Bush vetoes funding for the troops!!

[AFTiger 282]

I was there leading up to the war, during the war, and up to 4 months after the fall of Baghdad. I know what happened in those meetings because I was sitting there myself.

You were in meetings with who? Rumsfeld?

Tiger in Spain, I learned a long time ago that when you argue with a child you will lose. A child is not capable of rational discussions.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Rumsfeld was in a few in person (so was Colin Powell), otherwise he was linked via VTC. The General's staff were all present.

Still doubt me?

I don't have trouble believing you may have been is some meetings, but I have trouble picturing the big decision makers saying-- "Wait, we can't discuss this, TIS isn't here."

Here's a general who opposed it who points out what happens to those who disagreed with Rummy:

There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...81629-3,00.html

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I was there leading up to the war, during the war, and up to 4 months after the fall of Baghdad. I know what happened in those meetings because I was sitting there myself.

You were in meetings with who? Rumsfeld?

Tiger in Spain, I learned a long time ago that when you argue with a child you will lose. A child is not capable of rational discussions.

I hear you, brother, but I am just waiting on some BS from a moonbat site to be drug into this one. I know exactly what went on over there ... I experienced it personally.

BTW, Tommy always called me "Eddie" after my middle name Edward.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I don't have trouble believing you may have been is some meetings, but I have trouble picturing the big decision makers saying-- "Wait, we can't discuss this, TIS isn't here."

Depends on where you fit in with the staff. There are those who were not required to attend all the meetings, then there were those of us that were.

Do you want to see my Bronze Star or my Joint Service Commendation Medal?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I don't have trouble believing you may have been is some meetings, but I have trouble picturing the big decision makers saying-- "Wait, we can't discuss this, TIS isn't here."

Depends on where you fit in with the staff. There are those who were not required to attend all the meetings, then there were those of us that were.

Do you want to see my Bronze Star or my Joint Service Commendation Medal?

So are you saying Colin Powell abandoned his belief in the Powell Doctrine?

[DKW 86 7,431]

I don't have trouble believing you may have been is some meetings, but I have trouble picturing the big decision makers saying-- "Wait, we can't discuss this, TIS isn't here."

Depends on where you fit in with the staff. There are those who were not required to attend all the meetings, then there were those of us that were.

Do you want to see my Bronze Star or my Joint Service Commendation Medal?

So Tex, you were there for all the meetings right? Since you know EVERYTHING that ALL military people think right?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I don't have trouble believing you may have been is some meetings, but I have trouble picturing the big decision makers saying-- "Wait, we can't discuss this, TIS isn't here."

Depends on where you fit in with the staff. There are those who were not required to attend all the meetings, then there were those of us that were.

Do you want to see my Bronze Star or my Joint Service Commendation Medal?

So Tex, you were there for all the meetings right? Since you know EVERYTHING that ALL military people think right?

Leave it to David to fail to follow the discussion.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I don't have trouble believing you may have been is some meetings, but I have trouble picturing the big decision makers saying-- "Wait, we can't discuss this, TIS isn't here."

Depends on where you fit in with the staff. There are those who were not required to attend all the meetings, then there were those of us that were.

Do you want to see my Bronze Star or my Joint Service Commendation Medal?

So are you saying Colin Powell abandoned his belief in the Powell Doctrine?

I don't think I've mentioned anything about the Powell Doctrine nor was it part of the discussion. Powell was in a few of the meetings as I said, and I have shaken his hand on a few occasions (the Presidents too, for that matter!)

[autigeremt 6,652]

I don't know why you guys are upset with TT. He consideres the United States the enemy in this war. He always has.

Here's another psycho who makes up the positons of those who disagree with him.

Why do you guys have to demonize everyone who disagrees with you?

You DEMONIZE yourself with posts that literally copy all the talking points of the democratic party! More and more "democrats" consider the United States as the "real" enemy anymore. They (democrats) want a socialistic government. One that's no longer ran by the majority. And one that allows any Tom-Dick- and Harry to come in and set up residence without prejudice. Plain and simple!

Hey moron, guess what? "The majority" of Americans favor a bill that calls for troop withdrawal by August 2008:

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=313

You're outta touch! Guess that means you could be President! Congratulations!

Number one!!!!! Calling me a MORON is kettle meet pot!

Now.........as I have said before, THOSE SAME PEOPLE (89%) gave the big nod! WE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE and do whatever we can to get the situation stabilized for the Iraqi people. I know it's hard for you to agree with the realative meaning of RESPONSIBLE! Left wingers could care less about that word or it's meaning. They RARELY take responsibility for anything, but they blame anyone they can to help position themselves for the next election.

Having a Bush supporter talk about responsibility or accountability is truly laughable. And a little pathetic.

What's laughable is you coming in here and ASSuming things with which you do not know. I am an American supporter. Unlike you, I look at the WHOLE picture instead of a few snapshots that help me feel good about my position. I support the Commander in Chief! Just like I did when Bill Clinton sent 3 of my brothers (along with many more) into Somalia to be EXECUTED without listening to his MILITARY commanders!

You have your right to free speech, thanks to people like myself, Tiger in Spain, Ranger12, ect! You may not like what we say, but you can never understand when you are sitting in your lazy boy and sippin on your ass piss wine.

[jw 4 au 526]

Your claiming I slammed the troops is the type of reflexive comment folks of your political bent often make, despite the actual facts. Such tactics are "always a good smoke screen" and tend to obfuscate the facts.

