rd October, 2005
-
The generals say they should.[^] Will Bush listen? Alvaro
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
-
bugDanny wrote: What exactly would Bush get out of bringing the boys home? the 2006 elections are for Senators and Congressmen - Bush helps them his party by getting Iraq (which they've all vocally supported) off the table. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 9:39 Monday 3rd October, 2005
-
kgaddy wrote: Why do they not name the "generals"? THey just keep saying "The generals said". Beacuse anonymous sources are always the most reliable...;) Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
kgaddy wrote: Why do they not name the "generals"? THey just keep saying "The generals said". Beacuse anonymous sources are always the most reliable...;) Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
because the Generals are afraid of losing their jobs for contradicting Bush's happy talk... Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
because the Generals are afraid of losing their jobs for contradicting Bush's happy talk... Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: the Generals are afraid of losing their jobs for contradicting Bush's happy talk in real life it is called, insubordination. however, give the source (LA Times) there is no assurance that these generals even exist. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the Generals are afraid of losing their jobs for contradicting Bush's happy talk in real life it is called, insubordination. however, give the source (LA Times) there is no assurance that these generals even exist. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
Mike Gaskey wrote: in real life it is called, insubordination in real life, pissing on the org-chart is a far more honorable thing to do than aiding a misguided fool in feeding more american soldiers into a pointless occupation. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: in real life it is called, insubordination in real life, pissing on the org-chart is a far more honorable thing to do than aiding a misguided fool in feeding more american soldiers into a pointless occupation. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
yawn, more left wing blather from our local liberal... for balance, here's some right wing blather :-D RIGHTWINGBLATHER[^] The anti-war, anti-Bush MSM both here and abroad have reached a state of near-rapture... A little-noticed role reversal has occurred in American politics... The media have filled the political and intellectual vacuum that left the Dems entirely bereft of ideas, able to say nothing other than "no." Today the opposition party to the Republicans is not the Dems but the mainstream media itself. They write, they speak, and the Dems follow.
-
yawn, more left wing blather from our local liberal... for balance, here's some right wing blather :-D RIGHTWINGBLATHER[^] The anti-war, anti-Bush MSM both here and abroad have reached a state of near-rapture... A little-noticed role reversal has occurred in American politics... The media have filled the political and intellectual vacuum that left the Dems entirely bereft of ideas, able to say nothing other than "no." Today the opposition party to the Republicans is not the Dems but the mainstream media itself. They write, they speak, and the Dems follow.
greghop wrote: The media have filled the political and intellectual vacuum that left the Dems entirely bereft of ideas, able to say nothing other than "no." Today the opposition party to the Republicans is not the Dems but the mainstream media itself. They write, they speak, and the Dems follow. :laugh: how completely fucking stupid Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
greghop wrote: The media have filled the political and intellectual vacuum that left the Dems entirely bereft of ideas, able to say nothing other than "no." Today the opposition party to the Republicans is not the Dems but the mainstream media itself. They write, they speak, and the Dems follow. :laugh: how completely fucking stupid Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: in real life it is called, insubordination in real life, pissing on the org-chart is a far more honorable thing to do than aiding a misguided fool in feeding more american soldiers into a pointless occupation. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: in real life, pissing on the org-chart is a far more honorable thing and even in the private economy it gets you fired, justifibly. Chris Losinger wrote: aiding a misguided fool in feeding more american soldiers into a pointless occupation. so I guess you're suggesting that we'd be better off with a military that wasn't answerable to a civilian head, or that the civilian head the military reported to was some silly-assed liberal who would prefer that we kowtowed to anyone who might hurt one of our soldiers. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
-
Chris Losinger wrote: in real life, pissing on the org-chart is a far more honorable thing and even in the private economy it gets you fired, justifibly. Chris Losinger wrote: aiding a misguided fool in feeding more american soldiers into a pointless occupation. so I guess you're suggesting that we'd be better off with a military that wasn't answerable to a civilian head, or that the civilian head the military reported to was some silly-assed liberal who would prefer that we kowtowed to anyone who might hurt one of our soldiers. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
Mike Gaskey wrote: and even in the private economy it gets you fired, justifibly. some people value their conscience more than their paycheck. Mike Gaskey wrote: so I guess you're suggesting that we'd be better off with a military that wasn't answerable to a civilian head sorry, that guess was incorrect. if this guy feels compelled to speak his mind, good for him. and if what he says it at odds with what Bush is saying, someone should make an effort to find out why, even if the answer makes Bush look bad. i'm sure you disagree; Cult of Bush Rule #1: anyone who makes Bush look bad is unquestionably wrong, and it's the Wingnut's solemn duty to then find out why they're wrong. Mike Gaskey wrote: or that the civilian head the military reported to was some silly-assed liberal who would prefer that we kowtowed to anyone who might hurt one of our soldiers beat that strawman! beat it good! the more you beat it, the more right you become! Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 15:08 Monday 3rd October, 2005
-
The generals say they should.[^] Will Bush listen? Alvaro
I cannot take anything the Bush administration does seriously. The corruption, the cynical disregard for humanity, the cronyism and incompetence, all wrapped in a slimey flag of ultra-marketed nationalism repulses me. -- consdubya from fark.com.
Didn't Condi just suggest we need to invade the whole Middle East? Or was it the whole world??? :-)
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: and even in the private economy it gets you fired, justifibly. some people value their conscience more than their paycheck. Mike Gaskey wrote: so I guess you're suggesting that we'd be better off with a military that wasn't answerable to a civilian head sorry, that guess was incorrect. if this guy feels compelled to speak his mind, good for him. and if what he says it at odds with what Bush is saying, someone should make an effort to find out why, even if the answer makes Bush look bad. i'm sure you disagree; Cult of Bush Rule #1: anyone who makes Bush look bad is unquestionably wrong, and it's the Wingnut's solemn duty to then find out why they're wrong. Mike Gaskey wrote: or that the civilian head the military reported to was some silly-assed liberal who would prefer that we kowtowed to anyone who might hurt one of our soldiers beat that strawman! beat it good! the more you beat it, the more right you become! Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 15:08 Monday 3rd October, 2005
Chris Losinger wrote: some people value their conscience more than their paycheck. I realize this isn't something you would understand, but when you work for someone the contract includes loyalty. when you can't exercise the loyalty, you resign. an unamed general who speaks against his/her leadership is a coward unwilling to live up to his/her contract. If the general(s) in question disagree, they should resign, then speak out. Chris Losinger wrote: so I guess you're suggesting that we'd be better off with a military that wasn't answerable to a civilian head sorry, that guess was incorrect. Oh, I see, it has to be a civilian head you personally approve of then. Chris Losinger wrote: or that the civilian head the military reported to was some silly-assed liberal who would prefer that we kowtowed to anyone who might hurt one of our soldiers beat that strawman! beat it good! the more you beat it, the more right you become! that was the other choice. you can't have it both ways. you either have civilian control of the military where the final responsibility lies with the president or you don't. if it is with the president, my apologies if your personal choice didn't make the cut, but he didn't and mine did and yes, I happen to support him --> because if he doesn't have our support, we lose. if we weren't at war I'd join you in sniping at him about any number of issues but when it comes to the war effort my view is overt opposition simply aids the enemy. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon