Fallon denies conflict with Petraeus.
Fallon denies conflict with Petraeus.
Military Times writes that CentCom Commander Adm. William Fallon is calling reports of a sour relationship with Gen. Petraeus “just absurd”:
“I agree with what’s going on,” said Fallon, who spoke with the Military Times newspapers Sept. 14 just prior to a flight to the Middle East. “The thing that’s important right now is that we’re on the right glide slope.” [...]
Fallon was clearly irked by the stories about his supposed disagreements with Petraeus over the pace of that withdrawal and all-around disdain for the Army general published in outlets ranging from The Washington Post to various blogs.
Fallon did acknowledge, however, an internal military debate on Iraq. “Everybody’s going to have a difference of opinion,” Fallon said. “We are where we want to be right now. How we got there is our business.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
so apparently this admiral thinks that general is chicken excrement but it isn’t anyone’s business? Admiral, you have forgotten who you work for and have made it public record. We get it, thanks.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:20 pmI guess this is why the rightards want us to “respect” the generals and admirals. what a bunch of sleazy politicos running our military into the ground.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pmLibs caught again trying another lie!!
September 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pmOops, did I ridicule Petraeus in public??? Damn liberal bloggers – ummm, ummm….uhhhh, I love Dave Petraeus! I love and support him! No, don’t fire me, Mr. President! I still support you when the doors aren’t closed! Please, don’t fire me for hating Petraeus!
September 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pmhe obviously said this to save his job. meanwhile, there remains an “internal debate…”
September 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pmIt is going to take one hell of a purge of the top ranks of the military to remove all the incompetent Bush sycophants residing there now.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pmhughjazz, go bash our troops you claim to support somewhere else, you’re such a two faced liar.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe guy must have lost his talking points. Good to have him back on board with the “let’s all lie together” team.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:32 pmAny bets John David R. Atchison, newly busted pedophile who works for the Justice Dept., is a Repuke?
September 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pmthe military times….funny thing, I just got a mailer from them the other day to subscribe. Who could be so mean?
September 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pmFallon denies conflict with Petraeus.
Military Times writes that CentCom Commander Adm. William Fallon is calling reports of a sour relationship with Gen. Petraeus “just absurdâ€:
George Bush calls Fallon and says “Hey Fallon, you want to keep your job? Then get with the program. We won’t have you criticizing Betrayus. Now, unless you want to retire tomorrow, you get out there and tell everyone you love Betrayus”.
Another military person who won’t tell the truth until they retire and write a book.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pmRemember, Fallon will be the point man in any foray against Iran.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:37 pmHe could have some major screws turning against his temples at the moment.
I would love to know more specifics about this “internal debate”.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:37 pmhughjazz, go bash our troops you claim to support somewhere else, you’re such a two faced liar.
Comment by François
Sorry Francois, ronjazz was not bashing our troops. He was bashing the Generals who allow politics to dictate what they do. It’s the Republics who are “bashing” the troops by playing politics with their lives.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pmhughjazz, go bash our troops you claim to support somewhere else, you’re such a two faced liar.
Comment by François — September 17, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
frenchy, those two beribboned queens aren’t our “troops”, they’re Georgie-boys love slaves. You’d make a good driver for them, no doubt.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pmSo Petreaus ISN’T an @ss-kissing little chicken$hit?
I don’t believe it.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pm“How we got there is our business”. So, again, there you have it: It is our problem, keep your noses out of it. Thanks for the 1/2 trillion dollars and thousands of your loved ones, but please BUTT OUT!. How about that America? Sounds like we are being dimissed, once again. Has anyone seen America? She was here just a few years ago. I really miss her. Is this what a democracy is all about?
September 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pmBesides, there never was as good a troop-basher as the old Deserter-In Chief himself. Did you know he used to blow up frogs, frenchy? better look out, he might find you!
September 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm“The thing that’s important right now is that we’re on the right glide slope.†[…]
sounds like Fallon’s found the astro-glide, probably a gift from Larry Craig. bend over, here comes the preznit!
September 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pmtee hee. hughjazz!
September 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm“The US, Britain and Holland are believed to have dropped more than 2,000 cluster bombs – containing 380,000 sub-munitions – during Operation Allied Force, the three-month campaign to end Serb oppression in Kosovo in 1999. The RAF dropped 531 RBL755 cluster bombs, designed principally to destroy tanks and other armoured vehicles.”
