...is it possible that the Democrats are actually worse than I remembered? That does not mean the Republicans are a box of chocolates, but golly gee whiz one afternoon of c-span and one does come to some very scary conclusions. First, Nancy Pelosi believes in whatever she says. There is no cynicism or even a smirk. She is a convicted believer.
Second, the Democrats are very inclusive. They are highly represented by the Congressional Black Caucus. Now, to belong to that august body you need only be black and obviously to get elected from their districts, that is also the only qualification.
The Democrats are in white knuckle terror over the Black Caucus. Just look at The House Democratic Caucus who gave Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, a seat on the House Homeland Security Committee. This comes after the Republican controlled caucus stripped Jefferson of his seat on the powerful Ways and Means committee last June. You will recall that Jefferson thought his freezer was a bank deposit box and he hid fifty thousand next to the frozen gumbo.
These Dems don't believe in segregation.
There are some real dopes there, but then when you get to a lot of the white non-caucus dems, many with real nice hair, they get dumber. I do not think John Murtha is dumb but he needs to get hold of his emotions.
So not to give the impression that I am not inclusive, I am beginning to like Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangell. They speak with conviction especially Charlie, and Charlie is one dapper dresser. I do have some visual prejudices. I cannot get past the face of Henry Waxman to even concentrate on his nonsense.
As to the new breed of freshman Democrats, the war veterans included, not a spit of difference between them and any of the hacks of elections past. The entire spectrum of the Democratic rainbow is various shades of puce.
Had the Republicans governed like Republicans instead of the greedy pigs at the trough they were, and had George W. spent more time in the office instead of the gym, this may not have happened. History will not remember he had nice pecs.
Here is what the unionleader.com
has to say :
Sapping the surge: Dems set their deadline
Well, after complaining that President Bush second-guessed the generals in Iraq, House Democrats second-guessed the very general their Senate colleagues overwhelmingly approved just two months ago.
On Friday, the House passed by only six votes (218 to 212) an emergency Iraq war spending bill that requires withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by August of next year. That's exactly the type of arbitrary deadline Gen. David Petraeus has said would be counterproductive. But never mind what the general in charge thinks, the House has to embarrass Bush. Priorities, priorities.
What was the significance of August 2008? There was none. It was just a date to put on a calendar. As First District Rep. Carol Shea-Porter said, "I signed on because this bill had a date on it."
What date? Didn't matter. Any date would do.
That is wholly irresponsible. But don't take our word for it. Sen. Barack Obama said so. Well, at least he did last summer, when he voted against Sen. John Kerry's plan for pulling out of Iraq by this July, saying an "arbitrary deadline" could make the situation worse. Now he's all for an arbitrary deadline. Gotta get that anti-war vote.
Opponents of the war keep saying that there is "no military solution" in Iraq. Well guess what? President Bush has said that all along. That's why he focused on creating an Iraqi constitution and getting a representative government elected. And that is why his troop surge is being implemented alongside a push to bring warring factions together to stop the fighting.
But what Bush recognizes is that there is no political solution without a military presence. At least not for now. And unless the Democrats have a crystal ball, there's no way they can know that the situation will change by the time they call for the troops to leave.
Besides all that, the House is meddling in the affairs of the executive branch. If House Democrats want to end the war, they can vote to defund it on whatever date they want. But they cannot otherwise dictate the behavior of troops in the field. That is the job of the commander in chief. Our Founding Fathers rightly ensured that there would be only one commander in chief, not 535. The Democrats, as usual, are ignoring the Constitution to do what they think will win them more votes.
That's no way to run a war, or a country.
I wonder if they smell blood in the water?
ReplyDeleteSuicide bomber kills 20 in Baghdad
By Kim Gamel
ASSOCIATED PRESS
March 25, 2007
BAGHDAD -- A suicide bomber driving a truck with explosives hidden under bricks destroyed a police station yesterday in Baghdad -- the largest in a series of insurgent strikes against the American-led security crackdown. At least 47 persons died in the attacks, including 20 at the police station.
