T1B

Who said Democrats can't get things done?

About time. This guy should have been out in the spring of 2004.

"I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress, Feb. 16, 2005

Robert Gates seems like a good choice. Definitely an improvement.

Believe the Heupel wrote:Hm-isn't he running Texas A&M right now?

I guess playing with fake soldiers is the experience needed to run the real ones.

Yes he is. A notable quote:

"Were we to become a top ten university and lose that spirit, those traditions, our culture, we would be nothing more than another giant education factory. A big brain with no heart. Hell, we might as well be in Austin."

Mikey wrote:

Believe the Heupel wrote:Hm-isn't he running Texas A&M right now?

I guess playing with fake soldiers is the experience needed to run the real ones.

Yes he is. A notable quote:

"Were we to become a top ten university and lose that spirit, those traditions, our culture, we would be nothing more than another giant education factory. A big brain with no heart. Hell, we might as well be in Austin."

I've been in Austin and College Station. Trust me, Austin is a big step up the ol' food chain from College Station.

who gives a fuck?

so if/when he gets involved with a scandal will it be called Gatesgate?

So is Rumsfeld the fall guy for yesterday?

Good move (addition by subtraction, if nothing else), but if W thinks his problems begin and end with Rummy, he's got another thing coming.

Believe the Heupel wrote:Apparently Gates' new Iraq strategy is pretty bold.

He's going to drop leaflets in areas of insurgent activity on how to build 40-foot bonfires. That ought to wipe out a solid number of them.

Come on, there's nothing unsafe about this.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:So is Rumsfeld the fall guy for yesterday?

Good move (addition by subtraction, if nothing else), but if W thinks his problems begin and end with Rummy, he's got another thing coming.

Like what? Do stupid fucktwats like yourself believe Washington will change after this election? If so, then you are still a dumbass. Wait, you are a dumbass regardless.

mvscal wrote:You're on crack. Dems pick up 12-15 seats in the House, 3 to 4 in the Senate.

What was that?

Should have done this 2 yrs ago.

mvscal wrote:So you picked up 5 in the Senate and 28 in the House with 11 undecided. Big fucking deal.

Still can't come correct eh?

Atomic Punk wrote:Like what? Do stupid fucktwats like yourself believe Washington will change after this election? If so, then you are still a dumbass. Wait, you are a dumbass regardless.

you need to reduce your caffine intake.......

mvscal wrote:So you picked up 5 in the Senate and 28 in the House with 11 undecided. Big fucking deal.

You forgot about the 6 governorships, as well. Not a single incumbant Democrat lost, I believe. That's a beat-down.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:So is Rumsfeld the fall guy for yesterday?

No, Sir. Lee Majors is the Fall Guy for yesterday, today and for ever more.

Sin,
Jsc

Atomic Punk wrote:Like what? Do stupid fucktwats like yourself believe Washington will change after this election?

It should change in one respect: Congress will no longer grovel to W, and give him a blank check. At least it shouldn't -- hopefully, the Democrats learned their lesson from the first time.

If so, then you are still a dumbass. Wait, you are a dumbass regardless.

My daughter needs her diaper changed. Could I borrow your "expertise" for a moment?

Terry in Crapchester wrote: My daughter needs her diaper changed. Could I borrow your "expertise" for a moment?

Yes, have your wife call the real father of your child to pick up some asswipes, lotion, and diapers on his way back to the hotel where they meet for daily beastiality.

JCT wrote:Should have done this 2 yrs ago.

Yep.

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Believe the Heupel wrote:Hm-isn't he running Texas A&M right now?

I guess playing with fake soldiers is the experience needed to run the real ones.

Yes he is. A notable quote:

"Were we to become a top ten university and lose that spirit, those traditions, our culture, we would be nothing more than another giant education factory. A big brain with no heart. Hell, we might as well be in Austin."

I've been in Austin and College Station. Trust me, Austin is a big step up the ol' food chain from College Station.

Fuck you and gig 'em.

mvscal wrote:Cunt hair majorities don't mean a whole hell of a lot

You're a big history guy. What congress had the greatest disparity between the numbers of Reps and Dems? This isn't some sort of trivia question. Well, maybe it is, but I don't know the answer. I'm guessing it may have been during the Depression.

mvscal wrote:... what extra powers did Reagan receive that Bush did not due to his margin of victory?

I take it you're not familiar with the Military Commissions Act of 2006?

edit: Not due to margin of victory, of course. Only due to margin of America soiling itself over the thought of Arabs with boxcutters. Not very distinguished.

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote:... what extra powers did Reagan receive that Bush did not due to his margin of victory?

I take it you're not familiar with the Military Commissions Act of 2006?

edit: Not due to margin of victory, of course. Only due to margin of America soiling itself over the thought of Arabs with boxcutters. Not very distinguished.

Not sure if you realize that you're supporting the argument mvscal is making, and debunking Jsc's.

Jsc810 wrote:I don't remember anyone saying Bush won in a landslide or had a mandate from the voters.

Bush claimed one for himself after the '04 election. We all know how that turned out.

The only "man date" Bush might have these days is with Gannon.

Gates' explaination of his role in the Iran-Contra fiasco during his confirmation hearings ought to be entertaining.