September 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091707O.shtml
Since the operation, the Allied forces have admitted the bombs had a failure rate of at least 5 per cent, meaning up to 20,000 unexploded bomb-lets may be strewn across Serbia and Kosovo.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pmLBJ chased vet fame through fakery
http://www.counterpunch.org/levy09172007.html
“Lieutenant Commander Johnson, cited for gallantry and awarded the Silver Star in 1942 when his aircraft came under intense enemy fire over New Guinea. Throughout his career, the veteran sported the medal’s tricolor lapel pin on his suit jacket. But after his death several eyewitnesses spoke up. “No way,” said retired Army Staff Sgt. Bob Marshall. “No, that story was made up, put in there in my mind by the author of the book (The Mission, 1964). ‘Cause we never seen [Japanese] Zero, was never attacked. Nothing.” (CNN/2003) Air force after action reports and surviving crew bear him out. The few and the proud need not worry. LBJ was not one of their own. He was merely the President of the United States. The Commander in Chief who in 1965 issued the orders that sent thousands of young Marines to their fate. “
September 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm“how we got there is our business” is an understatement and will be “all their business and all their war” when the war crime tribunals kicks in.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pmSince it’s “all their business”, we can effectively and thoroughly “wash our hands” of any of it. No more feeling complicit for any of us, that’s for sure. No more feeling connected to the diabolical and criminal activities of these individuals at all!
This is “Bush’s War” and the GOP’s mess. They think they’re going to sit back and hand it off to the next president but they’ve got another thing coming. Bush is attached to the botched war in Iraq at the hip and the blood of our fallen soldiers and l.2 million iraqis is on his hands.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pmFallon and Betray-us need to be careful what they ask for and what they are attibuting to their own area of responsibility. Legally, this was a very bad statement for Fallon to have made because he, personally, will be taken down by this amoral, illegal war in the long run.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pmThis is “Bush’s War†and the GOP’s mess
The Democrat’s voted for it and have yet to defund it. It’s their war too.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pmNo doubt Fallon didn’t check with his lawyer before issuing this statement of responsibility, did he? He’ll live to regret this woeful mistake.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pmNice try, Dermot but “thanks for playing”! This is Bush’s War and the Gop’s mess – end of discussion.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pmsatirev
Get out of denial.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:12 pmAnd any democrat who voted for it was fed a shitheap of lies by the Fraud in Chief which he rue he ever committed in the near future.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:12 pmDermotDouchbag – you’re the one who thinks Denial is just a river in Egypt. Frankly, it’s the mantra of the GOP. Nice try though. You have to get up a bit earlier in the morning to believe that you can outsmart any of the intellectual posters here at TP.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pmDermot the Delusional is attempting to foist a charge of denial on someone other than himself?? Not in this lifetime.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pmAnd any democrat who voted for it was fed a shitheap of lies by the Fraud in Chief which he rue he ever committed in the near future
You forgot the defunding part. They have YET TO STOP FUNDING IT. They are as complicit as Bush now.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pmAny bets John David R. Atchison, newly busted pedophile who works for the Justice Dept., is a Repuke?
Comment by ForTruth — September 17, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
oh god… … a google news search presented this:
[...] according to the complaint, atchison reassured the sheriff’s deputy who was posing as the child’s mother that he would not hurt the 5-year-old because he goes “slow and easy,” and “i’ve done it plenty.”
[...]
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=23056&ret=Default.aspx
i can’t stop crying…
but i also found this:
Florida GOP Police Blotter #6: Federal prosecutor in Pensacola likes ‘em young
September 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pmhttp://flprogressive.blogspot.com/search/label/Police%20Blotter
…
Hilary just the other day told vets that we need to be preparing for the next war.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pmDermotDouchbag: Nice try to hijack the thread with post #21, eh? Who gives a flying crap about any of this? Try staying on topic or is that too impossible for a sychophantic infant like yourself?
September 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pmGet out of denial.
Comment by Dermot — September 17, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
get your head out of your ass.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pmsatirev
You can’t shut me up ahole. You don’t like the truth, too bad sucker.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pmHilary told vets we need to be preparing for the next war. Doesn’t sound like a dove to me.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pmHilary just the other day told vets that we need to be preparing for the next war.
Comment by Dermot — September 17, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Too bad Bush didn’t think of that before lying his way into this debacle.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pmThe Democrat’s voted for it and have yet to defund it. It’s their war too.