The bomber bypassed tight security to get within 25 yards of the station by blending in with other trucks coming and going as part of a construction project. He detonated his explosives after he reached the main gate. Police said half of those killed were policemen; 28 persons were wounded.
The bomber bypassed tight security to get within 25 yards of the station by blending in with other trucks coming and going as part of a construction project.
ReplyDeleteThe surge isn't working, gents. To the Iraqis, "tight security" is defined as letting through only those trucks which blend in with the ones doing the task at hand...but by golly all the other trucks were stopped cold, let me tell you! The jihadists can use this loophole to sneak across the border into America now. All they have to do is disguise themselves as illegal aliens, because the neocons are building them an eight lane superhighway right into the heart of the country.
"The Democrats are back and..."
ReplyDeleteNow
- Democrats say voters want Iraq pullout deadline
If we only would listen to them and not the...neocons
but first - a few words from the enemy
"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."
Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.
cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802
Now back to the wisdom our our elected Democrats...
Then -
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
- Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential CampaignIn a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/
priraq1.htm
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
- Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
http://www.accuracy.org/
newsrelease.php?articleId=375
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
- Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/
20010911a.htm
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.
If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."
- Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on "Face The Nation" September 29, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/
face_092902.pdf
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
- Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi
position=all&page=S10145&
dbname=2002_record
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."
- Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103
Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
- Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition" Feb 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/
0202/24/le.00.html
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
- Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~
kennedy/statements/02/09/
2002927718.html
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/
02/20/98022006_tpo.html
well...my mistake
ReplyDeletesome quotes are not from elected officials - but nontheless loud Democrats
It was published by the Sunday New York Times Magazine, so, it must be true. (Well, it should be, because Bush lied and people died.)
ReplyDeleteAnd she was raped twice by “cash and carry” American sailors.
She is honest because she no longer wears a uniform.
Link one
ReplyDeleteThat page has gone AWOL!
Link two
That page has gone AWOL!
So fast the deceptions are pulled from that Sailor site
Here’s another nail in the legitimacy of the policing authority.
ReplyDeleteVillage People police officer arrested
What?! An arrest without prerequisite trial?
Verbatim from the Navy Times (“A Gannett rag”)
ReplyDeleteNavy disputes war story told by former sailor
Woman said she was injured in Iraq, but deployment not in personnel record
By Robert Hodierne - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Mar 23, 2007 17:10:00 EDT
The March 19 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both.
One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who served six years as a Seabee. Randall told the Times that while in the Navy, she was raped twice — in 2002 while she was stationed in Mississippi, and again in Guam in 2004. She also told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case.
The story was written by Sara Corbett, a contract writer for the magazine. Here’s how Corbett presented it: “Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. ‘I don’t remember as all of it Â… I don’t know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome.’ ”
The story goes on:
“According to the Navy, however, no after-action report exists to back up Randall’s claims of combat exposure or injury. A Navy spokesman reports that her commander says that his unit was never involved in combat during her tour. And yet, while we were discussing the supposed I.E.D. attack, Randall appeared to recall it in exacting detail — the smells, the sounds, the impact of the explosion. As she spoke, her body seemed to seize up; her speech became slurred as she slipped into a flashback. It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness.”
The Navy, while expressing sympathy to a woman it believes is suffering from stress, is annoyed that the Times did so little to check the woman’s story. A Times fact checker contacted Navy headquarters only three days before the magazine’s deadline. That, said Capt. Tom Van Leunen, deputy chief of information for the Navy, did not provide enough time to confirm Randall’s account of service in Iraq. Nonetheless, Van Leunen said, by deadline the Navy had provided enough information to the Times “to seriously question whether she’d been in Iraq.”
Aaron Rectica, who runs the magazine’s research desk, disputes that. He said that by deadline, the Navy had not given the Times any reason to disbelieve Randall’s claim of service in Iraq. Rectica said the Navy only told the paper that Randall’s commanders believed she’d been in Iraq but that no one in the unit had been in combat.
