Support their mission.
Wire Services…
The Office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will release a press statement tomorrow affirming that she supports the troops in such a bipartisan manner that what she was actually doing was communicating with Senator John McCain in his native Morse code.
“Speaker Pelosi loves veterans after all, and has a special less-cold place in her heart for POW’s . And what better way to forge that special bond than by honoring Admiral Jeremiah Denton during a Presidential Address,” sources quote from the text.
In fact, it will be revealed, she remained seated during the call for victory only to maintain eye contact with him and continue to convey her unwavering support, both for him and for all American servicemen everywhere in service to this nation. “United We Stand.”
Developing…
Via email from an angry MilBlogger offended that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives sat silent on a call to victory in Iraq yet stood in ovation at the call to support the troops.’ who says; “If this is how you support us, please, just *&^%ing stop.”
sarge – boring. We’ve all got the t-shirts from your previous drive-bys. You need new material, the third person histrionics aren’t working.
jeremiah – hey, it’s the internet, you’re free to claim any bio you want, but, I’m not buying ex-military. Any ex-military understands that into the fog of war some gear will missing or useless. That’s as old as military history. Perfect preparedness as a standard is ridiculous.
Some people have made unflattering remarks suggesting that Mrs. Pelosi’s facial movements and rapid blinking was Morse code directed at Senator McCain.
Anyone familiar with American politics realizes that this is a completely erroneous conclusion and an insensitive one.
Americans are kindly people who are willing to allow some minor Tourette’s syndrome symptoms from Mrs. Pelosi, because we realize that she is masking the fact that she is one of a race of reptilians from Zeta Reticuli.
However, the people on this thread would be oblivious to the above, inasmuch as SDA is simply turning into one of the numerous sites dedicated to equestrian erotica.
Note to sarge: God help you if you get what you’re asking for.
You beat me by 2 minutes Nazz!
Tharge here, hyuk hyuk.
What a fool.
yap yap said the little pretenders. always yappin never sayin nuthin
I give you sarge, smart as a speed bump at IGA.
“Dion added that Cote’s punishment was “exaggerated,” and that he’d recognized his error and shouldn’t be penalized for life.”
Fuck. He stole from the people of Canada. He was part of a multi-million dollar theft. Yes, he should be penalized for life. Any other thief would be.
And Dion still attempts the pretense of “newness” and “nothing-to-do-with-the-oldness”??!!!!
jeremiah :
Revnant,
Congratulations on being a sycophant to a sycophant.
Why thank you!!!
Live long & prosper V
Greg in Dallas – Pelosi has had her face lifted so many times to the point that she is permanently frozen in startled mode. Her permanent affect is pure plastic surgeon.
She’s a real trip. The eyes. The capped teeth. The voice. The vacuousness. She never deviates from the DNC talking points. Spare us.
jeremiah : My point with the RCN was that at the outbreak of WWII, Canada had all of six destroyers and a few other dinghys. Hardly well equipped to fight a war but after the last shot was fired Canada had the third largest navy in the world.
Your point about sending in Canadian troops in harms way with less than ideal equipment and support is not a new thing.
Canadians have always been able to join up in the US military (Britian too). Even an ex-navy wog would have known that. Challenging some females to put boots on the ground is nothing more than a hollow challenge designed to justify your manhood.
“Challenging some females to put boots on the ground is nothing more than a hollow challenge designed to justify your manhood.”
True dat Texas. Gotta love the last sentence too, “I would, but for a medical condition”. I guess having no spine is some sort of medical condition.
Jeremiah, Jose, and Sarge must be graduates of our ‘guvemint skools’ and thin-skinned to boot.
Thank you Kate for this forum. The cuff up side of Jeremiah’s head was worth reading. Bravo!!!
sarge here… I see y’all dont like sarges writting. thats too bad y’all dont know where its coming from. but never mind that now. at the risk of sounding snippy sarge wonders why y’all aint disputing sarge’s points instead. lets reiterate sarges point:you don’t know anyone in harms way, you have never been in harms way, yer friends aint dying over there, or gettin chunks blowen out of em, or coming back messed up by combat stress. if you plump little chipmunks had actually been to the big sandbox y’all would know the only way to “win” over there would be getting the stomach to kill ’em all, or goddamn near most of them. sarge finds that much killin to be a bit uncouth. how ’bout you, chipmunks?
ps, penny yer still nutz but sarge loves ya, ya got spunk and probably full of it too.