Babs, aren't you Waiting For Augustus?

You know, the strong dictator you've repeatedly suggested is necessary to lead this this nation of plate-lipped n****** and various morons back to its former imperial power and swaggering destiny?

Don't give up now--McCain is ready to push the button!

Basically, I'm astonished at this development. If you're going to cut Rummy loose, why wait until after the midterm election? If he had canned him as late as August, they would probably have retained both houses. In hindsight, it seems like a very bad decision.

The early goals of the Iraq War cannot be attained. I suppose it's better to distance themselves from them, and their champion, even at this late hour.

Now, the extremely difficult task of reordering the course of our effort in Iraq falls to Bush and a Democrat House and Senate. Now, if there are no glorious conclusions, there will be a panoply of excuses at hand.

It's pretty simple, I guess. There's no easy end to the war in Iraq, so it's best to let the Dems rise to power on that basis, and when it doesn't happen, Republicans will be in good shape come 2008.

A ship scuttled.

PSUFAN wrote:Basically, ....

You called it. But admittedly, it means more coming from "The Army Times" and what not than a bunch of people on message boards.

PSUFAN wrote:Basically, I'm astonished at this development. If you're going to cut Rummy loose, why wait until after the midterm election? If he had canned him as late as August, they would probably have retained both houses. In hindsight, it seems like a very bad decision.

Yep. There were about 20 races that were decided by 5,000 votes or less. You ditch him a month or two ago it shows that you're fucking listening to the electorate. Today? Close the barn door after the horse gone much?

More than a year ago, I posted on this board about some things my father took in at the War College in Carlisle. The military braintrust has been waiting for this day for a number of years. Rumsfeld answered only to himself - he was arrogant, and he had all of the answers. He wasn't listening to anyone.

Categorize my posts as you will...but who was taken in by Rumsfeld's song and dance, Tom? It wasn't me. I didn't oppose him because I hate America, or because I hate Bush. I opposed him because he was doing my country wrong, plain and simple. He was a poor Secretary of Defense who regarded the military, and the lives of US servicepeople, as his personal means of exploration.

That's not the right thing to do, Tom...do you see that now?

PSUFAN wrote:I didn't oppose him because I hate America, or because I hate Bush.

I don't recall suggesting you were motivated by such things. I was wrong in my decision to defer to the man in the job. All men in will have detractors and those who oppose him. I freely admitted then as I do now of not having the knowledge or the experience to discern between Rumsfeld's military supporters or his detractors. When it's on a message board by a guy named "PSUFAN", I'm going to question it. You can't blame me for not believing "My dad was at the Army War college and guess what he heard ... ".

In retrospect it appears as if you and your anecdotal evidence were correct. I believe I gave you due respect. I'd say "props", but it really isn't a fucking game.

I'm not looking for props, I'm not saying that my anecdotes were anything all that ground-breaking. There were a lot of folks making the same kind of noise. There was a series of generals and soldiers who had retired or left the military who spoke the truth, and had their characters assassinated as a result. That wasn't the right thing to be a part of, Tom.

So Tom, basically you feel that you are too ill informed to ever form an opinion of your own, so you will always defer to those who are either elected or appointed by those who are elected.

All I can say is that it's a good thing that we're not all like you.


BTW, it's good to see you here.

:wink:

Mikey wrote: All I can say is that it's a good thing that we're not all like you.

Can't argue with that.

PSUFAN wrote:I'm not looking for props, I'm not saying that my anecdotes were anything all that ground-breaking. There were a lot of folks making the same kind of noise. There was a series of generals and soldiers who had retired or left the military who spoke the truth, and had their characters assassinated as a result. That wasn't the right thing to be a part of, Tom.

I don't believe this is the first or the last time there has been contention between the military and it's civilian leadership. Maybe it is. Didn't MacArthur lose his job for being too vocal about his opinion on things ?

Why are we making a deal with India? Bush mentioned it to reporters today.

jtr wrote:Why are we making a deal with India? Bush mentioned it to reporters today.

What kind of deal? Any deal would be helpful seeing how we spit in their faces after 911 (when they had caste system legislation to be used in their country being brought to the UN with our support), by hopping in bed with that piece of shit country that provided nuclear technology to N. Korea and is currently believed to be hiding Osama bin Laden.

India now has settled a LOT of old school hatred with China to do trade with them and create a trade union that is one of the largest this world has ever seen.

This kind of deal:

"On July 18, 2005, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached a landmark agreement on civilian nuclear energy cooperation. The deal, which marks a notable warming of U.S.-India relations, would lift the U.S. moratorium on nuclear trade with India, provide U.S. assistance to India's civilian nuclear energy program, and expand U.S.-Indian cooperation in energy and satellite technology. The two sides aim to formalize the deal during a planned visit by Bush to India next week. But critics in the United States say the agreement would fundamentally reverse half a century of U.S. nonproliferation efforts, undermine attempts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, and potentially contribute to a nuclear arms race in Asia. "It's an unprecedented deal for India," says Charles D. Ferguson, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you look at the three countries outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—Israel, India, and Pakistan—this stands to be a unique deal.""
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/usi ... _deal.html