Unlike daily newspapers, which are usually printed very early on the day they are distributed, the Times’ magazine is printed a week ahead of time. The March 18 magazine went to press Friday, March 9. On the following Monday, March 12, the Navy told the Times that it had no record of Randall ever receiving hazardous duty pay or a combat zone tax exemption. One of the reasons for the Times’ apparent error was a medal. Randall’s personnel file includes a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which is only awarded to troops who have served in a war zone. The Navy now says that medal was given to Randall in error.
Reached by phone at her home in Grand Junction, Colo., Randall declined to talk but gave the phone to her fiancé, Gregory Lund.
“This lady was sexually assaulted twice in the Navy and no one was ever punished for it,” he said. While the Navy says it can find no rape complaint, Lund says she told her doctors about the assaults.
“She went through a lot.” Lund said. But he admits he doesn’t know for sure if Randall was ever in Iraq.
“If she wasn’t, it was a bad mistake on her part,” he said. But, he added, “For her to cope with [all she’s been through], her mind somehow believes she was in Iraq Â… She doesn’t remember anything in Iraq . If she was wrong about that, she’s sorry. But what you folks need to realize is how traumatized she is. If she’s wrong, I don’t know. She doesn’t know.”
The editor of the magazine, Gerry Marzorati, said he now suspects Randall was never in Iraq.
“I think she thinks she was in Iraq,” he said. “I don’t think she was trying to pull the wool over our eyes.”
The magazine did not call the Navy to check Randall’s Iraq story sooner, Marzorati said, because they believed that checking rank, years of service and time in Iraq “would be a perfunctory thing.”
Marzorati said the Times is preparing a correction. He added that no one has challenged the military records of the 30 other women mentioned in the article.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/03/navy_timesmagazine_veteranrape_070322w/
Why was Willis beating up his girl friend? This is very disillusioning. I thought the Village Poeple were gay. I don't know what to believe anymore.
ReplyDeleteYou never have to worry about Elijah not having his flanks covered.
ReplyDeleteI thought the Village Poeple were gay. I don't know what to believe anymore.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia:
Victor Edward Willis (born on July 1, 1951 in Dallas, Texas) is a singer, songwriter, actor; and original lead singer of the disco group Village People. He was also the original straight member of the group.
The CBC - social justice - the oppressor and the oppressed
ReplyDelete...Marxism had an early, non-state form that not only was soaked in eschatological dreams of the end of "prehistory" - the era of exploitation, misery, and general injustice - but also rejected any form of nationalism, which, in Karl Marx's view, was just an ideology that separated workers of different nations, ethnic groups and races from one another.
...Egyptian intellectual and author Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) occupies an important place among Islamic thinkers. He was one of the most quoted thinkers who provided guidance for Islamic radicals. He is associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and is best known for his theoretical work on redefining the role of Islamic fundamentalism... in social and political change.
Thus Qutb's work explains the way radical Islamism has become a sort of replacement for various forms of radical Marxism, such as Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, and plays such an important role in this century.
but I am just a balthering fool...
- Al-Jazeera TV on March 18, 2007
...Louis Farrakhan, Leader of the "Nation of Islam", Declares His Support of Iran's Nuclear Program and Claims that Since the U.S. Administration Ignored His Warnings, "the Time for the Chastisement of Allah Is Here"
- Minister Farrakhan addresses nearly 50,000 at Saviours' Day 2007 Keynote Address
...On stage to welcome Min. Farrakhan was Detroit Mayor, the Honorable Kwame Kilpatrick and Congressional representatives John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and CBC Chair Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, along with a variety of Muslim, Christian, Latino, Native American representatives and entertainment figures, including Grammy Award-winning vocalist Anita Baker who performed at the opening of the day’s program.
- Minister Farrakhan voted BET 2005 Person of the Year
An overwhelming percentage of our users agreed that Minister Farrakhan made the most positive impact on the Black community over the past year and chose him as the person most worthy to receive the honor of BET.com’s 2005 Person of the Year,” said Retha Hill, BET.com’s vice president for Content. They agreed that he has done what no other Black leader has: “mobilize hundreds of thousands of Blacks around the issues of atonement and empowerment, and to convince the masses of our people that we must be the primary catalysts and engines for positive change in our communities,” she said.