Comment by Dermot
To be fair and precise, the dems got lied to about the evidence for war (like everybody else was lied to). Also, dems cannot just ‘defund the war’. I believe there is an opposition party to deal with. Please stop tarring the dems with the GOP issued chaos that is Iraq. Its Bush’s war – and yours too if you still support it – even though you know it was all based on BS.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pmHilary told vets we need to be preparing for the next war. Doesn’t sound like a dove to me.
Comment by Dermot — September 17, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
nobody, least of all hillary, claims she is a dove. Straw man bullshit. I said, get your head out of your ass.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pmHIlary and Bush – two war mongers – they just wear different clothing. Bush is up front about his love of war while he lies to get us into one. Hilary lies about being against war, while she conspires to support the next one, in payment for all the AIPAC money she takes.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:20 pmronjazz
You take your head out of your ass first
September 17th, 2007 at 6:20 pmPlease stop tarring the dems with the GOP issued chaos that is Iraq.
Oh I’m sorry I thought the Dems were the majority party in Congress. Oh the poor little Democrats. So weak and sad. They can’t do nothing but take the money.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pmDermot, please give Clinton’s quote where “she conspires to support the next [war]”
September 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pmand please provide the full quote, not some out of context partial sentence
Wilco
You do the research. I heard it say it in her speech to a vets group. You look it up. I’m not making it up and you know it. You just don’t like it. Go read something instead believing the crap that’s shoveled at you
September 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pmBush must have called up Fallon and threatened him to shut-up about his stooge Petraeus.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pmDermot, now you’re being ridiculous. I don’t know she has said any such thing about supporting another war. I’ve heard no such thing. And I’m certainly not going to do research about a baseless claim you make. Again, that’s ridiculous. If you’re going to make such a scurrilous claim, back it up. I’d believe it if I saw it. But just your claim to it doesn’t make it so.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pmYou do the research. I heard it say it in her speech to a vets group. You look it up. I’m not making it up and you know it. You just don’t like it. Go read something instead believing the crap that’s shoveled at you
Comment by Dermot — September 17, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
See, more lies. She said the USA must be prepared for the next war, which is, of course, any president’s responsibility, except Bush’s. That doesn’t state or imply any conspiracy to start or support the next war. If Bush had been ready for this one, it would hae been over in the three-to-six weeks that Rumsfeld shot out of his ass, where his head also was.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:29 pmOh I’m sorry I thought the Dems were the majority party in Congress. Oh the poor little Democrats. So weak and sad. They can’t do nothing but take the money.
Comment by Dermot
Please spare us the playground taunts – they don’t work, and frankly I expect more from you. You know the rules of congress (I’m presuming), so you know that just because they are majority doesn’t make it automatic. You also know that the repubs were majorioty for YEARS, so there is lots to clean up. When you display your disregard for facts and thoughtfulness, you open yourself up to embarrassment. Please stop. You appear foolish. And if you believe what you wrote, then you ARE foolish. Geez, this poor country has truly taken a cerebral beating with ‘all hat an no cattle’ Bush leading the charge.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI did your work for you. Here’s the Hilary pro-war speech.
http://www.nysun.com/article/61042
I’m sure you’ll find some way to distort this.
“As Democrats scramble in the wake of the realization that President Bush’s surge is working in Iraq, Senator Clinton is suddenly talking about preparing to fight a new war. She’s always been a master at hedging her bets, but her speech Monday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars where she admitted that the surge she opposed is “working,” beats all. In the same breath she added, “We’re just years too late in changing our tactics We can’t ever let that happen again We can’t be fighting the last war. We have to keep preparing to fight the new war.”
September 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pmthis poor country has truly taken a cerebral beating with ‘all hat an no cattle’ Bush leading the charge.
Comment by Tom — September 17, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
the fact is, if no repukes come on board to save us from bushco, then it’s their baby. they broke it, they own it, case closed. typical of a wingnut fake to try to shift the blame, Dermot. is your head stuck? it’s still well-lodged up your large intestine.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pmComment by Dermot — September 17, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
You call that rightwing turd news? The first sentence takes any credibility into the toilet. Nice try. You are an idiot, first-class, with turd cluster.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pmIf you’re going to defend a candidate, at least have the integrity to listen to their speeches.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pmronjazz
There’s a quote in their you moron. Try reading. Or go to the site and then find the actual speech, you lazy waste.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pmHonestly, I don’t know what she’s getting at with the “new war”. She seems to be saying that the Iraq war is a debacle, and seems to be suggesting we have to be better for the next to make sure there is no other Iraq. But I don’t think it’s fair to accuse her of supporting whatever war comes next, like some bloodthirsty warmonger. I think that’s misreading the statement. But I can see your point. It’s a vague statement.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pmAnd again, it’s not my job to prove or disprove your point. For most, that’s Debate 101.