Is "a lot of good...coming out of it?" Sure, there are hundreds of stories of good over the last four years. But is the overall net effect going to worth their incredible sacrifice? I hope so. I hope my impression is wrong. I have hoped I was wrong about this invasion from the start. I would love to be wrong on this.

I don't think there was any political bending in my post, just stating opinion. Political bending would be only quoting the three most vocal generals of thousands, or finding a negative article to dispute a positive opinion. I understand what you said and meant, but you need to realize the impression you left (as with most of your posts). You may say that you "support our troops", but everything else in your posts is 99% negative. Your initial response to my comments about things I have heard from colleagues was to pull one of the negative articles about those type of projects and call me a sheep for respecting an opposing view. That was basically you taking the opposition view immediately without even concedeing that there are improvements being made over there by our military. My point is, there will always be a negative side to everything, but let's try acknowledge the positives. Politics aren't allowing you to do this.

Finally, so what I hear you saying in the last part is that if General Petraeus does his job, and succeeds to some measurable extent to where you can say things have changed and improved from what I thought (i.e. I was wrong like I had hoped), does that mean you will vote republican in 2008 (or at least not for Hillary)? How about give Bush a little of the credit? TT, maybe you are turing the corner after all!

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Your claiming I slammed the troops is the type of reflexive comment folks of your political bent often make, despite the actual facts. Such tactics are "always a good smoke screen" and tend to obfuscate the facts.

Is "a lot of good...coming out of it?" Sure, there are hundreds of stories of good over the last four years. But is the overall net effect going to worth their incredible sacrifice? I hope so. I hope my impression is wrong. I have hoped I was wrong about this invasion from the start. I would love to be wrong on this.

I don't think there was any political bending in my post, just stating opinion. Political bending would be only quoting the three most vocal generals of thousands, or finding a negative article to dispute a positive opinion. I understand what you said and meant, but you need to realize the impression you left (as with most of your posts). You may say that you "support our troops", but everything else in your posts is 99% negative. Your initial response to my comments about things I have heard from colleagues was to pull one of the negative articles about those type of projects and call me a sheep for respecting an opposing view. That was basically you taking the opposition view immediately without even concedeing that there are improvements being made over there by our military. My point is, there will always be a negative side to everything, but let's try acknowledge the positives. Politics aren't allowing you to do this.

Finally, so what I hear you saying in the last part is that if General Petraeus does his job, and succeeds to some measurable extent to where you can say things have changed and improved from what I thought (i.e. I was wrong like I had hoped), does that mean you will vote republican in 2008 (or at least not for Hillary)? How about give Bush a little of the credit? TT, maybe you are turing the corner after all!

I don't know what "political bending" is. I was referring to your "political bent," i.e. political inclination, and it does shape your view of things, including my posts.

I can't imagine voting for any of the Republicans now in the race. I have said in the past that if Bush is right and his Iraq efforts lead to a wave of democracies throughout the middle east that I would recognize his brilliance. I don't think that even he believes in his original theory anymore.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Rumsfeld was in a few in person (so was Colin Powell), otherwise he was linked via VTC. The General's staff were all present.

Still doubt me?

I don't have trouble believing you may have been is some meetings, but I have trouble picturing the big decision makers saying-- "Wait, we can't discuss this, TIS isn't here."

Here's a general who opposed it who points out what happens to those who disagreed with Rummy:

There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...81629-3,00.html

I see you ignored what happened to Shinseki who did speak up. So are you saying Franks entered Iraq with the number of troops he ideally wanted?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Don't let the NYT's force feed you innaccurate information. This banner of "speaking out" you like to wave in reference to General Shinseki may be a case of looking for smoke where there is no fire. Forget what the journalists say, their interpretations can be misleading. Read his comments. They're available on the web.

To answer your other question, yes. He had all he asked for. Colin Powell wanted more there and, as he states in his doctrine, it wouldn't matter where you were going, you had to send in practically your entire Army. Franks didn't think that was necessary.

"I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president that I was not sure we had enough troops," Powell said in an interview on Britain's ITV television. "The case was made, it was listened to, it was considered. ... A judgment was made by those responsible that the troop strength was adequate."

"The president's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't," Powell said. "In my perspective, I would have preferred more troops, but you know, this conflict is not over."

"At the time, the president was listening to those who were supposed to be providing him with military advice," Powell said. "They were anti-cipating a different kind of immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad; it turned out to be not exactly as they had anticipated."

I know General Franks was asked several times if he had everything he needed. The answer was, "Yes." It wasn't Powell's decision to make, nor was it Rumsfeld's....it was Tommy Franks. This was his operation and he is the one that told SECDEF and the President what he needed.

Any more questions? Any other people with books out that you want me to refute? We're straying awfully far from those 2 back stabbing dime droppers we were originally talking about.

BTW, why the concern now for troop levels? It wouldn't have mattered if we had a million boots on the ground over there; you guys on the left would have had some problem with it. Look at it now. General Petreaus has asked for this surge and the left has lost its mind over it. You're not even willing to give the plan a chance to work. You can't help but see the hypocrisy in the actions of your side of the isle. After all that "we need more troops on the ground" mess that was being babbled, when more troops were sent in all we hear is "this is an escalation and we will not support it". The military is in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation with the left. No matter what happens over there, no good will be seen from it. Whatever happens will be vilified by you guys and all the good events and honor that have gone on will be completely ignored.