- The Congressional Black Caucus
made a "covenant" with Farrakhan in 1994 which it was forced to rescind shortly thereafter as result of public outrage.
...Khalid Muhammad, a disciple of Farrakhan, delivered a venomous speech at Kean College attacking Jews, Catholics, and other groups," wrote Swain. "The ensuing public outrage was so great that it led the Congress, for the first time in history, to pass a resolution condemning the speech of a private citizen. Twenty [Congressional Black] caucus members voted for the resolution, eleven voted against, four voted present, and three failed to vote as the measure passed the House 361 to 34." But in 1995, a year later, new CBC Chairman Donald Payne led his Caucus to endorse and take part in Farrakhan's
"Million Man March" in Washington, D.C.
The Navy loves to hand out medals, according to this pilot.
ReplyDeleteUpon completion of DESERT FOX [the bombing of Iraq in last December], the Battle Group staff asked what 5th fleet would accept for a typical combat award, BEFORE THE AWARDS RECOMMENDATIONS WERE EVEN WRITTEN UP! (this was to save administrative burden on the units). After 5th fleet made the decision on what 'he' would approve, this is the guidance used for writhing up awards: Commander/Deputy Commander Air Group; Bronze Star / Distinguished Flying Cross; Squadron Commanding Officers who led a strike on the first night, BS/DFC; All strike leads, Air Medal W/ Combat distinguishing device; All other aircrew who flew into Iraqi air space, Navy Commendation w/ Combat distinguishing device; All support aircrew who flew in support of mission going into Iraqi airspace, Navy commendation medal w/ combat distinguishing device. Plus there were two single mission air medals allowed to be awarded per squadron to recognize superior performance in combat. OBTW, Bronze Stars were awarded to commanders because it is now 'accepted' that they are 'combat leadership awards' not awarded for individual acts of valor.
As you can tell by the criteria passed down from 5th Fleet, it was a quota system which did not recognize individual achievement, precisely what the individual awards process was supposed to do. What made matters worse, was the fact that being the only Marine unit aboard the ship we (except the CO) thought of all the services we used the awards process with closer scrutiny. We were disgusted with the process and did not want to participate. However we were told to write them up any way and to write up the pilots to match the numbers allocated for our fair share. So that is just what me and my fellow department head did. In the case of the two single mission air medals to be awarded per squadron, we became very creative (lied) in the awards write up to make the individual's performance commensurate with the award (the CO was not going to give up two quotas of air medals just because we didn't have anyone who didn't deserve it...in his words 'what do you want me to do, turn them in?')
Another 10% of unit strength quota was allowed for Desert Fox for all of the units within the battle group.
When the two FA-18D squadrons were preparing to deploy to Hungary in support of Allied Force [bombing campaign against Yugoslavia], the awards officer came to our squadron to get copies of our award write ups so they can 'lead turn' the process. As a result, they passed out so many awards they became meaningless.
The single mission air medal w/combat V has become the "me too medal" among aviators. Whenever I see a DFC or bronze star on someone's chest, I instantly think what unit did you command in combat?
Or this SSgt who reports
I read this in USA Today. One of the reasons the achievement medals were created was because not enough people were getting commendation medals. Or perhaps too many low ranking people were getting commendation medals, which devalued them. After all, why should a private, who went 7 days with 14 hours, alternating between his guard duty and repairing trucks get the same award as a captain who gave good staff briefings to the Brigade Commander?
I have also seen policies where certain awards are reserved for certain ranks. Usually E-4 and below get Army Achievement Medals, E-5 to E-7 get Army Commendation Medals, and E-8 and above get Meritorious Service Medals. And all recommendations for awards must be submitted unrealistically in advance so that every one in the approving chain can get their 2 cents worth in so the command won't be embarrassed when the approving authority sees it.