If you’re going to defend a candidate, at least have the integrity to listen to their speeches.
Comment by Dermot — September 17, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
if you’re going to trash a candidate, at least have the integrity to quote her speech, not a rightwing rag. You’re a joke.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pmI did quote her speech ronjazz. You’re too stupid to know that. Grasping at straws to deny the truth.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pmyes, there’s a quote, and if it’s accurate, it’s an indictment of Bush’s incompetence and stupidity. if it’s accurate. it says, if we go to war, let’s be ready. what an awful thing to say!
pull that empty head of your out of your ass, there is no oxygen getting to what we laughingly call your brain.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:39 pmAnd I put that wrong, it’s not my job to prove your point. It is or would be my job to disprove it.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pmPerhaps I should take Debate 101
September 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pmHere Ronjazz, will you take your poison from huffington post? It doesn’t matter which rag discusses her speech, SHE STILL SAID THE WORDS.
“We’re just years too late changing our tactics. We can’t ever let that happen again. We can’t be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.
And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. We’ve got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world.
I propose increasing the size of our Army by 80,000 soldiers, balancing the legacy systems with newer programs to help us keep our technological edge, re-evaluating the training and education programs that service members need in the 21st century.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/21/clinton-iraq-tactics-wo_n_61272.html
September 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pmYeah, I think ronjazz is right. I think she’s referring to whatever war is down the road, as there is always another war down the road. She’s advocating we not repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war. That’s my take. I’m pretty sure it’s what she’s getting at.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:41 pmYou quoted the NYSun, liar. Twisting words to prove some perverted point, whatever it is. Good job, you’ve proven that your incapable of intelligent thought. Or did I prove you’re incapable of intelligent thought? Hmmm…
September 17th, 2007 at 6:42 pmI think Dermot is getting beat up pretty badly, no? You may want to go to Powerline where the kool-aid drinkers welcome nonsense and distractions. Oh and BTW, another Justice dept lawyer got caught trying to get together with an underage child. Dermot – you should be proud of your bunch, huh? How on earth can you worship this band of idiots currently squatting in our White House?
September 17th, 2007 at 6:42 pmI think she’s referring to whatever war is down the road, as there is always another war down the road.
Yes, there’s always another especially if you are preparing for one. Jeez how dumb are you people. You aren’t anti-war at all are you. You’re just Bush haters. You don’t care what gets put in his place. Well I do and so do alot of other people who love this country. You people are as bad as Bush. you don’t mind war, you just want it to be the one you choose.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pmI’m pretty sure it’s what she’s getting at.
Comment by Wilco — September 17, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Yes, in that whole quote, there is nothing there that says she supports this or any war. She is simply being a reponsible presidential candidate, something Bush was never capable of. ermot, you’ve lost this one, by a shutout. Might as well leave your head where it is, you’re not getting any use out of it anyway.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:45 pmTom
They’re not my bunch. You would know that if you bothered to read my posts. I lump Bush and Hilary in the class of war lovers taking money from the powerful, AIPAC, whoever. Doesn’t matter to them. Hilary just likes to speak out of both sides of her mouth. Bush just outright lies.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:45 pmShe is simply being a reponsible presidential candidate, something
What???? What idiot wagon did you fall off of. It it NOT responsible to discuss preparing for the next war. It is completely irresponsible. IT is war mongering.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pmyou don’t mind war, you just want it to be the one you choose.
Comment by Dermot — September 17, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Are you 3 years old? I hate war, and the best way to avoid it is to be better-prepared for it than anyone else, and don’t elect authoritarian cowboys to office. No Republicans, no war.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pmFirst you dismiss me because I didn’t source my Hilary quote. Then when I did source it, you defend the quote as merely harmless.
Talk about waffling and denial. You people take the cake.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:48 pmSo Dermot, are you just delusional? Do you really think there might not be another war within the next 5-10 years?
September 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pmI mean, that would be fantastic, but unrealistic. And should we not be prepared if there is a war?
For someone one who claims to love his country, you sure seem hell bent on crippling its military, leaving us vulnerable to attack.
I support the military, I want tons of billions of $$ spent on it to keep it the biggest and best in the world. That doesn’t mean I like war. It means we should be prepared for one.