Im still waiting for an answer as to which approach taken by the dubya white house was the one right from the start.
rumsfeld wanted to go in light and fast and did get that to some extent.
but ‘mission accomplished’ was just a photo op to portray the ‘war president’.
then the systematic (and fully expected by me) increase in commitment and troop levels.
was this a change in plans or was it the ‘plan’ all along???
sell it as a ‘surgical’ strike to get saddam, then make the change, or, was it a case of the REAL quick and light plan at some point was legitimately viewed as unsuccessful and in need of an alternate.
which was it ???
if it was intended to go big at some point all along, then what calculation was made as to the numbers of casualties (vietnam parlance ‘kill ratio’) was going to be ‘acceptable’ ???
has that determination even been made ???
was there a decision in the pentagon and/or white house that the US of A was going to freely and knowingly accept ‘X’ killed over ‘Y’ period of time in iraq as a ‘cost of doing business’???
and what precisely are the american getting out of this payment in young lives ???
brownie points for ridding the world of 1 out of 100 murderous tyrants in the last century ??? for taking baby steps towards the huge political and social and yes, religious changes needed to establish a truly secure and firmly anchored democratic tradition in the cradle of civilization ???
or just a big curtain veneer over the REAL objective of OIL.
which is it ??? what was the determination by the neo-cons et al and who made it and when ???
You can’t form an opinion on Nancy by what you saw during the SOTUA. Nancy was not really Nancy in person. That was an imposter doll with an Energizer battery stuck in her back programmed to continuously bling to make us believe that she the Speaker of the House.
Eeyore “Presuming the above to be what you were referring to, you’re proposing a form of isolationism then? Are you suggesting that the US should act like the “non-heroes” in society today…they see a criminal act being perpetrated and they do nothing to help?”
How quickly we forget Yugoslavia. Clinton intervened there to prevent genocide. He did it without winning any political capitol (Bush gained political capital and made a few of his buddies rich invading Iraq). That was a noble war and well in keeping with Liberal thinking. Straussian neoconservatism actually doesn’t have much to do with either classic Liberalism or classic conservatism it’s something different and altogether vile in my opinion. Any political philosophy that thinks enlightened leaders need to lie to the electorate in order to lead them properly is rotten. And that’s the philosophical ideal, in practice it just gets uglier from there. Google Leo Strauss the father of the whole thing. Perhaps it will disgust you as it does me.
“not having a viable plan, and then coming up with half baked plans to pull oneself out of a quagmire” Dishonest
Then why are Richard Perle and countless military officers and neocon strategists as well as a majority of troops currently serving in Iraq (according to polls most of them disapprove of the way the war is being run) of the same opinion. Have they been brainwashed by the MSM too?
circe “Jeremiah, Jose, and Sarge must be graduates of our ‘guvemint skools’ and thin-skinned to boot.”
I do get riled on ocassion, not for the a few weeks now though. And I suspect it would take a bit more sand than you’ve got. Maybe if I try to quit smoking and you tried real hard you might miff me.
Belisarius
Thats interesting. I trained at HMS Dryad. RN, not RCN.
Texas Canuck,
“jeremiah : My point with the RCN was that at the outbreak of WWII, Canada had all of six destroyers and a few other dinghys. Hardly well equipped to fight a war but after the last shot was fired Canada had the third largest navy in the world.”
I see your understanding of history is severely limited. Perhaps a little more attention to the Battle of the Atlantic is warranted. I would suggest Marc Milners excellent books on the subject. The Royal Canadian Navy was a right mess for much of the war. The Corvettes lacked proper radars and heating for the crew. They proved spectacularly unable to do much damage to the Germans till the tide had shifted, and Churchill himself had to intervene to get the Canadians deputed to the more easygoing mediteranean where they could engage in a real work up. The large Canadian Navy that came out at the end of the Second World War was professional, but to suggest that it was in the same league as the USN or RN is to make a wild exxageration. To be sure there was no dearth of exceptional officers, and the sailors fought in appalling circumstances, but with regard to equipment, the Canadian Navy was spectacularly illequipped. Even at the end of the Second World War, it was made up of a motley collection of second rate ships, with the Tribal Class destroyers being the only first rate ships (HMCS Haida, now at Hamilton). Do not pretend to teach me history Texas Canuck. I can assure you I have had access to resources that you havent.