The most abused instance of award inflation that I have ever seen was a Trial Defense Counsel (an Army Criminal Defense Lawyer) received a Bronze Star because she won an acquittal for her client during a Courts-martial during Desert Storm. "Meritorious Service in a Combat Zone." She should have received an outstanding OER, and other appropriate accolades, but I compare that to the Bronze Star one of my college professors received in Vietnam, who as an infantryman, exposed himself to enemy fire, just doesn't make sense. ..."
Woman said she was injured in Iraq, but deployment not in personnel record
ReplyDeleteIt used to be dudes trying to score points with the VFW by faking combat expeditions, now it's babes faking abuse to impugn the military.
Things never change:
ReplyDeleteOn a hunch, I did a google search on "outstanding, USAF" Results:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260,000 for outstanding USAF. (0.17 seconds)
That is outstanding for a force of 395,000, simply outstanding.
ReplyDeleteStart with the variance among the military branches. The Air Force awarded 2,425 Bronze Stars and 21 Silver Stars from March 2002 to August 2004 for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Twenty-seven airmen were killed in combat during that time, making the Air Force's ratio of top-level ground-combat medals to fatalities 91-to-1. (This figure doesn't include medals awarded for airborne bravery.) As of July 31, 2004, the Army had awarded 17,498 Bronze Stars and 133 Silver Stars in Operation Iraqi Freedom, while 636 soldiers have died, an awards ratio of 27-to-1. And the Marine Corps has awarded just 701 Bronze Stars, 12 Silver Stars, and six Navy Crosses (the Navy's second-highest award) for combat in Iraq, while 264 Marines died—a ratio of less than 3-to-1. Is the Marine Corps too stingy or are the other services too liberal?
ReplyDelete...
During the Iraq war, the military has granted hundreds of Bronze Stars to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who never set a boot inside the country. When the profiles of many BS recipients appeared recently online—including citations for logistics work onboard ship and personnel processing in Kuwait—the acronym took on its more familiar meaning in the eyes of some soldiers fighting in hot spots like Fallujah and Najaf.
"The problem with the (BS) Bronze Star is that it's confusing," says a first sergeant stationed outside Fallujah. "The troops and the public think it's for grunts in combat when the reality is that (it's) now an end-of-tour medal for staff. There's no clear standard."
...
The joint ground force that attacked Iraq had 25 times more enlisted men than officers. Closer to the tip of the spear, where infantry units walk among the enemy every day, the ratio approaches 40-to-1. Yet even in the Marine Corps, known to have few caste barriers, the officers are disproportionately represented among the top award winners. As of Aug. 18, Marine officers had received nine times as many Bronze Stars as the enlisted Marines (225 times as many on a per capita adjusted basis) and 1.2 times as many earned Bronze Stars with Valor (30 times as many on a per capita basis). "I believe that the awards process has always been biased towards officers," says Maj. Gen. Smith. "Part of that can honestly be explained by the 'burdens of command' consideration. ... That said, I must admit that most of the bias is unexplainable."
But what would a Maj. General know?
You guys need a chuckle! HT: Tigress
ReplyDeleteJOKES TO OFFEND EVERYONE
What do you call two Mexicans playing basketball?
Juan on Juan
What is a Yankee?
The same as a quickie, but a guy can do it alone.
What is the difference between a Harley and a Hoover?
The position of the dirt bag.
Why is divorce so expensive?
Because it's worth it.
What do you see when the Pillsbury Dough Boy bends over?
Doughnuts
Why is air a lot like sex?
Because it's no big deal unless you're not getting any.
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
What do attorneys use for birth control?
Their personalities.
What's the difference between a girlfriend and wife?
10 years and 45 lbs.
What's the difference between a boyfriend and husband?
45 minutes.
What's the fastest way to a man's heart?
Through his chest with a sharp knife.
Why do men want to marry virgins?
They can't stand criticism.
Why is it so hard for women to find men that are sensitive, caring, and good-looking?
Because those men already have boyfriends.
What's the difference between a new husband and a new dog?
After a year, the dog is still excited to see you.
Why do men chase women they have no intention of marrying?