We should still do everything to avoid one, of course.
Are you 3 years old? I hate war, and the best way to avoid it is to be better-prepared for it than anyone else, and don’t elect authoritarian cowboys to office. No Republicans, no war.
YOu are not against war. Not if you can dismiss her statement as just harmless. You clearly have no clue and no historical reference point. Grow up and learn something before you put your money behind candidates who speak with forked tongues.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pmDermot just went through a wormhole in space. Making no sense whatsoever. English as a second, or third, language.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pmThat doesn’t mean I like war. It means we should be prepared for one.
That is sophomoric crapola. If you don’t like war, then you are against it all the time. If you think we need to be prepared just in case, then you are for war.
You can’t have it both ways. Sorry.
And which war is she preparing for? Are you concerned? Apparently not, You trust her.
Well go read up on the reign of Lyndon Johnson when people trusted that Democrat to handle a war. What we got was the draft, a false flag incident called Gulf of Tonkin, an undeclared air attack on North Vietname.
You are too naive to even be allowed to vote it seems to me.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:52 pmHilary just likes to speak out of both sides of her mouth. Bush just outright lies.
Comment by Dermot
Well at least we agree on some things. And I do read your posts. I read all the posts which I comment on. I certainly don’t get them 100% accurate, but I am pretty close. I also call a spade a spade when appropriate – no matter whose toes get stepped on. I’m afraid the ‘You’re either with us or against us” tag tars lots of citizens in a bad way. Bush has divided us into camps – Left vs. Right. When I read some of your words, I cannot help but feel you are not supporting progressives – so you must support bush. It isn’t my rule – it’s the rule Bush put into play years ago. If I got it wrong about you – then I apologize.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pmDermot just went through a wormhole in space. Making no sense whatsoever. English as a second, or third, language.
So now you reveal that you are what a gender hater? Are you racist too? Why not say I’m black, or hispanic, or of “foreign” birth? What’s holding you back Ronjazz.
You have nothing to argue with just invective and hate. You are clearly a waste.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pmWhen I read some of your words, I cannot help but feel you are not supporting progressives – so you must support bush. It isn’t my rule – it’s the rule Bush put into play years ago. If I got it wrong about you – then I apologize.
And when you read some of ronjazz’s words you feel good. Is that right? Then you are a fraud as well.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:55 pmSo Dermot, are you just delusional? Do you really think there might not be another war within the next 5-10 years?
I mean, that would be fantastic, but unrealistic. And should we not be prepared if there is a war?
There’s going to be another war within the next year, and Hilary will not be against it, jsut as she was not against the invasion of Lebanon by Israel last summer. She has stated many times that Iran is a threat. She will say nothing when Bush bombs Iran.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pmSophomoric crapola is seeing issues as black or white and not seeing the world for what it is.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pmI hate war but see the necessity of it. It’s a horrible thing and there are no winners. But I don’t agree with you at all.
It’s ignorant to think one can not love war and still support having a strong military.
It’s ignorant to think there won’t be any justifiable war, to such a degree as is possible. If your home were attacked and you could defend yourself, would you not do so?
Because your answer better be no.
You are all apparently very young and naive. Be careful. Lyndon Johnson instituted the draft, and then the lottery draft. Read your history and prepare for the reality that if you vote for Hilary, she very well may support the bombing of Iran and widen the war to include Afghanistan. To all of that she will need the draft. Based on the history of the Democratic party, it’s not far-fetched to think she would do that. So vote carefully.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pmwassamatta, dermot?
why haven’t you brought up your candidate yet?
ron paul wants to end the war… and that ain’t all!
…
wish that the only problem for this country was the war…
September 17th, 2007 at 7:00 pmTHAT’s an easy one, comparably…
…
I hate war but see the necessity of it.
Stop it. I’m too old to believe that crap. You don’t hate war. You just hate some wars. And how about wars of invasion rather than defense. Hilary isn’t even talking about the difference. Oh wait I forgot she’s all for the idea that we were attacked on 9-11 and we need to fight a war in response.
No, you’re no war hater. You’re a war opportunist.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pmWassamatta Katy
The war is the primary problem. It doesn’t much matter about health care if you’re dead in Baghdad.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:03 pmAnd when you read some of ronjazz’s words you feel good. Is that right? Then you are a fraud as well.
