Comments on: July 11 Comes and Goes: No Iraq Indicators

By: blonde girls

blonde girls — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:29:59 +0000

blonde girls

Please check the sites in the field of teen steam horse cum shots gay dick

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:41:08 +0000

If, in fact, the DoD is “working on it”, and if, in fact, there has been a delay in putting it together because field officers are compiling requested figures, a sudden death in the typesetter’s family, etc., would it not be the considerate/professional thing to do for the Secretary of Defense, who receives his paycheck and those for his dept., and who was legally charged with providing these figures to Congress as a condition of receiving the defense appropriations in May, to at least write to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and notify them of the delay (and, perhaps, apologize for it)? Does anyone know if he has done so?

By: X-Tra Rant » contempt of congress

X-Tra Rant » contempt of congress — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:23:32 +0000

[...] is Rumsfeld/The Pentagon in contempt of Congress? Rule of law! Rule of law! [...]

By: Kalil

Kalil — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:24:50 +0000

Hrmm… Since it seems he’s failed to pay his bills, they should cut off the electricity to Rumsfields office.
It’s not like that’d leave him any more in the dark than he already is…

By: J.

J. — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:22:41 +0000

John S – see my post here on this subject.

By: Hammer

Hammer — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:02:55 +0000

I can’t get trackback to work, so I’ll note this here. Rumsfeld believes in metrics. He has metrics — lots of them. He is choosing not to provide those metrics to Congress. Back in November, 2003 he talked about the importance of developing metrics. On May 23, 2005, he told NPR that the had a whole series of metrics on Iraq. On May 27, he did a joint briefing with General Casey where Casey twice talked about the Iraq metrics. Links are here. Rumsfeld has the data and is refusing to release it.

By: John S.

John S. — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:57:15 +0000

J-

Can you cite any cases in history that backup your assertion that “this is just bureaucracy in action”? I mean, you sound so confident that this sort of thing is just routine, that in a time of war the DoD casually ignores conditions laid out by Congress in a resolution to go to war.

Can you back up this conecept with facts? Or should we just accept your rhetoric, and “not get our panties in a hitch”?

By: J.

J. — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:41:38 +0000

Geez people chill out. DOD’s failure to produce a very detailed and (most likely) classified report to Congress is not a deliberate or even casual disregard to the Congress. DOD has to do hundreds, if not over a thousand, special reports to Congress as a result of legislation. If it’s late, DOD knows they aren’t off the hook. Don’t get your panties in a hitch. This is just bureaucracy in action.

By: cymack

cymack — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:13:07 +0000

Sorry not to check this myself but I’m a little pressed for time: Does anyone know whether the reporting requirement from the spending bill cited in Nico’s post supercedes a sixty-day update from the DOD that was part of the Senate Joint Resolution 46 (the one that supposedly authorized this war)?

By: sara

sara — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:10:40 +0000

Yes! Exactly!
I agree we need a marketplace of ideas, and we need to “police” the marketplace (sorry for the awkward simile, it’s the best I can do at this moment) so that we can learn from each other, instead of thrashing around in angst!
By the way, I am really enjoying this dialogue. Thanks to everyone for their input!

By: John S.

John S. — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:03:45 +0000

I think we need a marketplace of ideas, not a message to stay on.

I think you misread my intent. I am not suggesting that we all adopt talking points, and start uttering the same phrases over and over like a mantra.

What I mean is that the ‘marketplace’ be organized, so that when you want to address a particular topic, there is a clear and direct path to it.

Shills come in here and start slinging around nonsense, and all of a sudden the entire forum turns to a “lets comment on the commentor” festival. This is precisely what they intend to happen.

I am merely urging that we focus on the relevant topic, which in this case is the Pentagon being in contempt of Congress, more or less. To discuss anything other than this trivializes the issue at hand.

By: JackASS

JackASS — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:37:16 +0000

DOESNT BUSH KNOW WHAT IS FREEDOM MEANS, SO WHERE THE FREEDOM IS.

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:27:10 +0000

John, Sarah, I think we need a marketplace of ideas, not a message to stay on. “Stay on message” is going to take on an acid sarcasm as more events unfold. Don’t touch it. IMHO.

I quote a great American when I say, I do not belong to any organzied political party. I am a Democrat.

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:24:56 +0000

If I were a bookie, I’d lay odds in October 06 our troops start coming home.

And mid-November they go right back in.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:38:14 +0000

Whats this I hear about a Pentagon leak?

Supposedly there are documents that plan an 06 withdrawal.

Whats Bushco’s angle on this one?

Anybody?

By: John S.

John S. — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:16:44 +0000

Sara:

Quite right, and I have pointed it out myself quite often. We need to take a page from the GOP playbook:

STAY ON MESSAGE

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:48:48 +0000

Wow… second time in 2 days I feel compelled to point out that the comments get off the subject as soon as a jerk tries to spin it in the direction of partisan politics! We must all be vigilant (in real life and chat rooms) that we do not hand over our debate to the enemy…

By: Krazny

Krazny — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:39:42 +0000

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it because the last time I checked this is still a free country thanks to our men and women in the armed services protecting it. I happen to think that LBJ was a far bigger kook than any president we have ever had.

Comment by Always Right

Not really sure how my comment attacks the men and women serving in the armed forces of the US. I know that is a common plank to drag out when trying to argue the Bush admin talking points.

example: Liberal: “Gee I think that Rumfsfeld should have listened to his military Generals when they told him we did not have enough forces in Iraq to complete the job”

neocon: “what you don’t support the troops you lousy (insert current insult to democratic party here).

But like you said you are entitled to your opinions.

By: NOX

NOX — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:55:32 +0000

Always Right is an incredibly xenophobic and paranoid stooge. Your typical Bushbot droid.

By: John S.

John S. — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:22:53 +0000

I happen to think that LBJ was a far bigger kook than any president we have ever had.

What exactly did LBJ do that has you classifying him as a “kook” (other than being a Democrat)?

Or are you just angry that he actually managed to pass all that “awful” civil rights legislation?

Can you show how LBJ was “kookier” than say, Andrew Jackson?