The same urge that makes dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving.
Why don't bunnies make noise when they have sex?
Because they have cotton balls.
What's the difference between a porcupine and BMW?
A porcupine has the pricks on the outside.
What did the blonde say when she found out she was pregnant?
"Are you sure it's mine?"
Why does Mike Tyson cry during sex?
Mace will do that to you.
Why did OJ Simpson want to move to West Virginia ?
Everyone has the same DNA.
Why do men find it difficult to make eye contact?
Breasts don't have eyes.
Why do drivers' education classes in Redneck schools use the car only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?
Because on Tuesday and Thursday, the Sex Ed class uses it.
Where does an Irish family go on vacation?
A different bar.
Did you hear about the Chinese couple that had a blond baby?
They named him "Sum Ting Wong"
What would you call it when an Italian has one arm shorter than the other?
A speech impediment.
What's the difference between a southern zoo and a northern zoo?
A southern zoo has a description of the animal on the front of the cage along with... "a recipe"..
How do you get a sweet 80-year-old lady to say the F word?
Get another sweet little 80-year-old lady to yell *BINGO*!
What's the difference between a northern fairytale and a southern fairytale?
A northern fairytale begins "Once upon a time ..." - A southern fairytale begins
"Y'all ain't gonna believe this s**t....
Why is there no Disneyland in Japan?
No one's tall enough to go on the good rides!
: )
teresita,
ReplyDeleteIf the American public can be persuaded that American troops are nothing but whores, fighting for the money, then, there is no moral reason to support them in Iraq, for example. You do not recall, but this method of character assassination against the uniformed services worked like a charm during the Vietnam era.
Another tactic used to erode public confidence in the American soldier is to find something exceptionally bad and insinuate a general rule, e.g. IF some FEW officers misrepresented the death of Pat Tillman, then, all officers are untrustworthy.
These tactics of denigration have been in play on this site for about a week now. I am amazed that so-called supporters of the troops have been so lax in responding to the blatant gaming and defamation of America’s military.
Officers now as in the American Civil War are often cited for bravery because they "lead" and are brave. Oddly enough, leadership is a quality leading to selection. Who woulda thunk? That is why the US turns its sons and daughters over to such men and women, not to mention equipment worth tens to hundreds of millions per copy.
ReplyDeleteDo some officers game the system? You bet. So what?
Are some officers unworthy? You bet. So what?
The most dangerous battlefield rank in the Civil War was that of Brigadier General. In camp the most deadly job was that of private.
But the whole of the Air Force, leading from the Front?
ReplyDeleteMore worthy of Award then Marines?
Shifting sands of time and honor.
If the Army Command had spoken truth to reality, Sp4 Tillman would be long forgotten, as a political issue. But no the Command covered up, hid the truth, attempted to decieve.
In the old school meanings, they lied and by doing so besmirched the Honor of the entire Service when they did.
The System covered it up, the Institution, at the same time that the Abu Ghraib guards were violating the Rules, taking pictures of their fun and foreplay.
In a location that cameras & photos were not allowed.
Disrespect for the Rules & Regulations running rampent in the Service, today. Or so it certainly appears.
Eroding the resolve of the US public to believe that the military can perform as tasked.
Two divergent thoughts not capable of entering the mind of a socialist midget, one who wraps his arguements in a soiled Service Banner. Then expects US to salute.
rufus,
ReplyDeleteThanks. I appreciate the comment.
From the behavior of the present crop of flag officers, it seems obvious to me that the self-perpetuating selection and grooming system at that level of command is in need of an overhaul.
If the quote attributed to General Petraeus is accurate, it means that the General is the first officer to stand up to State and CIA interference in military operations. Whether it is too little and too late is something remaining to be seen. But, it is a start.
Things look bad. But I count on the Muslims to continue to misbehave, as they have with the kidnapping of the British seamen. If the United States holds its ground, the Iranians et al will cross a line of no return.
re: Disrespect for the Rules & Regulations running rampent in the Service, today. Or so it certainly appears.
ReplyDeleteYou can wish.