Comment by Dermot
I try and be civil with you and this is where you take it? Another distraction? You and I were commenting – not with ronjazz. You and I. I attempted to specifiy what you wrote which I had a problem with – and you bring ronjazz into our discussion? Do not project ronjazz’s (or other blogger’s) words or feelings into my comments to you. My comment to you was written to you – nobody else. And BTW, fraud was the incorrect term to use to strengthen your argument. Using improper grammatical choices makes your comments seem rushed and not clearly thought out. You may want to work on that as other bloggers will make presumptions about you based on the inartful wording of your intended points.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pmTom
Just speak to everyone who distorts. I don’t distort. I bring information and an opinion. Yet you find error with that. But you are silent about remarks like ronjazz, which you appear to agree with.
you can’t hide behind civility. Don’t project onto me either. You are assuming alot.
I don’t use improper grammatical choices, you just don’t know grammar.
Besides complaining about someone’s spelling is not debate.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:08 pm“I attempted to specifiy what you wrote which I had a problem with”
Tom, speaking of inartful grammar – find the grammatical errors in your own writing
September 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pmSo Dermot, you really would just let someone beat the crap out of you and your family instead of lifting your finger to protect them!
September 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pmYou are absolutely ridiculous!
So there is no such thing as a justifiable war, is your point. If we’re attacked, so what! Let them come, let them kill us. How is that expressive of love of country?
The fact of life is that there are people in the world who hate us. It’s always been that way. It will always be that way. We have enemies. Every country has enemies. So long as *they* want war, we need to be prepared.
That’s how it should be.
So there is no such thing as a justifiable war, is your point.
Nope, it’s not my point. It may be yours but it’s not mine. I never said that. I just pointed out the contradictions in Hilary’s many opposing statements and positions
September 17th, 2007 at 7:13 pmEvery country has enemies. So long as *they* want war, we need to be prepared.
With an attitude like yours, you must have a lot of enemies.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pmAll I did was point out Hilary’s contradictions, and the Hilary fan club jumped on me with a vengeance, while claiming they are anti-war. It’s such a grand spectacle. People in denial pretending to know what they’re talking about.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pmJust speak to everyone who distorts. I don’t distort. I bring information and an opinion. Yet you find error with that. But you are silent about remarks like ronjazz, which you appear to agree with.
One last thing before the limo arrives. To say I agree with ronjazz’s comments because I don’t disagree with them does not suggest anything. ronjazz is a good blogger. I read his posts just as I read your posts.
Distortion is something we should all work on minimizing – unless you are playing guitar through a Marshall stack. Dialog works best if all involved stay respectfull of each others words. That is what I try to do. Anyway gotta go make some noise to a paying crowd – can’t let them down.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:18 pmSo Dermot, please explain:
September 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm“If you don’t like war, then you are against it all the time.”
…and how I’m a “war opportunist” for supporting military preparedness, even though I don’t like war and see no good ever come of it.
Ronjazz is a good blogger
“nough said. You’re now an idiot in my book.
Dialog works best if all involved stay respectfull of each others words.
You don’t have the guts to discuss the issues. You want to talk civility and dialogue. You are full of s.h.i.t. You’re like the collaborators. You put a good face on the bs
September 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pmand how I’m a “war opportunist†for supporting military preparedness, even though I don’t like war and see no good ever come of it
Wilco, answer you own questions of the soul. You say you hate war yet you give up and say, oh well, if it has to be, it has to be. Why bother protesting that you hate war so much. Clearly you don’t.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:21 pmMilitary preparedness – you mean a standing army. Go read the founding fathers, Wilco, they would turn over in the graves if they knew we had a standing army. And they would be gagging on the idea that we had an officer class. The army was supposed to be classless. But Washington saw to that. Go do some reading Wilco before you claim to be so anti-war. perhaps you don’t hate war so much.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pm“With an attitude like yours, you must have a lot of enemies.”
So there are two reasons to have a military: defense and agression.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pmWith either end in sight, why is it inappropriate to have a strong military as a means?
Why is it an attitude to believe a strong military necessary to defend against wars of agression? Why is it an attitude to believe in the necessity of defense, knowing there are others out there who are your enemies?
Or do you disagree with the substance of the argument, that we don’t have enemies or they’re not a part of the global body politic?
Wilco, ronjazz, tom – just admit you are paid up members of the Hilary fan club and don’t have a rhyme or a reason for your support of her. You just shout about how you hate war while resigning to the need for troop buildups. Will people like you, a country doesn’t need enemies.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pmput a good face on the bs
Comment by Dermot
You are too far gone for most educated people. For a quick moment, I thought you could be ok, but I was wrong. No problem…Later!