suggested viewing for the dubya types regarding the filthy and deadly lies proferred in order to ‘give into’ iraq and why:
Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War
(from: http colonslashslash http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388495/ )
an excerpt from one of the dozens of comments on the highly rated documentary:
What were the real reasons for Bush’s invasion of Iraq? Before I attempt to answer that question, two things, One, this documentary is utterly convincing in its indictment of the Bush administration and will be almost impossible to watch by those who supported the war and continue to support the war. The evidence for the massive mendacity is so vividly expressed by
[ NOTE THE FOLLOWING NAMES !!!: ]
knowledgeable and experienced people within and without the government–people like former Ambassador Joe Wilson, former Director of the CIA Stansfield Turner, anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle, retird Col Patrick Lang, and at least a dozen more–that only the most hardened neocons and faith-based True Believers could doubt the subterfuge. Incidentally, it was Wilson’s wife, an undercover agent for the CIA, who was deliberately exposed by leaks from the Bush administration in order to punish Wilson for his expression of the truth about WMD.
Two, the real blame beyond the Bush administration lies with the Press and with the Congress….. (SNIP) was solidly pro-Bush. They both kept the American people in ignorance about the real reasons for the war.
Okay what were those reasons? Oil? Of course this was a factor. Notice that other horrendous dictators elsewhere in the world are not removed from power by an American invading force.
To right the wrong that the first president Bush did when he kept Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War? Yes, but here is the beginning of the stupidity. ….. Iranian theocratic ambitions.
To demonstrate to the world the awesome might of the US military (the “shock and awe” that had Rumsfeld practically drooling) and show our willingness to use force if necessary? Yes. This is probably the most important psychological and geopolitical reason for invading Iraq……Iran that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, since it is obvious that the Bush administration isn’t about to invade a country that has them (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan).
To mollify the American people, so many of whom naturally felt a great need after 9/11 to see some kind of action taken, any action to Show Strength, like a bull whirling around, swinging its horns at anything near.
To smoke-screen our failure to get Osama bin Laden and the general failure in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Blowing up great mounds of dirt in Afghanistan was NOT satisfactory, and going into nuked-up Pakistan to get bin Laden was not palatable.
To provide business for Halliburton and other corporations close to Bush and members of his administration? Well, that was one of the effects of the war.
To subconsciously get into the minds of soccer moms and make them feel safer by making US soldiers (who get paid for this sort of thing) the target for terrorists in Iraq instead of civilians at home? Possibly. Again, that was part of the effect of the war.
To help Bush win in 2004? Without doubt. Being a “war time” president would give Bush a big advantage over any Democrat. A quick “victory” over Iraq (celebrated aboard an aircraft carrier with Bush in pilot’s gear strutting around with a helmet tucked under his arm shaking hands) would allow him to go one up on his father who foolishly abdicated such a possible advantage and lost the next election. BTW, film of the Bush strut is shown in the documentary more fully and more embarrassingly than the nightly news dared show it at the time. You have to see it to believe it……..
c’mon all you neo-con wannabes, when are you going to finally admit dubya is a clucking quacking puppet ??? youve been DUPED like millions of your ancestors into supporting a war of economic and political conquest wrapped in the language of patriotism and ‘support our boys over there’ syndrome.
suggested viewing for the dubya types regarding the filthy and deadly lies proferred in order to ‘give into’ iraq and why:
Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War
(from: http colonslashslash http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388495/ )
an excerpt from one of the dozens of comments on the highly rated documentary:
What were the real reasons for Bush’s invasion of Iraq? Before I attempt to answer that question, two things, One, this documentary is utterly convincing in its indictment of the Bush administration and will be almost impossible to watch by those who supported the war and continue to support the war. The evidence for the massive mendacity is so vividly expressed by
[ NOTE THE FOLLOWING NAMES !!!: ]
knowledgeable and experienced people within and without the government–people like former Ambassador Joe Wilson, former Director of the CIA Stansfield Turner, anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle, retird Col Patrick Lang, and at least a dozen more–that only the most hardened neocons and faith-based True Believers could doubt the subterfuge. Incidentally, it was Wilson’s wife, an undercover agent for the CIA, who was deliberately exposed by leaks from the Bush administration in order to punish Wilson for his expression of the truth about WMD.
Two, the real blame beyond the Bush administration lies with the Press and with the Congress….. (SNIP) was solidly pro-Bush. They both kept the American people in ignorance about the real reasons for the war.
