• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Putting their careers on the line

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
for their troops and their country.

Excerpts; link below; my emphasis.

"If the Repulblican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to get a second opinion on how the war in Iraq is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the top brass this time. In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner, joined by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls "ground truth"--the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq."

"...According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132819,00.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Maybe if the Democratic leadership, stopped demanding surrender and demanded that more troops be sent to Iraq this would not be a political issue?

I am completly in favor of sending more troops to Iraq, and always have been, in fact I would send the ("Clinton administration continues its plan for military downsizing and reduces Reagan's military build-up by about 30 percent, from roughly 2,140,000 troops in 1988 to 1,470,000 by 1996."), 670,000 troops Clinton fired in his first term,

In fact the Army, and Marines could really use the 301,495 active duty troops that Clinton fired, ,

By the way, Clinton brought our forces down to the lowest levels since 1950. ....
now thats how democrats support our troops, by firing them, then calling for those left in uniform to surrender,,,gee thanks,
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
Maybe if the Democratic leadership, stopped demanding surrender and demanded that more troops be sent to Iraq this would not be a political issue?

I am completly in favor of sending more troops to Iraq, and always have been, in fact I would send the ("Clinton administration continues its plan for military downsizing and reduces Reagan's military build-up by about 30 percent, from roughly 2,140,000 troops in 1988 to 1,470,000 by 1996."), 670,000 troops Clinton fired in his first term,

In fact the Army, and Marines could really use the 301,495 active duty troops that Clinton fired, ,

By the way, Clinton brought our forces down to the lowest levels since 1950. ....
now thats how democrats support our troops, by firing them, then calling for those left in uniform to surrender,,,gee thanks,

The "Blame Clinton" theme doesn't work, Steve. There were enough troops to send to Iraq to win the peace; Runsfeld just chose not to send them, or body armor or armored vehicles, etc. And he hasn't been held accountable for that mess.

Senator McCain calls for more troops, the parents of a young Ohio Marine says send enough troops to get the job done or get out. Why won't the Bush Bunch do that?

You can continue to blame Clinton all you want, but nobody's listening. This is Bush's war, Bush's quagmire, Bush's agenda going down the drain.
 

Latest posts

Top