September 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWhy is it an attitude to believe a strong military necessary to defend against wars of agression
The US did not have a standing army until after WWII. It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with truth and justice and the American way.
God I feel like I’m teaching history 101. OK children your assignment is to go read up on the history of US wars, the military, and aggression.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pmTom
I thought you had to leave in your limo – too bad. You are an elitist snob faker. Talking about grammar rather the issues. Where do you stand on the issues. Or is it too ‘dirty’ a topic and your grammar gets all mangled when you try to express yourself.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:27 pmSo why do you feel we don’t need a standing army?
September 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pmWhat’s your resolution for foreign agression?
Tom
Say hi to Hilary. How much does she pay you to divert discussion away from the issues. However much, it’s too much, cause you’re not doing a very good job.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pmWhat foreign aggression?
September 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pmWilco
September 17th, 2007 at 7:31 pmDo you mean our foreign aggression on Iraq?
So you don’t believe there to be any need for a US military except when war is declared on us?
September 17th, 2007 at 7:31 pmDo you really think we’d have enough people trained well enough in this high-tech world to properly defend the country?
Do you mean our foreign aggression on Iraq?
Comment by Dermot
No, I’m speaking in hypotheticals.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:32 pmDo you really think we’d have enough people trained well enough in this high-tech world to properly defend the country?
Certainly not if we continue on our current course of attacking other countries without provocation. There won’t be enough troops or equipment to protect us.
But why do you only talk of others attacking us. You do not speak of all the attacks we have made without provocation on other countries in the past 100 years.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:34 pmBased on the evidence, a reasonable person would come to the opinion that we are more of a threat to other countries than they are to us.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:35 pmDermot, I don’t support wars of aggression.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pmI’m trying to understand your position. At once you state the founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew we had a standing army, then lament their pending dropping levels.
So, do you support a standing army or no?
No I don’t support a standing army. I don’t think we need one. The only reason any country might want to attack us is because we attack them. If we would stop attacking other countries, most of the warfare in the world would end. That’s why the founding fathers were against a standing army, because of what’s happening to us now. A standing army begets wars.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:38 pmI don’t disagree with much of that. But say we are attacked. I assume you believe we should defend ourselves. How effective would we be, though, if we don’t have a standing army, a large force of mobile, heavily trained troops?
September 17th, 2007 at 7:43 pmOr do you suggest that be done on the State level?
Or…?
It would depend on the nature of the attack, who is doing the attacking, where?
The only attack I can see is one like WTC, and there what you have is blowback. Revenge for all our aggression in the middle east in the name of business. I don’t condone the WTC bombings, but I don’t believe attacking another country in revenge has any value.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pmRather than fight back against an attacker, I would prefer handing over our political, business, and military leaders, and CIA operatives who started the problem in the first place. Give them to our ‘enemy’ and let them do with them as they will.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:48 pmwell what about an attack like Hitler’s in Europe, and his declaration of war against the US?
September 17th, 2007 at 7:49 pmUnder your plan, would we not be vulnerable to such an attack?
History is littered with power-hungry madmen who go to war for spoils and men whose goal is conquest.
You lost me!
September 17th, 2007 at 7:52 pmSo you think anyone who ever attacks us is going to be justified?
History is littered with power-hungry madmen who go to war for spoils and men whose goal is conquest
Yes and the US has a large percentage of them. First business goes into a country and attempts to takeover the resources through pay offs. If the powers won’t play, our CIA eliminates them. If that doesn’t work, we just join in an overthrow of the government. If that doesn’t work, we invade, or we get the UN to put sanctions on the country, which causes millions to die.
Besides, Hitler rose to power because he got money from the likes of Prescott Bush and the Harrimans to build his SS secret armies. That’s what allowed him to take power. Again, it’s the monied interests that start the wars, and then they get the military to go in and do the dirty work. Worry about that rather than someone attacking us for no reason.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pmWilco
You keep trying to paint me in a corner by getting me to say something absolute like “there’s never a justification for self-defense”. I’m not going to speak in absolutes.
But more importantly, why won’t you speak in specifics.
You want to say having a standing army is justified.
I ask you on what grounds? There have not been any grounds justifying a standing army in the last 50 years.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:57 pmOK, you lost me, Dermot.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:59 pmI don’t think you’d have an excuse if not for the handful of American backers.