Okay what were those reasons? Oil? Of course this was a factor. Notice that other horrendous dictators elsewhere in the world are not removed from power by an American invading force.
To right the wrong that the first president Bush did when he kept Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf War? Yes, but here is the beginning of the stupidity. ….. Iranian theocratic ambitions.
To demonstrate to the world the awesome might of the US military (the “shock and awe” that had Rumsfeld practically drooling) and show our willingness to use force if necessary? Yes. This is probably the most important psychological and geopolitical reason for invading Iraq……Iran that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, since it is obvious that the Bush administration isn’t about to invade a country that has them (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan).
To mollify the American people, so many of whom naturally felt a great need after 9/11 to see some kind of action taken, any action to Show Strength, like a bull whirling around, swinging its horns at anything near.
To smoke-screen our failure to get Osama bin Laden and the general failure in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Blowing up great mounds of dirt in Afghanistan was NOT satisfactory, and going into nuked-up Pakistan to get bin Laden was not palatable.
To provide business for Halliburton and other corporations close to Bush and members of his administration? Well, that was one of the effects of the war.
To subconsciously get into the minds of soccer moms and make them feel safer by making US soldiers (who get paid for this sort of thing) the target for terrorists in Iraq instead of civilians at home? Possibly. Again, that was part of the effect of the war.
To help Bush win in 2004? Without doubt. Being a “war time” president would give Bush a big advantage over any Democrat. A quick “victory” over Iraq (celebrated aboard an aircraft carrier with Bush in pilot’s gear strutting around with a helmet tucked under his arm shaking hands) would allow him to go one up on his father who foolishly abdicated such a possible advantage and lost the next election. BTW, film of the Bush strut is shown in the documentary more fully and more embarrassingly than the nightly news dared show it at the time. You have to see it to believe it……..
c’mon all you neo-con wannabes, when are you going to finally admit dubya is a clucking quacking puppet ??? youve been DUPED like millions of your ancestors into supporting a war of economic and political conquest wrapped in the language of patriotism and ‘support our boys over there’ syndrome.
hmph.
I dont usually get caught in the double posting glitch.
nice to see it was worth it with this one….
Hey Sarge, if experience has taught me something, it’s be afraid of the quiet guy. The guy who never shuts up telling you how tough he is, is most likely trying to convince himself.
You’re a baffoon.
RB –
To cite a source that uses the Plame controversy to bolster its authority only indicates you don’t know much about the Plame controversy.
The “leaker” turned out to be Richard Armitage, hardly in the Bush camp, and it was decided that no crime had been commited.
For most people, that would be a clue as to its worth. 🙂
“If you support the troops,support their mission.”
Sorry, but that’s illogical. No matter how hard you try to put a patriotic spin on it, the first has nothing to do with the second.
Basically, what you’re saying is that if you care about a loved one, you must support them even if you think that they’re doing something wrong.
northbaytrapper, you are completely right. “sarge” is a total buffoon. I knew a lot of sergeants in VietNam and mostly they were squared-away guys. Of course there were a few psychos…
“sarge” is impersonating the sergeant role in basic training. Everyone gets out of basic, and the role between the sergeant and men changes to a more congenial one.
You have to remember not all sergeants have any claim to being a tough guy. There are supply sergeants, sergeants who are cooks, and even then remember in our day and time people only get extra stripes for combat when they are in a theatre of operations. Field promotions where privates get their NCOs shot in front of them don’t happen as much these days.
A lot of sergeants never leave North America.
I have to get to work and don’t have time to go into the interesting history of hand-to-hand combat and the various levels of controversy and effectiveness surrounding different systems.
I figure about half the guys up here could sit on “sarge” without much difficulty.
“… As an instructor at a military college, and a former naval officer, I think I can lay claim to some expertise.”
(Posted by: jeremiah at January 24, 2007 04:18 PM)
Absolute, pure, unadulterated bull crap!
There is a difference between espousing and teaching.
The problem is that liberals can’t tell that there is a difference.
“The problem is that liberals can’t tell that there is a difference.”
…because conservatives can?
“Plame controversy to bolster its authority only indicates you don’t know much about the Plame controversy”
and thats true.
nevertheless the criticism expressed was not mine, rather c&p from one of hundreds available in the citation. and it could be the posting was made before more information on the leak came out.
so what say ye on the credentials of the dozens of high level personnel in the contributor roster?
THOSE are the views expressed in the film that determine the ‘worth’ of the time required to enlighten oneself.