What about the other countries in Europe?
They didn’t attack Hitler. They didn’t have it coming.
So what if we were Poland? What if we were France? Would we have deserved tanks rolling down our streets?
Dermot, at this point, I’m not trying to paint you into a corner. I’m trying to understand your POV. I still see justification for a military because of all the Big Bads out in the world. I want to be prepared.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pmYou’re right, we have a lot to do with foreign aggression against us, whether in attitude or in act. And it would be great if that weren’t the case. I just don’t see the value in dissolving the military and just hoping no one ever attacks us again.
that having been said or written, this got enjoyable at the end.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:04 pmBut I gotta cut and run.
Later
“We are where we want to be right now, and how we got there is not your business. ” or something like that.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:28 pmWhat a statement from, an Admiral??
The arrogance is has a noticably bad oder.
Unfortunately for Fallon and Petraeus, the American Public no longer wants our military in Iraq, serving as an oil company militia, and we’re tired of footing the extravagant, graft-laden Pentagon, with their $20,000 night vision goggles, $300 billion F22, $300 billion F35, Osprey Tilt rotor aircraft, Centurion cannon, million-dollar smart bombs, and carrier task forces that cost half a billion per day to field.
But body armor, sorry, can’t seem to provide that. Not enough contractor profit in small-dollar SKUs. Classic War Inc.
A lot of upper-level military brass seem to have a total disconnect about just how much money they can pile up and burn with their lavish logistics and high-tech toys. All for a ‘win.’ Currently, this ‘military exercise’ is ruining the U.S. economy…aside from all that ‘collateral’ damage of human lives and limbs.
Just think how much better off this country would be if we just defended our own borders, and used all that WASTED cash to improve America. “Defense Dept.’ my ass.
Sorry general ’sir,’
September 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pmYou don’t GET to ignore that.
Two very though provoking calls from C-Span viewers on Sun and Mon…
…on Sun a caller called in saying that he lives not far from a neighborhood…
…of “million dollar homes where retired Generals live”…
…in response to the Betraeus report the man said…
…”This general is a political animal, you don’t get to be general without playing politics at somepoint during your career”…
…”These guys (generals) are going to retire to million dollar homes…
…”what are the average soldiers going to (come back to)?”
…Mon caller brags that he’s in NC on a Marine base…
…”Guys are jumping all over each other to go over there (Iraq)”…
…”they’re making a lot of money, coming back home and paying cash for new cars, downpayments on new homes”…
…”they want to get over there and kill Islamists, we’re patriots”…
…It’s a sad day in Amerikkka…
September 17th, 2007 at 10:13 pmgang typo, that’s “thought provoking” in post #126
September 17th, 2007 at 10:14 pmI give up…
…that’s “DANG typo in post #127…
…time to go…
September 17th, 2007 at 10:14 pmFallon said. “We are where we want to be right now…
Four years into the occupation of a country that never attacked the US and was not a threat, so that we can steal their oil and use their land to launch attacks against other nations and steal from them as well.
…How we got there is our business.â€
By lying, cherry picking and fabricating evidence, and denouncing as unpatriotic all who would have the truth be known.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:01 amhttp://www.splcenter.org/
$12 billion stolen by neocon bremer? $2 Trillion stolen by Dov Zakheim? A billion taxdollars every few minutes to murder and destroy Iraq and our armed forces who do not have enough ammunition, armor, clean water or sanitary food and medical and other benefits to veterans being cut by bushco?.. Billions to Israel to destabilize the Middle East?.
Senator Says Troops Want Congress To Cut Off War Funding
Woah, this is interesting. Colorado Senator Ken Salazar — who’s taken a bunch of heat for backing toothless Iraq War measures — is now flirting with the ultimate: Cutting off funding for the war.
Even more interesting, guess who has been encouraging Salazar to pursue this option?
While in Iraq over the weekend, Salazar said, some service men and women told him that they wanted Congress to cut off funding.
Some soldiers want war funding cut off? But isn’t advocating for that tantamount to being anti-troops, and aren’t Congressional Dem leaders certain that such a measure would automatically be perceived that way? That’s what we keep hearing, anyway.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/salazar_says_troops_want_congress_to_eye_cutting_off_war_funding.php
September 18th, 2007 at 7:59 am09/17/07 Countdown, at 6:00 pm (?) the Pentagon released a report that the violance in Iragi is at 2002 levels. Why isn’t this discussed??
Apparently the general lied.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am